Hu Jintao in Copenhagen: Danes excel in the art of kowtowing

The visit of China´s president Hu Jintao in Denmark proceeds as expected; the Danes, who otherwise are eager to show how they care about democracy and human rights - particularly in small economically less important countries - are speaking softly, and without a stick in sight, to their high guest.

Denmark´s socialist Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt refuses to put Tibet on the agenda during her discussions with Hu tomorrow, thus going against the clearly manifested policy agreed by the Danish parliament. 

Instead the representative of China´s authoritarian ruling clique is wined and dined like an emperor while in Copenhagen. Today Queen Margrethe took her guest on a tour of the harbor on board the royal yacht Dannebrog. Earlier in the morning almost the entire Danish cavalry - 48 riders - greeted Hu on his arrival at the Queen´s Amalienborg palace. 

Later on in the afternoon Crown Prince Frederik will pay tribute to the "300 years of Danish-Chinese trade", at a business gathering. Denmark, like most other crisis ridden EU countries, is looking for help from China to get the economy going. So far, China has offered only nice words - which is the likely outcome also of this visit. 

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of political prisoners languish in the enormous government operated Laogai slave labor camps in China ...

But, who knows, maybe Hu will offer to buy the loss making Danish wind turbine manufacturer Vestas. Modern Danish technology could be the key to improving the productivity of the camps ...

New research: "Green economy" increases poverty

The "green economy" is another favorite slogan of the enviro-fundamentalist movement. However, new studies show that this trendy catchword is anything but beneficial:


The rapidly-growing appropriation of land and resources in the name of 'green ' biofuels, carbon offsetting schemes, conservation efforts and eco-tourism initiatives – is forcing people from their homelands and increasing poverty, new research has found.


Ecosystems being 'asset-stripped' for profit is likely to cause dispossession and further poverty amongst already-poor land and resource users, according to a set of 17 new research case studies from Africa, Asia and Latin America, published in a special issue of the Journal of Peasant Studies.

Examples of green grabs include: in Guatemala, conservation agencies, ecotourism companies and the military are 'protecting' the Guatemalan Maya Biosphere Reserve as a 'Maya-themed vacationland', violently excluding local people. In Eastern and Southern Africa, businesses are revaluing soil systems and farming practices for 'biochar', dispossessing farmers and pastoralists from land and resources important for their livelihoods. Meanwhile evidence is mounting that some Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD and REDD+) schemes are dispossessing local forest users of vital resource access.


(image wikipedia)

Fareed Zakaria on shale gas: Western democracies no more dependent on rogue states (like Russia)

Fareed Zakaria has an excellent column about the huge impact of the American led shale gas revolution:

And in a short time, its success has led to the drilling of 20,000 wells in America, the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs, and a guaranteed supply of gas for perhaps 100 years. The International Energy Agency says global gas production will rise 50% by the year 2035; two-thirds of that growth will come from unconventional sources like shale — a market the U.S. completely dominates.

We've become the world's lowest-cost producer of natural gas at a cost of $2 per thousand cubic feet; compare that with many European countries which have to pay seven times as much to Russia.

It's increasingly possible to use liquified natural gas as a substitute for oil as a transportation fuel, so the effects go beyond generating electricity. General Motors is planning to produce cars that can take natural gas or oil in their fuel tanks.

Aside from the advantages to America, shale gas has the potential to change the geopolitics of energy.

So far, gas has been supplied by a handful of regimes — Russia, Iran, Venezuela — many of them nasty and illegitimate, thriving on global instability, which actually helps their bottom line since instability equals higher oil and gas prices.

In the next 20 years, much of this energy could come from stable, democratic countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, Poland, France and Israel. That would be good for the free world, bad for the rogues and good for global stability. China has huge shale reserves and, even though it is not democratic, it is a country that seeks stability, not instability.

