Under the provably fraudulent and completely corrupted justification of fighting global warming, the Obama administration has ordered the World Bank to keep “developing” countries underdeveloped by blocking them from building coal-fired power plants, ensuring that poorer countries remain in poverty as a result of energy demands not being met.
Even amidst the explosive revelations of the United Nations IPCC issuing reports on the Himalayan Glaciers and the Amazon rainforest littered with incorrect data, the U.S. government has “Stepped up pressure on the World Bank not to fund coal-fired power plants in developing countries,” reports the Times of India.
The order was made by U.S. Executive Director of the World Bank Whitney Debevoise, who represents the United States in considering all loans, investments, country assistance strategies, budgets, audits and business plans of the World Bank Group entities.
By preventing poor nations from becoming self-sufficient in blocking them from producing their own energy, the Obama administration is ensuring that millions more will die from starvation and lack of access to hospitals and medical treatment.
Not only does strangling the energy supply to poorer countries prevent adequate food distribution and lead to more starvation, but hospitals and health clinics in the third world are barely even able to operate as a result of the World Bank and other global bodies ordering them to be dependent on renewable energy supplies that are totally insufficient.
A prime example appeared in the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, which highlighted how a Kenyan health clinic could not operate a medical refrigerator as well as the lights at the same time because the facility was restricted to just two solar panels.
“There’s somebody keen to kill the African dream. And the African dream is to develop,” said author and economist James Shikwati. “I don’t see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry … We are being told, ‘Don’t touch your resources. Don’t touch your oil. Don’t touch your coal.’ That is suicide.”
The program labels the idea of restricting the world’s poorest people to alternative energy sources as “the most morally repugnant aspect of the global warming campaign.”
As we have previously highlighted, the implementation of policies arising out of fraudulent fearmongering and biased studies on global warming is already devastating the third world, with a doubling in food prices causing mass starvation and death.
Poor people around the world, “Are being killed in large numbers by starvation as a result of (climate change) policy,” climate skeptic Lord Monckton told the Alex Jones Show last month, due to huge areas of agricultural land being turned over to the growth of biofuels.
“Take Haiti where they live on mud pie with real mud costing 3 cents each….that’s what they’re living or rather what they’re dying on,” said Monckton, relating how when he gave a speech on this subject, a lady in the front row burst into tears and told him, “I’ve just come back from Haiti – now because of the doubling in world food prices, they can’t even afford the price of a mud pie and they’re dying of starvation all over the place.”
As a National Geographic Report confirmed, “With food prices rising, Haiti’s poorest can’t afford even a daily plate of rice, and some must take desperate measures to fill their bellies,” by “eating mud,” partly as a consequence of “increasing global demand for biofuels.”
In April 2008, World Bank President Robert Zoellick admitted that biofuels were a “significant contributor” to soaring food prices that have led to riots in countries such as Haiti, Egypt, the Philippines, and even Italy.
“We estimate that a doubling of food prices over the last three years could potentially push 100 million people in low-income countries deeper into poverty,” he stated.
Even if we are to accept that fact that overpopulation will be a continuing problem in the third world, the very means by which poorer countries would naturally lower their birth rates, by being allowed to develop their infrastructure, is being blocked by global institutions who craft policies designed to keep the third world in squalor and poverty.
This goes to the very heart of what the real agenda behind the global warming movement really is – a Malthusian drive to keep the slaves oppressed and prevent the most desperate people on the planet from pulling themselves out of destitution and despair.
Lord Christopher Monckton warns that the secretive draft version of the Copenhagen climate change treaty represents a global government power grab on an “unimaginable scale,” and mandates the creation of 700 new bureaucracies as well as a colossal raft of new taxes including 2 percent levies on both GDP and every international financial transaction.
Speaking with The Alex Jones Show, Monckton, who is in Copenhagen attending the UN climate summit, said that when he attempted to obtain a copy of the current draft of the negotiating text agreement, he was initially rebuffed before he threatened an international diplomatic incident unless the document was forthcoming.
“I insisted and it took about 10 minutes and they consulted each other with three or four of them arguing over it – none of them would produce the document….I said I know this treaty exists because this is what the conference is all about,” said Monckton.
Only after Monckton threatened repercussions was he handed the the current draft of the treaty, and the details it contained are perhaps a clue as to why the UN officials were so keen to keep it under wraps.
“Once again they are desperately trying to conceal from everybody here the magnitude of what they’re attempting to do – they really are attempting to set up a world government,” said Monckton, adding that the word “government” was no longer used but the process of further centralization of power into global hands was clearly spelled out in the treaty.
Monckton said that the new world government outlined in the treaty would be handed powers to, “Tax the American economy to the extent of 2 percent GDP, to impose a further tax of 2 percent on every financial transaction….and to close down effectively the economies of the west, transfer your jobs to third world countries – all of that is still in the treaty draft.”
As the leaked document out of Copenhagen reported on by the London Guardian revealed yesterday, this massive new system of global taxation will be paid not to the UN, but directly into the coffers of the World Bank.
“The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions,” reported the Guardian.
Monckton illustrated the size of the new taxes being proposed by noting they amounted to at least half of the entire US defense budget.
“This is how they are going to fund this vast new government they’re setting up,” said Monckton, adding that he counted around 700 new bureaucracies that would be created as a result of the treaty, which would be bankrolled by taxpayers even outside of the raft of new taxes the treaty would create.
Monckton outlined how the new taxes would be enforced, stating, “They’re going to auction allowances to emit greenhouse gases and if you don’t buy an allowance to emit greenhouse gases, you won’t be allowed to emit them,” adding that the text contained a provision for a “uniform global levy of $2 dollars per ton of CO2 for all fossil fuel emissions,” as well as an additional tax on every commercial plane journey, except ones that go in or out of poorer countries.
There would also be a “global levy on international monetary transactions – that means every transfer of money across borders will be taxed,” said Monckton, adding that this would be on top of the GDP tax.
Lord Monckton: Obama may sign a “Copenhagen Agreement” instead of Treaty
In a brief video released on the Internet, Lord Christopher Monkton is seen giving a speech today in Copenhagen warning that President Obama will try to use his Executive Authority to sign an agreement, rather than a treaty, to commit the United States to undertake measures against climate change that will seriously damage the freedoms and prosperity of America.
Monkton states, “President Obama is going to come here (Copenhagen) and sign the Copenhagen Agreement.” He says it’s no longer being called a treaty specifically because US Senators “know they can’t get a treaty through the US Senate.” Monkton continues explaining, “so, President Obama is going to sign this agreement by his executive authority and he will then put it through both houses of Congress by a vote of simple majority.”
