> Time to TERMINATE the Military Industrial Complex
> July 19th, jewish year 5776, christian year 2016, muslim year 1437
> Letter to the Editor:
> Its time to terminate the global military industrial complex.
> Weapons and warfare are obselete. With nuclear, chemical, biological, scalar
> and electromagnetic laser and emp weapons now in existence, war can
> never be fought without there being major irrepairable and long lasting destruction, disruption
and damage upon civilization and the planet.
> The United States of America is the #1 terrorist nation on earth.
> With 1000 military bases
> worldwide and a 1.5 trillion dollar military budget, the USA has
> turned into a murderous,
> tyrannical, genocidal, ‘out of control’ global fascist police state, a
> literal nazi 4th Reich
> reigning continual death and destruction upon the world’s
> peoples and nations.
> In order to perpetrate war, chaos and conflict and procure continued
> corporate profits for the
> US global war machine, the USA, in collusion with the racist jewish
> state of israel and the international jewish rothschild banking
> cartel, fund radical religious groups such as ISIS in the middle
> east. The sole intent for funding these types of groups is to demonize Islam
> and bring in fascist police state countermeasures which destroy
> freedoms and civil liberties in nations across the globe. If allowed
> to continue, this conflict
> between the international jewish bankers and worldwide islam- with the
> so-called christian west in the middle- will inevitably escalate into
> the use of thermonuclear weapons of mass destruction upon population
> centers, particularly in the United States, seen rightly as the source
> of all evil on earth.
> If the US Pentagon, the National Security Agency (NSA), the Dept of
> Homeland Security, the US Defense Dept,
> US corporate defense contractors and the whole slew of national
> security obsessed alphabet soup agencies within the US government are
> not permanently SHUT DOWN, criminalized, restructured and re-oriented
> towards the pursuit of peaceful purposes, then the peoples and nations
> of the world, in order to secure their survival and their future, have
> the RIGHT and the OBLIGATION to terminate this global fascist military
> police state cancer by any and all means necessary, and this they WILL
> do without remorse. This is the path of total destruction of life on
> earth, and is the one we are now treading, unfortunately.
> There is another path, however. It is the path of survival and
> continuity for the human species. Instead of procuring war,
> retribution, enslavement, destruction and death upon one another, we
> need to learn to create and fund ideologies and institutions that put
> an end to the needless and useless suffering and deaths of at least 40
> million innocent men, women and children on earth every year from
> hunger, starvation, disease and malnutrition (that’s 6 jewish
> holocausts annually). This can easily be accomplished by terminating
> the global military industrial complex and re-prioritizing funds,
> talent, intellectual pursuit, technology and institutional
> infrastructure towards preserving and protecting the sanctity,
> sacredness and security of all life on earth.
> Today, the human species stands at an evolutionary crossroads: global
> suicide or advanced civilization. We’ve already lost 50% of all life
> on earth and we are continuing to metastasize into a militarized
> global fascist spy and surveillance police state. If we turn from the
> brink now, we have a chance of preserving and protecting the 50% of
> life we still have left on the planet.
In a mature advanced
> civilization, war is outlawed and mass human suffering and death is
> alleviated. Food, housing, clothing, energy, transportation and
> education are provided free for all who need them. With all material
> necessities provided for, crime, conflict, weapons and warfare cease
> to exist. Its a fairly simple transition. Dismantle, restructure,
> re-orient and terminate all things military police state and build up,
fund and support all things social, environmental and life affirming.
> This is a consciousness shift from adolescence to species maturity.
> It is an evolution of intelligence from the ways of global suicide
> towards that of an advanced civilization. It is an end to all war and
> conflict and the securing of long sought peace and continuity for the
> human species.
> Simply put, the global military industrial intelligence security
> complex will be terminated peacefully through conversion towards
> peaceful purposes, or it will be completely annihilated, vaporized and turned into
> ashes if allowed to continue. The evolutionary trajectory for this scenario is crystal
> clear. As martin luther king once said, “The choice is not between
> violence and nonviolence but between nonviolence and nonexistence”.
> The choice is OURS.
> Steve Jones
> Colorado Springs, Colorado USA
TIME TO TERMINATE THE FASCIST AMERICAN POLICE STATE
Letter to the Editor: june 23 2016
“Peace can only come as a natural consequence of universal enlightenment”- Nikola Tesla
Its time to TERMINATE the fascist American police state. We need to completely cut off ALL
funding for police, prisons, security and military and bring a final end to the sprawling ‘out of control’
military-industrial-intelligence-security complex in this country.
