Today the COP15 Summit in Copenhagen has been suspended following a walk out by developing nations. The walk out, led by African countrys, is being reported as a protest by the developing nations against what they see as their exclusion from negotiations between developed nations. As with all of the most pointless arguments this dispute has a disagreement about money at it's core. Specifically which economic model is best to help combat climate change. Realistically there are only two possible models which I am calling the "Subsidy Approach" and the "Development Approach."
Subsidy Approach. Basically this involves the governments of developed nations raising money by taxing carbon emissions. This money would then be given to the governments of developing nations in order to preserve environmental assets such as forests and build things like flood defences in order to mitigate the effects of climate change. The main advantage of this approach is that it will be very quick to set up. In the highly unlikely event that COP15 ends in a binding agreement much of this plan could be in place in developing nations by this time next year. The main disadvantage of the approach is that it stinks of neo-colonialism. It would effectively force the developing nations to give large parts of their country to the developed nations and forever bind their futures to the fortunes of those developed nations many of whom are already starting to see their position in the world slip.
Development Approach. Basically this involves globally turning environmental assets into economic assets by creating an international market for carbon credits. This would allow developing nations to become richer without having to cut down vast swathes of rain forest in order to ranch cattle of farm soya beans. All nations would also be able to share green technology through a system where technology is exchanged at little or no cost. The main advantage of this approach is that it allows developing nations to retain and possibly increase their economic and political independence while at the same time reducing the amount of environmental damage being done to the planet. The main disadvantage of the approach is that it is very much dependent on this system of technology sharing. This will be difficult because with the world being what it is today nobody likes giving stuff away for free. To make things even more complicated two of the current world leaders in green technology are the USA and China. At the moment these two superpowers are engaged with each other in a number of very complicated diplomatic situations including the Palestine/Israel conflict, the war in Afghanistan and Iran's nuclear program. In every one of these situations both superpowers are trying to swing the balance of global power in their favour. This makes any discussion between the two over technology sharing so delicate they won't be helped in any way by me trampling all over them.
In terms of getting a binding agreement out of COP15 the subsidy approach creates a whole new set of problems. This is because it will be impossible for Barack Obama or any other developed world leader for that matter to sell the subsidy approach to the American people for the simple reasons that it's simply not a very good idea.
As for the walkout itself although the timing was a shock the protest itself was no surprise. A walkout by developing nations had been scheduled to take place on Wednesday December 16th at a time which most certainly would have collapsed the summit. Although supported by a variety of groups the Wednesday walk out was mainly promoted by a British dominated pan-European/Mediterranean* activist group called No Borders. No Borders are a pro-migration group who have been draw into the climate change debate because of the increased migration that climate change causes. Their most high profile action to date was the 2009 Migrants Camp in Calais, France. For those of you who don't know Calais is the main crossing point for illegal migrants/refugees from across continental Europe, Asia and Africa who want to cross into the United Kingdom. As such it has been a major source of tension between the British and French governments over the last 15 years. In 2002 the British government forced the French government to close the Sangatte refugee aid centre. This forced the illegal migrants/refugees to live in makeshift, squatted camps that became known as "The Jungle" The Jungle stood relatively undisturbed for the best part of seven years until in June 2009 the No Borders group set up a solidarity/protest camp to help the residents of the Jungle. Within a month the French police were forced to clear both the Jungle and the No Borders camp and continue to make life very difficult for illegal migrants/refugees in the area.
With tens of thousands of activists currently on the ground in Copenhagen and the Danish police showing clear signs of co-operation with their British counterparts** it would be unwise of me to accuse the No Borders group of being a MI6 front organisation especially as I have no evidence to support this. However I will warn that in the past protests by No Borders have done more harm then good to the people they claim to be trying to help.
*The group of European nations that border the Mediterranean sea e.g Spain, France, Italy, Greece etc.
**They're clearly trying their hand at "kettling" but because they're new at it they're making lots of mistakes.
Monday, 14 December 2009
Sunday, 13 December 2009
The God Trial.
This is something that I've been meaning to post about for a while now. I have hesitated though because it's one of those occasions where it's quite difficult to talk you through the British Establishment's thought process without it sounding as if I've gone completely insane.
Back in November 2009 Britain did that thing that people across the world like to laugh at Americans for doing. They put God on trial. What's more you can tell from the subtle way they did it that they were being deadly serious.
