Climate Fear Mongers!

The Global Warming Hoax is a Ploy to Push Agenda 21. It’s Got to Stop!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

The Debate is Over!

Global Warming Fraud Exposed

AUGUST 23, 2014 BY

al gore climate change

The first known video promoting the scam of “Man made global warming”  showing

how they demonized the life gas CO2 and make man earth’s enemy in the process….

is from 1958!

Environment was the chosen mechanism to bring about global gov. “They” need

a global problem that required a global solution… Enjoy some early Al Gore type hype

from 1958 in this video.

According to the Club of Rome: “The common enemy of humanity is man. “In searching

for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution,

the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.

“we came up with the idea “

Not based on any facts! They just came up with the idea.  What is the Club of Rome?

A think tank created by men and women who want a global communist system that they

control.  Who are these people? Here is a list of present and notable members from the

Green Agenda (highly recommended you spend so time on this site) Members include

David Rockefeller, George Soros, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Mikhail

Gorbachev, Kofi Annan, Maurice Strong, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Tony Blair, Robert Muller,

The Dalai Lama, Hassan bin Talal, Javier Solana, Javier Perez de Cuellar, Gro Harlem Bruntland,

Garret Hardin, King Juan Carlos of Spain and his wife Queen Sophia, Queen Beatrix of the

Netherlands, Prince Philippe of Belgium, and about 80 other wealthy elites, new age cultists,

former and current U.N. figures, and political figures.

First earth day 1970

Stockholm 1972 – United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

The (false) oil crisis of 1973-1974

United Nations Conference on Human Settlements was held at Vancouver

from 31 May to 11 June 1976

Our Common Future 1987

Rio Earth Summit 1992 which brought the world Agenda 21

The fraud and deception started long ago and is being implemented by ever level

and faction of gov. including UN NGO’s

The fraud is well documented and the peoples of the world need to take action.

Not to save us from “climate change” but the people who “came up with the idea. 

They cause the environmental crisis, the wars, famines, depressions etc. 

They are the enemy, not you and I

 

Now for some truth about climate Change.

The Sea Around Us by Rachel Carson shows the effects of the ocean cycles. 

Those who constructed the MMGW fraud knew when the natural ocean and sun

cycles would produce the most natural warming. They used this information for the

basis of the fraud. Those natural cycles are now moving into the cooling cycle.

The global warming lie is used to bring about UN corporate world gov. by the same

people who created the UN, Israel, Wars, Depressions, Famines etc. Their disturbing

visions are laid out in Agenda 21.

As the global warming fraudsters like to say “the debate is over.”

I agree, the debate is over and the fraud exposed!

Check and Mate!

– We have now entered the cooling cycle.

Elected officials (who represent the corporation, not the voters), teachers,

preachers, media, health etc.  (bow to their corporate masters) and law

enforcement (Policy enforcers of the corporation)  are  the useful idiots used

to spread the propaganda and implement “their” evil plan.

Some know what they are doing …  most don’t. It is our job to inform all of them

and insist they STOP immediately! They’re involved in fraud, conspiracy to commit, 

genocide and breach of trust.

 

Even the Climate Alarmists are Admitting it was a Hoax!

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

BBC Alarmists admit the Global Warming Slowdown.
The BBC had its start as an eco-propaganda unit for the Global Warming Alarmist’s campaign after 30 key BBC staff’ and ‘30 invited guests’ attended a seminar. The Daily Mail reported that the BBC tried to hide this for 6 years:

The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds over six years trying to keep secret an extraordinary ‘eco’ conference which has shaped its coverage of global warming, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
The controversial seminar was run by a body set up by the BBC’s own environment analyst Roger Harrabin and funded via a £67,000 grant from the then Labour government, which hoped to see its ‘line’ on climate change and other Third World issues promoted in BBC reporting.
At the event, in 2006, green activists and scientists – one of whom believes climate change is a bigger danger than global nuclear war – lectured 28 of the Corporation’s most senior executives. (link)
Seems like someone has taken the Kool-Aid (or is it FOOL-Aid?) from the BBC’s watercoolers because this week they not only acknowledged the warming hiatus, but have raised the possibility that the
Global warming slowdown ‘could last another decade’
The hiatus in the rise in global temperatures could last for another 10 years, according to new research.
Scientists have struggled to explain the so-called pause that began in 1999, despite ever increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The BBC reported a peer reviewed paper published in Science in August (link) which tried to explain the warming hiatus (or as they expressed it, “global-warming slowdown”)

Varying planetary heat sink led to global-warming slowdown and acceleration
A vacillating global heat sink at intermediate ocean depths is associated with different climate regimes of surface warming under anthropogenic forcing: The latter part of the 20th century saw rapid global warming as more heat stayed near the surface. In the 21st century, surface warming slowed as more heat moved into deeper oceans.
How the heat missed the surface and went into the deep ocean has not been explained.

The ‘deep ocean’ theory has been ridiculed by IPCC expert reviewer Lord Christopher Monckton:

The warming is hiding in the bottom of the ocean. Someday it will pop out and say BOO!
They are saying that it somehow managed to go from the atmosphere into the ocean. Not into the bit of the ocean that touches the atmosphere, no, it missed that out and it’s gone down and hidden in the bottom of the ocean where we can’t measure it. And one day it’s going to come out and say boo!

Global Warming Alarmists Being Less Than Honest With The Public! Not Surprised….

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

This article ties in nicely, with the previous one

posted, telling Why they Lie

 

Are scientists cooking the books?

Warming scientists accused of adjusting temperature data to show warming

 Australian cooling turns to warming z

August 23, 2014 by  

Can there be a valid discussion about the climate if warmist scientists are cooking the books?

The failure of climate computer models to accurately project recent temperatures is a major embarrassment for warming campaigners.   The models nearly universally call for more warming than has actually occurred.  This has left the warming crowd scrambling to explain the missing warming.  The folks who publish the Hockey Schtick blog are now up to 38 excuses for the missing warming.  Marc Morano has details at Climate Depot.

Meteorologist Anthony Watts has been documenting accusations of researchers placing their thumbs on the scale to create warming for years.

Now comes reports that the Australian Met Office has been adjusting temperature data to cool the past and create a warming trend that does not appear in the raw data.

The escalating row goes to heart of the climate change debate — in particular, whether computer models are better than real data and whether temperature records are being manipulated in a bid to make each year hotter than the last. Marohasy’s research has put her in dispute with BoM over a paper she published with John Abbot at Central Queensland University in the journal Atmospheric Research concerning the best data to use for rainfall forecasting. BoM challenged the findings of the Marohasy-Abbot paper, but the international journal rejected the BoM rebuttal, which had been prepared by some of the bureau’s top scientists. This has led to an escalating dispute over the way in which ­Australia’s historical temperature records are “improved” through homogenisation, which is proving more difficult to resolve.  (The Australian, h/t Benny Peiser).