The Dept of Homeland Security, the TSA, the Pentagon, the Dept of Defense, the NSA and the whole
slew of national security obsessed government agencies and corporate defense contractors, need to be
completely criminalized, gutted, shut down and converted to peaceful purposes immediately.
War is obselete. War can never be fought, both domestically via a civil war in America or
internationally via nuclear or electromagnetic weapons against another country.
There are NO terrorists, nor is there any legitimate reason whatsoever to continue to waste trillions
of dollars (as well as yen, euros, rubles and yuan) on continued warfare, weapons, surveillance
systems, prisons and black clad, jack booted police state thugs whose only function is to terrorize
whole peoples and societies across the globe.
The REAL threats to our national and international security are ENVIRONMENTAL. Global
Climate Change and the radiation releases from the nuclear meltdowns at the Fukushima nuclear
power plants in Japan since 2011, are killing our nation and the prospects for our childrens future.
Instead of expanded Homeland Security police state stations, we need highly advanced
environmental centers established in every town, community and city across this nation. Instead
of churning out a glut of cops, TSA agents and militarized Homeland Security apparachiks, we
need to start churning out fully educated, fully capable and fully paid national environmentalists
to help educate, facilitate and transit our nation onto a green, sustainable development path.
Solving global climate change, developing non-polluting renewable free energy systems, mitigating
upcoming food and water shortages, standardizing organic agriculture practices, shifting into an electrified solar powered transportation economy and transforming our towns, communities and cities into green,
sustainable, healthy and advanced life affirming habitats will NOT be accomplished using weapons, warfare
and an oppressive national police state infrastructure.
The transition to a sustainable, green America will be facilitated by educated, upright, informed,
enlightened, mature and intelligent adults and institutions, where non-violence, cooperation and environmental stewardship values become the foundation through which a new sustainable, green developmental path comes into formation.
We need to develop the skills, vision, institutional infrastructure and scientific and spiritual talent necessary for us to manage both a nation and a planet that is thoroughly overpopulated and one which is quickly destroying its environmental resource base. We need non-polluting free energy systems (solar, wind, anti-gravity and zero-point energy), national and international sustainable development models that preserve and protect the natural environment and conflict resolution skills between peoples and nations without resorting to the use of violence. The era of gas guzzling trucks and SUV’s is over. Rich, arrogant, decadent, wasteful lifestyles must now become a thing of the past. Meat eating and the wholesale slaughter of animals must, and will, come to a complete and utter end.
The future is green, sustainable and environmental, it is NOT police state, military, weapons and warfare.
Let us build a nation and a world that can survive the future. Only a green world order can save mankind.
A militarized global fascist police state will inevitably end our species if it is not immediately terminated and permanently put out of business.
Its time to take down the American flag and raise up an Earth Flag over America.
North Shore, Oahu
US State of Hawaii
=>A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State: https://www.rutherford.org/a_government_of_wolves
Letter to the Editor: April 14 2016
The human race is in serious trouble. We are destroying the life support systems of the planet that allow us to live, flourish and prosper. Unless and until we develop the political will and institutional infrastructure to manage our planet, we will most likely perish as a species.
The International Jewish Rothschild Banking Cartel (the global elite) want to depopulate and destroy life in order to save themselves from the mess that they have created on Earth. That means BILLIONS of human beings will die if the policies of the Cartel are not re-directed into preserving and protecting the life we are already losing.
Today, the majority of humankind live in chronic desperation. Lack of food, housing, clothing, sanitation, clean water and basic subsistence plunges the collective human enterprise into a wholesale slaughter of our environmental resource base just to be able to makes ends meet. Because we as a species have not developed the mechanisms for sustainably managing our planet, the plunder will continue until we learn to take responsibility for our lives and for our future as mature adults.
In the 2nd decade of the 21st century, we have a sprawling “out of control” military-industrial-intelligence-security complex completely devoid of legitimacy. Here is the USA, we don’t need a Dept of Homeland Security or a TSA invading our privacy and our dignity at our airports, we need a Dept of Earth Security and the complete dismantling of all war, defense, intelligence and security industries and operations worldwide. War is obselete. It has been since the 1st nuclear explosion at the Trinity site in New Mexico in 1945. The only “terrorists” out there in our world are those who run the world’s military, security, defense and intelligence establishments.
The world’s population today stands at 7.5 billion. If projected trends continue, we will have between 9-10 billion people on planet Earth by 2050. This is 4 times the carrying capacity of the earth’s ability to sustain a population of what should only be between 2-3 billion living green, non-polluting, environmentally sustainable lifestyles. We don’t have another 3 planets to draw resources, sustenance and space from, unfortunately.