The case revolved around a 42 year old, Oxford man called Tim Nicholson. Despite being the perfect image of a clean cut establishment figure Mr Nicholson also describes himself as a passionate environmentalist and proponent of the need to take action on Climate Change. This passion led him to personally finance part of the 2009 film about the dangers of climate change, "The Age of Stupid." Incidentally the films director, Franny Armstrong, was recently splashed across the British media hailing London Mayor, Boris Johnson as a hero after he rescued her from an attempted street mugging in a story that many people have described as being far too good to be true.
Aside from financing controversial films on the subject Mr Nicholson also brought his environmental zeal to his work at Grainger PLC, the UK's largest private landlord. After repeatedly refusing to heed instructions from the directors of the company to stop exploring the total carbon footprint of Grainger's operations Mr Nicholson was dismissed from the company. This prompted him to sue Grainger for unfair dismissal under the 2003 Religion and Beliefs Regulations laid out in Employment Equality Act. Mr Nicholson's argument was that his opinion that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide cause global warming was a deeply held philosophical belief akin to a tenent of religion. Therefore his employer could no more penalise him for it then they could ask a Sikh employee to remove his turban or force a Catholic doctor to perform an abortion. Amazingly the court agreed with Mr Nicholson and on November 4th awarded him damages for unfair dismissal setting the legal precedent that global warming is in fact a religious belief.
Apart from making the debate over global warming look ridiculous by framing it as an abstract debate over philosophy rather then a simple scientific argument this judgement also served another crucial purpose for the British Establishment. You see at it's core Britain is a Monarchy. Therefore according to it's Constitution it must be run by a Monarch who was appointed by God to rule in accordance with signs from God. The problem is that over the last year or so the things that you or I would normally consider to be signs from God such as floods, forest fires, plagues and people's first born sons suddenly being struck down dead seem to be directly contradicting the way the Queen is running the country creating something of a constitutional crisis. The Nicholson Judgement allowed the Queen to re-assure her Loyalists that because environmentalism is a separate religion it has a separate god. Therefore all the signs that contradicted the Queen were in fact sent by a different god from the one they pray to in the Church of England.
Although I'm not a religious scholar I think this means that Britain has just disproved the entire Bible. However the message is quite clear; Britain considers taking action to halt global warming to be an alternative religion that threatens the Queens Divine Right to rule. Therefore it must be opposed regardless of cost or consequence.
Nice to know that their objections are firmly based in science then.
Back in November 2009 Britain did that thing that people across the world like to laugh at Americans for doing. They put God on trial. What's more you can tell from the subtle way they did it that they were being deadly serious.
The case revolved around a 42 year old, Oxford man called Tim Nicholson. Despite being the perfect image of a clean cut establishment figure Mr Nicholson also describes himself as a passionate environmentalist and proponent of the need to take action on Climate Change. This passion led him to personally finance part of the 2009 film about the dangers of climate change, "The Age of Stupid." Incidentally the films director, Franny Armstrong, was recently splashed across the British media hailing London Mayor, Boris Johnson as a hero after he rescued her from an attempted street mugging in a story that many people have described as being far too good to be true.
Aside from financing controversial films on the subject Mr Nicholson also brought his environmental zeal to his work at Grainger PLC, the UK's largest private landlord. After repeatedly refusing to heed instructions from the directors of the company to stop exploring the total carbon footprint of Grainger's operations Mr Nicholson was dismissed from the company. This prompted him to sue Grainger for unfair dismissal under the 2003 Religion and Beliefs Regulations laid out in Employment Equality Act. Mr Nicholson's argument was that his opinion that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide cause global warming was a deeply held philosophical belief akin to a tenent of religion. Therefore his employer could no more penalise him for it then they could ask a Sikh employee to remove his turban or force a Catholic doctor to perform an abortion. Amazingly the court agreed with Mr Nicholson and on November 4th awarded him damages for unfair dismissal setting the legal precedent that global warming is in fact a religious belief.
Apart from making the debate over global warming look ridiculous by framing it as an abstract debate over philosophy rather then a simple scientific argument this judgement also served another crucial purpose for the British Establishment. You see at it's core Britain is a Monarchy. Therefore according to it's Constitution it must be run by a Monarch who was appointed by God to rule in accordance with signs from God. The problem is that over the last year or so the things that you or I would normally consider to be signs from God such as floods, forest fires, plagues and people's first born sons suddenly being struck down dead seem to be directly contradicting the way the Queen is running the country creating something of a constitutional crisis. The Nicholson Judgement allowed the Queen to re-assure her Loyalists that because environmentalism is a separate religion it has a separate god. Therefore all the signs that contradicted the Queen were in fact sent by a different god from the one they pray to in the Church of England.
