COP21 Terrorism Update #15.

On December 12th 2015 (12/12/15) the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) broke up after agreeing a draft global agreement to combat climate change.

The agreed draft was so poor that it is only since COP21 ended that discussion over what to do about it has been able to begin. Following a short break over Christmas to assess its position the US has kicked off 2016 with a comprehensive contribution to the discussion.

This has taken the form of a well regulated militia led by the son - Ammon - of somewhat famous Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy staging an occupation of the Headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in the US state of Oregon.

This is intended as a protest against the conduct of the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and in particular its prosecution of two Oregon based ranchers - Steven and Dwight Jr Hammond - for arson on land that makes up part of the Malheur Refuge.

There are so many things wrong with the COP21 draft or "12/12 Atrocity" that it is hard to focus in on just one.

However much of the discussion so far has been centred on how the draft places an undue burden on less capable or developing nations by requiring them to keep a full inventory of greenhouse gas (ghg) emitters and sinks in accordance with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) standard while submitting a new Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) plan every 5 years.

This point has been illustrated by the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

Despite lacking a government whose writ extends across the entire country the 12/12 Atrocity requires the DRC to keep a full IPCC standard inventory of the Congo Rainforest. This is the second largest Rainforest in the World and occupies a space roughly the same size as the nation of Spain or the US state of Oregon.

Within climate change negotiations forests - particularly Rainforests - are considered hugely important. That's because at the moment roughly 20% of all the ghg emissions that are produced by things like burning fossil fuels are immediately absorbed by Rainforests rather then entering the atmosphere causing the temperature to rise.

Therefore if we could increase the amount of Rainforests - say by 20% - then we would be able to emit 20% more ghg's without changing the climate. That means rather then cutting our emissions to zero by completely eliminating fossil fuels we would only have to cut them by 80% allowing us to continue to use some fossil fuels - such as gasoline for transport - without causing climate change.

The problem is that rather then growing the amount of Rainforests is actually shrinking as people cut them down to make money off the land. Cattle ranching is a big driver of this deforestation but the Oregon ranchers made specific reference to logging and mining which are also huge drivers of deforestation.

Therefore before we start talking about increasing the amount of Rainforests we first have to protect the ones we've already got. The obvious way to do this is for governments to take control of areas of Rainforest to protect them from logging, ranching and mining. I suppose they could then name them wildlife refuges.

However this practice of governments taking over large sections of land is always complicated forcing the government to manage the demands of competing groups from the land. Often the big confrontation is between the need for conservation and the need for economic growth and the jobs that it brings.

The other big challenge is that of the rights of indigenous people to use the land in the way that ancestors have always used the lands. As I think I've mentioned before US President Obama's argument over whether we refer to Mount McKinley as "Mount McKinley" or by its indigenous name "Denali" is deeply stupid. Not least because the indigenous name for the mountain has never been "Denali."

However in many Rainforest rich nations - particularly the largest, the Amazon - you do have indigenous tribes living remotely within the forest. Some of these tribes are so remote we probably don't even know that they exist yet. As these tribes entire survival depends on the forest they have become very good at sustainably managing it with practices handed down over generations.

Obviously the government coming along and telling these tribes they've got to move off the land they lived on for thousands of years because it's becoming a wildlife reserve strikes me as deeply unfair. Also it strikes me as counter-productive to remove the people who know how to manage the forest rather then working with them to use their experience to protect the forest.

Even once you've established areas of protected forest how best to manage them is also a vast and complicated topic. Despite the best scientific research we still don't have a definitive answer and different types of forest in different areas need to be managed in different ways.

Take forest fire suppression with in the US as just a small aspect of a very large topic.

Following the Great Fire of 1910 the US Forestry Service mandated a policy of complete suppression. That meant that every forest fire that ignited had to be immediately extinguished. However it's now emerged that these small naturally occurring fires do an important job clearing plant litter - fallen leaves etc - and nourishing the soil.