Monkton states that this executive agreement will stand “with almost the same force as a treaty” under the US Constitution. The one large difference, Monkton however notes, is that an Executive Agreement can be repealed by a following president, but a treaty cannot be repealed. Therefore, The British Lord and science adviser to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher noted, “one power that President Obama does not have is to commit the United States unilaterally to measures of a scale and horror envisaged in this treaty or agreement…”
The recent “climategate” revelations provided the basis for especially condemning closing comments from the internationally famous climate sceptic and campaigner against climate hysteria.
Monkton emphasized, “there is no longer any basis whatsoever for saying that any action is required over the climate. We have seen now in the climategate that a couple of dozen bad and extremely malevolent and unpleasant scientists – this clique, this cabal, this conspiracy, because that is what it is, have tried to bend, fiddle and fudge the data, year after year and they’ve now been caught and exposed by the activities of one gallant whistleblower at this very moment when we now know that the climate fraud is the fraud that we all expected it to be.”
Monckton concluded with a warning that the president, “either unaware or aware and uncaring wishes to sign” American “freedom and prosperity away.”
The EPA declares itself the regulator of CO2 emissions, allowing itself to cut CO2 emissions without the approval of Congress, bypassing legislation that is currently stalled in the Senate.
Obama’s administration formally declared that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant and will “endanger the public health and welfare of the American people” empowering the EPA to regulate across the country under the law of the Clean Air Act that seeks emissions cut by roughly 17 percent by 2020.
The ruling was welcomed at the opening day of the talk in the Danish capital; “This is very significant in the sense that if…the Senate fails to adopt legislation (on emissions), then the administration will have the authority to regulate,” Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat, told Reuters in Copenhagen.
But top congressional republican James Inhofe warned that EPA’s new “endangerment finding” will “lead to a wave of new regulations, new bureaucracy that will wreak havoc on the American economy and destroy millions of jobs and of course consumers to pay more for electricity and gasoline”. Many republicans are calling for the EPA to rebuke its claims that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant.
Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator said the move to declare CO2 a toxic pollutant “relied on decades of sound, peer-reviewed, extensively evaluated scientific data”. Jackson denied any manipulation was carried out by the ClimateGate scientists saying that there’s “nothing in the hacked emails that undermines the science upon which this decision is based”.
President Barack Obama and Al Gore will be attending the Copenhagen conference late next week to further push the illusion that CO2 is a toxic gas. On the same day of the EPA’s announcement, Al Gore visited the White House.
The Copenhagen globalists including the EPA base their entire argument on the back of the UNIPCC’s CRU scientists which are involved in one of the greatest scandals in modern science, ClimateGate which consists of; Manipulation, Deception, Suppression of Evidence, including having AGW-skeptics fired and removed from the peer-reviewed process and of course breaking FOIA requests by deleting emails and urging other scientists to do so as well. [Source]
With that in mind, EPA’s decision to call CO2 a dangerous pollutant falls flat on its face. The entire Copenhagen summit is all about creating another bubble by the same crooks that gave us the dot-com bubble and the subprime mortgage crisis; Enron and Goldman Sachs.
From a massive cap-and-trade derivatives scheme, to a global carbon tax, this is all about plummeting what’s left of the U.S. economy and shutting down life on the planet by reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.
WITHOUT CO2 THERE IS NO LIFE!
“CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food,” notes John R. Christy, professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Alabama. “The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet.”
In fact, as S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia has noted, an increase in CO2 would raise GNP and therefore average income. “It’s axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency,” writes Singer.
The EPA is may soon be tasked with regulating life in the United States at the behest of a coterie of globalists who are keen to limit economic and industrial activity and check the growth of the herd which they despise and want to scale back to 500 million, as they have proudly announced on the Georgia Guidestones. [Source]
Fox News Analysis: ClimateGate, EPA Ruling, Copenhagen
The Climatic Research Unit at the heart of the ClimateGate scandal sought funds from Shell Oil in the year 2000.
Other e-mail messages obtained from the University of East Anglia’s computers also showed officials at the school’s CRU solicited support from ExxonMobil and BP Amoco, although the nature of this support was not identified.
As climate alarmists and their media minions love to claim that global warming skeptics are all paid shills of Big Oil, it makes one wonder how the press will report these startling revelations discovered by Anthony Watts Friday:
Mick Kelley to Mike Hulme
Mike Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the
agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic
partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain
conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end
after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss
asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc,
etc. By email? In person?
I hear that Shell’s name came up at the TC meeting. I’m ccing this to Tim
who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to
make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me!
I’m talking to Shell International’s climate change team but this approach
will do equally for the new foundation as it’s only one step or so off
Shell’s equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Fdn and
what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the
new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it’s
within the remit.
Regards
Mick
Earlier that same year, the recipient of this e-mail message, Mike Hulme, sent a message of his own concerning getting “support” from a number of entities (emphasis added):
Mike Hulme to Simon Shackley
Simon,
I have talked with Tim O’Riordan and others here today and Tim has a wealth of contacts he is prepared to help with. Four specific ones from Tim are:
– Charlotte Grezo, BP Fuel Options (possibly on the Assessment Panel. She is also on the ESRC Research Priorities Board), but someone Tim can easily talk with. There are others in BP Tim knows too.
– Richard Sykes, Head of Environment Division at Shell International
– Chris Laing, Managing Director, Laing Construction (also maybe someone at Bovis)
– ??, someone high-up in Unilever whose name escapes me.
[…]
>SPRU has offered to elicit support from their energy programme
>sponsors which will help beef things up. (Frans: is the Alsthom
>contact the same as Nick Jenkin’s below? Also, do you have a BP
>Amoco contact? The name I’ve come up with is Paul Rutter, chief
>engineer, but he is not a personal contact]
>
>We could probably do with some more names from the financial sector.
>Does anyone know any investment bankers?
>
>Please send additional names as quickly as possible so we can
>finalise the list.
>
>I am sending a draft of the generic version of the letter eliciting
>support and the 2 page summary to Mike to look over. Then this can be
>used as a basis for letter writing by the Tyndall contact (the person
>in brackets).