Although I'm not a religious scholar I think this means that Britain has just disproved the entire Bible. However the message is quite clear; Britain considers taking action to halt global warming to be an alternative religion that threatens the Queens Divine Right to rule. Therefore it must be opposed regardless of cost or consequence.
Nice to know that their objections are firmly based in science then.
Friday, 11 December 2009
It Is Done, Part 2.
I'm sitting here looking at a fax report stating that the Office of Public Guardians (OPG) received my concerns at 14:52 this afternoon. Obviously I will be backing this up with a copy in the post but what with Royal Mail being what it is these days when that might arrive is a mystery.
Although I won't be posting a copy of this document here it's contains very little that hasn't already been posted. The main thrust of the argument is that someone who, two hours previously, had to be detained by the police for her own safety because she was hallucinating that she was being chased by the tiny mole-like Freemasons who live amongst the trees in the local park* is clearly not in a fit mental state to sign an LPA.
As if to prove that this is a time sensitive matter and that timescale is not of my choosing both my grandmother and father today received letters informing them that the LPA's have been certified. Of course this make very little difference because if the certification was provided fraudulently then it invalidates the registration. It does mean that the OPG does have a little bit more work to do but if they wanted to avoid that they'd shouldn't have been so stroppy when I phoned them up last Friday.
Now where's that first draft of the COP15 agreement hiding?
*I kid you not. I suppose it means that if she's gone mad at least she's doing it with style.
Although I won't be posting a copy of this document here it's contains very little that hasn't already been posted. The main thrust of the argument is that someone who, two hours previously, had to be detained by the police for her own safety because she was hallucinating that she was being chased by the tiny mole-like Freemasons who live amongst the trees in the local park* is clearly not in a fit mental state to sign an LPA.
As if to prove that this is a time sensitive matter and that timescale is not of my choosing both my grandmother and father today received letters informing them that the LPA's have been certified. Of course this make very little difference because if the certification was provided fraudulently then it invalidates the registration. It does mean that the OPG does have a little bit more work to do but if they wanted to avoid that they'd shouldn't have been so stroppy when I phoned them up last Friday.
Now where's that first draft of the COP15 agreement hiding?
*I kid you not. I suppose it means that if she's gone mad at least she's doing it with style.
Thursday, 10 December 2009
And I'm Back.
I won't be surfing the Internet straight away because first I have to draft up this letter to the Office of Public Guardians (OPG) to express my concerns over these Lasting Power of Attorney. Unfortunately this is one of those matters where discretion is necessary so I won't be posting it up here. However as my printer and USB ports are Fubar I will have to transfer it into an online account in order to send so it shouldn't be too difficult to get hold of a copy. This has the added advantage that the OPG will over 12 hours in order to prepare for it's delivery by fax so should have no excuse not to have a suitable action plan in place upon its arrival.
For Your Information
At 02:35 this morning the police delivered my grandmother back to the house after another period of wandering. This prompted a visit form a psychologist from the local community mental health team based at the Heavers Resource centre. From what I can gather the main purpose of this visit was to argue with my father as to why my grandmother is not currently resident at the Heavers Resource Centre undergoing a period of respite care. The answer to that is quite simply because the Heavers Resource centre put pressure on my father to turn down the offer of respite care in order to save money. The psychologist will return on Tuesday December 15th to try and no doubt fail to resolve the situation.
Although it is an inconvenient time to do so I will now file with the Office of Public Guardians in order to give them the option to mount a criminal investigation into the conduct of my father, the local community mental health team and a certain solicitor. Having spoken to the OPG I doubt this will be successful but let it never be said that they've haven't been given the option to change their ways.
The most disappointing part of the story is that the local Brit Loyalists are still walking around absolutely convinced that for them the future will be different.
Although it is an inconvenient time to do so I will now file with the Office of Public Guardians in order to give them the option to mount a criminal investigation into the conduct of my father, the local community mental health team and a certain solicitor. Having spoken to the OPG I doubt this will be successful but let it never be said that they've haven't been given the option to change their ways.
