"Roof top gardens" and "sunken terrace" restaurant for climate bureaucrats

The Green Climate Fund - the crowning achievement of the UN led global warming hysteria - is supposed to start distributing huge sums of cash -  $100 billion a year by 2020 - from "rich" industrialized countries to often corrupt regimes in the "developing world". All in the name of fighting global warming/climate change. 


The governments of the "rich" countries - right now busy trying to solve real economic problems - have began to realize the utter stupidity of the "commitments" agreed in Cancun and Durban. Even the countries which constitute the European Union - the "climate change superpower" - are beginning to backtrack on their "commitments": 


There was also little progress on the key issue of the financing by rich countries of actions in the developing world. Meeting in Bonn, negotiators and officials from around the world haggled over the set-up of a 'Green Climate Fund' that would channel cash from the developed world to poorer countries, to help them cut greenhouse gas emissions and cope with the effects of climate change.

It is 100% certain that the "rich" countries will never deliver anything close to the sums "promised" in Cancun and Durban. But this does not deter the global warming bureaucracy. No, the bureaucrats are right now concentrating on what they are really good at: The planning of a huge bureaucratic structure to administer the climate change billions (which will never materialize). 

Six countries are now competing to host the new Green Climate Fund heaquarters. One of the favourites is Germany, which offers this kind of simple working facilities for the 300 (probably more) highly paid bureaucrats expected to distribute the billions: 

The Federal Republic of Germany has selected the proposal of Laboratory for Visionary Architecture (LAVA) for the Green Climate Fund Headquarters, Bonn. LAVA's proposal for the headquarters is an 'ecological model project' and demonstrates their motto: 'green is the new black.'


With a design inspired by the beautiful setting in the Rhine valley, and with curvilinear forms, nature light wells, roof top gardens and a large sunken terrace for the restaurant, the three level structure will comply with the latest energy and building ecology standards, meeting the highest demands in terms of sustainability (German Gold Certificate), ecology and energy efficiency (net zero energy).

Described as 'architecturally appealing' and 'environmentally friendly with functional spaces that foster working productivity' the purpose built GCF headquarters will offer ideal working conditions for approximately 300 Green Climate Fund officials, on a 13.000m2 site. Offices with state-of-the-art office technology, logistics areas with security controls and a visitor reception zone, an auditorium, a conference room, a canteen/cafeteria and an underground car park create optimal working conditions.

But who knows, maybe Namibia, Mexico, Poland, South Korea or Switzerland will offer even more exciting working environments for the future climate "billionaires"? There are rumours that the Swiss are intent on beating the Germans with a GCF hideaway high on a mountain top, with the in/outdoor pool offering a breathtaking view over a melting glacier. 

US Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: Democratic Taiwan sets an example for China

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, influential chairwoman of the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign  Affairs, has praised the role of Taiwan as a beacon of democracy: 

A senior U.S. congresswoman praised Taiwan's democracy in Taipei Monday as an example for China by showing that political power can come out of ballot boxes. 

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said Taiwan's democratic development, which has seen direct presidential elections and two transfers of power, is an achievement that must be preserved. 

Ros-Lehtinen, who is heading a 21-member congressional delegation that is in Taiwan to discuss bilateral ties and congratulate President Ma Ying-jeou on his inauguration for a second term, made the remarks at a dinner hosted by opposition Democratic Progressive Party. 

"When bloggers in China hear of Taiwan's democratic elections, they ask 'why can't we also elect our president if Taiwan citizens can cast their ballots freely in the ballot box all the time?'" Ros-Lehtinen said. 

She also cited the case of Chinese blind dissident Chen Guangcheng, a human rights lawyer who had been under house arrest before escaping to the U.S. embassy in Beijing. Chen and his family arrived in New York last weekend to begin a new life there. 

The light from Taiwan pointed the way for not only for Chen but also for millions in China, who thirst for liberty, Ros Lehtinen said. 

Read the entire article here

Ros-Lehtinen´s support for democratic Taiwan and democracy in Communist China does not always get big headlines in US and other western mainstream media, but it gets attention where it matters most - in Taiwan and mainland China. 

The Scottish government´s renewable energy spin vs reality

Scotland - quite like the UK - has a "green" government, which has eagerly embraces
all the warmist propaganda arguments and cheap renewable energy slogans. Now the Scottish Department for Energy and Climate Change is claiming that the government´s "low carbon initiatives will have a big impact on consumers´energy bills": 

Using renewable energy sources, such as solar panels, is a good way to reduce your energy bill.

The DECC argued that by 2020, policies to reduce Scotland’s carbon footprint will shave £94 off energy bills, a feat that would not have been possible if they hadn’t been put in place.

The current drive towards using renewable energy sources will see average household energy bills stand at £1,285 by 2020, a figure which would have climbed up to £1,379 had the government not acted.

