Globalists set out agenda to re-brand global warming as overpopulation in bid to impose carbon taxes A UN blueprint for putting the organization back at the forefront of global governance alarmingly reveals the agenda to re-brand global warming as “overpopulation” as a means of dismantling the middle classes while using “global redistribution of wealth” and increased immigration to reinvigorate the pursuit of a one world government. United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon and 60 of his top lieutenants met this past Labor Day at a secluded Austrian Alpine retreat in a bid to get the global warming agenda back on track after the dismal failure of Copenhagen. The planning paper (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/austria_retreat_papers.pdf) that was handed out to delegates at the conference wassubsequently leaked to Fox News, and outlines a strategy of exalting “global redistribution of wealth” as the basis of the climate change agenda.http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/09/08/years-setbacks-looks-world-leader/ As was uncovered during the Copenhagen summit, the program of “global redistribution of wealth” largely centers around looting the wealth of the middle classes in richer countries through carbon taxes and then using that money to bankroll the construction of world government. As the leaked “Danish text” revealed, the money generated from consumption taxes will go directly to the World Bank, not to developing countries.http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text Under the terms of this proposal, poorer countries will not simply be handed the money pillaged from richer nations, instead they will be forced to accept “green loans” in the name of combating climate change, a policy that would land the already financially devastated third world with even more debt, payable to globalist institutions such as the IMF. http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-real-reason-behind-the-copenhagen-walk-out.html The new position paper couches the UN’s agenda behind convoluted semantics and happy-clappy globalist rhetoric, but the mission to use the fraudulent science of climate change, which the UN’s own IPCC has been caught manipulating time and time again, to completely eviscerate the middle class, is laid bare. The aim is to “limit and redirect the aspirations for a better life of rising middle classes around the world,” in other words to reduce the standard of living for the middle classes in Western Europe and America. As the opening session paper puts it: “The real challenge comes from the exponential growth of the global consumerist society driven by ever higher aspirations of the upper and middle layers in rich countries as well as the expanding demand of emerging middle-class in developing countries. Our true ambition should be therefore creating incentives for the profound transformation of attitudes and consumption styles.” This is globalist talk for dismantling the middle classes by looting them with carbon taxes and consumption levies in the name of alleviating poverty in poorer areas of the world and stopping climate change. However, as we have already explained, this is merely a ruse. The money will not be “redistributed” to the poor, it will be swallowed up by the same globalist institutions running the scam. The leaked document also discusses how the UN can exploit mass immigration to push for more global governance regulatory control, in focusing on, “How to capitalize on the global tide of migrants from poor nations to rich ones, to encompass a new “international migration governance framework.” The paper makes it clear that the UN is about to adopt a new public relations ploy in pushing the phony and discredited global warming mantra, by re-branding it as the threat of overpopulation. The world’s population is set to hit 9 billion by 2050, and the strategy outlines the need to make that figure the key emphasis in an effort to browbeat people into accepting that an overcrowded planet causes environmental devastation. “The U.N. leaders intend to keep trying to change that, especially when it comes to the climate agenda. “The next 40 years will prove pivotal,” one paper argues, while laying out the basis of a renewed U.N. climate campaign, the “50-50-50 Challenge,” states the Fox News report, adding that the goal for the UN is to reduce CO2 emissions by 50 per cent before 2050. However, the UN’s own figures clearly indicate that population is set to stabilize in 2020 and then drop dramatically after 2050 and indeed that underpopulation is going to be the real long term issue. As the Economist reported, (http://www.econ.hit-u.ac.jp/~makoto/education/economist_fertility_20091031.pdf) “Fertility is falling and families are shrinking in places— such as Brazil, Indonesia, and even parts of India—that people think of as teeming with children. As our briefing shows, the fertility rate of half the world is now 2.1 or less—the magic number that is consistent with a stable population and is usually called “the replacement rate of fertility”. Sometime between 2020 and 2050 the world’s fertility rate will fall below the global replacement rate.” To achieve their goal, the UN will have to oversee “nothing less than a fundamental transformation of the global economy,” states the report. In other words, economic growth will wither and be replaced by a “green economy” and a “post-industrial revolution.” Spain’s fundamental transformation of its economy over to a “green economy” has devastated the country, with unemployment hitting a crippling 20 per cent.http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/spains-green-policies-an-economic-disaster/?singlepage=true The blueprint