PS

In Europe, where the greenies and Gazprom have formed an unholy alliance against shale gas, there is at least some good news to report:

Energy from gas power stations has been rebranded as a green, low-carbon source of power by a €80bn European Union programme, in a triumph of the deep-pocketed fossil fuel industry lobby over renewable forms of power.

In a secret document seen by the Guardian, a large slice of billions of euros of funds that are supposed to be devoted to research and development into renewables such as solar and wave power are likely to be diverted instead to subsidising the development of the well-established fossil fuel.

Scientific academies have become enviro-fundamentalist propaganda centers

Gone are the days when scientific academies were concentrating on what they were founded for: scientific matters. The once highly esteemed UK Royal Society and 104 other of the  "world´s leading scientific academies" have now become centers for spreading leftist enviro-fundamentalist propaganda: 

The Rio+20 Earth summit must take decisive action on population and consumption regardless of political taboos or it will struggle to tackle the alarming decline of the global environment, the world's leading scientific academies warned on Thursday.

Rich countries need to reduce or radically transform unsustainable lifestyles, while greater efforts should be made to provide contraception to those who want it in the developing world, the coalition of 105 institutions, including the Royal Society, urged in a joint report.

It's a wake-up call for negotiators meeting in Rio for the UN conference on sustainable development.

The authors point out that while the Rio summit aims to reduce poverty and reverse the degradation of the environment, it barely mentions the two solutions that could ease pressure on increasingly scarce resources.

Many in the scientific community believe it is time to confront these elephants in the room. "For too long population and consumption have been left off the table due to political and ethical sensitivities. These are issues that affect developed and developing nations alike, and we must take responsibility for them together," said Charles Godfray, a fellow of the Royal Society and chair of the working group of IAP, the global network of science academies.

In a joint statement, the scientists said they wanted to remind policymakers at Rio+20 that population and consumption determine the rates at which natural resources are exploited and Earth's ability to meet the demand for food, water, energy and other needs now and in the future. The current patterns of consumption in some parts of the world were unsustainable. A sharp rise in human numbers can have negative social and economic implications, and a combination of the two causes extensive loss of biodiversity.

Read the entire article here

PS

It is all very easy for the Royal Society grandees, enjoyng the comfortable club atmosphere of the Carlton Terrace Marble Hall, to urge other people to "transform" their "unsustainable lifestyles". But tell that to the almost five million people in the UK who live in absolute poverty.

The European Union defines success in Rio: A definition of "green economy"

The European Union is sending a huge delegation to the Rio+ 20 UN mega conference, due to begin in Rio de Janeiro next week. Today EU überwarmist Connie Hedegaard and environment commissioner Janez Potocnik briefed the press about their expectations: 


Hedegaard said that the fact that the concept of the 'green economy' is recognised and is on the international agenda is already an acquis.For Hedegaard, Rio+20 will have to build a strong global vision of what this concept covers.


In response to a question about what would make Rio a success, Potocnik said that binding commitments are not necessarily required. He explained that even though it would only be partial success, he would be satisfied with arriving at the adoption of a document with a clear definition of 'green economy' and concrete targets, along with an agenda on the 'pillars of life'.

Hedegaard, Potocnik and more than 50,000 other politicians and bureaucrats are flying (by private jet or first/business class) to Rio in order to discuss how to define "green economy"! The European Union is "satisfied" if the conference  adopts "a document with a clear definition of "green economy". 

Considering how many hundreds of meetings and conferences in different exotic holiday resorts have preceded the Rio+, the "green economy" document will probably be the most expensive definition ever adopted. 


But that is only the best case scenario. The more likely outcome is that yet another mega conference - or maybe two - is needed before the "green economy" has a definition. All paid for by the taxpayers of the "rich" countries. 

Could a Finnish exit trigger the end of the euro?