Both Global Climate Change and the Fukushima nuclear meltdown radiation releases in Japan are wreaking havoc on our world and are threatening our very future as a species. Both of these global environmental disasters would not have happened at all if we had collectively abandoned the antiquated hydrocarbon economy 45 years ago and instead embraced free energy systems such as solar, wind, anti-gravity and zero-point energy. Every single one of the world’s more than 450 nuclear power plants need to be shut down immediately- there is no need for them, nor for another Fukushima if the grid goes down from a deliberate or natural EMP strike.
An urgent call now goes forth to the world’s leaders and masses to save what’s left of our planet. Business as usual is over. All finances, genius, scientific, intellectual and spiritual talent and pursuit now needs to be put immediately into the preservation and survival of our species and the biosphere. We must collectively create and maintain a global sustainable development path for human productivity and prosperity, and we must do it now.
War must be declared illegal and obselete. Population control must be enforced in every nation on Earth (to 1 child per family) to help winnow down the world’s population to manageable levels over time. We must shift to a free, renewable energy economy and abandon all energy systems that pollute and destroy our biosphere and threaten the survival of future generations.
Planet management for planet Earth is truly the call of the times. We have the information, the intelligence, the technology and the resources available now to enable the human species to survive the 21st century.
So, what are we waiting for?
Steve Jones, Global Environmentalist, Colorado High Rockies, USA
HOME documentary: https://youtu.be/jqxENMKaeCU
April 1 2016
To the Editor:
The sedona airport needs to be SHUT DOWN.
There are too many planes and helicopters flying around the sedona red
The planes and helicopters are noisy, a complete eyesore and are
mucking up our beautiful sedona scenery.
There are so many helicopters flying about filled with rich, arrogant,
fat tourists, it feels like
we’re in vietnam. This has GOT TO STOP NOW!
Instead of wisking around decadent tourists and wasting gasoline and
helicopter use, lets begin to BUILD
a local green, sustainable economy based on getting our residents OFF
THE GRID energy wise by installing solar
photovoltaic panels on every household in sedona. Lets BUILD a local
organic food economy that is not dependent
on price gouging and unhealthy corporate food outlets. Locally run
greenhouses can provide ALL of sedona’s
food needs if it is planned intelligently. If we plant fruit and nut
trees throughout town, we can produce a free foraging economy to our
generations to come.
Finialy, its time to END all car and truck use in the town of sedona.
We need REMOVE the cars and trucks that are currently
clogging up main st by building large parking lots at each end of town
and a 4-5 mile walkway with bike paths, water fountains, flower beds
and small electric
vehicle and frequent electric transit routes. Store stocking can be
done with parallel street access in the early mornings from
midnight to 6am. We can turn our local tourist industry into
something we can all be proud of by protecting
our local environment and enhancing our experience here devoid of all
the chaos, intrusion, madness and pollution that currently
exists due to the internal combustion engine.
Its time to EVOLVE into the 21st century.
Saving the Planet:
DENVER, COLORADO: HQ FOR THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION
July 27, 2016
“Its just a sign of the times… going forward in reverse”
Denver, Colorado has been designated as the central command/capital of the North American Union (NAU). Canada, the United States and Mexico will be unified into one North American Union State with Denver operating as the central capital for all 3 nations.
Orange and Blue are the official colors for this new union mega state. In fact, i would postulate that a new North American Union (NAU) flag will be blue and orange. Blue and orange are also the official colors of the Denver Broncos football team, based in Denver, Colorado.
It is a know fact that ALL US intelligence agencies on record have set up alternate offices in Denver over the years. Denver, Colorado is both geographically centered on the North American continent and is a strategic asset logistically for being the central capital of the NAU. The Colorado Front Range also houses NORTH COM in Colorado Springs- the designated military command center for the new NAU megastate.
Colorado is filled with US military and has a sprawling prison industrial complex, based primarily in Canon City and Florence, Colorado- near the US Air Force Academy, NORAD/Cheyenne Mountain and the US Space Command in Colorado Springs.
Denver, Colorado also has an underground presidential command center located underground/beneath the Denver International Airport (DIA). This is a Continuity of Government (COG) facility, built primarily in response to a projected nuclear attack on Washington, DC and New York City in the future- which is expected to transpire during an economic collapse and/or global war fought on behalf of the global military industrial intelligence security complex.
Even now, a new paper currency has already been printed up to replace the US Dollar (along with the Mexican peso and the Canadian dollar). Its called the Amero, and it will be used to transit the NAU into a digitial cashless monetary system once the political, economic and social integration of the North American Union has run its course.