makes it clear that the UN intends to reassert its role as the instigator and leader of a one world government, and will set about to achieve this by bypassing nation states and thwarting national sovereignty. “The U.N. should be able to take the lead in setting the global agenda, engage effectively with other multinational and regional organizations as well as civil society and non-state stakeholders, and transform itself into a tool to help implement the globally agreed objectives,” states the paper. “Is the global governance structure, still dominated by national sovereignty, capable of responding with the coherence and speed needed?” it asks. “Or do we need to push the ‘reset’ button and rethink global governance to meet the 50-50-50 Challenge?” The planning document also makes it clear that the UN intends to drastically expand its role as the world’s policeman, by “building a “standing justice and corrections element” to go with the semi-permanent police force — a permanent strike force to establish courts and prisons in nations where peacekeepers are stationed.” The paper also outlines an intention to push new economic regulatory powers to enable the organization to introduce global financial regulation. ********************* Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show. Published September 08, 2010 | FoxNews.com AP United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, left, with Rwandan President Paul Kagame , right, in Kigali, Rwanda, Wednesday, Sept 8, 2010. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon flew to Rwanda Tuesday to discuss the country's threat to withdraw its U.N. peacekeepers from Sudan if the United Nations publishes a report accusing Rwanda's army of possible genocide in the 1990's. The joint U.N.-African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur is commanded by a Rwandan, Lt. Gen. Patrick Nyamvumba, and the country has over 3,200 troops and 86 police in the nearly 22,000-strong force. U.N. officials and diplomats have said a Rwandan pullout from Darfur would be a major blow at a time of increasing violence and fresh efforts to end the seven-year conflict. After a year of humiliating setbacks, United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon and about 60 of his top lieutenants — the top brass of the entire U.N. system — spent their Labor Day weekend at a remote Austrian Alpine retreat, discussing ways to put their sprawling organization in charge of the world’s agenda. Details concerning the two-day, closed-door sessions in the comfortable village of Alpbach were closely guarded. Nonetheless, position papers for the meeting obtained by Fox News indicate that the topics included: -- how to restore “climate change” as a top global priority after the fiasco of last year’s Copenhagen summit; -- how to continue to try to make global redistribution of wealth the real basis of that climate agenda, and widen the discussion further to encompass the idea of “global public goods”; -- how to keep growing U.N. peacekeeping efforts into missions involved in the police, courts, legal systems and other aspects of strife-torn countries; -- how to capitalize on the global tide of migrants from poor nations to rich ones, to encompass a new “international migration governance framework”; -- how to make “clever” use of new technologies to deepen direct ties with what the U.N. calls “civil society,” meaning novel ways to bypass its member nation states and deal directly with constituencies that support U.N. agendas. As one underlying theme of the sessions, the top U.N. bosses seemed to be grappling often with how to cope with the pesky issue of national sovereignty, which — according to the position papers, anyway — continued to thwart many of their most ambitious schemes, especially when it comes to many different kinds of “global governance.” Not coincidentally, the conclave of bureaucrats also saw in “global governance” a greater role for themselves. As a position paper intended for their first group session put it, in the customary glutinous prose of the organization’s internal documents: “the U.N. should be able to take the lead in setting the global agenda, engage effectively with other multinational and regional organizations as well as civil society and non-state stakeholders, and transform itself into a tool to help implement the globally agreed objectives.” And for that to happen, the paper continues, “it will be necessary to deeply reflect on the substance of sovereignty, and accept that changes in our perceptions are a good indication of the direction we are going.” Hammering away at perceptions that nation-states cannot adequately meet global challenges, but the U.N. can, is a major theme of the position papers, which were assembled by a variety of U.N. think tanks, task forces and institutions, including the United Nations Development Program, and the U.N.’