Marc Morano is also featuring reports that NASA is erasing past Arctic warming from its records.

Nothing is more fundamental to the scientific method than the rule that we must adjust our hypotheses to fit the data.  Adjusting the data to fit the hypothesis is an academic/scientific crime no matter how plush the funding.

Accusations of global warming data manipulation demand full and unbiased investigations.

Political correctness has no place in science.  Only scientifically correct will do.

– See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2014/08/23/are-scientists-cooking-the-books/#sthash.b5UY1NzA.dpuf

The Real Truth Behind the Global Warming/Climate Change Agenda!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

It’s about the money, not the climate

  • Who wants to be a millionaire

August 22, 2014 by , 

Oscar Wilde (1854-1900), the Irish poet and dramatist, wrote “Pray don’t talk to me about the weather. Whenever people talk to me about the weather, I always feel quite certain that they mean something else.”

These days, when some world leader or politician speaks of the climate—the weather is what is happening right now wherever you are—they are not talking about sunshine or rain. They are talking about a devilishly obscene way of raising money by claiming that it is humans that are threatening the climate with everything they do, from turning on the lights to driving anywhere.

That’s why “global warming” was invented in the late 1980s as an immense threat to the Earth and to mankind. Never mind that Earth has routinely passed through warmer and cooler cycles for billions of years; much of which occurred before mankind emerged. And never mind that the Earth has been a distinct cooling cycle for the past seventeen years and likely to stay in it for a while. If the history of ice ages is any guide, we could literally be on the cusp of a new one.

If, however, a government can tax the use of energy, it stands to make a lot of money. That is why carbon taxes have been introduced in some nations and why the nearly useless “clean energy” options of wind and solar have been introduced even though they both require the backup of traditional coal, natural gas and nuclear energy plants because they cannot produce electricity if the wind isn’t blowing and the sun is obscured by clouds.

Taxing energy use means taxing “greenhouse gas” emissions; primarily carbon dioxide (C02) so that every ton of it added to the atmosphere by a power plant and any other commercial activity becomes a source of income for the nation. The Australians went through this and rapidly discovered it drove up their cost of electricity and negatively affected their economy so much that they rid themselves of a prime minister and the tax within the past year.

Fortunately, every effort to introduce a carbon tax has been defeated by the U.S. Congress, but that it has shelled out billions for

Rep. Henry Waxman

“climate research” over the years. That doesn’t mean, however, that 41 demented Democrats in the House of Representatives haven’t gotten together in a “Safe Climate Caucus” led by Rep. Henry A. Waxman. The Washington Post reported that when it was launched in February 2013, the members promised to talk every day on the House floor about “the urgent need to address climate change.”

Check out the caucus and, if your Representative is a member, vote to replace him or her with someone less idiotic.

When you hear the President or a member of Congress talk about the climate, they are really talking about the scheme to generate revenue from it through taxation or to raise money from those who will personally benefit from any scheme related to the climate such as “clean energy.”

The need of governments to frighten their citizens about the climate in order to raise money is international in scope. A United States that has a $17 trillion debt is a prime example, much of it due to a government grown so large it wastes taxpayer’s money in the millions with every passing day whether it is sunny or rainy, warm or cold.

In late July, Reuters reported that Christine Lagarde, the chair of theInternational Monetary Fund, (IMF) opined in her new book that “energy taxes in much of the world are far below what they should be to reflect the harmful environmental and health impact of fossil fuels use.”

Please pay no attention to the billions of dollars that coal, oil and natural gas already generate for the nations in which they are found. Nations such as India and China are building coal-fired plants as fast as possible to provide the electricity every modern nation needs to expand its economy, provide more employment, and improve their citizen’s lives in every way imaginable.

“For the first time,” Reuters reported, “the IMF laid out exactly what it views as appropriate taxes on coal, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel in 156 countries to factor in the fuel’s overall costs, which include carbon dioxide emissions, air pollution, congestion and traffic accidents.” The problem with this is that the costs cited are bogus.

Christine Lagarde

“Nations,” said Lagarde, “are now working on a United Nations deal for late 2015 to rein in greenhouse gas emissions that have hit repeated highs this century, but progress has been slow as nations fret about the impact any measures may have on economic growth.” As in bad impacts!

Ignore the claims that carbon dioxide affects the climate. Its role is so small it can barely be measured because CO2 represents 380 parts per million. When our primate ancestors began to climb down out of the trees, CO2 levels were about 1,000 parts per million. More CO2 means more crops, healthy growing forests, and all the other benefits that every form of vegetation provides. The breath we humans exhale contains about 4% of CO2.

The fact is that the United States and other nations are being run by politicians who are incapable of reducing spending or borrowing more in order to spend more. Venezuela just defaulted again on the payment of bonds it issued to raise money. They did this in 2001 and one must wonder why any financial institution purchases them.

There are eleven other nations whose credit ratings are flirting with big trouble. They include Greece, Ukraine, Pakistan, Cypress, and in the Americas Argentina, Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador and Belize. Borrowing by such nations is very expensive. A U.S. Treasury Note pays an annual coupon of just 2.5%, but the yields on 10-year bonds issue by Greece reached 29% in early 2012, just before it defaulted.

Adding to problems in the U.S. is the Obama agenda being acted upon by the Environmental Protection Agency whose “war on coal” has shuttered several hundred plants that produce the electricity needed to maintain the economy. In coal producing states this is playing havoc and it is driving up the cost of electricity in others.

The growth of oil and natural gas production in the U.S. is almost entirely on privately owned land as opposed to that controlled by the government. Supporting the attack on energy are the multi-million dollar environmental organizations like Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club.

The world has not warmed since the nineties and many factors influence the climate other than CO2, the Sun, the oceans, clouds, and volcanic activity. Nothing any government does, here and worldwide, has any meaningful impact on it, but if nations can demonize the use of energy and tax the CO2 it produces, they can generate more money to spend and waste.

The lies that governments, the United Nations, and the International Monetary Fund tell about the climate are about the money they can extract from citizens who must be kept frightened enough to pay taxes on their use of energy.

 

– See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2014/08/22/its-about-the-money-not-the-climate/#sthash.2UXTRUgG.dpuf

If the Ontario Liberal Gov’t was Smart, They Would Cancel These Wind Contracts!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment
 

Prospects of negative governmental

action in Ontario’s energy sector

By James J. Shanks

When investments are made in the private sector sophisticated financial models are developed, complete with multiple inputs, all designed to predict a range of best and worst case scenarios. If a significant model input strays beyond its originally anticipated value range for example, if customer demand for a business’s products collapses then the financial model for the business may fail. If so, stakeholders in the business will likely face a restructuring of their investments. 