>
>Mr Alan Wood CEO Siemens plc [Nick Jenkins]
>Mr Mike Hughes CE Midlands Electricity (Visiting Prof at UMIST) [Nick
>Jenkins]
>Mr Keith Taylor, Chairman and CEO of Esso UK (John
>Shepherd]
>Mr Brian Duckworth, Managing Director, Severn-Trent Water
>[Mike Hulme]
>Dr Jeremy Leggett, Director, Solar Century [Mike Hulme]
>Mr Brian Ford, Director of Quality, United Utilities plc [Simon
>Shackley]
>Dr Andrew Dlugolecki, CGU [Jean Palutikof]
>Dr Ted Ellis, VP Building Products, Pilkington plc [Simon Shackley]
>Mr Mervyn Pedalty, CEO, Cooperative Bank plc [Simon Shackley]
>
>
>Possibles:
>Mr John Loughhead, Technology Director ALSTOM [Nick Jenkins]
>Mr Edward Hyams, Managing Director Eastern Generation [Nick
>Jenkins]
>Dr David Parry, Director Power Technology Centre, Powergen
>[Nick Jenkins]
>Mike Townsend, Director, The Woodland Trust [Melvin
>Cannell]
>Mr Paul Rutter, BP Amoco [via Terry Lazenby, UMIST]
>
>With kind regards
>
>Simon Shackley
Now who is the shill for Big Oil again? Next time somebody brings up that ridiculous argument about skeptics, show them this.
Exxon, the largest oil company in the world has stated that it prefers a carbon tax to a cap and trade system–again–this time, specifically in Australia. This comes on the heels of news last week that Australia’s parliament rejected a cap and trade system for curbing emissions–there won’t be another vote on the bill for at least 3 months (Aussies voted ‘no’ again!). So what’s behind Exxon’s vocal pro-carbon tax stance?
“A carbon tax is more transparent to consumers, will achieve greater environmental benefits and is more difficult to manipulate than a cap-and-trade program,” John Dashwood, chairman of Exxon’s Australian unit, said in speech notes e- mailed ahead of an address today in Melbourne.
A little puzzling is the fact that Australia’s proposed carbon cap featured relatively low emission reduction targets–as low as 5% reduction from 2000 levels by 2020. Hardly a demanding commitment, at least in the short term (this is why many members of Australia’s own Green party voted against the cap and trade themselves–it wasn’t strict enough).
Nonetheless, some economists, along with experts like James Hansen and Al Gore, prefer the carbon tax option. Throw in Exxon Mobil, and you’ve got yourself an eclectic band of misfits. Economists (and presumably Exxon) argue that the tax is a more efficient and inexpensive way to curb carbon. From Bloomberg:
Imposing a global carbon tax would ease pressure on the climate more cheaply than emissions trading, according to a study released last week by Danish professor Bjoern Lomborg. A $0.50 tax for each ton of emissions may generate $1.51 in avoided climate damage, compared with costs as high as $68 per ton, resulting in 2 cents of avoided damage, under some emissions-mitigations models, the study said.
Another possible reason for Exxon’s sudden support could be good old fashioned political gamesmanship–the idea of a carbon tax is potentially extremely unpopular (as is anything that includes the word “tax” in its moniker). If the company has reason to believe a carbon tax is very unlikely to actually pass Australian parliament, it can voice support for it and appear environmentally inclined without having to make any actual adjustments. However, Exxon makes for a powerful voice of support, and having the oil giant in favor could draw other businesses’, politicians’, and citizen support for a carbon tax, which could eventually create stricter regulations on the oil giant than a cap would.
Oil Companies Support Global Warming Hoax, Not Skeptics
The New York Times has lifted the lid on how Al Gore stands to benefit to the tune of billions of dollars if the carbon tax proposals he is pushing come to fruition in the United States, while documenting how he has already lined his pockets on the back of exaggerated fearmongering about global warming.
As is to be expected, the article is largely a whitewash and takes an apologist stance in defense of Gore.
However, the NY Times‘John M. Broder does reveal how one of the companies Gore invested in, Silver Spring Networks, recently received a contract worth $560 million dollars from the Energy Department to install “smart meters” in people’s homes that record (and critics fear could eventually regulate) energy usage.
“Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years,” states the report, highlighting the fact that Gore is “well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.”
“Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in,” writes Broder.
Since he left office, Gore’s personal net worth has skyrocketed on the back of his advocacy for global warming issues and the financial dividends this has reaped. Gore’s assets totaled less than $2 million in 2001 and although he refuses to give a figure for his current net worth, a recent single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Investment Group, a private equity fund, illustrates just how fast Gore has enriched himself from his climate change bandwagon.
The Times report notes how Gore “has a stake in the world’s pre-eminent carbon credit trading market.” As we reported back in March, before he became President Barack Obama also helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he is now seeking to implement as law.
The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has direct ties to both Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of CCX.
Excerpts from a post by Michael Shedlock – “It’s now official. Much of the hype about global warming is nothing but a complete scam. The global warming thesis was completely fabricated.
“Inquiring minds are reading Hacked: Hadley CRU FOI2009 Files on The Reference Frame by Luboš Motl, a physicist from the Czech Republic.
“So far, the most interesting file I found in the “documents” directory is pdj_grant_since1990.xls which shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected a staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants.
“Phil Jones, the main criminal according to this correspondence, has personally confirmed that the website was hacked and that the documents are authentic. See Briefing Room.
A common charge leveled against global warming skeptics is that they are on the payroll of transnational oil companies, when in fact the opposite is true, oil companies are amongst the biggest promoters of climate change propaganda, emphasized recently by Exxon Mobil’s call for a global carbon tax.
According to Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, the cap and trade nightmare being primed for passage in the Senate doesn’t go far enough – Tillerson wants a direct tax on carbon dioxide emissions, essentially a tax on breathing since we all exhale this life-giving gas.
In a speech last month, Tillerson brazenly called out the cap and trade agenda for what it was, an effort to impose a carbon tax camouflaged only by a slick sales pitch and deceptive rhetoric.
“It is easier and more politically expedient to support a cap-and-trade approach, because the public will never figure out where it is hitting them,” said Tillerson. “They will just know they hurt somewhere in their pocketbook,” he added, pointing out that he disagreed with this convoluted method of introducing a carbon tax, arguing instead that it would be more successful to openly propose a straight carbon tax.
Tillerson firmly expressed Exxon’s support for climate change alarmists in stating, “I firmly believe it is not too late for Congress to consider a carbon tax as the better policy approach for addressing the risks of climate change.”
Exxon’s push for a carbon tax was restated last week by its vice president for public affairs Ken Cohen, who told a conference call that he wants a climate policy that creates “certainty and predictability, which is why we advocate a carbon tax.”
Exxon Mobil and their ilk are not concerned about a carbon tax eating into their profits because they know they won’t have to pay it – the tab will be picked up by the ignorant taxpayer at the fuel pump at an inflated cost which if anything will hand the transnational oil cartels an even bigger cut.
Ideologically, Al Gore and Exxon Mobil are on exactly the same page – the only difference between the oil companies and global warming alarmists is the squabble over who will get to sink their teeth into the taxpayer and reap the dividends of the climate change scam.
We encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that has passed the House of Representatives and being considered by the Senate. We are ready to join the next march on Washington!
This Congress and whoever on their staffs that write this junk are truly out to destroy the middle class of the USA….
A License Required for your house
Thinking about selling your house – A look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill) This is unbelievable!
Only the beginning from this administration! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!
Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the “Cap & Trade” bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.
The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded.
However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.
But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this:
* A year from now you won’t be able to sell your house. Yes, you read that right.
The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes (”mobile homes”) are included.
* In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.
* To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured.
* Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements.
* Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a “label” in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner.
* If you don’t get a high enough rating, you can’t sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act.
The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009″) and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he alone determines to be in the government’s best interest. Requirements are set low initial y so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year.
The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time.
Sect. 202:
Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America .
Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act.
You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (i.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements if you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants.
You should expect requirements such as “can’t have an income of more than $50K per year”, “home selling price can’t be more than $125K”, or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that’s YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants. Most of us won’t get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more “change you can believe in.”
Sect. 204:
Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for “at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.”
This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year.
Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label.
And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often – maybe every year.
But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time.
Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program.
Sect. 304:
Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d), Application of National Code to State and Local Jurisdictions, that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.
Lord Monckton of England, who is a man made global warming (MMGW) critic, recently made a speech regarding a climate change treaty (Copenhagen Treaty) which he believes Obama will sign at the UNFCCC in December 2009 (1). According to Lord Monckton this treaty will subjugate America to Communist rule and will transfer American wealth to third world countries.
While Monckton is a hero for promoting truth about MMGW, and claims to have been involved in the funding of a lawsuit against showing Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” movie to British school children that resulted in a mandatory disclaimer of the movie when shown, Monckton has misunderstood a few facts about the Copenhagen Treaty.
Firstly, he has understated the necessity of getting into action now. The ’sleeping giant’ of the American masses must awaken now! (See the action list below). He also failed to mention in this clip that this IS Agenda 21 Sustainable Development being imposed in real time.
Secondly, he blames the proposed Communist One World Government upon those who “piled over the Berlin Wall”, when, in fact, the culpability lies squarely in the lap of the usual suspects- the bankers: this is a UN inspired treaty and the global warming lies are based on the UN’s IPCC corrupt science (remember that the Rockefellers fund and design most UN programs). Also, the Rothschilds have set up a carbon credit banking scheme (2). Follow the money.
Lastly, Lord Monckton unfortunately mistated that treaties supersede the Constitution and that once Obama signs this treaty, there is no recourse against the treaty other than agreement in partisan between all 50 states. This is not true, as the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, Article IV, paragraph 2, reads as follows:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
The Supremacy Clause has been misinterpreted and twisted to mean that treaties supersede the Constitution. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has a hand in accrediting schools; it’s now wonder that many “well educated” attorneys misinterpret the Constitution (3). It is also interesting to note that the Rockefellers have debased American education and history as outlined in G. Edward Griffin’s shocking interview with the late Senator, Norman Dodd: http://www.realityzone.com/hiddenagenda2.html .
As a result, the Supremacy Clause is misunderstood and has yet to be clearly defined, though many have tried to get a Supreme Court decision on this matter. Constitutional expert, former Sheriff Richard Mack is emphatic that treaties are subservient to the Constitution, and that many lawyers are misinformed.
Watch his short video explaining the Supremacy Clause:
Further proof that the Constitution outranks treaties can be extrapolated from the Supreme Court decision Reid v Covert, which states, “This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty”, although the ruling was applied to an executive agreement, not a treaty.
Knowledge about the global warming scam and our Constitution are the way out of this trap that has been set for us. It will be much easier to stop this treaty based on lies now, rather than later. The future is in your hands; it’s time to stand up for our country by doing the following:
1. E-mail Sheriff Mack’s video and this article to your family and friends.
2. Then e-mail the same to your National and State Legislators, including your Governor.
3. Share this information with everyone you know, especially attorneys.
4. Sign the petition to prevent Obama from signing away our country:
Former Vice President Al Gore’s global-warming speech Saturday night at Mizner Park drew about a thousand attendees, as well as more than 200 loud protesters.
Stationed outside the Mizner Park Amphitheater, the protesters jeered at Gore as he took the podium and at those walking into the open-air venue to listen to the speech.
“This is the most dangerous crisis we’ve ever faced,” Gore said of climate change. He spoke over a chorus of boos from protesters, who were monitored by at least a dozen uniformed city police officers.
Many of the protesters were with the groups Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow and South Florida Tea Party, the latter of which feels that Gore’s views will eventually lead to increased taxes and flawed business legislation.
The protesters carried drums, bullhorns and posters. One read “Practice what you preach,” accusing Gore of not living a green lifestyle. Another poster read “The masses follow the asses,” depicting the protesters’ opinion that Gore’s message is not backed by scientific evidence.
Gore, meanwhile, in his presentation laid out data that he said was compiled by the world’s leading scientists and supports the theory of global warming. The speech carried much of the same content and rhythm as Gore’s Oscar-winning 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, which turned him into a leading international voice on the issue of climate change.
Gore’s latest book on the subject, titled Our Choice, was published earlier this month.
Australia is known for sunny beaches, surfers, and blistering Outback heat.
So scientists were a bit taken aback when they spotted this giant iceberg floating near an island Down Under.
Australian Antarctic Division researchers were working on Macquarie Island when they first saw the iceberg last Thursday about about five miles off the island.
It is rare to see an iceberg floating so far north of Antarctica, researchers said. Macquarie Island is about halfway between Antarctica and Australia, some 930 miles from Tasmania.
The iceberg is about 160 feet (50 metres) high and 1,640 feet (500 metres) long.
The Earth has developed stores to absorb excessive levels of carbon dioxide, according to a study that challenges the conventional thinking on climate change.
The research, by Bristol University, suggests that despite rising emissions, the world is is still able to store a significant amount of greenhouse gases in oceans and forests.
According to the study, the Earth has continued to absorb more than half of the carbon dioxide pumped out by humans over the last 160 years.
This is despite emissions of CO2 increasing from two billion tonnes per year in 1850 to current levels of 35 billion tonnes per year.
Previously it was thought that the Earth’s capability to absorb CO2 would decrease as production booms, leading to an accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Chancellor Angela Merkel today called for the establishment of a “new global order” in remarks marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Speaking at a scientific conference entitled “Falling Walls”, Merkel brazenly told reporters:
“The most important thing, when attempting to overcome barriers, is: Are the nation states ready and willing to give competencies over to multilateral organizations, no matter what it costs?”
The German leader stated that world unity could only be possible if such “global corrections” were made.