Up in the Rocky Mountains, in Summit County, Colorado, there are numerous intrusive spy and surveillance cameras that have been installed everywhere these past 2-3 years. These cameras have been mounted on street intersections, put in our public libraries, in our public bus system (along with audio microphones), in our recreation centers (including the private bathrooms), in our schools, in practically all businesses, including banks and supermarkets, on our public bike paths and on our major roadways. This Penopticon is highly intrusive and resembles Big Brother of Orwellian 1984 fame. It is the worst county i have ever been in with regards to the level of fascist police state surveillance and control it has within its borders.
On Dillion Lake, in Summit County, a militarized police state checkpoint, complete with security guards and cameras, has been set up as a chokepoint between the towns of frisco and dillon. This road has been shut down for dubious national security reasons numerous times over the past years. It is operated by Denver Water, a New World Order police state organization, based in Denver, Colorado.
Welcome the the new North American Union 4th reich!!!
Brooklyn New York
A new report from Oxfam on global inequality finds the world’s richest 62 billionaires now own as much wealth as half the world. The wealth of the poorest half—3.6 billion people—has fallen by $1 trillion since 2010. At the same time, the wealth of the world’s richest 62 people has increased by more than half a trillion dollars. Oxfam faults a global financial system that has “supercharged the age-old ability of the rich and powerful to use their position to further concentrate their wealth.” The report singles out deregulation, privatization and offshore tax havens that have let trillions of dollars go untaxed. The Oxfam report is timed to coincide with the meeting of global elites at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. We are joined by Raymond Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Five years ago, the combined wealth of the globe’s top 388 billionaires was equal to half the world’s population. If that contrast is shocking, consider how many billionaires it takes for that same divide today: 62. According to a new report from Oxfam on global inequality, it’s now just 62 of the world’s richest billionaires who own as much wealth as half the world’s population. The wealth of the poorest half—that’s 3.6 billion people—has fallen by $1 trillion since 2010. At the same time, the wealth of the world’s richest 62 people has increased by more than half a trillion dollars. Oxfam faults a global financial system that has, quote, “supercharged the age-old ability of the rich and powerful to use their position to further concentrate their wealth.”
AMY GOODMAN: The report singles out deregulation, privatization, offshore tax havens that have let trillions of dollars go untaxed. Oxfam says denying governments of this massive source of revenue has hampered efforts to provide basic social services and tackle inequality. A review of some 200 major companies shows 90 percent operate in at least one tax haven. The Oxfam report is timed to coincide with the meeting of the global elites at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
For more, we turn to Raymond Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America.
So, give us these figures. Sixty-two of the world’s wealthiest people have more wealth than half the world’s population. Sixty-two individuals?
RAYMOND OFFENHEISER: That’s correct. And as you noted, that this has been an accelerating pattern. I think what our report is trying to do is really point out the fact that I think we have a global inequality crisis, and we’re trying to legitimize that narrative and through the use of these kinds of numbers. I think what’s been stunning to us is not only the fact that we have, you know, that level of concentration, but the process is accelerating. And I think what we’re trying to understand is, if we allow this process to accelerate, not only here in the United States, but literally in countries around the world and in regions where you’d not expect it—in the Chinas and the Indias and even in Africa—it raises a lot of questions about some of the things you talked about in your earlier broadcast about Michigan, which is: How do we fund public services for the poor? How do we finance development into the future? How do we alleviate poverty, if in fact we’re seeing, you know, underfinancing of infrastructure and schools and health systems and so forth? So, we’re really trying to underline the fact that there is an inequality crisis, and we’ve got to really address directly this accelerating concentration of wealth and the mechanisms and systems, really, that enable it.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Ray Offenheiser, can you explain specifically what the role of tax havens are in this quite staggering inequality that the report points to?
RAYMOND OFFENHEISER: Well, tax havens basically is a mechanism that’s been created by the financial industry and corporations to allow them to basically produce value in one location and then transfer that value—that may have a high tax base or tax rate, and then transfer it, in some fashion or another, to another location with a much lower tax rate, and then pay the tax rate in those locations where it’s much more favorable. And there’s all sorts of accounting mechanisms that allow this to happen, and also legislation that provides loopholes that enable companies to move value overseas. So, for example, here in the United States, companies actually can deduct the cost of moving jobs overseas, in one case. They can actually move the value of brands and trademarks overseas. They can actually—they’re exempt from, for example, taxing the value of subsidiaries overseas. So there’s a variety of ways these tax havens—that tax rules enable the tax havens to work. The banking industry has been a major beneficiary of all this, because this money is then put in bank accounts in these tax havens, so you’ve seen an explosion of banking—you know, offshoring of the banking industry to the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin—
AMY GOODMAN: What’s the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act?
