I laughed out loud on learning that Barrack Obama recieved this years Nobel Peace Prize. I’m not a great believer in these prizes being anything truly significant but there is a big commotion over this (the recipient being who he is). What is significant about all this is that it is exposing just how blurred the line between policy and rhetoric has become in so many heads.

Let’s take a step back for a moment. In his first nine months as president, he’s doubled the amount of troops in Afghanistan, escalated illegal strikes on Pakistan, proposed the largest military budget in all of human history, and maintains Iraq troop levels and a vague withdrawl plan. In continuing with Bush II’s policies, he’s continued torture in illegal detention facilities around the world (noteably Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan), given immunity to those Americans responsible for the torture regime, and persists in extending the dates of Guantanamo’s closure. The president has backed down on multiple campaign promises, including renegotiating NAFTA and refusing to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. He’s assured the Israeli prime minister of continuing to turn a blind eye to Israel’s illegal nuclear weapon programme, while regularly threatening Iran for a programme they’re legally entitled to. Let’s not even begin on his domestic policy.

I could go on, but to keep this concise, Obama is not someone bent on peace and is not much better than his presidential predecessor. The media is reporting the prize a strange decision because Obama hasn’t had enough time to do anything yet. This is wrong; Obama has done a lot, it’s just been counter-productive to peace.

Below is my submission to the Select Committee on the truly awful Emissions Trading amendment bill. National are going to as much effort as possible to avoid public scrutiny or even public knowledge of the bill. This has included regular, unneeded parliamentary urgencies, sending the bill to the Finance & Expedenture committee instead of the ETS Review committee (yes really) and giving the public just two weeks to submit on one of the most important pieces of  legislation of this government’s tenure. National really do make a mockery of parliamentary process and democracy in general.

To make things worse, the Maori Party will be voting for this despite not voting for the original scheme because it was “too weak”, and ACT will be voting for it despite their climate change denial (yes, the amended ETS is that bad). If you have any feelings towards this bill (and you should) then please send a letter/email the committee by 13 October explaining your feelings for the bill and why – it does not have to go into the detail of my submission or follow any strict format. If you want a quick refresher on what an ETS is then, as always.
————–

SUBMISSION on the CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE (MODERATED EMISSIONS TRADING) AMENDMENT BILL

SUMMARY

• I oppose the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill, and ask that it not be passed.
• The bill creates the framework for large scale Government-taxpayer subsidisation of emitting corporations. The bill not only removes corporate incentive to reduce emissions, but subsidises larger amounts the more a corporation increases their emissions. The bill appears to be a way of giving money to big business rather than encouraging emissions reduction and climate change prevention. It transfers wealth from the many to the rich. The bill will have devastating effects on Aotearoa, financially and environmentally.
• I specifically oppose:

1. Massive subsidisation through halved obligation and the capping of the carbon price.
2. The switch to intensity-based allocation of free credits and its phase-out rate of 1.3%
3. The extending of the agriculture entry date to 2015.

• I do not wish to make an oral submission to the Select Committee.

1.  UNSUSTAINABLE AND UNETHICAL SUBSIDISATION

• Clause 61’s insertion of section 222A to 222F gives an obligation of only 50% to active industries and the capping of the carbon price at $25/tonne. This means there will be a taxpayer-funded subsidisation of $415 million per year from now to 2013. This figure is unrealistically based on a $25/tonne price despite predictions of a rise to $50/tonne at the end of 2009, with estimates rising to as much as $100/tonne. As such the $415 million figure, already as much as the yearly cost of the entire NZ court system, will likely be much higher. Considering the economy’s apparent “decade of deficits” and the global recession this is fiscally shattering on the state and taxpayer.
• In accordance with the fiscal costs table in the bill’s explanatory note, subsidies will rise to over $2 billion per year by 2030. $2 billion amounts to $20 a week per taxpayer, straight into the hands of corporations who do not deserve that kind of money from citizens who most likely do not benefit from business profit. It is more than the yearly cost of ACC or the prison system. Again, this figure is unrealistically based on a $50/tonne price which will almost certainly be higher by this date.
• By not forcing emitters to pay the full price for their pollution, there is less fiscal pressure on them to lower their emissions. Thus the ETS is horrendously ineffective in responding to the problem of climate change.
• As well as being fiscally and environmentally unsustainable, such large-scale subsidisation of businesses is simply unethical. It is the legislated transfer of wealth from the majority to a minority. Such vast amounts of taxpayer money could be used for better things such as ensuring the health system can keep up with demand, fixing public schools, or a host of other socially important initiatives that would receive wide public support.
• Recommendation: Remove Clause 61 from the bill.