The policy of complete suppression was preventing this litter clearance from taking placing causing it to build up. So where before you would have small, controllable fires in areas where they were actually helping nature instead the US now experiences massive, uncontrollable fires which threaten wildlife, human life and property. As a result the US Forestry Service is trying to move away from the complete suppression policy.

A nation which has really embraced the idea of using fire to nourish the soil is Indonesia. This leads to an annual smog across the entire region which has become notorious within UNFCCC circles.

A large part of the reason why Indonesians continue with these fires and the government is forced to defend them is the huge inertia that comes from "the way we've always done things." I suppose you could argue that the Indonesian fires are an indigenous rights issue.

The arson that the Hammond's are being imprisoned for was of plant litter in the wildlife reserve. The federal government is claiming that this traditional forest management technique increased the risk of forest fires. It would appear that the federal government is wrong although as with all geography related matters you do need the specific case study in front of you.

In the five years of negotiation prior to COP21 what was envisaged was a standardised format for INDC's. These standardised case studies would then be submitted through both an ex ante and ex post peer review process. This was intended as an extremely low cost mechanism to allow extremely intelligent people to share their best ideas in the hope of creating solutions that are greater then the sum of their parts.

In COP21's rush to get any old crap agreed this vital capacity building mechanism has been stripped out entirely in what I consider an act of mindless vandalism.

It's long been understood that the best way to resolve the competing interests between the needs to conserve forests and those who wish to use them for monetary gain is to find a way to monetise the forests. In short turn them into an economic resource that makes money without chopping them down.

Within UNFCCC negotiations there has long been two, often competing theories of how to do this.

The most well defined approach is the Reducing Emissions through Deforestation and Degradation Plus (REDD+). This is what it termed a non-market based mechanism and essentially involves nations such as the US giving nations such as Brazil large sums of money every year to establish and maintain Rainforest reserves.

The other approach is a free market based mechanism known as Carbon Trading Scheme (CTS). Essentially this involves viewing Rainforests as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) factories. If a business anywhere in the World wants to emit ghg's they must pay the owner of one these forest factories to scrub those ghg's out of the atmosphere to stop global warming. This is done through the purchasing of a carbon credit.

Obviously with such a complex problem as climate change the most successful solution is probably going to involve a bit of both approaches. However I must say that I tend to prefer the CTS approach. That's not because it's capitalist but because it better helps affirm the more dippy hippy truth that the natural environment has its own intrinsic value.

One of the big arguments at COP21 was whether REDD+ would be included in the agreement as a core method to protect Rainforests - the "Sheen Clause" as I dubbed it. The nation leading that charge to have REDD+ included was obviously Brazil which has more Rainforest then any other nation on earth. Leading the charge to have REDD+ excluded in favour of CTS was the US. Eventually Brazil won and the US lost with REDD+ being included and CTS being excluded.

What I've always found troubling about Brazil's position is that while they support REDD+ they are equally opposed to CTS which I think deprives nations of a supplementary solution.

It is very tempting to assume that Brazil is opposed to CTS because they simply don't understand how the free market principle works.

After all as part of the Cold War - specifically the School of the Americas - Brazil had a Fascist military dictatorship imposed on it by the US between 1964 and 1985. Although not Communist this type of military dictatorship is probably as far away as it's possible to get from a free society let alone a free market.

As is the case across many South American nations as a backlash to the School of the Americas voters in Brazil have tended to lean slightly to the left of centre to avoid the risk of returning to the bad old days of dictatorship. As a result "Free Market Capitalism" is still something of a dirty word.

This attitude is perhaps highlighted by the ongoing impeachment proceedings against current Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff.

What Rousseff is accused of doing is taking money from the oil company Petrobras and using it to prop up the national accounts to make it appear as though her governments economic policies are more effective then they actually are. This along with the fact that Petrobras is a Sate Owned Enterprise (SOE) suggests that Brazilians don't quite understand that government and private enterprise are two separate things.

Mind you the fact that Rousseff has got into trouble over this suggests that this belief isn't as widespread as it is in, say, Venezuela. As the largest nation in South America Brazil is of course expected to be mindful of the interests of its smaller neighbours in this type of negotiations.