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs. CLICK HERE FOR THE POSITION PAPERS http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/austria_retreat_papers.pdf National sovereignty — meaning the refusal of major powers like India, China and the United States to go along with sweeping global agendas — was specifically indicted for the failure of the much ballyhooed Copenhagen summit on climate change. “National sovereignty remains supreme,” as one position paper noted. Nonetheless, the U.N. leaders intend to keep trying to change that, especially when it comes to the climate agenda. “The next 40 years will prove pivotal,” one paper argues, while laying out the basis of a renewed U.N. climate campaign, the “50-50-50 Challenge.” That refers to a projection that by 2050, the world’s population will reach an estimated 9 billion (50 percent higher than today), at the same time that the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — producer of the scandal-tainted 2007 Global Assessment of global warming — is calling for a 50 percent reduction in world green house gas emissions. According to the paper prepared by Secretary General Ban’s own climate change team, however, the newly rebranded challenge still depends on the same economic remedy proposed for Copenhagen: a drastic redistribution of global wealth, “nothing less than a fundamental transformation of the global economy.” Rolling just about every U.N. mantra into one, the paper declares that “nothing is more crucial to preventing run-away climate change than lifting billions out of poverty, protecting our planet and fostering long-term peace and prosperity for all.” And to do that, the paper suggests, equally dramatic shifts in political power may be needed. “Is the global governance structure, still dominated by national sovereignty, capable of responding with the coherence and speed needed?” it asks. “Or do we need to push the ‘reset’ button and rethink global governance to meet the 50-50-50 Challenge?” Yet even as the U.N. bosses talk of delivering billions from poverty, their main aim, the papers argue should be much, much larger: to limit and redirect the aspirations for a better life of rising middle classes around the world. As the opening session paper puts it: “The real challenge comes from the exponential growth of the global consumerist society driven by ever higher aspirations of the upper and middle layers in rich countries as well as the expanding demand of emerging middle-class in developing countries. Our true ambition should be therefore creating incentives for the profound transformation of attitudes and consumption styles.” The answer to that “real challenge,” as well as many others addressed in the position papers, is that the U.N. and its proliferating array of funds, programs, institutes, and initiatives, should push themselves forward as the great synthesizer of solutions to global problems: “connecting the dots,” as the climate change paper puts it, across a “range of issues,” including "climate, water, food, energy, and health.” “At the practical level, through the U.N. system we have all kinds of expertise and capacities, even if not adequate resources, to actually do something,” the paper notes. How to get more of those resources is another major theme of many of the papers. As one of the documents focusing on food security notes, “development assistance funding is less readily available and the donors are ever more focused on demonstrable results.” One suggestion: tap global philanthropies, as well as link together “a broad range of public sector, business and civil society partners.” The U.N. bosses also need to make sure that the institution sits at top tables where the world’s financial decisions are made. It is “urgent to secure U.N. participation” at regular meetings of the G-20 finance ministers and their deputies,” according to one of the papers, a group that the U.N. Secretariat, based in New York City and Geneva, does not interact with very much. That observation ties into another Alpbach theme: pushing global financial regulation even further. “The much paraded reform of financial governance institutions has not gone far enough,” the position paper for the U.N. leadership’s keynote session asserts, and the voting power of emerging players and developing world, in general, which demand a greater say on these matters, remains inadequate.” The answer? “An enhanced political will is clearly needed to avoid return to status quo, to push forward regulatory mechanisms, and improve financial governance.” Along with planting a new flag in the field of international financial regulation, the U.N. chiefs also contemplated the further growth of the U.N. as the world’s policeman. As another paper notes, U.N. peacekeeping operations “will soon have almost 17,000 United Nations police officers serving on four continents” — little more than two years after establishing what one papers calls the institutions “Standing Police Capacity.” The peacekeepers are now also building a “standing justice and corrections element” to go with the semi-permanent police force — a permanent strike force to establish courts and prisons in nations where peacekeepers are stationed. In essence, as another paper observes, the U.N. peacekeeping effort is transforming into a new kind of supervisory organism in which not only conflicts but also national institutions and cultures must be regulated for longer and longer periods of time. “Even where a semblance of stability is achieved,” the paper by Ban’s peace-building support office argues, the achievement of peace may involve more than “adopting a constitution or holding elections.” It adds that “more fundamental change may be needed in a country’s institutions and political culture as well as in public perceptions and attitudes.” (At the same time, as another paper makes clear, “some” U.N. peacekeepers come from countries “where the armed forces and police are seriously implicated in human rights violations,” including sexual crimes. While such actions “cannot be tolerated,” the paper makes clear the U.N. has no clear answers on how to police its own behavior.) The answer to many if not most of the problems outlined in the U.N. papers is, as the opening session paper puts it: “multilateralism is instrumental to the success of our response to global challenges.” But not any old multilateralism. The other major theme of the position papers is that the world organization, a haphazard array of at least 37 major funds, programs, and institutions, and a proliferating number of regulatory and other authorities, should be knitting itself into a much more close-knit global system, with greater control over its own finances, along with a stronger role in setting the international agenda. How successful Ban and his chieftains will be at pushing that agenda may soon be seen, as the secretary general hosts the lead-off event of the fall diplomatic season, a two-day summit starting September 20 on the so-called Millennium Development Goals. That refers to the U.N.