RAYMOND OFFENHEISER: Well, this is an act that’s been put forward in Congress by Carl Levin and Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island—Carl Levin from Michigan, Whitehouse from Rhode Island, and Lloyd Doggett from Texas. And it’s an act—it now has 41 sponsors in the House, three in the Senate—that basically tries to close exactly the loopholes I just mentioned and a variety of other ones. Quite frankly, what it really does is it closes those loopholes, and it tries to force, through SEC regulation, greater levels of transparency, and try to get rid of this disconnect between where you generate value and where you report it. And what we really want to force the companies to do is to say—if you produce value in the United States, you know, and you produce value overseas, that should be fully transparent to citizens, so we actually can get a fair deal on taxation of corporations, because it’s that diminished corporate taxation that’s creating the situations we see in Flint and a variety of other locations around the United States and around the world.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, a large number of the billionaires listed in Forbes have inherited their wealth. Could you talk about the importance of estate tax?
RAYMOND OFFENHEISER: Well, I think we believe that the whole issue of wealth of individuals is as important in corporate tax. We’ve been focusing on corporate tax, in some sense, because we see it as really a global issue. I think 47 of the 62 [billionaires] are actually Americans, so we have a really particular problem here at home. But what Oxfam is really focused on is: What does this mean for developing countries, where we’re trying to address poverty issues? What does it mean in Africa? And what does it mean in some of these emerging economies where we see actually wealth and high rates of growth? What we’re trying to focus on is, if we allow the system to continue in the way it’s continuing, those countries will lose critical value they need now to fund their own development. And the endgame we seek is actually one in which countries are taking responsibility for their own development by building strong institutions and building a tax system that will fund their citizens’ welfare.
AMY GOODMAN: What’s the real price of tax dodging?
RAYMOND OFFENHEISER: Well, it varies country to country. I think here in the United—
AMY GOODMAN: Right here.
RAYMOND OFFENHEISER: Right here in the United States, I think we estimate that if we close the loopholes through the Stop Haven Abuse Act, we’d probably have—we’d probably have 220 billion additional dollars that we could invest in the economy over about a five- to 10-year period.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to continue this conversation and post it online at democracynow.org. Raymond Offenheiser is president of the international relief and development organization Oxfam America. We’ll link to the report it’s just put out, “An Economy for the 1%: How privilege and power in the economy drive extreme inequality and how this can be stopped.”
March 6, 2015
Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said on Thursday that NATO cannot be the sole guarantor of freedom and security in a modern world, reports the Russian Tass news agency, Antonov added that some countries now are trying to impose their policy and position on others and that latest developments show how imperfect the world is.
In 2008 NATO and the UN signed a Secretariat Coordination Treaty that implies that NATO has become the de facto military enforcement instrument of the international body, even though NATO is not representative of UN members or their individual rights or policies. The signing of this treaty was largely omitted by most media.
Russia has since the reunification of Germany repeatedly complained that it perceives NATO’s eastwards expansion and the deployment of anti-missile systems directed against Russia along its borders as a potential threat and as a violation of the agreements which led to the reunification of Germany.
This position has, among others, been stressed by the last Soviet leader Michael Gorbachev. It was confirmed by the former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas who stressed that the understanding that NATO would not expand eastwards was by all sides understood as “the essence of peace”.
The dispute was to some degree mitigated by the Russian – NATO cooperation within the NATO’s “Partnership for Peace” program which has largely been suspended since the eruption of the conflict in and about Ukraine in 2014. The Tass news agency quotes Antonov as saying that:
“Some countries and even associations, such as the European Union, venture to define who and how should behave themselves on the international arena. If anyone voices another stance, which is different from that of Washington, Brussels and Ottawa, then they try to punish this country. … This is what is happening in regard to Russia today.”
Antonov stressed that there today is a lack of confidence between the countries and that it would be difficult to mend the international security system which has been seriously undermined by the actions of the United States and its allies in the international arena.
He added, however, that the potential of Russian – U.S.’ relations has not yet been exhausted although he never, in his entire diplomatic career that relations had been has difficult as they were today. Antonov stressed that the Ukrainian crisis affects security throughout Europe.
International law with regard to the situation in Ukraine is difficult and subject to interpretation rather than regulation. On one hand there is the principal of non-interference into internal affairs which has been undermined, practically by financing policy groups and NGOs and legally by constructs such as the “responsibility to protect”.