The fact that the Brazilian President is currently involved in a corruption scandal of course makes it tempting to assume that Brazil is opposed to CTS because it's easier for them to rip-off the REDD+ donors. After all in 2010 Norway gave Indonesia USD1bn under REDD+. After banking the check Indonesia then pretty much shut down their REDD+ program and we assume spent the money on sweets.

However I think the reason why Brazil is opposed to CTS is that they understand free market economics a little too well. Under that economic model businesses are always trying to cut their costs and avoid paying bills they don't have to. In the US in particular there is still a lack of real recognition that carbon credits are a necessary cost of doing business like liability insurance or employee wages.

With the cost of carbon credits under CTS being fixed by simple supply and demand if there is no demand and a glut of supply these credits will be worthless. This will leave Brazil with no money or jobs but a huge unemployed population moving to cities to engage in drug abuse, violent crime and all the other problems associated with young men with too much time on their hands.

In the past it has been suggested that CTS wouldn't operate as a totally free market instead with a minimum carbon price. However by forcing through a non-binding agreement that he can pass through executive order US President Obama has removed any demand for carbon credits utterly destroying the CTS market.

It appears to me that the point the US is trying to make is that with it and Brazil getting bogged down in the detail of the REDD+ argument they've missed the bigger picture and the effects the draft agreement has on nations such as the DRC.

The English expression for this is; "Failing to see the wood (forest) for all the trees."

At around 18:00 on 5/1/16 (UK date) I'm only about two thirds of the way through. I may add more later but realistically I think we're looking at tomorrow.


Edited at around 15:20 on 6/1/16 (UK date) to tidy above and add;


On Tuesday (5/1/16) Brazil responded to this perceived slight by the US by announcing that the Joao Havelange stadium which is the be the centrepiece of the upcoming 2016 Rio de Janeiro Summer Olympics has had its electricity and water supplies cut off over unpaid bills. This of course makes the point that in a free market capitalist system nobody can expect to be provided with a service without paying for it. As such Brazil's concerns about CTS are far from anti-capitalist or irrational.

Therefore I should point out that the general tone I got from the US announcement was to not make accusations and assign blame. Instead it was to acknowledge that mistakes had been made on all sides and asking for help to rectify them. After all it's obvious to all that the only thing that matters in US politics at the moment is whether President Obama gets to build that extension to his Presidential museum. Whether he's done the work to deserve it doesn't come into the equation.

As such the story also includes plenty of elements highlighting how Obama has turned into an ego mad tyrant rather than a credible political leader.

Throughout COP21 this point was repeatedly made through the Black Lives Matter (BLM) campaign particularly the Freddie Gray case in Baltimore, Maryland and the Laquan McDonald case in Chicago, Illinois.

As I've mentioned numerous times before Obama's main aim of the Black Lives Matter campaign was to sweep the Democrats to control of both houses of Congress at the 2014 on a wave of anti-racist anger.

The secondary objective though was to portray all Republicans as racists in order to prevent them opposing Obama's immigration reforms. This is an attempt to gerrymander the political map of the US by planting Hispanic immigrants like seeds across various Republican states in the hope of harvesting a crop of votes at election time.

So no, it's not a mistake that I've assigned Black Lives Matter the same acronym as the Bureau of Land Management.

However the Black Lives Matter campaign was far from the first time that Obama has used the apparatus of state to silence his political opponents.

Almost immediately after taking control of the organisation in 2009 the Obama administration stopped the Inland Revenue Service (IRS) from issuing tax exempt status - Section 501(c)(4) - to groups that appeared to support a conservative or Republican agenda. This of course made it much more difficult and expensive for those groups to campaign for causes that the Obama administration disapproved of.

Various members of the IRS including Lois Lerner were later found to have lied under oath during Congressional hearings on the matter. However the Obama controlled Department of Justice (DoJ) is still refusing to take action against them.