-sponsored compact among nations to halve the number of the world’s poorest people, achieve global primary schooling, reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS and enhance the standing of women, among other goals, by 2015. The position papers from Ban’s conclave make clear that Ban and his team are deeply concerned that momentum toward the MDGs, as they are known, is faltering, although one paper notes that “with the right policies, adequate investment and reliable international support, the MDGs remain achievable.” In that sense, the secretive session in Alpbach was not only a planning session, but also the equivalent of a half-time locker room huddle. What is at stake, the papers make clear, is not only the alleged betterment of the world, but the U.N.’s soaring ambitions for itself — no matter what roadblocks national sovereignty may throw in its way. George Russell is executive editor of Fox News http://www.infowars.com/globalists-plan-to-dismantle-middle-class-with-un-tax/ Globalists representing 60 nations will meet at the UN this coming week to push a tax on world financial transactions in the name of solving poverty and climate change, formally launching a massive program to bankrupt the middle class and enrich the coffers of global government. “Spearheaded by European Union countries, the so-called “innovative financing” proposal envisages a tax of 0.005 percent (five cents per $1,000), which experts estimate could produce more than $30 billion a year worldwide for priority causes,” reports CNS News. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75424 As Ira Stoll, editor of FutureCapitalism.com, points out, new taxes always start off small so as to not be resisted by the people forced to pay them, and are then always gradually increased. “When people suggest taxes, they always start out ‘small,” said Stoll. “But once the door is opened to the idea of ‘global taxes,’ you can bet they won’t end small. Never mind all the issues about whether development aid actually helps poor countries or just winds up empowering corrupt local dictators and their cronies.” The call for a global transaction tax arrives in the aftermath of a leaked UN blueprint which outlined how elitists plan to re-brand global warming in an effort to dismantle the middle class by instituting a “global redistribution of wealth” via carbon taxes. The aim is to “limit and redirect the aspirations for a better life of rising middle classes around the world,” in other words to reduce the standard of living for the middle classes in Western Europe and America. However, as was uncovered during the Copenhagen summit, the program of “global redistribution of wealth” and transaction taxes largely centers around looting the wealth of the middle classes in richer countries and then using that money to bankroll the construction of world government. As the leaked “Danish text” revealed, the money generated from consumption taxes will go directly to the World Bank, not to developing countries to lower carbon emissions or alleviate poverty. Under the terms of this proposal, poorer countries will not simply be handed the money pillaged from richer nations, instead they will be forced to accept “green loans” in the name of combating climate change, a policy that would land the already financially devastated third world with even more debt, payable to globalist institutions such as the IMF. Even if you accept that global institutions who have proven to be completely corrupt time and time again should be empowered to steal from the rich and give to the poor, these proposals don’t even do that. This is all about bankrolling the expansion of world government and creating a giant slush fund that will be used to coerce smaller countries into allowing themselves to be ruled and regulated by a global bureaucracy funded by increasingly destitute taxpayers in the west. We warned that globalists were embarking on a global financial transaction tax back in December when Lord Monckton obtained the draft proposals for the Copenhagen summit. As Monckton revealed at the time, the end game is to, “Tax the American economy to the extent of 2 percent GDP, to impose a further tax of 2 percent on every financial transaction….and to close down effectively the economies of the west, transfer your jobs to third world countries.” The tax, which was vehemently supported by President Obama in Copenhagen, will cost American families already laboring under the greatest financial collapse for generations at least $3,000 a year just for starters. http://www.prisonplanet.com/final-copenhagen-text-includes-global-transaction-tax.html There can no longer be any denial that a world government is preparing to plunder the west by enforcing a myriad of different global consumption taxes, from financial levies to a carbon tax which will do absolutely nothing to address real environmental issues and will be used solely to expand the power of the World Bank, the IMF and the United Nations. Allied to the global tax assault is the newly published IMF strategy document that calls for the implementation of a global currency, called the “bancor”, which will be pushed through by means of draconian regulatory measures that eviscerate sovereignty rights of nation states and