The chances of a restructuring are far less likely when government is the main customer of the business, not only because governments are presumed to have deep pockets, but also because, in those businesses where government acts as an intermediary between the business and the ultimate consumers of the business’s products, the government’s intermediation tends to insulate the business from model failure and its usual consequences. Nevertheless, if model failure is severe and persistent enough, history in Canada suggests that governments may be tempted to impose a restructuring even on these sorts of businesses. 

In the years leading up to Ontario’s Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) program, it was generally accepted that Ontario was approaching a near-term shortage of electricity as surging demand threatened massive brownouts.  Government financial models, no doubt, assumed that the cost of developing renewable energy infrastructure involving long-term power purchases at prices significantly above market could be recouped by steadily increasing electricity rates over time, all without unduly reducing customer demand.1 However, subsequent experience seems to suggest that Ontario’s electricity demand may have been more elastic than anticipated, especially as many urban and rural electricity consumers have reacted to increasing prices by switching some of their electricity needs to lower-priced natural gas and propane. Moreover, as price increases in the Province have outpaced those in neighbouring jurisdictions (leaving Ontario’s electricity prices 30-60% higher than in those jurisdictions), some large commercial users have reacted by moving their operations out of Ontario, further depressing overall demand.2  In fact, far from remaining steady, electricity demand in the Province is now projected to decline until at least 2021.3

Even as electricity demand has declined, Ontario’s generating capacity has increased.  Overall generating capacity in Ontario has increased by 13% since 2003, while demand has decreased by 10% since 2005.4 The end result has been a large and continuing surplus of generating capacity, with Ontario’s generating capacity expected to exceed forecast (normal weather peak) demand this summer by 25-50%.5  Partly as a consequence, electricity spot prices in the Province have plummeted, sometimes falling to $0.025/kWh.6  Higher-priced, surplus Ontario electricity is sometimes resold to neighbouring jurisdictions at a substantial discount7 and the Global Adjustment amount charged to Ontario consumers has now risen to record levels.8

In summation, some of the model inputs in the Province’s original financial models may already have strayed beyond their initially anticipated value ranges, suggesting at least the possibility that model failure has occurred in the sector or that it may be imminent.  If so, then recent entrants into Ontario’s energy sector, otherwise dependent on the continuance of long-term government purchases, are quite right to be concerned about the possibility of a government-imposed restructuring in their sector.

Unlike private sector restructurings which typically involve a court process, government-imposed restructurings generally take the form of confiscatory legislation or some other form of negative governmental action.  It should come as no surprise that governments in Canada have from time to time engaged in various sorts of negative governmental action, invariably with the intent of modifying (or even abrogating altogether) undesirable government obligations.  Such action has even occurred previously in Ontario’s utility sector.9 For example, in the 1930’s, successive Ontario governments enacted several pieces of legislation abrogating various contractual commitments to private sector power producers, all with the intent of assisting the then-fledgling, and government-owned Ontario Hydro to become the dominant power producer and distributor in the Province.  Indeed, overall, scholarly research suggests that negative governmental action usually occurs (if it occurs at all): (a) when technological change in a given industry sector is occurring rapidly, (b) when pricing, demand or other important financial variables cannot be perfectly forecast, and (c) when governments have entered into long-term contracts that cannot easily be altered.10 In other words, the restructuring risk increases on model failure occurring within this context.  

Negative governmental action can take many forms, including specifically, the passage of legislation modifying government payables, authorizing or curing contract breaches, limiting court access, amending or cancelling contract commitments, and even expropriating completed projects. A recent, well publicized, example of negative governmental action in Canada occurred in the early 1990s when the federal government summarily cancelled several long-term contracts with private sector participants for the redevelopment of Toronto’s Pearson Airport.11 Bill C-22, passed by the House of Commons provided that: (a) all contracts relating to the redevelopment were declared not to have come into existence or to have had any legal effect, (b) all obligations, rights and interests arising out of the contracts were declared not to have come into existence, (c) no action or proceeding, including for damages for breach of contract, could be brought against the government, and (d) every action against the federal government was summarily dismissed.  Bill C-22 also authorized the relevant federal Minister, for a period of 30 days, to enter into agreements with aggrieved stakeholders to pay compensation in such amounts as the Minister considered appropriate.  Notably, compensation for lost profits was expressly prohibited under the legislation. 

Using Bill C-22 as an example, it may appear at first blush that governments in Canada hold all the cards when it comes to negative governmental action. However, stakeholders should note that there are various countervailing influences that will moderate the actual exercise of such extraordinary power. For example, government will be mindful of reputational concerns.12 Specifically, international credit rating agencies may react to negative governmental action by downgrading the subject government’s public debt due to increased “country risk”, thereby increasing future borrowing costs for the subject government. Foreign governments may impose “tit-for-tat” sanctions on projects in their jurisdictions that are intended to hurt nationals of the expropriating state. Judgments rendered by sympathetic foreign courts may be executable against the subject government’s assets located in foreign jurisdictions. And finally, equity investors in non-related sectors may avoid investment in the jurisdiction altogether for fear of falling victim to similar governmental action.

Aside from reputational concerns, some jurisdictions offer constitutional safeguards against negative governmental action without due process. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution are good examples.  Unfortunately, no such constitutional protection currently exists in Canada.13 Specifically, Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains no express provision for the protection of property, economic, or even contract rights.14 And based on a string of Charter cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada, it is unlikely that any general protection of this nature will be implied any time soon.15 Instead, stakeholders in Canada will have to derive comfort from the fact that Canadian courts will generally construe confiscatory legislation very strictly against the subject government, straining if at all possible to find that the legislation does not exclude the payment of appropriate levels of compensation or review by the judiciary. Nevertheless, if the legislation is sufficiently precise, even a strict constructionist approach will be of little use to an aggrieved stakeholder.

In such circumstances, Canada’s free trade agreements may assist, but only if the stakeholder is a national of a treaty-protected country. As is well known, Canada is a signatory to a number of free-trade and foreign investment protection agreements, some of which prohibit confiscatory action without payment of appropriate compensation.  For example, under Article 1110 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), no federal or provincial government is permitted to “nationalize or expropriate an investment of a [US or Mexican] investor…or take a measure tantamount to nationalization or expropriation”, unless such action is: (a) for a public purpose, (b) effected on a non-discriminatory basis, (c) effected in accordance with due process, and (d) carried out upon payment of compensation equivalent to the fair market value of the expropriated investment.  

Particularly instructive here is the case of Metalclad Corporation v. Mexico16, a NAFTA case brought by an American company against the state of Mexico in 2000.  In that case, an arbitral tribunal ruled that, as a result of numerous laws and other negative governmental actions passed and undertaken by Mexican state and municipal authorities, Mexico had effectively expropriated Metalclad’s newly-constructed waste facility in Guadalcaza. The tribunal awarded Metalclad US$16,685,000 in damages representing Metalclad’s sunk costs of the investment.17 While damages awarded against Mexico did not include an amount on account of discounted lost profits, such damages are thought to be sustainable under NAFTA in certain circumstances.