One the other hand there is the principle about the invulnerability of national borders. This principle, on the other hand, is being contradicted by the equally valid right to self-determination as seen in the Crimean referendum and Crimea’s accession into the Russian Federation or the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence. International law is, on other words, highly subjective and based on policy and constructs about apparent “legitimacy” rather than legality and law.
It is within this climate that Russia invited NATO members to attend a security conference in Moscow in mid-April. Antonov noted that Moscow has invited all NATO member States as well as the leadership of the Alliance. He added that some countries had confirmed their participation but that the names of these countries and participants would be announced later.
Experts warn about the risk of unwanted nuclear war. Several analysts would note that the deterioration in relations between NATO and Russia poses an acute risk for a military escalation which could include the use of nuclear weapons and escalate into a conflict of global reach regardless whether it is wanted or unwanted.
During a two-day symposium at the New York Academy of Medical Sciences on February 28 and March 1, 2015, several internationally renown experts warned about the risk about a potential escalation of the situation in Ukraine and the involvement of nuclear weapons due to mutual distrust and nuclear forces being on hair-trigger alert.
The symposium, organized by the Dr. Helen Caldicott Foundation was attended by internationally renown experts, including Theodore Postol, Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology, and National Security Policy, MIT, Max Tegmark, Professor of Physics, MIT, Alan Robok, Distinguished Professor, Department Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, Holly Baker, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Hans Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists, John Feffer, Institute of Policy Studies, and many others.
Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com
Notes for Understanding the Lima Outcome
The “Lima call for climate action” which came out of the recent UN climate talks, establishes a roadmap to a post-2020 agreement that will be weaker than the ongoing Cancun Agreement (for 2012-2020), and it lays a foundation for an even worse agreement in Paris in 2015.
The Cancun Agreement opened the door to dismantling the Kyoto Protocol, pushing for voluntary “pledges” instead of increased mandatory “commitments” for emission cuts.
The bottom-up approach of the Cancun Agreement has failed. Four years since its adoption in 2010, there is a big gap in emission cuts of around 12 gigatons of CO2e by 2020. The “business as usual” scenario for global greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 is 57 gigatons of CO2e. The Cancun Agreement has reduced that figure only by one or two gigatons, and we need to be below 44 gigatons by 2020 in order to be on a pathway that limits the increase in global temperature to 2º C.
The emissions gap for this decade was not reduced at all during COP20 (the 20th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change or UNFCCC) in Lima, Peru. This makes it impossible to catch up with a 2º C pathway in the next decade, since, according to reports from sources like UNEP’s Gap Report and the Stockholm Environment Institute, the global peak year should happen before 2020. This situation is even worse because China announced in its agreement with the United States that it will only reach peak emissions by 2030.
The Lima text prefigures the outcome of the Paris agreement on the basis of the same laissez-faire logic of “do what you want” when it comes to emission cuts established by the Cancun Agreement. The Paris agreement will replace the term “pledges” with “contributions” for emission cuts in the post-2020 period and continue with the same logic.
The Lima text invites “all Parties to communicate their contributions “by the first quarter of 2015 by those Parties ready to do so.” How those Parties that are “ready to do so” will communicate their “contributions” is left to their own criteria: “intended nationally determined contributions” (INDCs) “may include, as appropriate, inter alia, quantifiable information on the reference point (including, as appropriate, a base year), time frames and/or periods for implementation, scope and coverage, planning processes, assumptions and methodological approaches including those for estimating and accounting for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions…”
The annex on how to report INDCs is dropped from the final decision. It blatantly deletes the proposals of developing countries to have two different tracks for reporting INDCs (one for developed and another for developing countries), plus a clear scope that should include mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage, finance, technology transfer, and capacity building. The scope of INDCs is now mainly around mitigation, with no explicit difference between developed and developing countries.
The last-minute addition of “the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in light of different national circumstances” is a copy-paste from the US-China agreement and has no concrete implications in the different articles of the Lima text. This general mention of common but differentiated responsibilities is like putting on your left blinker when you are really turning to the right. The Paris agreement will dilute more and more the historical responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions of developed and emerging economies. The United States and China have an agreement to erase their responsibility in the climate chaos they created.
The final Lima text “urges developed country Parties to provide and mobilize enhanced financial support to developing country Parties.” In previous versions, it called on all Parties to mobilize financial support. “All Parties” denotes that even developing countries will “mobilize” financial support for other developing countries, losing the principle of developed countries’ “historical responsibility.” This text was so bad that it clearly had to be unacceptable and therefore changed to “developed country Parties” instead of “all parties.” It is important to note though that for developed Parties, the term “mobilize” means that financial support can come not just from the public sector, but also from the private sector, carbon markets, and development bank loans.