“This world will not be a peaceful one if we do not work for more global order and more multilateral cooperation,” Merkel stated.
In the presence of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Merkel added that Americans would have to deliver over more authority to multilateral organizations such as the UN, just as Europeans have done to the EU.
Merkel pointed to the forthcoming UN climate summit in December, to be held in Copenhagen, as an opportunity to forge such a new order.
The German Chancellor’s speech echoed that of former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who called for a “new world order” in a December 1988 speech to the United Nations in New York City. Gorbachev was present at the event in Berlin today.
Other world leaders set to join Chancellor Merkel are French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who is set to make a last-ditch appeal to Merkel to rally behind Tony Blair as the first president of Europe.
President Obama will not travel to Germany, a move that has drawn heated criticism and has been seen by some as an attempt to better relations with Russia.
The New World Order came into being at 4:25 Tuesday afternoon.
U.N. chief Ban Ki-Moon (R) speaks to the media with Joe Lieberman (L) and John Kerry following the committee’s meeting on global climate change, including the steps leading up to December’s International negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark, where Obama is to sign a global climate treaty that will surrender U.S. national sovereignty to a World Government controlled by the United Nations.
It arrived at the Capitol, until that moment the seat of American government, in the form of the stooped and bespectacled figure of Ban Ki-moon, who as U.N. secretary general is the de facto leader of what conspiracy theorists call the One World Government. One floor beneath the Senate chamber, Ban, a South Korean national, took his place behind a lectern bearing the Senate seal and spelled out his demands.
“I would certainly expect the Senate to take the necessary action; that’s what I have encouraged the senators,” he told reporters as a trio of lawmakers stood at his side. He added an admonition for the chamber to deliver “as soon as possible.”
The One World Government has specific requirements, Ban added, namely a “legally binding” commitment to “25 to 40 percent greenhouse gas reduction . . . as recommended by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
Uh-oh. A U.N. official standing in the Capitol telling U.S. lawmakers what binding commitments intergovernmental authorities expect from them? Glenn Beck was going to burst a blood vessel.
But the man who orchestrated this putsch by the New World Order, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-Switzerland), did not appear concerned by the imagery. He called the secretary general “Your Excellency.” Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana (a Republican, but he drives a Prius) was equally deferential as he spoke of “the privilege of this distinguished visitor.”
And Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) hailed Ban for “the accelerated leadership role” that the United Nations has taken. “Your vision, that in Copenhagen there can be a politically binding agreement that will lead to a legally binding agreement to follow . . . is a very reasonable, sensible and hopeful course.”
Somewhere in Manhattan, Sean Hannity was tearing up his script for the night’s broadcast.
Kerry invited Ban to lecture the Foreign Relations Committee, but it’s not clear what the chairman hoped to gain from the photos of him standing with Ban in the Capitol’s Brumidi Corridors. Indeed, it seemed quite possible that a U.N. endorsement of Kerry’s climate efforts would embolden its foes, who like the world body even less than they like cap-and-trade. In the pantheon of conspiracy theories, the United Nations is right up there with the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Federal Reserve and the Council on Foreign Relations — which, as it happens, Kerry addressed a couple of weeks ago.
Even Americans who don’t come from the grassy-knoll tradition tend not to regard the United Nations with great confidence. A Gallup poll earlier this year found that 65 percent of respondents thought it was doing a bad job, compared with 26 percent who think it is doing a good job. Ban himself is not terribly nefarious, if only because he is unknown. A Wall Street Journal poll found that 81 percent of those surveyed didn’t know who he was. The others may have confused him with the Unification Church’s Rev. Sun Myung Moon.
Ban’s profile could become much higher, and not in a good way, if Americans start to perceive him as meddling in Senate consideration of climate legislation. Even before he stormed the Capitol, Fox News was drawing a connection between global warming talks in Copenhagen next month and One World Government.
“America, if you believe this country is great but you’re not really into that whole One World Government thing, watch out,” Fox News Channel’s Beck warned a couple of weeks ago. His guest, Lord Christopher Monckton of Britain, told Beck that “at Copenhagen, a treaty will be signed that will, for the first time, create a world government with powers to intervene directly in the economy and in the environmental affairs of individual nations.” Earlier on Fox News, Dick Morris informed Hannity that President Obama “believes in One World Government.” And author Jerome Corsi went on Hannity’s show to warn about a One World Government in which “our sovereignty would be subject to the dictates” of the United Nations and other international organizations.
The One World Government was on open display at the Capitol on Tuesday, as international U.N. staffers waited outside the room where Ban spoke to the senators. The secretary general had come with his own world government (armed?) security detail, who stood alongside the Capitol police.
Ban, wearing a gold U.N. lapel pin, unfolded his speech. “Less than a month from now, the leaders of the world will gather in Copenhagen,” he said. “They must conclude a robust global agreement,” that is “comprehensive, binding, equitable and fair.”
Speaking softly but firmly, the South Korean cautioned the Americans that “the world is not standing still,” and that “all the eyes of the world are looking to the United States.”
After a few minutes, Kerry cut off questioning. “Folks, the secretary general has to get to the airport.”
Ban needed to catch the U.S. Airways shuttle to New York. The One World Government Air Force isn’t what it’s cracked up to be.
Ban Ki-Moon: ‘A climate deal must include an equitable global governance structure’
The Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations will hold their 15th conference on climate change through December 7-18th. At the conference, globalists like Obama will sign the ‘Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty’ that will replace the Kyoto treaty that is set to expire in 2012.
Lord Christopher Monckton, the man who warned many this week of the treaty appeared on Glenn Beck’s radio program, he makes it clear that the treaty will create a World Government Dictatorship that will have complete authority over all nations by intervening in the economy and environment of any individual country in the world without consent. The treaty will also allow the distribution of wealth from developed countries like the U.S. to Third World Countries like Africa, in other words; taxpayer-funded socialist welfare!
17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:]
(a) Compensate for damage to the Lesser Developed Countries’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees;
(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures.
Meanwhile globalists like Brown are using fear of impending doom saying if the Copenhagen treaty is not passed that man-made Global Warming will do permanent damage to the globe.: “We must make history.” “If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement in some future period can undo that choice. By then it will be irretrievably too late. So we should never allow ourselves to lose sight of the catastrophe we face if present warming trends continue.”
Al Gore has said, ”This treaty must be negotiated this year. Not next year. This year.”
The creation of a New World Order has been in the works for decades, technically America is already under the thumb of World Government in more ways than one. To understand what is about to take place in America we have to understand that Agenda 21 is the blueprint for a New World Order of the 21st century.
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which humans exist.