2. UNSUSTAINABLE, EXPENSIVE INTENSITY-BASED ALLOCATION

• Clause 22’s rewritten subpart 2 of Part 4 establishes a system of intensity-based allocation of free credits. Thus, the more a business emits, the more money they’re given. Businesses will literally get given more money the more they pollute the country. This is clearly unsustainable and detrimental to the environment – and the taxpayers. It does not encourage the lowering of emissions at all. Taxpayers of New Zealand should not have to pay for a company’s growth – the company should.
• The switch to intensity-based allocation is being estimated as raising New Zealand’s emissions by 5% by 2020. This is obviously not in line with the Government’s apparent plan of lowering emissions by 10-20% by that year.
• Clause 22 also significantly lowers the subsidy phase-out rate from 8% to 1.3%. Under the existing scheme all free allocation would have stopped by 2030. Under the proposed change subsidies will only cease in 2090. This is unsustainable and a massive burden on the taxpayer and Government. This policy is not right for New Zealand and mustn’t be passed into law.
• To give an example: In the current ETS, Methanex would be set to start receiving $12.7 million a year based on their 2005 emissions. Under the proposed scheme it will start at $87 million a year. Under the current ETS, Methanex will stop receiving free allocation subsidisation in 2030 when the phase-out rate of 8% reaches its conclusion. Under the proposed scheme we will still be paying the company at least $60 million a year by 2030, with subsidies continuing for decades after that. Methanex is Canadian-owned and the New Zealand taxpayers will be giving the business millions. Using the mostly hard-earned money of NZ citizens to give money to rich foreign corporations is astonishingly bad policy. This bill is illogical and unsound on countless levels, unless its aim is to transfer money from the poor to the rich.
• Recommendation: Entirely remove Clause 22, Clause 38, and any other clauses relating to the intensity-based allocation and lowering of the phase-out rate.

3. UNNECESSARY EXTENSION OF AGRICULTURE ENTRY DATE

• Clause 59(2) delays the entry date of agriculture into the ETS by two years, until 2015. This is unnecessary and allows untaxed emissions for an extra two years. As the agriculture industry makes up nearly 50% of New Zealand’s total emissions, delaying its entry until 2015 means the proposed ETS will only be at half its strength until then. The agriculture industry has been expecting the entry date to be 2012 for years so this delay is completely needless. It appears to be yet another way of stalling any real action on climate change.
• Recommendation: Remove Clause 59(2) and any other changes made as a result of this clause.

CONCLUSION

• This bill is environmentally, fiscally and morally unsustainable. I urge that it be rejected or at the very least amended according to the recommendations made.

Obviously this blog hasn’t been updated for a long time (after work and laziness joined together to overwhelm me). Sorry for this, it saddens me too. But there is still a decent archive of posts that you can read through. Linked below are a few older posts I particularly liked.

Mar 31st: Corporations are not people
Jan 6th: Israel, Palestine & Obama
Jan 19th: Searching for a reason

I’ll try and write the odd post from time to time but otherwise bye for now.

Last week I raised my concerns on the lack of information about the death of a man during the G20 protests. Well my concerns have been realised as it appears that the man (Ian Tomlinson) was hit hard by an officer with a police batton and then shoulder-barged onto the ground as he was walking away – possibly leading to his death. It just gets worse – the man was on his way home from work and not protesting at all. A person can not get away with assault of a man walking away from talking to him and this must be further investigated.

Also the media have described this blatant assault from behind with a baton as simply a “push” or “shove”. This extremely passive reporting and this desire to be “balanced” despite evidence leaning to one way is killing journalism.

Good to see today’s announcement that the Greens will work together with National on crafting a sustainable fund for private home insulation and a regulatory system for natural health products. The deal does not restrict the Greens right to criticise the Government, who are often the only people to raise concern when National pass laws un-democratically, and is generally a good move to see by National in offering the Greens to help. However this does seem to be a way for National to distract from their hard right labour and law & order policies and appear more centralist – and I’m not too happy about that.

Today, the leader of Peru during the 1990s, Alberto Fujimori, has been sentenced to 25 years in jail for organising massacres, torture, and mass “disappearances”. This is a great step forward in the idea of global justice. It is impressive that a leader has been successfully convicted despite doing things such as reforming the economy according to the neo-liberal values of the IMF (which would usually mean a successful and satisfying retirement for leaders like Fujimori who support the values of the major Western powers. I hope we see more successful cases like this in the future for the thousands of major human rights violators around the world who go unchallenged.

As Amnesty International puts it, Fujimori was responsible for “human rights violations such as torture, kidnapping and enforced disappearances”. I have to point out that George Bush and his administration were guilty of all these charges during their eight years in power and, as I have highlighted in the past, should be brought to trial. I hope the case of Fujimori serves as a warning to abusive leaders around the world, as well as encouragement to jurors who fear the amount of organisation and time needed to bring a case like this this won’t come to nothing.

The US have now had five multi-murder shooting incidents in the past seven days. What more is needed to bring attention to the United States’ gun problems and a case for more gun control? While Obama is increasing the killings of Afghans and Pakistanis in the pointless Afghanistan war he needs to look at the condition of his own country and their gun addiction.