The findings were also backed by research by industry regulator Ofgem, which supported the idea that energy bills will be lowered by the government’s green initiatives.

The news will be welcomed by consumers, many of whom are expecting a rise in energy bills by as much as £50 after Centrica, which owns Scottish Gas, announced an increase in wholesale gas prices.

“Renewable energy is vital to Scotland and to the rest of the UK. It is essential if we are to keep bills down for ordinary families, boost the economy and meet our climate change targets,” said Fergus Ewing, the energy minister.

The Scottish government is of course quite right when saying that its "low carbon initiative will have a big impact on consumers´ energy bills". However, the problem is that the impact will be a steep rise in energy prices: 

ELECTRICITY bills will rise by at least 58% if the UK Government is to meet its renewable energy target within the next eight years, according to an industry expert.

Sir Donald Miller, who spent a lifetime as an engineer in the power industry, rising to chair both the South of Scotland Electricity Board and ScottishPower, warned the cost to households would increase by that amount if ministers were to meet their tar-get of 30% or more of electricity coming from renewable sources by 2020. It would mean the average annual electricity bill of £489 for Scottish homes would go up by £283.62 to more than £773 a year within the next eight years.
The more ambitious Scottish Government target of generating the equivalent of 100% of Scotland's own electricity demand from renewable resources by 2020 would mean even greater rises in household bills, he warned.
Sir Donald calculations are contained in his submission to the Scottish Parliament's Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee's inquiry into the Scottish Government's targets.

The former engineer, who favours a mix of energy sources including nuclear, also claims Scottish Government targets imply a four-fold expansion of wind power in Scotland, offshore and on land, within a period of eight years, but counsels: "This seems unlikely and not least because of resistance to a proli-feration of wind farms onshore."
He believes the conduct of planning inquiries into wind farms is bringing the Scottish planning system into disrepute and points to growing evidence based on experience in the United States and Ireland that high levels of interruptible generation, such as wind, produce much smaller savings in CO2 emissions than had been thought.

Read the entire article here

Germany comes up with a "new" idea for solving the euro crisis

In the true spirit of the EUSSR, the German government has now come up with a "new" idea of how to solve the economic problems of the crisis ridden euro zone: 

SPIEGEL has learned that the German government has developed a proposal calling for special economic zones to be created in crisis-plagued countries at the periphery of the euro zone. Under the plans, foreign investors could be attracted to those zones through tax incentives and looser regulations.


The Germans must have found inspiration for this idea from another "empire": 


Particularly, noteworthy is the recent decision of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to set up free economic zones. Through these, market principles will for the first time be introduced directly into parts of the Soviet economy. The zones will also be an important means by which to adv ance the country's integration into the international economy and to achieve rouble convertibility. 

(UNCTAD report, 1990)

PS


There is actually one area in which the German idea could turn out to be be very succesful: The dreaded trade war with China and India (and possibly a number of other countries) over the senseless EU aviation emissions tax could be avoided if all international EU airports were declared special economic zones, with "looser regulations" ...

The history of the UN led global warming circus

The Toronto Sun´s columnist Simon Kent has written an excellent brief history of the UN global warming travelling circus:

Which of the following major world cities and/or seaside resorts has NOT hosted United Nations climate change talks since the inaugural meeting way back in 1997?

Marrakech, Morocco; Bali, Indonesia; Lyon, France; Bonn, Germany; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Cancun, Mexico; The Hague, the Netherlands; Vienna, Austria; Montreal, Canada; Bangkok, Thailand; Barcelona, Spain; Durban, South Africa; Nairobi, Kenya; Milan, Italy; Kyoto, Japan and New Delhi, India.

Sorry, trick question. All have played host at some time to the 47 UN-funded get-togethers in the past 15 years.

I know, I know, it’s a tough job but somebody has to do it.

Here is a supplementary question: How many binding treaties have been ratified by all parties in the name of defeating so-called anthropogenic global warming in that time?

Not abstracts of intent or noble purpose like the Kyoto protocols. We’re talking binding agreements with enforceable penalties, measurable aims and deliverable achievements signed by every single nation on the planet from the richest to the very poorest.

How many? None.

That’s right, a big fat zero. Nada. Zip. Nil. Zilch.

Still, the talking goes on in some of the most desirable locations on earth.

Three and sometimes four times a year the great and the good of the global warm-monger industry meet to chatter and wag their fingers at major industrialized nations like Canada.

These unelected and unaccountable members of the UN ineptocracy were at it again last week.

In Bonn, Germany the latest meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ended Friday.

The fortnight-long get together was meant to develop a timetable for implementing the so-called “Kyoto 2” extension which Canada along with the US, Japan and Russia wisely announced they’ll ignore.

At the end of the meeting negotiators agreed that “progress had been made” and “important principles established’’ but really, they would have to meet again for more talks soon.

So next stop is Doha, Qatar for another round of debate, starting November 26.