Excerpt: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”
According to Agenda 21 the future the globalists would like to have is a world full of conservation of wildlife, but complete bureaucratic rule over all aspects of human life where essentially humans are treated like dirt and everything we do will be subjected to inventory. When you think about the phrase ‘New World Order’ just think about mass de-population of mankind, the total enslavement of man, forcing humans into compact cities surrounded by protected wildlife where he is prohibited from entering, a socialist distribution of wealth, the complete control of all governments wealth and power in the hands of a few oligarchical dictators in the United Nations. It all sounds like a movie straight out of Hollywood, but the reality is globalists are moving forward at an exponential rate this year and pushing this treaty on America would mean complete servitude to the United Nations. Last updated by infolution on October 20, 2009 at 9:01pm PST
“Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective – a New World Order – can emerge. . . Now, we can see a New World Order coming into view. A world in which there is a very real prospect for a New World Order. . .A world where the United Nations, freed from a Cold War stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders.” -George H.W. Bush
The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, warned the American people to stop Obama from signing a ‘global climate treaty’ at the climate change conference in Copenhagen in December 7-18 that will ultimately surrender U.S. sovereignty to a World Government under the guise of helping the environment.
With every passing day it becomes more evident that Obama is nothing more than a globalist, it is obvious from health care reform that he doesn’t care about the middle class, he is in the pocket of the internationalist elite like Kissinger and the rest of the global elite that wish to establish a World Government Dictatorship under the auspices of the United Nations.
If this international climate change treaty passes, Americans will have no choice but to pay a global climate tax that will be paid directly to the United Nations, at first the tax will be introduced to the public gradually such as a barely noticeable tax at the gas pump, which will later be increased once it has been officially established.
The Bilderberg Group has discussed this new global tax this year among many other things like creating a fast-but-painful depression to better establish a New World Order. The IMF, a United Nations entity has already declared itself the global central bank that will set regulations and issue a global currency to the nations. People like George Soros, IMF and the World Bank are betting against the dollar and with the help of the Federal Reserve will topple the dominance of the U.S. dollar in the world market to destroy the U.S. economy and force the global dictatorship on the western hemisphere.
California considers ban on big-screen TV’s
Energy-consumption standards for televisions to be phased in over two years beginning in January 2011. A vote could come as early as Nov. 4
In a recent report from the Los Angeles Times, it appears that California is about to take yet another choice away from its residents. Big Screen T.V.’s are apparently such a power drainer, that the legislators in California are working on legislation that would make them illegal to operate. What is the estimated annual cost of operating a big screen t.v. in your house? About $30 according to the Los Angeles Times.
Meanwhile, industry lobbyists are fighting to get this legislation revoked from the state government, saying that the free market is actually eliminating the t.v.’s in question and replacing them with more energy efficient LCD and Plasma models. Their cries are apparently falling on deaf ears though, as the legislators in California are still pushing this needless bill through.
While the proposed bill would unlikely create much additional cost to the manufacturers, who are already, primarily creating only the LCD and Plasma t.v.’s, there are two costs to consumers. The first cost is simply the cost of having to replace the older t.v. While a lot of people are already doing this, not everyone can afford to. The second cost is to the freedom for the people of California to choose what kind of television they want to own. This is just another loss of another freedom.
I suspect, that with laws like this being even considered, that there must not be enough crime to write laws about in California. It seems that California legislators are focusing more attention on buzz word laws such as gay marriage, and green energy. Bare in mind, it was also California legislators that put a stop to the electric car. I guess they are just making up for lost time.
Climate change legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives would increase the energy costs of the average family by $142 a year in 2020 and by $583 in 2030, according to the government’s top energy forecasting agency.
The estimate from the U.S. Energy Information Administration is in line with cost impact projections made by the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency, and contradict claims by energy and business trade groups that consumers would pay thousands of dollars more a year under a government plan to fight global warming.
The EIA’s estimate says gasoline prices would be 23 cents a gallon higher in 2020 and 36 cents more in 2030, according to a copy of the agency’s analysis that was sent to U.S. lawmakers and obtained by Reuters.
Jeremy Symons, who oversees the National Wildlife Federation’s climate change program, said the EIA’s analysis shows that industry claims that efforts to fight global warming would significantly boost energy costs “are completely unfounded and simply scare tactics.”
(even though Obama himself said his climate plan will make energy bills skyrocket!)
The EIA reviewed the impact of the climate change bill at the request of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The agency sent its report to the panel, but has yet to make it public.
The House in June passed legislation to cut U.S. carbon emissions from utilities, manufacturers and others by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050, from 2005 levels.
The lower emission levels would be accomplished through a cap-and-trade system, where a U.S. company would be required to have a pollution permit to emit one ton of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions each year.
Those companies that use cleaner energy and reduce their emissions could sell their permits to companies that pollute more.
The U.S. Senate is expected to unveil its climate change bill in September when lawmakers return from their summer recess.
In an interview with Bloomberg’s Jim Efstathiou Jr., Barack Obama’s energy adviser, Jason Grumet, said if elected Obama will classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant. Obama will tell the Environmental Protection Agency that it may use the 1990 Clean Air Act to set emissions limits, according to Grumet, and he will likely do this immediately upon taking office, David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club told Bloomberg.
“The U.S. has to move quickly domestically so we can get back in the game internationally,” Grumet said. In other words, an Obama administration would impose draconian carbon emission regulations on the American people and “help clear the deadlock in talks on an international agreement to slow global warming,” according to Rajendra Pachauri, head of a United Nation panel of climate-change scientists. Negotiators from almost 200 countries will meet in December in Poznan, Poland, to discuss ways to limit CO2, that is to say they will work on a global carbon taxation structure.
A global carbon tax is not so much about limiting CO2 as it is a scheme designed to pay for world government and corporate globalization. “The Climate Change Control Bill strongly supported by Obama calls for an international governing regime to monitor and regulate carbon dioxide and ‘carbon footprints’ from discovery, to production, to consumption at a cost of $50 trillion globally and at a cost of $8 trillion for US taxpayers, all to be paid for by a global tax, whose monies will be used to establish a world government body,” writes Patrick Briley.
Obama has worked closely on this global taxation and world government scam under the cover of environmentalism with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Al Gore, and former communist leader Mikhail Gorbachev, an advocate of the so-called Earth Charter and the author of Manifesto for Earth. Brzezinski co-founded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller in 1973. Rockefeller and fellow globalist Maurice Strong of Canada were instrumental in the creation of the Earth Charter. As noted above, the Sierra Club will play a decisive role in Obama’s administration. The organization takes money from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and is closely aligned with the United Nations Environmental Program. Strong was UNEP’s first executive director.