And in the end, despite all the nice speeches, there are no references to loss and damage or to human rights in the final decision, and the references to adaptation, finance, transfer of technology and capacity building are very general.
The Lima text “acknowledges the progress made in Lima in elaborating the elements for a draft negotiating text,” and attached this text as the only annex of the decision. It states that “These elements for a draft negotiating text reflect work in progress” and includes different proposals for the Paris agreement. Some delegations consider that their proposals have not been fully captured as “options” in the 39 pages and 103 paragraphs of this text. Nonetheless, the text reflects the key scenarios that will be considered for the Paris agreement.
An analysis of the different options shows that the best proposals in the text are far behind from what is really needed to address climate change. Here are some examples:
1) Mitigation contributions will be voluntary, and the new emissions gap for the post-2020 period will be known after the first quarter of 2015 if the big emitters communicate their contributions. There will be no real negotiation in Paris about the heart of the climate agreement, which should be the magnitude of emission cuts and how consistent they are with limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5º C or 2 ºC. One month before COP21 in Paris, the secretariat of the UNFCCC will prepare a “synthesis report on the aggregate effect” of the INDCs. In the “elements” text, there are no proposals that say that commitments from all Parties – taking into account their common but differentiated responsibilities – should assure global emissions of less than 40 gigatons of CO2e by 2025 to limit the average global temperature increase to below 2 °C. The most advanced proposal speaks in general about “a global emission budget to be divided among all Parties, in accordance with the principles and provisions of the Convention,” however without specifying an amount or a timeline. There are also regressive proposals that move negotiations backwards by moving the base year for emission cuts from 1990 up to 2010, which will in reality hide the weak percentages on emission cuts.
2) In the entire text, there is no proposal from any country to leave 75% or 80% of known fossil fuel reserves under the ground, something that must be done if we want to limit CO2 emissions to a pathway of less than 1.5 or 2º C. In the 1,892 lines of the text, there is only one mention of “fossil fuels” – regarding a proposal to phase out “fossil fuel subsidies” – and there are only general mentions of “reductions in high-carbon investments.” No mention at all is made of the need to limit extractive industries.
3) There is no reference at all in the text to the need to change our current patterns of production and consumption. The different proposals focus on reductions of emissions produced in a country, and not the emissions consumed in a country. Actually, one-third of CO2e emissions associated with the goods and services consumed in developed countries are being emitted outside the borders of those nations, mostly in the developing world. It is not enough to reduce emissions in developed countries if they do not also reduce their consumption of products that generate CO2e emissions in other parts of the world.
4) There is no proposal for a strong compliance mechanism for climate change mitigation commitments. What happens if a big polluter fails to cut emissions on time and damages a vulnerable country is not considered in the text. No mention is made of a mechanism to demand and sanction governments and corporations for their inaction. All the options in the text consider only processes of review or assessment. A climate agreement without a strong compliance mechanism is just a political declaration.
5) In the negotiating text for the Cancun Agreement, there were proposals to recognize and guarantee the rights of Mother Earth as a clear expression that, in order to deal with climate change, humans must change our relationship with nature: stop treating it as an object and preserve its vital cycles. Now, in this negotiating text, the proposal of rights of Mother Earth is not even being considered. A single mention is made of “the protection of the integrity of Mother Earth,” and only once does the need to “respect human rights” come up – on the same level as “the right to development.”
6) No proposal is included from any country that suggests carbon market mechanisms should be avoided in the Paris Agreement to ensure that a country really fulfills its commitment to make emission cuts without buying offsets. The text instead mentions several different kinds of carbon markets and carbon pricing:
a) “Flexibility mechanisms established by Articles 6 and 12 of the Kyoto Protocol,” which means that this protocol will no longer exist after 2020, but its carbon mechanism will continue
b) “New market-based mechanism defined in decision 2/CP.17, paragraph 83”
c) “Subnational, national and regional emissions trading schemes”
d) “A REDD-plus mechanism”
e) “In meeting their commitments/contributions/actions, Parties may make use of market mechanisms and actions in the land-use sector” which opens the door to Climate Smart Agriculture
7) On the other hand, when it comes to “loss and damage,” there are proposals to exclude any reference on this issue affecting vulnerable countries that are already suffering from climate change.