The most disappointing part of the story is that the local Brit Loyalists are still walking around absolutely convinced that for them the future will be different.
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Corrections
Reading back over my post on the Pre-Budget Report there were a few mistakes on account of it being a bit of a rush job.
The role of the Pre-Budget Report wasn't expanded by Gordon Brown in order to draw attention to himself during his years a Chancellor. It was invented in 1997 by Gordon Brown in order to draw attention to himself during his years as Chancellor.
The 0.5% increase in National Insurance comes in April 2011 not April 2010. The fact that it comes in 16 months after the VAT increase and the reinstatement of Stamp Duty which is basically sales tax for houses slightly increases the risk of inflation but it's still a very small risk.
I said the £160,000 per year cap on Civil Service Salaries was 120% of an MP's salary. This should have read 160% more then an MP's salary.
Also I don't begrudge the £5million made available to help war veterans set up businesses even if most of it will be hoovered up by the officer class in order to set up private security firms. I only drew attention to it because it was a bit sneaky and it indicates the intentions of the people who dictated to the Chancellor what would be included in the PBR.
The role of the Pre-Budget Report wasn't expanded by Gordon Brown in order to draw attention to himself during his years a Chancellor. It was invented in 1997 by Gordon Brown in order to draw attention to himself during his years as Chancellor.
The 0.5% increase in National Insurance comes in April 2011 not April 2010. The fact that it comes in 16 months after the VAT increase and the reinstatement of Stamp Duty which is basically sales tax for houses slightly increases the risk of inflation but it's still a very small risk.
I said the £160,000 per year cap on Civil Service Salaries was 120% of an MP's salary. This should have read 160% more then an MP's salary.
Also I don't begrudge the £5million made available to help war veterans set up businesses even if most of it will be hoovered up by the officer class in order to set up private security firms. I only drew attention to it because it was a bit sneaky and it indicates the intentions of the people who dictated to the Chancellor what would be included in the PBR.
The Pre- Budget Report.
Today the UK's Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistar Darling delivered his annual Pre-Budget Report (PBR). Traditionally this is delivered around six months after the Budget itself and is designed to report on how that budget is progressing while allowing the Chancellor to make small changes to keep that budget on track. In recent years though, for mainly political reasons, the scope of the PBR has grown massively turning it into something of a mini-budget.
With only really four working months left until the next General Election this PBR was never going to be much more then an opportunity for electioneering. However with the UK now the only G20 nation that is still in recession and national debt running at an eye watering 80% of GDP there was an urgent need to raise tax revenues and cut spending. The main points of these plans are;
An End to Tax Holidays On January 1st 2010 the VAT rate that was cut to 15% to boost consumer spending will rise by 2.5% returning it to 17.5%. On the same date the Stamp Duty holiday that was brought in to boost the housing market will come to an end. In April 2010 National Insurance (payroll tax) will rise by 0.5%. As these measures were brought in to mitigate the effects of the recession bringing them to an end could threaten the recovery and raise the spectre of inflation. However with the nations finances in such a sorry state this small risk looks like one that the government will just have to take.
Tax On Bankers Bonuses. With immediate effect the UK is going to impose a one off 50% tax on banker's bonuses over £25,000 which is to be paid by the banks. As this is only expected to raise £1bn compared to government borrowing of £178bn it is a largely political move to convince voters that the Labour party is prepare to bash those evil bankers. Besides for the duration of the tax period I suspect most bankers will only be getting a bonus of £24,999.
Public Sector Pay Cap. The current freeze on public sector pay increases will continue until 2011. Between 2011 and 2013 any pay increases will be capped at 1% regardless of inflation. Civil Service pay will also be capped meaning that until further notice no civil servant can be employed at more then £160,000 per year (120% of an MP's salary).
Efficiency Savings. The government intends to cut £17bn of spending through mysterious efficency savings. This is a convenient way for the the government to cut public spending without it looking like they're cutting public spending because efficiency savings sound benign and you have to dig quite deep into the figures to find out what they mean. For example one of the efficiency savings is a large cut to the Legal Aid budget meaning that if you cannot afford an attorney one will no longer be provided for you. The main part of the savings though will come from so-called Arm Length Authorities (ALA's) and Quasi-Autonomous Non-Government Organisations (Quango's). Although what exactly ALA's do has long been a mystery of British politics they include regeneration agencies such as the Thames Gateway Development Corporation, various Regional Development Agencies along with a host of local projects step up to do everything and anything like increasing volunteering to improving community cohesion. To give you a general idea just go to a certain new media companies website and read through their client list. No wonder the Croydon Voluntary Action network are in no mood to celebrate.