At which point you could reasonably ask: What was achieved at Bonn besides abject inertia?

Not much. Just continuing division over how long the extended Kyoto protocol should operate, some very public squabbling over whose turn it was to chair the various sub-committees and an agreement to talk more about future agendas.

There was also the small matter of (ahem) money.

UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres insisted it was critical the Bonn talks made further progress on how funds will be raised – extorted might be another apt word — from major industrialized nations and directed to poorer countries in the year’s after 2020.

This epic global fundraising will underwrite something called the Green Climate Fund, to be run under the paternalistic auspices of the UN.

The fund will need $100 billion a year from 2020 onwards to operate. No precise agreement at Bonn on how it would work, despite Christiana Figueres exhortations, just consensus that major developed and industrialised countries like Canada will have to foot the bill. So there.

All of which pretty much reflects the UN as it is today; a preening debating society that marries incompetence with good intentions, meddling with over-reaching ambition.

Read the entire column here

In a best case scenario the US Congress stops funding these useless climate clowns - the sooner, the better.  

The Economist on the EU: "All the putatives responses to the democratic deficit are being found wanting"

The European Parliament: "almost always in favour of new regulation and always in favour of more spending."

The fact that the European Union is a deeply undemocratic structure, driven by the political elites, has been clear for years now. In an interesting article the Economist offers this thoughtful analysis of the EU´s democratic deficit: 

Now the crisis has struck, all the putative responses to the democratic deficit are being found wanting. The qualified majority voting introduced by the Single European Act of the 1980s and the subsequent enlargement of the union mean that nations, especially small ones, can frequently feel marginalised, and their electorates voiceless; the system is opaque, complex and remote. Countries outside the euro zone are not party to some decisions, which can make them fear marginalisation; the “six pack” of fiscal regulations agreed last year and the newly devised fiscal compact erode even further the ability of a government within the zone to control its own fate. Crucially, the pact imposes fines on governments in breach of its strictures automatically, unless a qualified majority of all the others votes against doing so. In 2002 Francis Mer, newly installed as French finance minister, dismissed commission requests for budget cuts to comply with the stability and growth pact by saying that “France has other priorities.” Pierre Moscovici, François Hollande’s new finance minister, stands no chance of being similarly highhanded. This lack of governmental override worries not just debtor nations but also some creditor countries such as the Netherlands—and even German states.

The other responses to the democratic deficit look even more tattered. Output legitimacy is a hard sell when the outputs voters use to reach a judgment are a crisis they didn’t create and austerity they don’t want. The idea that the EU is all about distant technical adjustments is laughable now that the euro is impinging on many basic functions of sovereign national governments, most obviously in Greece, Ireland and Portugal, but also in all the parties to the fiscal compact. If the euro is to survive, it will likely do so by impinging on them yet further.

And what of the European Parliament? It has, if anything, widened the deficit it is meant to make up. It has increased its powers with every EU treaty, including the fiscal compact; but it has seen no parallel growth in its legitimacy. In the commission and in national capitals alike, frustration with the parliament has been growing. It is almost always in favour of new regulation and always in favour of more spending. Any claim that this is what the voters want is undermined by the fact that the voters show ever less interest in it. At every election for the European Parliament since 1979, the turnout across the continent has plumbed a new low (see chart 2). National elections see higher turnouts almost everywhere.

Wind turbines kill hundreds of thousands of bats

"Through conservancy efforts of groups such as the Organization for Bat Conservation and Bat Conservation International, bats are becoming better understood and people beginning to understand the crucial role bats play in insect control and pollination.

In the United Kingdom, all bats are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Acts, and even disturbing a bat or its roost can be punished with a heavy fine." (wikipedia)

It is a well-known fact that wind turbines kill hundreds of thousands of birds every year. Now it is becoming clear that these expensive, ugly and inefficient machines also kill a huge number of bats:

Even if all the wind farms in Pennsylvania were utilized, they’d still only make up for about 6 percent of needed electricity in the state. And, ironically, they also seem to be messing with nature: One unintended consequence of the installation of wind turbines has been a massive increase in bat deaths. Bats seem to be drawn to them, and scientists can’t figure out why. But they do know that the rapid decline in our bat population—which is crucial to general insect control—is really bad news.

“A high [bat] fatality rate was observed at a wind farm in West Virginia in 2003 and from that point on, we began seeing high fatality rates in Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and then different rates across the country,” says Dr. Cris D. Hein, coordinator of the Bats and Wind Energy Program for Bat Conservation International. “So it became an issue that needed to be addressed quite rapidly, as wind development grew in the early 2000s.”

Each year, an estimated hundreds of thousands of bats are killed after colliding with, and getting shredded by, wind turbines. Last year, Pennsylvania’s 420 turbines killed an estimate 10,000 bats, according to the state Game Commission

Read the entire article here