Cui bono?

One of the fundamental questions to ask when faced with the more curious and excessive displays of human intransigence is “who benefits from this?” In many cases, following the money can lead to surprising revelations.

When the alarmism around man-made global warming kicked off, anyone daring to question it was slapped down as being in the pay of “big oil”. And any objective science that was published had the money followed and eventually some “big oil” would be in there somewhere and there would be a “smoking gun” that would allow the lentilists to scream accusations of financial bias. But as the man-made global warming scam metamorphosed into the anthropogenic climate change scam, a little prodding would reveal substantial amounts of money supporting “ACC”.

It was recently revealed that the ostensibly “balanced” BBC, which trumpets a relentlessly alarmist line on climate change, has a massive chunk of its pension fund tied up in “green” funds. These funds perform better the more fear there is about climate change. Is that a cui I hear being bono-ed there?

There was, of course, a small but important difference between “big oil” money and “ACC” money: “big oil” used their own money, legally obtained in voluntary transactions. “ACC” money is actually your money and mine, extorted under duress by governments around the world and used to finance a tool to control the masses that is so effective and all-encompassing, that governments around the world were drooling at the prospect. New taxes were created from thin air (ha! ha!), a convenient proxy for the problem was identified and measures and tests to support the taxes sprang up overnight.

Then came the Kyoto Protocol, a document that, if agreed to by the whole world and implemented fully, would delay Armageddon by two years. It seemed like an insane amount of money to spend on two extra years. I couldn’t understand why anybody would bother. But when you ask the question: “Who benefits?” it all becomes clear.

The Kyoto Protocol was not about the survival of humanity in a hundred- or two hundred-year’s time. It was a business opportunity, the chance to trade in carbon dioxide emissions. The governments of the world got together and signed up to a market that would not fix a non-existent problem, but would give every huckster in the world a green light to take a slice of your taxes. Forget wind farms and all the sustainable eco-waffle, forget the money being poured into “research institutions” to “research” “climate change”, forget the dodgy emails, the book sales – forget all of them.

The serious money is in trading thin air.

As a prospective bubble, it’s certainly got the South Sea bubble whacked to the wide.

All of which leads us on to the WWF – the con artists formerly known as the World Wildlife Fund, a noble, caring and charitable institution and a beacon of hope for our beleaguered planet! The marvellous Christopher Booker has done some digging:

If the world’s largest, richest environmental campaigning group, the WWF – formerly the World Wildlife Fund – announced that it was playing a leading role in a scheme to preserve an area of the Amazon rainforest twice the size of Switzerland, many people might applaud, thinking this was just the kind of cause the WWF was set up to promote. Amazonia has long been near the top of the list of the world’s environmental cconcerns, not just because it includes easily the largest and most bio-diverse area of rainforest on the planet, but because its billions of trees contain the world’s largest land-based store of CO2 – so any serious threat to the forest can be portrayed as a major contributor to global warming.

Indeed. It all sounds so noble and caring, doesn’t it? And indeed, it’s a very common thread in the arguments by alarmists: “It doesn’t matter if we’re right or wrong, our motives are pure and noble and so even if we’re not right, you should do what we say.”

Imagine, if you will, a situation where a young man called Fred is trying to seduce a young lady called Daphne. Daphne wishes to retain her virtue, Fred is determined to deprive her of it. Fred concocts a cock-and-bull story about a vampire who only drains female virgins and males who have carnal knowledge. Thus, to protect Daphne, he has to have his way with her and then flee as far away as possible. Unfortunately, he’s a bit short of money, and could Daphne give him the money to try and escape once he’s had his fun?

Well, faced with this situation, you would certainly say that Fred is a bounder and a cad and possibly several other things as well. Next time somebody tells you that the climate is changing and “we need to do something to save the planet”, remember that he’s Fred. And you are Daphne.