Cash for War Veterans. Apart from an extra £16.5bn on top of the defence budget to fight the war in Afghanistan the PBR also featured, buried in the supporting business and growth section, £5million to allow war veterans to set up in business when they leave the armed services. Although £5million is a tiny sum in budgetary terms it's actually quite a large amount of extra support to lavish on a comparatively small group of people. This Mugabe-esque announcement is significant though because it shows that while Alistar Darling was given some freedom in campaigning for the Labour party he wasn't given much freedom at all in the content of the PBR.
All things considered this PBR indicates that the UK is beginning to accept the severity of its financial problems. Although optimistic the Chancellor's spending, borrowing and economic forecasts were all within the realms of reality. Obviously that does not include his prediction that government borrowing will fall to £96bn by 2013 because I do not see how that will be possible but by 2013 I doubt it will be Alistar Darlings choice to make.
With only really four working months left until the next General Election this PBR was never going to be much more then an opportunity for electioneering. However with the UK now the only G20 nation that is still in recession and national debt running at an eye watering 80% of GDP there was an urgent need to raise tax revenues and cut spending. The main points of these plans are;
An End to Tax Holidays On January 1st 2010 the VAT rate that was cut to 15% to boost consumer spending will rise by 2.5% returning it to 17.5%. On the same date the Stamp Duty holiday that was brought in to boost the housing market will come to an end. In April 2010 National Insurance (payroll tax) will rise by 0.5%. As these measures were brought in to mitigate the effects of the recession bringing them to an end could threaten the recovery and raise the spectre of inflation. However with the nations finances in such a sorry state this small risk looks like one that the government will just have to take.
Tax On Bankers Bonuses. With immediate effect the UK is going to impose a one off 50% tax on banker's bonuses over £25,000 which is to be paid by the banks. As this is only expected to raise £1bn compared to government borrowing of £178bn it is a largely political move to convince voters that the Labour party is prepare to bash those evil bankers. Besides for the duration of the tax period I suspect most bankers will only be getting a bonus of £24,999.
Public Sector Pay Cap. The current freeze on public sector pay increases will continue until 2011. Between 2011 and 2013 any pay increases will be capped at 1% regardless of inflation. Civil Service pay will also be capped meaning that until further notice no civil servant can be employed at more then £160,000 per year (120% of an MP's salary).
Efficiency Savings. The government intends to cut £17bn of spending through mysterious efficency savings. This is a convenient way for the the government to cut public spending without it looking like they're cutting public spending because efficiency savings sound benign and you have to dig quite deep into the figures to find out what they mean. For example one of the efficiency savings is a large cut to the Legal Aid budget meaning that if you cannot afford an attorney one will no longer be provided for you. The main part of the savings though will come from so-called Arm Length Authorities (ALA's) and Quasi-Autonomous Non-Government Organisations (Quango's). Although what exactly ALA's do has long been a mystery of British politics they include regeneration agencies such as the Thames Gateway Development Corporation, various Regional Development Agencies along with a host of local projects step up to do everything and anything like increasing volunteering to improving community cohesion. To give you a general idea just go to a certain new media companies website and read through their client list. No wonder the Croydon Voluntary Action network are in no mood to celebrate.
Cash for War Veterans. Apart from an extra £16.5bn on top of the defence budget to fight the war in Afghanistan the PBR also featured, buried in the supporting business and growth section, £5million to allow war veterans to set up in business when they leave the armed services. Although £5million is a tiny sum in budgetary terms it's actually quite a large amount of extra support to lavish on a comparatively small group of people. This Mugabe-esque announcement is significant though because it shows that while Alistar Darling was given some freedom in campaigning for the Labour party he wasn't given much freedom at all in the content of the PBR.
All things considered this PBR indicates that the UK is beginning to accept the severity of its financial problems. Although optimistic the Chancellor's spending, borrowing and economic forecasts were all within the realms of reality. Obviously that does not include his prediction that government borrowing will fall to £96bn by 2013 because I do not see how that will be possible but by 2013 I doubt it will be Alistar Darlings choice to make.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)