It is a well documented fact the environmental movement receives huge disbursements from chartered institutions such as the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, W. Alton Jones Foundation, Turner Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts, the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, the Alfred W. Mellon Foundation, and others, including Bill and Melinda Gates, the Heinz family and the Carnegie Corporation. It is no mistake foundation funded environmental groups are now calling for a global carbon tax structure and an international governing regime to monitor and regulate carbon dioxide, as this serves the plan of their masters well.
An Obama administration will kick this scheme into warp drive and hasten the implementation of a world government of the sort members of the global elite have worked toward for many years. A phony environmental crisis, with carbon emissions playing the role as chief villain, is a perfect storm for the global elite. “We are on the verge of a global transformation,” David Rockefeller once quipped. “All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
France: Turmoil Must Not Affect Climate Change Bill
France and Germany urged smaller European Union economies not to use the world financial meltdown as an excuse to gut legislation that aims to combat global warming with deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo said at an EU environment ministers’ meeting that “the European Union must keep its leadership role” in climate change to nudge the United States and others into a global deal on slashing emissions.
The bill, which aims to cut EU greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020, is to be adopted in December. The EU hopes it will lead to a deal that month at UN climate negotiations in Poznan, Poland.
“We cannot afford to delay,” German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said.
In last-minute objections, Italy said the bill would hurt its industries because Chinese and US competitors face no equivalent emission burdens. Italian officials pushed for a clause that would force the European Commission to do a new cost analysis of the climate change bill in 2009.
Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia say they have already made great cuts in carbon emissions since emerging from communism.
Borloo said “there was a very strong willingness” to work toward a deal by December.” But, he added, “the financial markets crisis must not delay this. The EU must keep its leadership role or there will be no point in going to Poznan.”
The financial turmoil has triggered fears of a global recession that would make governments less eager to get major polluters such as energy generators, steel makers and cement producers to pay billions into a cap-and-trade emissions scheme.
The EU cap-and-trade program could impose up to 50 billion euros ($68.8 billion) a year in polluter fees.
EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said critics exaggerated the costs.
“Approving the EU bill in December will be consistent with tackling the financial crisis,” because it will promote investments in clean energy, creating jobs and easing the EU’s dependence on oil imports, he said.
The European Commission estimates the cost of the climate change bill at 0.5 percent of the bloc’s gross national product by 2020.
Essential surveillance kit for the new green police: the Energy Saving Partnership has taken out a patent on Heatseekers, thermo-imaging vehicles which, at full potential, have the capacity to identify 1,000 properties an hour, or 5,000 properties a night, that are leaking carbon.
“Once the property has been scanned, a dedicated team of energy advisers will visit householders to show them the thermal image scan of their homes,” says Inspector Knock-on-the-Door.
Uncle Sam has finally taken over Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE). Yesterday, the Bush administration placed the mortgage giants under a conservatorship, putting billions of dollars of taxpeyers’ money at risk in the process.
The Treasury says it will stump up $200 billion to back the companies in exchange for a 79.9% stake in each. The government is now the biggest player in the US mortgage market.
Don Rich warns that the government’s bailout spells trouble for anyone holding US dollars. A major issue is that the Congressional Budget Office’s estimation of the costs of the bailout is far too conservative…
A recent study from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has zero credibility. It pegged likely taxpayer losses in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts at $25 billion. For those with a sense of history, it is worth remembering that the S&L bailout had a $160 billion price tag. The numbers diverge so far from reality as to be laugh-out-loud funny. Funny, that is, except that the CBO estimate demonstrates a willful disconnect with the actual consequences of federal government actions.
As demonstrated below, the real cost of the bailouts will easily exceed $1.3 trillion. In fact, the real cost is likely to range between $1.3 trillion to $1.6 trillion, and is not unlikely to reach $2.5 trillion.
Between 2001 and 2007, Fannie and Freddie purchased or guaranteed $700 billion of Alt-A and subprime loans. Given the default rates on these loans – and the fact that the price of the housing that is the ultimate security of the loans will, for reasons demonstrated below, fall by at least thirty percent – this alone implies a loss for Fannie and Freddie on the order of $210 billion.
Fannie and Freddie acknowledge already-impaired loans on the balance sheet of $19 billion, which they have used creative accounting to avoid deleting from the shareholder equity account. This means that Fannie and Freddie have a maximum of $64 billion in capital remaining.
Given the inevitable losses on the Alt-A/subprime portion of their portfolio, it must be the case that if the federal government, as it is doing, guarantees Fannie and Freddie’s solvency, the difference between the loss and the capital to be made up by the government (i.e., the taxpayers) must equal, not $25 billion but $147 billion.
That alone would mean that the CBO is blowing smoke with their estimated cost figures, and if you think back to the S&L cost of $160 billion, this is not a surprising result. The real picture is so much worse that it is pretty obvious the CBO is flat out inventing figures just to get the politicians through November.
It doesn’t take a genius to work out how the government is going to get its hands on such money: the Federal printing press…
I don’t know what those people in Washington are taking to sleep at night after all their electorally driven accounting and finance exercises, but I can tell you what they will be doing to keep the government open for business: printing a whole lot of money.
Chairman Bernanke has the discount window open to any collateralization not worth the paper it is written on, so in effect he has the helicopters ready to drop hundred-dollar bills over Wall Street – as he once famously described the ultimate policy instrument of a fiat-money system.
Of course, if he does that, we will have to change his nickname from Helicopter Ben to Hyperinflation Ben, which answers the question of who picks up the tab of bailing out Fannie and Freddie: anyone owning dollars.
Produce a lot of something, and it becomes worth less. And given the losses at Fannie and Freddie, the taxpayer guarantee, and the ongoing initiation of Boomer retirement, only the inflation tax will work to pay for keeping Fannie and Freddie afloat.
Like it or not, we are about to enter interesting times, and it is too bad our supposed professional civil servants at the Congressional Budget Office have failed to tell the emperor the truth: that he is buck-naked bankrupt and getting ready to take a lot of people with him.
P.S Don Rich is an instructor of economics, finance, and political science at Montgomery County Community College in Blue Bell, PA. He also teaches economics, government, and history at Delaware County Community College in Exton, PA. You can leave comments for Don on the mises.org blog.
Greenspan: U.S Economy in ’once-in-a-century’ financial crisis
The nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shows that the U.S. is “more communist than China right now” but its brand of socialism is meant only for the rich, investor Jim Rogers, CEO of Rogers Holdings, told CNBC Europe on Monday.
“America is more communist than China is right now. You can see that this is welfare of the rich, it is socialism for the rich… it’s just bailing out financial institutions,” Rogers said.