Equally instructive is a 2012 NAFTA case brought against Canada by the Abitibi-Bowater group and involving certain confiscatory legislation passed by the Province of Newfoundland. In this case, the provincial legislation provided for: (a) the expropriation of significant Abitibi-Bowater properties used for hydroelectric generation and transmission, (b) the cancellation of various hydroelectric contracts between the Abitibi-Bowater group and the Province, and (c) the termination of certain timber and water rights. While the legislation provided for compensation for the expropriated properties, no compensation was to be forthcoming for the terminated timber and water rights. The Abitibi-Bowater group brought a NAFTA claim asserting that the Newfoundland legislation constituted an expropriation of its assets without appropriate compensation contrary to NAFTA Article 1110. Faced with the prospect of an uphill fight, the Canadian government opted to settle the claim for $140 million.  

Besides NAFTA, and as indicated above, several bilateral trade arrangements exist which contain similar foreign investor protection.18 Importantly, the proposed multilateral Trans-Pacific Partnership currently being negotiated with several Asia-Pacific countries and the proposed Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (not yet in force) will also contain similar investor protection. Once implemented, these new trade arrangements will significantly expand the list of treaty-protected countries and the range of foreign stakeholders that will be able to benefit from investor protection.  Notably however Canada’s trade agreements cannot be used by Canadian nationals to protect themselves against negative governmental action occurring within Canada in relation to their domestic investments.   

With the recent re-election of Ontario’s Liberal government, stakeholders in Ontario’s energy sector are, no doubt, breathing a little easier, as putative threats to tear up the Province’s FIT contracts are now much more clearly off the table.19 Most assuredly, the restructuring risk has subsided.  Still, the issues here are as much financial as they are political, and history in Canada suggests that negative governmental action can never truly be ruled out.  If financial model failure occurs and is considered severe and persistent enough, then negative governmental action will remain a distinct (even if remote) possibility. 

1 The comprehensiveness of the Government’s original financial models has been questioned by Ontario Auditor General in the Annual Report of the Office of the Auditor-General of Ontario.

2 Remarks of Greg Abel, Chairman, President and CEO of Spectra Energy, to Economic Club of Canada, June 24, 2014.  See also “Environmental and Economic Consequences of Ontario’s Green Energy Act”, R. R. McKitrick, Report prepared for Fraser Institute, 2013, and also “High Ontario Electricity Prices Hamper Ring of Fire Processing and Other Industry”, L. Di Matteo, February 6, 2011.

3 Ontario’s Electricity Surplus: An Opportunity to Reduce Costs”(the “Ontario Surplus”), a publication of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance Research Inc., July 2012.

4 See Ontario Surplus, supra.  See also “Eighteen Month Outlook: From March 2014 to August 2015” (the “18 Month Outlook”), a publication of the IESO, p. 4.

5 Based on 18 Month Outlook, Tables 3.1, 4.3-4.5.
 
6 See Ontario Surplus, p.3.
 
7 “Ontario’s Power Trip: Power Dumping”, Gallant, P., Financial Post, July 20, 2011, and “Ontario’s Power Trip: Province lost $1.2-billion this year exporting power”, Gallant, P., Financial Post, December 2, 2013.
 
8 “Ontario power fee sets new record: The global adjustment — a fee added to the market price of electricity in Ontario — has reached a record high”, Walton, T., The Toronto Star, September 3, 2013.
 
9 “Regulatory Failure and Renewal: The Evolution of the Natural Monopoly Contract”,  J. Baldwin, Ottawa: Economic Council of Canada 1989.
 
10 See Baldwin, Chaps. 3, 10 and 12, for example.  See also “Public Accountability in the Age of Contracting Out”, E. Atwood and M.J. Trebilcock, (1996) 27 Can. Bus. L.J., v. 27, n. 1, p. 1, at p. 38.
 
11 A more recent instance occurred when in 2008 the Government of Newfoundland expropriated various power generating and transmission assets of the Abitibi-Bowater group (discussed further below in this article) pursuant to the Abitibi-Consolidated Rights And Assets Act (Newfoundland).
 
12 See for example “A Constant Recontracting Model of Sovereign Debt”,  J. Bulow & K. Rogoff (1989) Journal of Political Economy, 155.
 
13 For a contrary view regarding the government’s right to implement negative governmental action, see “Is the Pearson Airport Legislation Unconstitutional?: The Rule of Law as a Limit on Contract Repudiation by Government”, P. Monahan, (1996) Osgoode H.L.J., v. 33, n. 3, p. 411, where the author argues that where legislation like Bill C-22 purports to deny access to the courts, the legislation breaches the rule of law implicitly enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and therefore is unconstitutional.
 
14 While the Canadian Bill of Rights provides an explicit right to the “enjoyment of property” and the right not to be deprived thereof without due process, the Canadian Bill of Rights only applies to federal laws, may not entitle the aggrieved party to compensation if the confiscatory legislation provides otherwise, and creates rights that do not have the same status as Charter rights. 
 
15 Siemens v. Manitoba (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 3; The Attorney General of Quebecv. Irwin Toy Limited, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; Whitbread v. Walley [1991] 2 W.W.R. 195 (SCC);Olympia Interiors Ltd. v. R. (1999), 167 F.T.R. 165 (Fed. T.D.), affirmed (1999), 1999 CarswellNat 1978 (Fed. C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2000), 252 N.R. 393 (S.C.C.);Energy Probe et al. v. The Attorney General Of Canada et al., (1994) 17 O.R. (3d) 717 (Ont. C.J.); and Shaw v. Stein, 2004 SKQB 194. 
 
16 See Metalclad Corporation v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1 (NAFTA), Award. For an unsuccessful appeal of the NAFTA award to British Columbia Supreme Court, seeUnited Mexican States v. Metalclad Corp., 2001 BCSC 664.
 
17 Damages were based on the claimant’s actual investment in the property because the facility had not been operational long enough, and thus had not established a sufficient record of profitability, such that damages for lost profits could be proven.  The tribunal suggested that a “fair market value” award of damages for a going concern with a history of profitable operations would usually be based on an estimate of future profits, subject to a discounted cash flow analysis.  See  also Biloune, et al. v. Ghana Investment Centre, et al., 95 I.L.R.183, 207-10 (1993).
 
18 See, for example, Article 9.1 of the Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement, Article G-10 of the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement, and Article 8.11 of the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement (not yet in force), all of which provide compensation for expropriatory measures taken by the federal or any provincial government.
 
19 See, for example, the Alliance for Renewable Energy’s view of the threat in: “June 12 Provincial Election will determine the Future of Ontario FIT Programs”,  June 3, 2014.
  