hand complete economic control of the global economy over to a tiny and despotic ruling elite. The “bancor” will hand the IMF the power to manipulate exchange rates and determine the eventual collapse of the dollar. http://www.infowars.com/new-imf-strategy-document-charts-launch-of-bancor-global-currency/ http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2010/041310.pdf Massive resistance must be focused around rejecting the institution of global taxes paid to the United Nations and the formation of a global currency otherwise the last tattered shreds of American sovereignty will be flushed down the toilet for good. Alex Jones contributed to this article. — Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75424 Flags of member nations flying at United Nations headquarters in New York City. (U.N. Photo by Araujo Pinto) (CNSNews.com) – A group of 60 nations will meet next week at the United Nations to push for a tax on foreign currency transactions as a way to generate revenue to meet global poverty-reduction goals, including “climate change” mitigation. Spearheaded by European Union countries, the so-called “innovative financing” proposal envisages a tax of 0.005 percent (five cents per $1,000), which experts estimate could produce more than $30 billion a year worldwide for priority causes. World leaders are scheduled to hold a Sept. 21-23 summit at U.N. headquarters to review progress on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), eight specific targets to cut poverty and disease by 2015, in line with a pledge taken by U.N. member states in 2000. The Leading Group on Innovative Financing for Development, comprising 60 countries – the United States is not a member – as well as 15 international institutions and several dozen non-governmental organizations (NGOs), sees the event as a crucial opportunity to promote the tax proposal, and it will meet on the summit sidelines next Tuesday. “With the [MDG] deadline now five years away, we must be both clear and realistic as regards the mixed results of the progress achieved and the scale of the challenges to be met by 2015 and strongly optimistic in the international community’s ability to work together to achieve the MDGs,” the Leading Group on Innovative Financing for Development (LGFD) said in a statement. The summit “is a great opportunity to develop the current and potential role of innovative financing for development in the achievement of the MDGs and make the entire international community aware of the Leading Group’s recommendations.” French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, center, and colleagues from Belgium and Japan attend a meeting of the Leading Group on Innovative Financing for Development (LGFD), which is proposing a tax on foreign currency transactions to generate revenue for poverty-reduction. (Photo: LGFD) Those recommendations were released over the summer by a committee of experts appointed by LGFD members to look into options for generating money for development. In a report the experts said the proposed levy on foreign currency transactions would be paid into a dedicated Global Solidarity Fund, to be used to help meet the MDGs and for “climate change mitigation and adaptation” – that is, enabling “poorer countries to switch to a low-carbon development path.” The LGFD says existing forms of “innovative financing” have raised almost $3 billion in extra revenue for humanitarian causes over the past four years. One example is a tax levied on airline tickets by a handful of countries in support of UNITAID, an initiative launched in 2006 to reduce the price of drugs for priority diseases such as HIV/Aids and malaria. ‘Mixed experience’ The idea of a foreign currency transaction tax was raised in the 1970s by U.S. economist James Tobin, primarily as a way to curb excessive speculation. As such it is sometimes known as the “Tobin tax.” (Tobin won the Nobel prize in economics in 1981, for unrelated work.) Development NGOs have been promoting the idea of a Tobin tax – or as some have dubbed it, a “Robin Hood tax” – for years, with anti-globalization groups, aid agencies, religious organizations and environmental advocacy groups in Europe in particular throwing their weight behind it. Banking and business sectors have generally been opposed. Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown suggested a type of Tobin tax at a G20 finance ministers’ summit in Scotland last November, indicating the proceeds could be used to fund future financial bailouts. The U.S. and Canada rejected it outright and Russia expressed skepticism. “That’s not something that we’re prepared to support,” U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told reporters in St. Andrews. “This is an idea that has been around for a long time. Many countries have a lot of experience with the design of these kinds of taxes. I think, frankly, the experience has been mixed.” Many E.U. countries support the idea, however, and France has pledged to pursue the matter when it takes over the G20 presidency late this year. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said early this month that even without U.S. support, the proposal could possibly go ahead with the 60 LGFD countries. “The Americans are extremely important in this, but we are not alone,” Reuters quoted him as saying after an LGFD meeting in Paris. “For every 1,000 euros the tax we are suggesting will bring five cents,” Kouchner said. “It’s not a lot, but enough to get things going.” Proponents stress the small size of the proposed 0.005 percent tax. In a joint op-ed published in early September, Kouchner and Japanese and Belgian colleagues promoted the tax idea under the headline “Small global taxes would make a big difference for world’s ‘bottom billion.’” (Japan currently chairs the LGFD; Belgium holds the rotating E.U. presidency) “When people suggest taxes, they always start out ‘small,’” commented Ira Stoll, editor of FutureCapitalism.com and former managing editor of The New York Sun. “But once the door is opened to the idea of ‘global taxes,’ you can bet they won’t end small. Never mind all the issues about whether development aid actually helps poor countries or just winds up empowering corrupt local dictators and their cronies.” Last July U.S. Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) introduced legislation calling for a 0.005 percent tax on currency transactions, which would used for child care assistance in the U.S., HIV/Aids and other health causes abroad, and global “climate change adaptation and mitigation.” The Investing in our Future Act (H.R. 5783), which has six co-sponsors, all Democrats, was referred to the House committees on Ways and Means and Foreign Affairs. http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010/08/04/306346/imf-blueprint-for-a-global-currency-yes-really/ FT Alphaville missed this IMF paper when it first came out in April, 2010. http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2010/041310.pdf Authored by Reza Moghadam, director of the IMF’s strategy, policy and review department, it discusses how the IMF sees the International Monetary System evolving after the financial crisis. We’ll cut to the chase and draw readers’ attention to the final bubble in the following chart, found on page 4: Which means, in the eyes of the IMF at least, the best way to ensure the stability of the international monetary system (post crisis) is actually by launching a global currency. And that, the IMF says, is largely because sovereigns — as they stand — cannot be trusted to redistribute surplus reserves, or battle their deficits, themselves. The ongoing buildup of such imbalances, meanwhile, only makes the system increasingly vulnerable to shocks. It’s also a process that’s ultimately unsustainable for all, says the IMF. Or as they put it: The global crisis of 2008/09, for all its costs, has not jeopardized international monetary stability, and the IMS is not on the verge of collapse. That said, the current system has serious imperfections that feed and facilitate policies—of reserves accumulation and reserves creation—that are ultimately unsustainable and, until they are reversed, expose the system to risks and shocks that a reformed system could minimize. All in all, the IMF believes there has simply been too much reserve hoarding going on: Reserve accumulation has accelerated dramatically in the past decade, particularly since the 2003-4. At the end of 2009, reserves had risen to 13 percent of global GDP, doubling from their 2000 level, and over 50 percent of total imports of goods and services. Emerging market holdings rose to 32 percent of their GDP (26 percent excluding China). Twenty-seven of the top 40 reserve holders, accounting for over 90 percent of total reserve holdings, recorded doubledigit average growth in reserves over 1999-2008. Holdings have also become increasingly concentrated, with over half the total held by only five countries. These numbers exclude substantial foreign assets of the official sector not recorded as reserves, including in sovereign wealth funds (SWFs), and yet invested in liquid, dollar denominated financial instruments, that have grown even more in recent years.1 Of course, in the first instance, the solution probably lies in closer collaboration between sovereigns, most likely via the more active use of such things asspecial drawing rights, says the IMF. But in the end, a global currency makes the most sense, the paper concludes — especially since the SDR is currently just an accounting tool that draws on the freely usable currencies of member states , not an actual currency itself. As they summarise: 48. From SDR to bancor. A limitation of the SDR as discussed previously is that it is not a currency. Both the SDR and SDR-denominated instruments need to be converted eventually to a national currency for most payments or interventions in foreign exchange markets, which adds to cumbersome use in transactions. And though an SDR-based system would move away from a dominant national currency, the SDR’s value remains heavily linked to the conditions and performance of the major component countries. A more ambitious reform option would be to build on the previous ideas and develop, over time, a global currency. Called, for example, bancor in honor of Keynes, such a currency could be used as a medium of exchange—an “outside money” in contrast to the SDR which remains an “inside money”. But before you get ready to burn your fiat currency, it’s not actually a turnaround the IMF sees being executed any time soon. As they conclude: It is understood that some of the ideas discussed are unlikely to materialize in the foreseeable future absent a dramatic shift in appetite for international cooperation. On eight separate occasions, President Barack Obama has referred to the “green economy” policies enacted by Spain as being the model for what he envisioned for America. Later came the revelation that Obama administration senior Energy Department official Cathy Zoi — someone with serious publicized conflict of interest issues — demanded an urgent U.S. response to the damaging report from the non-governmental Spanish experts so as to protect the Obama administration’s plans. Most recently, U.S. senators have introduced the vehicle for replicating Spain’s unfolding economic meltdown here, in the form of the “American Power Act.” For reasons that are obvious upon scrutiny, it should instead be called the American Power Grab