Matthew Lynn, chief executive of the London based consultancy Strategy Economics, thinks that Finland´s exit could be the trigger breaking the eurozone in its present form:  

But here’s how it might come to a head over the summer: a “Spanic,” followed by a “Quitaly,” followed by a “Fixit.” A fresh panic in Spain might be followed by rising demands for Italy to quit if it doesn’t get the same terms its fellow Mediterranean country has been offered, followed bya Finnish departure from the euro that might finally bring the whole saga to a climax. 

-

Finally a Fixit (for a Finnish exit). The crisis will finally come to a head when one country decides to get out. Finland is the most likely. Why? Because it is a small nation with a strong economy. It is easy to head for the door. Finland would be better off on the first day, just as Estonia was when it decided to leave the ill-fated ruble zone created after the collapse of the old Soviet Union. It doesn’t particularly have to worry about the impact on the European Union, in the way that Germany would if it opted out. If a country such as that leaves, it is effectively game over, but no one can really say that of a tiny place such as Finland. And it has a strong anti-euro political grouping; the True Finns scored well in the last election and may well improve their position in the polls.

Finland is already demanding collateral for its portion of the Spanish loan. That could well turn into a deal-breaker — no collateral, so we’re out of here. Once one country leaves, it is much easier for the next to leave, in much the same way as it is easier to be the second person to leave a really bad party than the first.

A Finnish exit will be the trigger for the single currency to either be taken apart, or else for a smaller euro zone with fewer countries and tighter rules to be created. Either way, it would bring the crisis to a much-needed resolution.

Read the entire column here

A Finnish exit would indeed be welcome, but whether the current Finnish government - which so far has been very pro euro - will have the courage to go for it is another matter. 

IMF boss Lagarde´s climate change message: US taxpayers should pay more

Christine Lagarde does not pay any taxes  herself,  but  she  thinks  others  should pay much more!

The lady is at it again!


The other day the IMF boss Catherine Lagarde - the world´s best paid female politician, with annual tax free earnings of more than $550,000 - caused international outrage, when she suggested that beleaguered Greeks might do well to pay their taxes.


Now the same Lagarde is demanding tax rises for US and other western taxpayers in order to transfer huge sums of money to "developing countries" (mostly run by corrupt authoritarian governments) in order to fight (bogus) global warming projects: 

Getting the prices right means using fiscal policy to make sure that the harm we do is reflected in the prices we pay. I am thinking about environmental taxes or emissions trading systems under which governments issue—and preferably sell—pollution rights. It is basically a variation of the old mantra: “you break it, you buy it”.

-

... in these difficult budgetary times, countries need revenue and these kinds of tax or tax-like instruments can deliver. In the United States, for example, a carbon tax of about $25 per ton of CO2—which would add 22 cents to a gallon of gasoline—could bring in about 1 percent of GDP, or over $1 trillion over a decade. Charges on international aviation and maritime emissions would raise about a quarter of the $100 billion needed for climate adaptation and mitigation in developing countries—resources that developed countries have committed to mobilize by 2020.

Lagarde´s speechwriter had added this poetic ending to her speech, which apparently was intended to move the audience at the Washington DC Center for Global Development to tears: 

Once again, Wangari Maathai said it best: “We are called to assist the Earth to heal her wounds and in the process heal our own—indeed, to embrace the whole creation in all its diversity, beauty and wonder. This will happen if we see the need to revive our sense of belonging to a larger family of life.”

We all belong to this larger family of life. Rich nations and poor nations. Economists, environmentalists, and social policymakers. Public sector, private sector, civil society, and international organizations. We must all come together and work together.

For in the end, we all share the same goal—to make this small planet we call our home a better place for this generation and for generations to come.

Well, US taxpayers are certainly making it easier for Mme Lagarde to embrace "the whole creation in all its diversity, beauty and wonder" by paying almost 20% of her huge wage and benefit package, worth more than American president Barack Obama earns from the United States government. (The US share of IMF funding is close to 20%).


The question US taxpayers - and politicians - should ask themselves: Why on earth keep on financing a life in luxury for this French lady, who is reciprocating with demands of higher taxes for ordinary citizens?