President Obama today raised the issue of Turkey’s entry into the EU, himself supporting Turkey’s cause. I am strongly against Turkey entering the EU until certain provisions are met, mainly reducing their occupation of Northern Cyprus and accepting that they killed 1.5 million people in the Armenian Genocide. Turkey need to commit themselves to a plan that progresses towards a more united Cyprus. This means ending their declaration of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” – a country only Turkey themselves recognise.

The second issue that needs to be addressed before Turkey should be allowed into the EU is their continual denial of the first holocaust of the 20th century – one that would provide a blue print for the Nazis. This issue is something covered very well by historians and writers (noteably the brilliant reporter Robert Fisk) and is keeping Turkey in a static state that does not contribute towards future progress in the country. The genocide is recognised by the EU, the UN, 21 countries, and almost the entire historian community which makes it outrageous that Turkey could not only claim that the Armenian deaths were a result of famine and internal conflict but to regularly send Turkish scholars who speak out about it to prison (under Turkey’s infamous Article 301 prohibiting “insulting Turkishness”). This desparate situation was compounded in 2007 when Hrant Dink, a Turkish-Armenian scholar, was assassinated by a 17 -year old Turkish nationalist after he released a documentary about the genocide. He’d managed to escape two previous charges under Article 301 with only a six-month jail term but eventually paid the ultimate price for speaking out.

It frustrates me to see Obama giving uncritical support for a country that is regressive on so many issues, especially after claiming that “as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide” early last year. I’m sceptical enough about Obama getting involved in matters such as the European Union, let alone him using the same “mutual respect” rhetoric about a country that silences people for speaking out. Where’s the mutual respect for Armenia or the Turkish citizens that have tried to spread the truth to their brainwashed compatriots?

The G20 announced their plans of a one trillion dollar deal to combat the global recession today and I’m not too pleased with it. The bulk of the plan (around three quarters of it) is aimed at the IMF and thus dramatically increases their already very large influence on the world. In fact the entire plan seems to be built on the idea of having money available to give to countries with struggling economies. For these reasons it is not some “new world deal” as some people would claim. All the money is just going to be used to “balance” economies back to their normal ways and for this reason it’s not going to lead to any long term gain. In terms of getting the world “out” of the recession the plan is a plaster and nothing else beneficial.

As well as just a “negator” this plan has very probable negative effects on the future also. Since its creation at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, the IMF have given thousands of loans to struggling countries with the condition that they, in most cases, reform their economic policy to be largely in-line with neo-liberal systems of privatisation, little regulation, and other economic policies that have destroyed the hopes of these countries as well as the lives of millions. Countless examples can be given where the IMF has given out a loan on the condition of “structural adjustment programmes”, especially in South America during the 1970s, Eastern European nations in the 1990s, and African countries right from the IMF’s beginning. I don’t have time to get into the details (studies have been done that find the IMF is responsible for problems as far reaching as tuberculosis in countries they’ve lent money to) but my main point is that I find it troubling that the IMF has been given so much more money to influence the world in such negative ways.

Of course it is also worth noting that most countries the IMF lends money to are nations that have no part to play in the institutions and are certainly not as well off as the G20. I don’t see how lending more money to struggling countries to help them now is any benefit in the long run when the cash has to be paid back – an impossible task in most cases, meaning countries are further compromised by “structural adjustments” that send more wealth to corporations in the Western world. There’s a lot of information available on this broad topic; I recommend starting with the books Bad Samaritans and The Shock Doctrine or the film Apology of an Economic Hit Man.

There’s certainly some good things to come out of the G20 plan, including greater regulation of hedge funds and methods being set up to act before a crisis instead of after – although we don’t know many specifics about these yet. These steps are decent but much more needs to be done and it shouldn’t involve the IMF and the World Bank that are so heavily focused on Western interests. The recession is largely being blamed on uncontrolled big business by the mainstream medial. The problems go deeper than that.

There’s a few unsettling stories today relating to police misconduct. The first is a report from Amnesty International finding that “the de facto impunity of law enforcement officials in France is unacceptable” after multiple and regular misconduct get looked past. This follows a report from the same organisation highlighting a pattern of excessive force and misconduct from Greek police. These reports shouldn’t go unnoticed and I hope France, Greece and countries around the world start to realise that police aren’t above the law.

This applies to New Zealand as well where there’s been multiple cases of police misconduct over just the past year. The problem arrises with police feeling physically insecure (and thus more weapons given to them) and more powerful and superior to the NZ public. National seems to be intent on increasing this problem through laws that allow DNA sampling simply because of a suspicion of a crime as well as other unjust law and order policy (including a three strikes and you’re out policy that breaks both international and NZ laws on human rights). Policies like these only give a greater sense of power to the “just” police who gain support by an angry populace wanting vengence.

The second story of note is the unfolding events at the G20 summit, including violence between protesters and police that left one protester dead. I am alarmed at the lack of information on this dead protester. Every media report simply states that a man died after “collapsing”. Collapsing from what? Heart attack? Police attack? The police are doing nothing to help their poor reputation (especially bad in the UK) by giving out so little information as to what happened here. The police force in every single country should be protecting the safety of the people, not the governments that supposedly represent them.