Act. But today’s leaked document reveals that even the socialist Spanish government now acknowledges the ruinous effects of green economic policy. Unsurprisingly for a governmental take on a flagship program, the report takes pains to minimize the extent of the economic harm. Yet despite the soft-pedaling, the document reveals exactly why electricity rates “necessarily skyrocketed” in Spain, as did the public debt needed to underwrite the disaster. This internal assessment preceded the Zapatero administration’s recent acknowledgement that the “green economy” stunt must be abandoned, lest the experiment risk Spain becoming Greece. The government report does not expressly confirm the highest-profile finding of the non-governmental report: that Spain’s “green economy” program cost the country 2.2 jobs for every job “created” by the state. However, the figures published in the government document indicate they arrived at a job-loss number even worse than the 2.2 figure from the independent study. This document is not a public report. Spanish media has referred to its existence in recent weeks though, while Bloomberg and the Washington Examiner have noted the impact: Spain is now forced to jettison its plans — Obama’s model — for a “green economy.” Remarkably, these items have received virtually no media attention. An item which has been covered widely, however, is that President Obama is now pressuring Spain to turn off its spigot of public debt in the name of averting a situation similar to that of Greece. Also covered widely is Obama’s promotion of the American Power Act — the legislation which would replicate Spain’s current situation in the United States. Put simply, Obama is currently promoting a policy in the U.S. which is based on a policy that he wishes to see Spain abandon. Welcome to Obamaland, the particulars of which are explained in a fashion grandly more illuminating than this Obama-Zapatero dance in Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America. 1) Renewable Energy: Situation and Objectives April 2010 2) Renewable Energy Situation: The price of electricity affects household welfare According to EuroStat data, the cost of electricity for households in Spain moved from below the European average to slightly above the average (+5% higher) 3) Renewable Energy Situation: The price of electricity determines the competitiveness of Spanish industry Energy is a key input in industrial production processes. In basic industries (cement, industrial gases, metals, basic chemicals and steel), energy costs are three times the labor cost. The electrical cost for the Spanish industry is well above the European average (+17% higher). 4) Renewable Energy Situation: The price increase is mainly due to additional costs of renewables The price of electricity determines the competitiveness of Spanish industry Historical evolution of the prices of light and pool price [Appears above a graph showing a 77% price spike in industry's price for electricity] A price increase cannot be explained by the evolution of electricity market price (pool), which has even fallen since 2005 5) Renewable Energy Situation: The price increase is mainly due to additional costs of renewables The increase in the over-cost paid for renewable energy explains more than 120% of the variation of the electric bill, and has offset the reduction in production costs of conventional electricity (25%) To these direct costs of renewables must be added indirect costs, as the need for additional investment in networks to integrate renewables (about 10% of planned investment in the planning) and capacity payments to the modular backup facilities (coal and gas) that are running a smaller number of hours 6) Situation of renewable energy: renewable energy has had a positive impact … Thanks to the increase of renewable energies in the mix: The rate of energy supply has increased by 3 points since 2005, to 23%, and the import of energy products has been reduced 5.500M Euro (including hydraulics). Emissions have been reduced significantly, thanks primarily to the mix of electric generation being much cleaner (less than 120 tons of CO2 emissions per GWh of oil produced). 7) Situation of renewable energy: but its evolution in recent years has been too fast From 2004-2010 the amount of premiums [over-cost paid for renewable energy; the subsidy] has increased fivefold. Only in 2009 it doubled over the previous year to reach 5.045M€, equivalent in amount to the entire public investment in R + D + i in Spain. [The renewables subsidy equaled the entire cost of producing electricity in Spain]. The forecast for 2010 is 6.300M€ (although 5.800M€ budgeted in January). This should add 1.000M€ for cogeneration. With operational facilities, the renewable sector will receive in the next 25 years more than 126.000M€. In this factor, it adds a commitment to continue providing input to the renewable energies in the mix to meet the European objectives, which will increase this figure significantly. 8 ) Situation of renewable energy: Heterogeneity of renewables: costs In 2009, the solar photovoltaic technology accounted for 53% of the extra cost of renewables, while they contributed only 11% of energy generated from these sources. 9) Situation of renewable energy: Heterogeneity of renewables: Impact on the external sector Exports: Net exports of Spanish wind industry 1.300M€ contributed to the trade balance in 2008 and, besides, wind generation avoids fossil imports of 3.6M€. Imports: By contrast, the PV industry growth was not gradual, hampering the formation of an auxiliary Spanish industry. In 2008 imports of photovoltaic cells and modules in Spain amounted to 5.182M€ (28.6% of net imports of crude and derivatives) as long around the 62% were imported. 