 
NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Information made available on the Web site in any form is for information purposes only. It is not, and should not be taken as legal advice. You should not rely on, or take or fail to take any action, based upon this information. Never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking legal advice because of something you have read on this Web site. Gowlings professionals will be pleased to discuss resolutions to specific legal concerns you may have.
  
 

 
 

 

 

Main Stream Media, Not Reporting Honestly, When it Comes to Wind Turbines…

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

ABC’s Pro-Wind Power Bias Exposed as a National Scandal

August 19, 2014 by  

Facts

Ever had the feeling that certain quarters of the media give the wind industry an easy run?

Australia’s National broad-sheet, The Australian stands as an exception; publishing plenty of pieces that, quite rightly, highlight the obscene cost and spurious “benefits” of the mandatory Renewable Energy Target and its product: the wind industry (for just a few examples, see our posts hereand here and here and here and here).

Not so, over at “your” ABC. The ABC (aka “Aunty”) is referred to as “the National Broadcaster”; it has numerous TV channels and radio stations that broadcast news and current affairs across the country. It is fully funded by Australian taxpayers to the tune of around $1.3 billion annually.

When it comes to renewable energy, and the wind industry in particular, the ABC runs a consistent narrative that touts the purported benefits, but rarely, if ever, delves into the fundamental flaws of trying to rely on highly unpredictable, unreliable and intermittent wind power. Moreover, the ABC avoids any investigation or analysis of the massive stream of subsidies added to power bills and directed to wind power outfits in the form of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), courtesy of the mandatory RET (see our post here).

Indeed, when confronted with that – inconvenient – part of the ABC’s pro-wind industry narrative, the ABC’s journalists become defensive and appear to act as advocates for the wind industry, rather than advocating for the Australian taxpayer and power consumer (ie, those that pay for the ABC) – as in this 7.30 interview of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s Chief Economist Burchell Wilson (see our post here).

The wind industry puff pieces – often engineered by wind industry spin doctors, the Clean Energy Council – put up by the ABC conflate the issue of climate change with wind farms time and time again. If there’s a mention of the former, there’s almost certain to be an image and/or reference to the latter.

The ABC’s climate change narrative puts wind power up as THE solution to climate change, deliberately ignoring the facts; namely the need for 100% of its capacity to be backed up 100% of the time by fossil fuel generation sources, which means, therefore, that wind power cannot and will never reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector (see our postshere and here and here and here and here and here and here).

Wind power is not a substitute for conventional generation sources and – if CO2 is the problem – presents as a solution to nothing (see our post here).

The wind industry has never produced a shred of evidence to show that wind power has reduced CO2 emissions in Australia’s electricity sector. To the contrary of wind industry claims, the result of trying to incorporate wind power into a coal/gas fired grid is increased CO2 emissions (see thisEuropean paper here; this Irish paper here; this English paper here; and this Dutch study here). But, despite the evidence, the gullible and naive that pass for journalists at the ABC suck up the drivel spouted by the wind industry and its parasites, and present wind industry spin as gospel fact.

What’s that they say about never letting the facts get in the way of a good story?

With news that PM, Tony Abbott, his Treasurer, Joe Hockey and Finance Minister, Mathias Cormann have joined forces on a mission to scrap the mandatory RET outright, the ABC immediately went into damage control, trotting out the “usual suspects” – spin doctors from the Climate Institute and Clean Energy Council hell-bent on saving the RET for the benefit of their paymasters; and giving panic stricken rent-seekers, like Infigen an unchallenged forum to plead for policy mercy.

On ABC’s News 24 (and elsewhere on the ABC) wind industry cheer squad, the Climate Institute trotted out “modelling” based on a complete fiction that subsidies to wind power outfits will drop from $70 per MWh in 2020 to around $10 per MWh by 2030.

The starry-eyed presenters at the ABC might have been able to challenge that transparent myth if they had bothered to take a cursory peek at the legislation that makes up the mandatory RET and applied a little good old fashioned arithmetic to its terms. By 2020, the RECs issued to wind power outfits (1 REC per MWh dispatched) will be worth at least $65 – and are expected to trade at around $100 by then – which means the subsidy extracted from power consumers and directed to wind power outfits will be worth at least $65 per MWh and, more likely, $100 per MWh. Between 2020 and 2031, the REC Tax/Subsidy will add between $36 billion and $50 billion to Australian power consumers’ bills (see our post here). But simple and hard facts are lost or ignored as “inconvenient” and “unhelpful” to the ABC’s pro-wind industry “narrative”.

More than just a little suspicious that the ABC is infected by groupthink and could, just maybe, be a teensy-weensy bit biased in favour of renewables, the Institute of Public Affairs commissioned independent research to see if their hunch had something in it.

Here’s The Australian on the – not so surprising – findings.

Environment of fear as ABC fails bias test
The Australian
James Paterson
12 August 2014

THE ABC is not like any other broadcaster. With more than $1 billion in public funding, we rightly demand the ABC be rigorously fair, balanced and impartial.

On energy policy, we now know the ABC fails that test. As reported in The Australian yesterday, the Institute of Public Affairs released research that conclusively demonstrates the ABC’s bias against fossil fuels and in favour of renewable energy.

Energy policy is vital to our prosperity. Despite an abundance of natural resources, Australians pay among the highest electricity prices in the world, as a direct result of policy choices that have unquestionably been influenced by media coverage. However, this analysis could easily be replicated with the same results in other areas of ABC coverage.

In March, the IPA commissioned the independent media monitoring agency iSentia to analyse the ABC’s coverage of energy policy issues in relation to the coalmining industry, the coal-seam gas industry and the renewable energy industry. In the largest study of its kind, iSentia analysed 2359 separate ABC reports over a six-month period on these industries across national, metropolitan and regional radio and television.

The results were striking. iSentia found an astonishing 52 per cent of all ABC reports on renewable energy were favourable. Just 10.8 per cent were unfavourable.

Yet only 15.9 per cent of coalmining stories were favourable, while 31.6 per cent were unfavourable. And just 12.1 per cent of coal-seam gas stories were favourable and 43.6 per cent unfavourable. The renewable energy industry is heavily reliant on subsidies and regulatory favours via the mandatory renewable energy target. Indeed, independent modelling conducted by Deloitte Access Economics for the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has found the RET alone will cost the Australian economy $29 billion by 2020, push up power prices for households and businesses and kill 5000 jobs.

Yet iSentia found only 14 ­stories that cast the economic impact of the renewable energy industry in an unfavourable light. An incredible 117 stories suggested that renewable energy had a positive economic impact.

CSG and coalmining generate thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of exports, without government subsidies or regulatory favours, but the ABC was obsessed with the potential environmental impacts of the fossil fuels.