8) In relation to finance, the most radical proposal appears only once: “Annex I Parties / Developed country Parties to provide 1 per cent of gross domestic product per year from 2020,” which represents around $450 billion per year. The rest of the proposals speak about $50-100 billion per year, and some say there should not be a specific figure. There is no proposal from any country to reduce global military expenditures – which reached $1,747 billion dollars in 2013 – in order to attend to the climate emergency. At this stage, it is clear that by 2020, developed countries will not provide anywhere near $100 billion dollars per year to developing countries. When it comes to the source of finance, there is a clear trend toward favoring the approach of “mobilizing” (instead of providing) money from public, private and “alternative sources” like carbon markets.
9) The “elements” text has a real push for private investment: “A mechanism to attract the private sector to invest in projects,” “public-sector finance to catalyze and avoid crowding out private-sector investments, ensuring that private-sector investment is not displaced,” “the governing body (of the agreement) shall develop modalities for leveraging and freeing up private finance to support the implementation of this agreement,” etc. And there is no option that says that private investment should be controlled and restricted in order to avoid profiting and grabbing from climate disasters.
10) The legal status of the expected Paris agreement is still under debate. It could be a “protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome.” This “agreement” will be open “for signature and subject to ratification, acceptance or approval,” which gives the United States the possibility to not have Congress ratification for this “agreement”.
11) Finally, no proposal is included from any country proposing to ban or avoid forms of geo-engineering, in particular Carbon Capture and Storage, which has been considered as an option in the Fifth Assessment Report of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change. This is extremely dangerous, because proposals like achieving “net zero emissions or full decarbonization by 2050” with no mention of leaving 80% of fossil fuel reserves under the soil can open the door to the use of these technologies in the Paris “agreement.”
In synthesis, an “agreement” that does not close the emissions gap for this decade, that continues with voluntary contributions with no clear targets for the next decade, has no strong compliance mechanisms and more cheating carbon market mechanisms, puts the future of humanity and life as we know it on our planet Earth in serious jeopardy.
 The executive summary of the UNEP The Emissions Gap Report 2013 states: “In the scenarios assessed in this report, global emission levels in 2025 and 2030 consistent with the 2° C target amount to approximately 40 GtCO2e (range: 35–45 GtCO2e) and 35 GtCO2e (range: 32–42 GtCO2e), respectively. In these scenarios, global emissions in 2050 amount to 22 GtCO2e (range: 18–25 GtCO2e). These levels are all based on the assumption that the 2020 least-cost level of 44 GtCO2e per year will be achieved.”
‘Attempts to combat global climate change will likely fail’ in face of ever-increasing coal use, warn researchers
As worldwide coal consumption continues to rise, efforts to keep global warming below the 2 degrees Celsius warming threshold will very likely fail, warns environmental research group Worldwatch Institute in a new analysis of coal data.
Global coal consumption rose 3 percent from 2012 to 2013, reaching over 3,800 million tons of oil equivalent (mtoe) in 2013, according to numbers provided to Worldwatch by BP.
Further troubling, according to the analysis, is that the world’s coal supply is getting “dirtier” as continued demand and lower prices create markets for coal with lower energy content. For example, in 2012, “the average heat content of coal produced in the United States was about 23.4 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg), down from 29.17 MJ/kg in 2005,” the group notes.
“This means that more and more coal needs to be burned to generate the same amount of heat for a desired electricity output.”
And according to the Worldwatch analysis, emerging economies, such as China and India, are the primary drivers of increasing coal consumption. Coal demand in China has almost tripled since 2000, notes the group, rising from 683.5 mtoe at the turn of the century to 1,933.1 mtoe in 2013—more than half of the global figure.
In contrast, the United States has decreased its coal use while becoming increasingly reliant on domestic oil and natural gas production. In 2013, the U.S. consumed 455.7 mtoe of coal. However, despite efforts to reduce its own carbon emissions, recent studies have shown that the U.S. continues to export coal and its related pollution to other countries. According to an Associated Press analysis published this summer, in 2012, about 9 percent of worldwide coal exports originated in the U.S.
Coal consumption in the European Union has also followed a downward trend in recent years, which the analysis attributes to “the EU’s flat overall energy consumption since 1990” and an increasing shift towards renewables driven largely by policy and financial incentives.
Although the report acknowledges that the pace of growth for coal use is slowing, researchers warn that the trend will likely come too late in the face of international climate inaction.
“If coal consumption continues to increase and no meaningful binding multilateral agreements on climate change are made, attempts to combat global climate change will likely fail,” writes Christoph von Friedeburg, a research fellow at the Worldwatch Institute. “One source of hope is that the combination of decreasing energy intensity and declining costs of renewables will cause coal’s share to keep shrinking and stop the global rise in the use of the dirtiest energy source.”