What is highly controversial about the legal case at the heart of the Oregon protest is that the Hammonds were convicted of this questionable arson offence - was a value placed on the property destroyed? - in 2012 and sentenced to 3 months and 12 months in prison. They served those sentences and were released. It was more than 2 years later that Obama's DoJ decided to re-try them as terrorists and sentence them both to 5 years in prison.

It has long been a cornerstone of the US and many other legal systems that an individual cannot be held accountable twice for the same offence. This is known as the Double Jeopardy principle and is laid out in the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution. Two of the specific things it prohibits is retrial after conviction and multiple punishment.

By putting the Hammonds on trial for a second time and imposing a second punishment it is quite clear that the DoJ has acted wholly unlawfully in this case and has done so to punish people who hold a different political opinion.

The abuse of the legal system to silence opponents rather than as a mechanism to resolve the sort of disputes over competing claims to land use is the mark of a tyrant.

To further emphasise that point on Monday (4/1/16) police officer Micheal Slager had his bail reduced from USD1million to USD500,000 and was released from prison. Slager of course was in prison awaiting trial on a charge of murder over the death of Walter Scott on April 4th 2015 (4/4/15). This case seem to represent one the most grievous abuses of the justice system by the Obama administration.

In the US there is a common law principle known as; "The Fleeing Felon Rule." This holds that if a felon is fleeing the scene of a crime you are entitled to kill them in order to stop them. With it being clear that Mr Scott and Mr McDonald in Chicago were both felons and both fleeing the scene it is hard to understand why their deaths are being considered criminal acts.

This common law principle was tightened in Tennessee V Garner (1985) case so that a person must have an honest belief that the fleeing felon posed a serious risk to the safety of either the person chasing them or the wider public.

It is extremely difficult to prove that an honest belief does not exist and normally involves proving that there was a previous dispute between the actors before the killing had taken place and the fleeing felon rule was merely being used as an excuse to cover up a murder. There is no indication that Slager and Scott had any contact prior to the shooting. Therefore a properly directed jury has no option other then to conclude that Slager's belief was honest.

The rule was tightened again in Graham V Connor (1989) which changed the requirement for an honest belief to a reasonable belief. This means that the person not only has to have an honest belief that a risk was posed but was also acting as a reasonable person in making that assessment.

However if it is found that the individuals belief was honest but unreasonable they cannot be convicted of murder. Instead they can only be convicted of manslaughter by way on imperfect self-defence.

We have video of Scott snatching a weapon from Slager - making him both armed and dangerous - and then turning to flee. I think a properly directed jury would find it extremely difficult to conclude that it was unreasonable for Slager not to notice that the weapon had slipped from Scott's hand during the heat of a hot pursuit.

As such the murder charge against Slager is completely unsustainable under law and even the lesser charge of manslaughter doesn't seem to have a realistic chance of success.

It appears that prosecutors are aware of this so have decided to punish Slager before his trial and inevitable acquittal. They've done this by repeatedly denying him access to legal counsel in defiance of the 6th Amendment and by setting his bail so unreasonably high that he has been forced to spend nearly 9 months in prison without being convicted of any crime.

This has a direct bearing on the Dylann Roof case. If the people that Roof is alleged to have killed in the Mother Emanuel AME Church had engaged in activity to intimidate South Carolina to abuse the rule of law in the Slager case then Roof's actions in killing them was not criminal. Rather then being imprisoned - again without conviction or access to proper legal counsel - he should be commended for his service to society.

In an interesting development the Republican Party have nominated South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley to give the parties response to President Obama's final State of the Union (SOTU) address next Tuesday (12/1/16).

This is unusual because Ms Haley is a state Governor rather than a national Congresswoman. She appears to have been chosen so we can discuss whether she has gone along with Obama's tyranny because she believes in it or out of fear she'd be the next one subjected to it.

In response to the Oregon protest Black Lives Matter - whose favoured tactics include occupations, arson and the occasional shooting - have all lined up on Twitter to confess to the World that they are indeed terrorists and need to be punished.

It is a worry that Anonymous seem to think that trolling was invented with the Internet.