During the sample period, only 37 stories were broadcast that depicted the economic impact of the coal industry in a positive light, against 115 that suggested the industry would have a negative environmental impact. The benefits brought by CSG to the Australian economy merited the ABC’s attention only 52 times, but the assertion the industry would have a negative ­environmental impact was delivered in 259 stories.

iSentia found — surprise, surprise — that hopeful language featured in 93 stories on renewable energy, compared with 21 stories on CSG. The language of fear was used in 306 stories on CSG compared with 51 stories on renewable energy.

That’s hardly surprising given the interviewees. On coal-seam gas, the ABC’s go-to man is NSW Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham, quoted in 92 stories — more than double the next most prominent guest. While federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt was the most quoted in stories about coalmining, a close second was Queensland Greens senator Larissa Waters.

On both radio and television, and across regional, metropolitan and national programs, the ABC consistently and overwhelmingly favoured renewable energy and treated the coalmining and coal-seam gas industries with extreme disfavour. This suggests the problem of bias at the ABC is endemic across the organisation.

If, as David Marr said, you have to be a leftie to be a journalist, then those who choose to work at a public broadcaster instead of a commercial outlet are even more likely to be left-wing. Once surrounded by others of a similar world view, and insulated from their audiences by the absence of a commercial imperative to seek advertising, it’s predictable that the personal preferences of journalists dominate coverage.

If bias at the ABC is systemic, only structural reform will solve it. A new board or management won’t change the culture. Privatising the ABC is the only way to ensure taxpayers’ money is not used to fund biased coverage.

James Paterson is director of communications at the Institute of Public Affairs.
The Australian

The Australian’s Editor had this to say.

ABC all puff and wind on coal
The Australian
12 August 2014

IF the national broadcaster realised the climate change debate was about facts and options rather than motives and agendas, it might be able to bring itself to discuss the implications and possible causes of more than 15 years without a rise in global average temperatures. The now notorious groupthink at Aunty — outed by none other than its former chairman Maurice Newman — can’t seem to cope with raising this global warming pause lest it insinuate some scepticism about the causes and trajectory of climate change.

That any group of inquiring minds could be so timid about dealing with reality is troubling enough, but when you consider this cohort is paid by taxpayers for the express purpose of providing balanced, objective and comprehensive communications about relevant facts and opinions, it approaches a national scandal. The world’s most prominent climate scientists seem to be capable of discussing how the climate is defying models without abandoning their alarm, retreating from their scientific theories or being isolated by their peers. But at the ABC, where they perhaps see themselves as a foothold of enlightenment holding back the hordes of capitalist exploitation and scientific denialism, we can only assume that they can’t handle the truth.

And so it is, presumably for the same reasons, with discussion of energy issues. Because the ABC has religion on climate — we saw in an Institute of Public Affairs report yesterday — it is intent on portraying coal as the devil and renewable energy as the saviour. Now, even if we were generous and said this ultimately might be the case, it does not excuse important facts about coal versus renewables in the here and now being ignored or misrepresented. The economic case is abundantly clear thanks to the overwhelming cost advantages of coal in electricity generation and its contribution to GDP. Coal generates 70 per cent of our electricity and more than 40 per cent worldwide. It is a $120 billion export industry, making us the second largest exporter after Indonesia. And, as the IPA reports, the cost per megawatt hour of coal-fired power is about $35, whereas wind and solar generation is typically at least three times the cost and available only a third of the time.

Yet ABC coverage gives three times more favourable coverage to renewable energy over coal, and in return provides three times more negative reporting on coal over renewables. Surprisingly the ratios are even worse — less favourable coverage and more negative — for coal-seam gas, even though this is the resource that has revolutionalised the energy sector worldwide by producing affordable baseload generation with about half the emissions of coal. Carried out by media monitors iSentia, which analysed 2359 reports over six months, the survey found the “language of fear” was used in more than a quarter of the CSG stories, a fifth of coal stories but about one in 20 renewable reports.

The ABC tends to discount the economic benefits of coal and CSG, preferring to focus on perceived environmental harm, while it trumpets the green benefits of renewables, tends to ignore costs and impracticalities but exaggerates potential economic gains. As Bjorn Lomborg often points out in these pages (ridiculously decried as a sceptic for his trouble), the climate challenge demands consideration of economic imperatives: costs, benefits, options and alternatives. Taxpayers deserve that debate. They can handle it.
The Australian

abc-logo-b-

Al Gore is Determined to Look Like a Complete Moron, and it’s Working!

/ 1957chev / 2 Comments

Arctic Alarmist Disaster – Much Worse Than It Seems

Posted on August 19, 2014by

As bad as this year has been for Arctic alarmists, their pain is just beginning. Melt has been extremely slow in August, in fact area has not changed for about a week, and is now larger than 2006

ScreenHunter_2078 Aug. 18 21.11

The ice has been getting compacted close to the pole, where it is too cold to melt. But the high pressure system which has been compacting the ice is breaking down, and in a week or so, the open water close to the pole in the Laptev Sea will begin to freeze, likely leading to an early minimum.

As I mentioned earlier, ice area is the highest in ten years, and may be higher than 1971.

ScreenHunter_2065 Aug. 18 07.24

Nobel Laureate Al Gore says there is a 75% chance the Arctic will be ice-free this summer.

 

People should Learn to “Adapt”, Rather than Playing the “Blame Game”!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Spot the Portion on the Map, caused by ‘climate change’

Posted on August 18, 2014 by

From “The Hill”, even California Democrats aren’t buying the climate BS Obama and Holdren are selling on drought: (h/t to WUWT reader “Green Sand”)

Voters don’t hear the words “climate change” when Democrats in competitive races in California explain what’s causing the worst drought in the state’s history.

President Obama has repeatedly blamed global warming for episodes of severe weather, including wildfires and droughts in the Golden State, but Democrats seeking to unseat Republicans in the hard-hit Central Valley region are balking at that argument.

The drought is an issue in three of the five closest House races in California, but Democrats are opting against drawing a direct link between the drought and climate change.

“The way folks talk about the drought out here is: ‘We have a problem, let’s fix the problem,’” said Amanda Renteria, a Democrat challenging Rep. David Valadao (R).

“Climate change doesn’t really belong in the question, or answer,” said Renteria, one of her party’s best hopes of gaining a House seat this fall.

California’s drought is in its third year, with no signs of ending. It’s expected to cost the state $2.2 billion this year.

Renteria’s race against Valadao in California’s 21st District is smack dab in the middle of the agriculture-heavy Central Valley, where the drought is the single biggest issue for voters.

Renteria isn’t a climate skeptic and thinks there is something “going on” with climate change.
 
But her campaign isn’t focused on pinning the drought to the effects of global warming.

It’s focused on how federal and state officials were unprepared to deal with the drought, and how Central Valley lawmakers should have pushed Congress to take steps to build water storage infrastructure to help farmers.