Anyway, I digress, albeit not by much:

If it then emerged, however, that a hidden agenda of the scheme to preserve this chunk of the forest was to allow the WWF and its partners to share the selling of carbon credits worth $60 billion, to enable firms in the industrial world to carry on emitting CO2 just as before, more than a few eyebrows might be raised. The idea is that credits representing the CO2 locked into this particular area of jungle – so remote that it is not under any threat – should be sold on the international market, allowing thousands of companies in the developed world to buy their way out of having to restrict their carbon emissions. The net effect would simply be to make the WWF and its partners much richer while making no contribution to lowering overall CO2 emissions.

Ah! That is definitely the sound of a cui being bono-ed! The WWF currently makes around £400 million annually, much of it paid out of taxes from around the world, to lobby the governments of the world to give them more money. If there was ever an argument against a government, it’s got to be that no government should ever be stupid enough to do this. But are they stupid? I suspect they are “crazy like a fox”, because there are plenty of people who say insane things like:

Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.

I wonder if Mr Lovelock has any pecuniary interests in this alarmism?

What government could resist the opportunity to get rid of those irritating and demanding voters? And they’re “saving the planet” by ignoring them, too!

And it’s interesting how many of the fallacious claims recently identified in the IPCC report, have come from WWF “research”.

Still, this particular iteration has worked out OK for us … so far!

The WWF’s dream has been thwarted – but the revelation that it could even be party to such a scheme may have considerable influence on the way this richest of all environmental campaigning groups is viewed by the world at large.

Well, they certainly don’t seem to care too much about wildlife any more! I trust that everyone will be cancelling any donations they make to the WWF and will firmly tell any future WWF “chuggers” to exercise the “sex and travel” option – I know I will.

1
PT March 30, 2010 at 08:45

Very well said, Thaddeus. Of course the climate is changing, it always has changed one way or another, and always will. Change is the only constant. Not that I notice much change here in the last half century – the sea level is the same as it was, and it’s still bloody cold (8C) at the end of winter. But you’re right about the money – a huge scam. Now, if the argument were about overpopulation and consequent pollution and resource depletion….. but enough of that, can’t go giving them ideas!

2
Uncle Marvo March 30, 2010 at 09:02

I think the WWF should start by changing that Panda for a Raccoon.

3
Letters From A Tory March 30, 2010 at 09:19

Fascinating. And there was me thinking that the BBC loved climate change just because it appealed to their cultural liberal bias!

4
madness March 30, 2010 at 09:21

The transfer of 1700 jobs from Corus in Teeside to India is a classic example of where things are going. The plant at Teeside was closed down and an identical plant in India was built to take up the slack of the much needed steel. The UK government earned £100m in carbon credits for closing the steelworks and Tata earned £600 to £1Bn in carbon loans from the world bank etc to build the new factory in India. Being a low carbon emitter India is allowed to build steelworks that produce the same CO2 emissions as ours.

5
JuliaM March 30, 2010 at 09:22

Cheers up! Nature has a way of evening everything out…

6
Thaddeus J. Wilson March 30, 2010 at 10:03

Thanks for that, Julia, it cheered me immensely!

7
Blink March 30, 2010 at 10:25

1. the climate will change after the election anyway

2. I don’t like bono

8
JuliaM March 30, 2010 at 10:35

Sadly, it was too good to be true. A commenter pointed out that it came from a ‘Daily Mash’ type site. Really, you can’t tell satire from reality any more!

9
Tractor Stats The Truth March 30, 2010 at 14:12

Spring has sprung and it seems to be leaking out of the clouds above me, very strange, ‘nanny’ never mentioned it would be this wet today!

10
John Pickworth March 30, 2010 at 17:04

WWF will get not a cent of my money.

Same goes for most of the Mega-Corp Charities. If you want to save say donkeys, then give to an organisation that cares for them… not those that spend your hard earned donations on dinner with Ministers or seminars in the Seychelles etc. Sounds obvious but look at the millions given each year by fools who know no better.