Stock markets jumped after the U.S. government’s decision to launch what could be its biggest federal bailout ever, in a bid to support the housing market and ward off more global financial market turbulence.
But Rogers said in the long term the move spelled trouble.
“This is madness, this is insanity, they have more than doubled the American national debt in one weekend for a bunch of crooks and incompetents. I’m not quite sure why I or anybody else should be paying for this,” Rogers told “Squawk Box Europe.”
Billionaire investor George Soros has slammed US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson for behaving in the same manner as bankers in the 1930’s and mishandling a financial crisis that threatens a repeat of the Great Depression.
Soros told BBC Newsnight that the world was merely at the beginning of a financial storm and warned, “We mustn’t allow the financial system to collapse as it did in the 1930s.”
Referring to Hank Paulson, the US Treasury Secretary, Soros stated, “The way Paulson is handling the situation is reminiscent of the way the bankers handled it in the 1930s.”
He added: “The financial system has gone overboard and the financial engineering has grown to big, it takes up too big a share in the world’s resources.”
“Now it is shrinking. When it becomes regulated it will be less profitable than the last 25 years.”
Soros, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations, is ranked by Forbes as the 99th richest person in the world with a net worth of around $9 billion.
Ironically, Soros made his name by reaping the dividends of another financial meltdown when he “broke the Bank of England” by short-selling the pound sterling before the currency dropped out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992, landing Soros a profit of around $1.1 billion.
In 2006, the highest court in France upheld a conviction that Soros had practiced insider trading when he bought shares in French bank Société Générale after discovering that the bank was on the verge of a takeover.
Soros has repeatedly predicted fiscal armageddon, writing three books about a “superbubble” that is on the verge of collapse.
In response to those accusing him of crying wolf in an effort to panic financial markets and benefit from the fallout, Soros stated, “I have a record of crying wolf…. I did it first in The Alchemy of Finance (in 1987), then in The Crisis of Global Capitalism (in 1998) and now in this book (2008’s The New Paradigm for Financial Markets). So it’s three books predicting disaster. (After) the boy cried wolf three times . . . the wolf really came.”
Respondents to a Daily Mail article about Soros’ comments accused the financier of engaging in wanton hypocrisy.
“I don’t know why on Earth they interview Soros since he has been proven again and again to deliberately spread financial rumour for his own exploitation and gain,” wrote one, “Soros became a multi multi billionaire precisely through manipulating markets like this – if this man says that we are heading for a 1930’s style crash you can guarantee he already has plans to profit from it.”
As revealed in a July article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution: “A large contingent of Georgia Army National Guard soldiers flew to the Republic of Georgia on Sunday for joint military exercises at a time when tension is brewing in the region”.
And you won’t hear it on the tv news, but Georgia started the war.
It is clear that the U.S. has been behind Georgia’s military adventures.
McCain
McCain’s top foreign affairs advisor was until very recently a high-level Georgian lobbyist , a neocon, and a key player in pushing fake intelligence and the Iraq war. He is a hawk who is very good at starting wars.
Obama’s top foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wrote in his book The Grand Chessboard, that the top priority for the U.S. was seizing control of Eurasia and its rich oil resources.
“Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power.”- (p. xiii)
“It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)
“How America ‘manages’ Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.” (p.31)
It is clear that the US is following Brzezinski’s playbook for Eurasia.
Indeed, this is exactly what Mikhail Gorbachev was referring to when he wrote:
“By declaring the Caucasus, a region that is thousands of miles from the American continent, a sphere of its ‘national interest,’ the United States made a serious blunder.”
Bottom line: Both McCain and Obama’s top foreign policy advisors want a war. And, obviously, the other neocons and assorted hawks want one also. Indeed, the U.S. is now sending troops into Georgia under the pretense of giving “humanitarian aid”.this (which provides some insights, but may be over-the-top).
See also thisand this (which provides some insights, but may be over-the-top).
Brezezinski’s Georgia Puppets Attack Russia – World War Three In Sight
Clearly playing the role of the aggressor, the NATO puppet regime of Mikhail Saakashvili has carried out a midnight sneak attack against Russian peacekeepers in the province of South Ossetia. Those peacekeepers have been there for 15 years under an agreement with Georgia. Saakashvili is a protégé and creature of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the foreign policy boss of the Barack Obama presidential campaign. As is explained in my book Obama- The Postmodern Coup: The Making of a Manchurian Candidate, Saakashvili was brought to power in 2003-2004 by a people power coup or CIA color revolution, directed by the Brzezinski clan and financed by George Soros, one of Obama’s key financial backers. In a very real sense, it is the Obama campaign which has attacked Russia in South Ossetia.
Responding to this provocation, Russia has struck back powerfully, hurling the Georgian military into full retreat. The 3000% increase in Georgian military spending on US military hardware since 2004 has not had the desired effect. But the Georgians have killed a score of Russian troops and shot down several aircraft. Russia is blockading the Georgian Black Sea coast and has already sunk a Georgian warship. The US regime, the butchers of Iraq, are now whining that the Russian response is “disproportionate,” and that regime change is inadmissible! McCain responded by aggressive posturing against Russia scripted by Ian Brzezinski, as expected. At the Olympics, Bush had a heated exchange with Russian Prime Minister Putin over the Georgian aggression. Bush has dropped his plans to attack Iran and North Korea, and is now slavishly following Brzezinski’s orders by concentrating on provoking Russian and China.
Most interesting is the response of Brzezinski’s other puppet, Obama. The Messiah first intoned that it was necessary to show restraint, and stop the armed conflict. He talked then to NSC Director Hadley, Saakashvili, Rice, and unspecified foreign policy advisers – undoubtedly the Brzezinskis, Zbig and Mark. Notice Obama’s failure to talk with a single Russian leader – he failed to bring anybody together this time. Then Obama switched to a full warmonger line, identical to that of Bush: Obama now lied that Russia had invaded Georgian sovereignty and encroached on Georgian sovereignty. Obama’s spokesman, Ben Rhodes, added that Russia was responsible for the conflict. This goes to show that Obama is a ticket to World War III on the Brzezinski Plan, the crackpot design to break up Russia and China, securing another century for the Anglo-American world empire. Because Brzezinski’s strategic insanity unfolds on a scale more vast than that of the neocons, Obama is indeed a far bigger warmonger than Bush.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the nation would be safe under a Barack Obama presidency and that she is ruling out a shot at the vice presidency under either Obama or Republican John McCain.
In an interview with Politico and Yahoo News released Thursday, Rice was asked if she would feel secure with a president Obama.
“Oh, the United States will be fine,” she responded. “I think that we are having an important debate about how we keep the country safe,” she said, pointing to the Middle East and Iraq.