“The fact that we need an answer, and needed an answer for years — this has been coming, we knew it was coming — adds to questions about who our leaders are, and what is going on in Congress,” she said.
 
Other Democrats in California districts impacted by the drought are tacking a similar tack.

OK, spot the portion caused by climate change:

California_drought_timeline

The paper:

North American drought: Reconstructions, causes, and consequences, Cook et al. 2007

PDF here: NADrought

Figure 10 is the source of the above graph:

Cook_etal_2007_fig10

Fig. 10. Long-term aridity changes in the West (A) as measured by the percent area affected by drought (PDSIb−1) each year (B) (redrawn from Cook et al., 2004). The four most significant ( pb0.05) dry and wet epochs since AD 800 are indicated by arrows. The 20th century, up through 2003, is highlighted by the yellow box. The average drought area during that time, and that for the AD 900–1300 interval, are indicated by the thick blue and red lines, respectively. The difference between these two means is highly significant ( pb0.001).

 

The Terrifying Truth About the Faux-Green Agenda! READ THIS!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

 

We should all want to be wise and careful stewards of the beautiful planet we call home. But most of us realize that humans in general are not being good stewards. We are wasteful with our natural resources and have reduced biodiversity. Therefore, when we read about groups and organisations calling for a ‘green revolution’ and a new relationship between humanity and nature it is easy to agree with their ideas. 

However, certain aspects of the modern green movement that is permeating every segment of our society are not about protecting the environment. You don’t have to dig very deep to discover the true beliefs of the influential leaders who are using genuine concerns about the environment to promote an agenda of fear and control. Please carefully consider the implications of the opinions that they so openly and freely express:

(references and sources for the quotes below can be found here)

“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up 
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, 
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome, 
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.“
– Prof. Stephen Schneider, 
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of 
economic and environmental policy.“
– Timothy Wirth, 
President of the UN Foundation 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations 
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The models are convenient fictions 
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame, 
climate modeler, Oxford University

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts 
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
– Al Gore,
Climate Change activist

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and
spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest
opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level.”
– Al Gore,
Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis…”
– David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the
world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a
major catastrophe that could send our entire planet’s climate system
into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods,
droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have
ever experienced – a catastrophe of our own making.” 
– Al Gore,
An Inconvenient Truth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We are getting close to catastrophic tipping points,
despite the fact that most people barely notice the warming yet.”
– Dr James Hansen,
NASA researcher

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“By the end of this century climate change will reduce the human
population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic.”
– Sir James Lovelock,
Revenge of Gaia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Climate Change will result in a catastrophic global sea level
rise of seven meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh,
Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis.”
– Greenpeace International

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“This planet is on course for a catastrophe.
The existence of Life itself is at stake.”
– Dr Tim Flannery,
Principal Research Scientist 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Coal makes us sick. Oil makes us sick. It’s global warming. 
It’s ruining our country. It’s ruining our world.” 
– Harry Reid,
U.S. Senate majority leader

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Climate Change is the greatest threat that
human civilization has ever faced.”
– Angela Merkel,
German Chancellor

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here,
and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new 
global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.“
– Barack Obama,
US President

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We simply must do everything we can in our power to
slow down global warming before it is too late.”
– Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Governor of California

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Climate change should be seen as the
greatest challenge to ever face mankind.”
– Prince Charles

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Climate change makes us all global citizens,
we are truly all in this together.”
– Gordon Brown,
British Prime Minister

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We have reached the critical moment of decision on climate change.
Failure to act to now would be deeply and unforgivably irresponsible.
We urgently require a global environmental revolution.”
– Tony Blair,
former British PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We are close to a time when all of humankind 
will envision a global agenda that encompasses 
a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the 
causes of poverty and suffering and 
environmental destruction all over the earth.“
– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“In Nature organic growth proceeds according 
to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a ‘master plan’ is 
missing from the process of growth and development of
the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for 
sustainable growth and world development based on global 
allocation of all resources and a new global economic system.
Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late.”
– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We need a new paradigm of development in 
which the environment will be a priority. 
World civilization as we know it will soon end. 
We have very little time and we must act. 
If we can address the environmental problem, 
it will have to be done within a new system, a 
new paradigm. We have to change our mindset, 
the way humankind views the world.“
– Mikhail Gorbachev,
founder of Green Cross International

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable,
indeed a sacred principle of international relations.
It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to
the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.“
– UN Commission on Global Governance report

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and
it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely.
Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well 
suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature 
of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected 
representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.” 
– Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization
and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global
community will inevitably have multiple political consequences.
Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change
in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must
assume some aspects of a world government.“
– Mikhail Gorbachev,
State of the World Forum

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I envisage the prinicles of the Earth Charter to
be a new form of the ten commandments.
They lay the foundation for a sustainable
global earth community.“
– Mikhail Gorbachev,
co-author of The Earth Charter

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“In my view, after fifty years of service in the United Nations system,
I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper
Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present 
political and economic systems are no longer appropriate
and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet.
We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”
– Dr Robert Muller, 
UN Assistant Secretary General,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty 
to the international community and beginning to create a 
new system of international environmental governance 
as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises.”
– Lester Brown,
WorldWatch Institute 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Regionalism must precede globalism.
We foresee a seamless system of governance from
local communities, individual states, regional unions
and up through to the United Nations itself.”
– UN Commission on Global Governance 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that 
fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order 
and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income.
Perhaps only a new and enlightened humanism
can permit mankind to negotiate this transition.“
– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The alternative to the existing world order can only
emerge as a result of a new human dimension of progress. 
We envision a revolution of the mind, a new way of thinking.“
– Mikhail Gorbachev,
State of the World Forum

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We require a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily.
Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations,
rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change – these are all forms of
appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that
sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation
of society will not be necessary.”
– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Adopting a central organizing principle…
means embarking on an all-out effort to use every 
policy and program, every law and institution…
to halt the destruction of the environment.“
– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“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.” 
– UN Agenda 21

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The current course of development is thus clearly unsustainable.
Current problems cannot be solved by piecemeal measures.
More of the same is not enough. Radical change from the
current trajectory is not an option, but an absolute necessity.
Fundamental economic, social and cultural changes that
address the root causes of poverty and environmental
degradation are required and they are required now.“
– from the Earth Charter website

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, 
which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.” 
– David Brower,
founder of Friends of the Earth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of
saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
an ecologically sound society under socialism. 
I don’t think it is possible under capitalism” 
– Judi Bari,
principal organiser of Earth First! 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the 
industrialized civilizations collapse? 
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the
United States. De-development means bringing our
economic system into line with the realities of
ecology and the world resource situation.“
– Paul Ehrlich, 
Professor of Population Studies

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
United States. We can’t let other countries have the same 
number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. 
We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
– Michael Oppenheimer,
Environmental Defense Fund

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty,
reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
– Professor Maurice King