10) Situation of renewable energy: Heterogeneity of renewables: Technical problems Network Management. The proliferation of small plants and fluctuations in the availability of technologies hinder the management of the network. 11) Situation of renewable energy: Regulatory mechanisms to support renewables have been: – Overly cautious about the ability of cost reduction technologies – Inflexible, thereby preventing adjust remuneration to market signals and technological advancement – Hardly told them by the administration in setting prices initially and have no control over the amounts … Which has caused a “bubble effect,” such as seen with photovoltaics in 2008 and the emergence of the thermal bubble (which would have continued in 2010 and successively had it not been for the pre-registration requirement imposed), as well as a sharp increase the over-costs [subsidies] paid to renewables in the form of a feed-in tariff. 12) Situation of renewable energy: Heterogeneity of renewables: International comparison In wind power, our rates are in line with Europe. However, solar photovoltaics, Spanish retribution has been the most high, despite the higher number of hours of sun and more solar radiation. Spain Wind € 75-84/MWh Solar €265/295/350/450/MWh China Wind € 56-67 Solar € 121/MWh Japan Wind € 73-89/MWh Germany Wind € 92/MWh Solar € 287-395/MWh France Wind € 82/MWh Solar €310-380 Italy Wind € 85/MWh Solar € 350-390 Poland Wind € 90/MWh 13) Situation of renewable energy: Recent technological developments The investment costs of renewable energies mainly depend on its technological learning curve The plots have experienced tremendous technological development in recent years, reducing their investment costs Not being mature technologies, have much future room for improvement, which informs a decision to slow its current expansion 14) Situation of renewable energy: What have we done? The Government has adapted the following initiatives: – A new framework for PV in 2008 (RD1578/2008) that brings order to the pace of installation and marking signs ecstatic that transfer with May fast technological development gains to consumers – Creation of a technology pre-registration for the remainder of May 2009 has allowed us to avoid the “bubble” that was generated in thermal and prevent the system being made even more untenable in 2010. – Package of measures for the reduction to the tariff deficit with input from the traditional electric companies, consumers and government (without the contribution of renewable energy). 15) Situation of renewable energy: Difficulties in reducing the tariff deficit – The Government is committed by law to eliminate by 2013 the tariff deficit – Despite the evolution of the wholesale market (pool), the balance of certain items (the Iberian peninsula, nuclear waste) and higher light, the rate deficit was only slightly reduced. 16) Objectives – Reaching 20% of final energy and 40% of electric generation from renewable sources by 2020. – Reducing the deficit and preserve the competitiveness of industry and household welfare. – Transfer gains in technological developments to consumers. – Avoid speculation caused by excess profits, which damages its image and retards the construction of the plants pre-assigned (with an adverse effect on the industry). – Mitigate the incentive for fraud that can generate the current differential between the rate and the price of the pool. – Promote technological improvement and cost reduction, advancing the attainment of “grid parity,” which will allow greater installation of renewables until 2020. Christopher Horner is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and author of the recently-published Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America.http://www.prisonplanet.com/54680.html
UN Blueprint: Dismantle Middle Class, Build World Government
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/09/08/years-setbacks-looks-world-leader/
EXCLUSIVE: After a Year of Setbacks, U.N. Looks to Take Charge of World's Agenda
Globalists Plan to Dismantle Middle Class With UN Tax
Europeans Push Global Tax to Fund Poverty-Reduction, Climate Change Causes
IMF blueprint for a global currency – yes really
BREAKING: Leaked Doc Proves Spain’s ‘Green’ Policies — the Basis for Obama’s — an Economic Disaster (PJM Exclusive)
Monday, 20 September 2010
Photo: Phil Whitehouse
Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Related links:
Indy and the secret plot to topple the dollar – FT Alphaville
The SDR effect on the dollar, and gold – FT Alphaville
What’s driving paper gold? - FT Alphaville
SDR exchange lift-off – FT Alphaville
PJM has received a leaked internal document confirming Spain realizes its green failures, just as Obama pushes the American Power Act based on Spain's program. (Click here for the original Spanish document. An English translation is provided in this article.)
Pajamas Media has received a leaked internal assessment produced by Spain’s Zapatero administration. The assessment confirms the key charges previously made by non-governmental Spanish experts in a damning report exposing the catastrophic economic failure of Spain’s “green economy” initiatives. http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
A translation of the leaked Zapatero government internal slide presentation: “Renewable Energy: Situation and Objectives April 2010”
– Pioneers in the world, which has allowed us to stay ahead of the industry, learn from the experience and finding some excesses.
There are numerous examples of these high returns: analyst reports, premiums accepted in other countries, over-subscription in the pre-records, facilities willing to accept lower premiums, “paper market” …
Posts