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place 
for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and 
plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, 
free shackled rivers and return to wilderness 
millions of acres of presently settled land.”
– David Foreman, 
co-founder of Earth First! 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on 
human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to
discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy,
because of what we might do with it.”
– Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the
worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
– Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the 
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Our insatiable drive to rummage deep beneath
the surface of the earth is a willful expansion
of our dysfunctional civilization into Nature.”
– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many,
doing too well economically and burning too much oil.“
– Sir James Lovelock,
BBC Interview

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to
about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure
and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species,
returning throughout the world.” 
–Dave Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First! 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the
affluent middle class – involving high meat intake,
use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning,
and suburban housing – are not sustainable.“
– Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, 
selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox,
vice-president of The Humane Society 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Human beings, as a species, 
have no more value than slugs.” 
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a
pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock,
Healing Gaia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; 
the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people.
We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to 
the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many 
apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich,
The Population Bomb 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I don’t claim to have any special interest in natural history, 
but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in 
the number of game animals and the need to adjust 
the cull to the size of the surplus population.” 
– Prince Philip,
preface of Down to Earth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society
at the present North American material standard of living 
would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard
of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
– United Nations,
Global Biodiversity Assessment

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“A total population of 250-300 million people, 
a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner,
founder of CNN and major UN donor

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence
more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
– Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“One America burdens the earth much more than 
twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say. 
In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate 
350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
– Jacques Cousteau,
UNESCO Courier

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth
as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,
patron of the World Wildlife Fund

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong.
It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The extinction of the human species may not
only be inevitable but a good thing.”
– Christopher Manes, Earth First!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival 
for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. 
Phasing out the human race will solve every 
problem on Earth – social and environmental.”
– Ingrid Newkirk,
former President of PETA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against
society, unless the parents hold a government license.
All potential parents should be required to use
contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing
antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
– David Brower, 
first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The fate of mankind, as well as of religion, depends upon
the emergence of a new faith in the future. 
Armed with such a faith, we might find 
it possible to resanctify the earth.“
– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The greatest hope for the Earth lies in religionists and 
scientists uniting to awaken the world to its near fatal predicament
and then leading mankind out of the bewildering maze of 
international crises into the future Utopia of humanist hope.“
– Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“What an incredible planet in the universe this will be
when we will be one human family living in justice,
peace, love and harmony with our divine Earth, 
with each other and with the heavens.”
– Robert Muller, 
UN Assistant Secretary General

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The earth is literally our mother, not only because we depend on
her for nurture and shelter but even more because the human
species has been shaped by her in the womb of evolution….
Our salvation depends upon our ability
to create a religion of nature.”
– Rene Dubos, 
board member, Planetary Citizens

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Each element, plant, insect, fish and animal
represents a certain aspect of Gaia’s – and our – being.
In a way, we are Gaia’s intelligence and awareness
– currently lost in self-destructive madness.
We must acknowledge, respect and love her for being
the Mother she is to us or we deny our very selves. 
Nurture the Mother as she nurtures us.”
– Prof. Michael J. Cohen, 
Ecopsychologist

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“It is the responsibility of each human being today to 
choose between the force of darkness and the force of light.
We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed
respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.“
– Maurice Strong,
first Secretary General of UNEP

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The spirit of our planet is stirring! 
The Consciousness of Goddess Earth 
is now rising against all odds, 
in spite of millennia of suppression, 
repression and oppression inflicted on Her 
by a hubristic and misguided humanity. 

The Earth is a living entity, a biological organism 
with psychic and spiritual dimensions. 
With the expansion of the patriarchal religions 
that focused on a male God majestically 
stationed in Heaven ruling over the Earth and the 
Universe, the memory of our planet’s innate Divinity 
was repressed and banished into the 
collective unconscious of humanity.“
– Envision Earth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Still more important is the implication that the evolution of
homo sapiens, with his technological inventiveness and his
increasingly subtle communications network, has vastly increased
Gaia’s range of perception. She is now through us awake and aware
of herself. She has seen the reflection of her fair face through the
eyes of astronauts and the television cameras of orbiting spacecraft.

Our sensations of wonder and pleasure, our capacity
for conscious thought and speculation, our restless curiosity and
drive are hers to share. This new interrelationship of Gaia with man
is by no means fully established; we are not yet a truly collective
species, corralled and tamed as an integral part of the biosphere,
as we are as individual creatures. It may be that the destiny of
mankind is to become tamed, so that the fierce, destructive, and
greedy forces of tribalism and nationalism are fused into a
compulsive urge to belong to the commonwealth of all
creatures which constitutes Gaia.“
– Sir James Lovelock, 
Gaia: A New Look At Life

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Little by little a planetary prayer book is
thus being composed by an increasingly united
humanity seeking its oneness. Once again,
but this time on a universal scale, humankind is
seeking no less than its reunion with ‘divine,’
its transcendence into higher forms of life. Hindus
call our earth Brahma, or God, for they rightly
see no difference between our earth and the divine.
This ancient simple truth is slowly dawning again upon
humanity, as we are about to enter our cosmic age
and become what we were always meant to be:
the planet of god.”
– Robert Muller, 
UN Assistant Secretary General

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“What if Mary is another name for Gaia? Then her capacity for
virgin birth is no miracle . . . it is a role of Gaia since life began . . .
She is of this Universe and, conceivably, a part of God. On Earth,
she is the source of life everlasting and is alive now;
she gave birth to humankind and we are part of her.”
– Sir James Lovelock, 
Ages of Gaia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Nature is my god. To me, nature is sacred;
trees are my temples and forests are my cathedrals.“
– Mikhail Gorbachev, 
Green Cross International

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The spiritual sense of our place in nature…
can be traced to the origins of human civilization….
The last vestige of organized goddess worship
was eliminated by Christianity.“
– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed,
we must destroy the Judeo-Christian Religious tradition.”
– Peter Singer, founder of Animal Rights 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I pledge allegiance to the Earth and all its sacred parts.
Its water, land and living things and all its human hearts.”
– Global Education Associates,
The Earth Pledge 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“By fostering a deep sense of connection to others and to the earth
in all its dimensions, holistic education encourages a sense of
responsibility to self to others and to the planet.“
– Global Alliance for Transforming Education

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The earth is not dead matter. She is alive.
Now begin to speak to the earth as you walk.
You can speak out loud, or just talk to her in your mind.
Send your love into her with your exhalation. Feel your
heart touching upon the heart of the planet. Say to her
whatever words come to you: Mother Earth, I love you.
Mother Earth, I bless you. May you be healed. May all
your creatures be happy. Peace to you, Mother Earth.
On behalf of the human race, I ask forgiveness
for having injured you. Forgive us, Mother Earth“
– US Student Textbook, 
“Prayer to the Earth”