Costa Rican Shill Heading UN Climate Fraud Negotiations

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
August 9, 2010

Cristiana Figueres, a descendant of a Costa Rican elite family is the top United Nations climate official in charge of conducting negotiations to impose a worldwide tax on humanity for the purpose of funding the World Climate Fund, a United Nations organ that would rule over every single country on environmental policy. Figueres is the daughter of former Costa Rican president Jose Figueres Ferrer and sister of also former Costa Rican president Jose Maria Figueres Olsen. Figueres got the position only after her predecessor Yvo de Boer walked away from the chairmanship after the fiasco in Copenhagen, Denmark. She was proposed as a replacement by a group of insular nations who opposed the arrival of a representative from the BSAIC, a group of countries formed by Brazil, South Africa, India and China. This group was the only bloc opposed to the insane policies the United Nations wanted to approve at the Copenhagen meeting. After the failure to reach a consensus, the United Nations is back bolder than ever and with a new face. It wants to mandate that countries finance and support the World Climate Fund which will undoubtedly be managed by the controllers that founded and direct the UN today.

Cristiana Figueres, Head of the UN Convention on Climate Change.

The United Nations wants to make sure once countries meet back to discuss the creation of the World Climate Fund, most nations will be on board with the climate tax scam that this organization, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have requested as their only solution to face an inexistent global warming emergency. Developing countries withdrew their support in Copenhagen after a document was released establishing the real intentions the United Nations and the industrialized countries had with the adoption of the Copenhagen Treaty. In it, the UN intended to impose a mandatory tax on all nations which would have started with the establishment of national emission reduction targets and contributions to the Fund.

What tipped the developing countries against the Treaty was the fact the document clearly stated that third world countries would not receive the funding promised by the UN on the conditions stated in a previous draft of the Treaty, and that such subsidies for cutting down emissions would have strings attached. “It’s a little bit like a broken record,” said European Union negotiator Artur Runge-Metzger. “It’s like a flashback,” agreed Raman Mehta, of the Action Aid environment group. “The discourse is the same level” as before Copenhagen.

Organizations like the UN as well as many bought and paid-for scientists justify the imposition of a world tax on industrialization due to the false unproven and debunked assertion that carbon dioxide, a gas emitted from most industrial activity, is responsible for the runaway warming of the planet. It is false, because the planet has actually cooled off in the last 10 to 12 years. Their assertion is unproven, because in spite of the thousands of white papers and studies scientists and universities cite as infallible proof CO2 causes the warming, the truth is, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4-6 percent of the total amount of gases present. From those 4-6 percent, human activity is only responsible for about half. But even if human activity was responsible for such warming, how would a world tax on emissions help slow atmospheric pollution? It does not. The funds raised from adopting any kind of protocol or treaty, would only help finance the creation of a global centralized entity, that not only the United Nations but also the World Bank and the IMF have uncontrollably called for.

According to the Associated Press, global climate talks slipped backward after five days of negotiations in Bonn, Germany. There, poor countries faced-off with rich nations on the very same topic that sank the Copenhagen negotiations: The details on what countries in the third world would receive and under what conditions as well as agreements they made last year.  “Delegates complained that reversals in the talks put negotiations back by a year, even before minimal gains were scored at the Copenhagen summit last December,” reports the AP.

Christiana Figueres, said the Bonn talks was the last chance for nations to agree on a set of maximum national demands, and insisted countries had to “radically narrow down their choices”. One more round of talks is scheduled for October in China. The results of the November meeting in Cancun, Mexico have already been downplayed by organizers in order to avoid the grand fiasco experienced in Denmark. But Figueres’ statement makes it clear developing countries will have to abide by the rules the globalists at the head of the UN want to impose; or else. It seems the UN wants every country to approve their package of “concessions” and take it home where it can be passed as the law of the land. This way, the agreement will be binding. Another fact that made poor countries get up from the table in Copenhagen, was the statement countries who signed the Treaty could not withdraw from it later. Not even Barack Hussein Obama, fresh from a highly overrated election, was able to inspire confidence in the 120 representatives who walked away from the conference. The failure Copenhagen came to be known for, ended with an empty statement pledging to downgrade industrialization to levels only seen in the middle ages and to reduce emissions to amounts only realistic in the planet Earth of the 1700’s. Not even the explicit and corrupt intention to buy countries off was enough to reach a binding agreement.

Although treaties have always promised to provide aid to developing nations in order to reduce carbon emissions, their representatives did not bite the bait, as rich nations would not do the same. It is through schemes like Cap&Trade, that industrialized nations would encourage and indeed pimp the very own emissions plan to large corporations -owned by globalists- so they do not have to reduce their emissions neither in developed countries nor in Asia, Africa or Latin America. According to the Cap&Trade text, anyone with deep pockets (corporations funded by banks) could purchase carbon credits from other companies or from the Chicago Credit Exchange to continue polluting. Where would the emissions reduction come from then? From the no development of poor nations. The Cap&Trade scam would not only further break down all current industry in developed countries, but also stop any hint of development in third world nations.

“At this point, I am very concerned,” said chief U.S. delegate Jonathan Pershing. “Unfortunately, what we have seen over and over this week is that some countries are walking back from progress made in Copenhagen, and what was agreed there.” On the other hand, British economist Nicholas Stern said that government regulation and public money would also be needed to create incentives for private investment in industries that emit fewer greenhouse gases. In other words, tax payer money would bailout large corporations (owned by banks) in order for them to get rich as they themselves manage the carbon credit scam. For this purpose, the United Nations brought in an unknown face (Cristiana Figueres) in order to gain some confidence back from disenchanted representatives. The new head of the Convention on Climate Change is seen as an expert due to her experience as president of several working groups, (the compartmentalized type) that meet behind closed doors to secretly decide on the destinies of millions of people. She is recognized for having a deep understanding of how the inside circles are managed in negotiations such as the climate tax and the creation of unelected, unaccountable bureaucratic bodies.

With the most recent face change, the United Nations wants to achieve the same effect the globalists looked for in the United States with Barack Obama. Once the people learn of the scam they run, a new puppet must come to be the front man, (in this case, the front woman) so they can enforce their eugenicist scientific technocracy. But as everyone has seen with Obama, you can only fool some people for some time, but you cannot fool all people all the time. Now we see the light.*

*Bob Marley

Greece Selling Islands to “Save Its Economy”

As any other consolidation scheme created by the bankers, the control and acquisition of Greek lands and resources is well on its way.  Greece asked for financial aid to the very bankers it was in debt with.  Now, as part of the deal, Greece is giving away its land.  How much can an undeveloped island cost in the middle of a depression these days?  Little enough for billionaires and bankers to buy it for pennies on the Euro.

Elena Moya

Desperate attempt to repay debts also driven by inability to find funds to develop infrastructure on islands

There’s little that shouts “seriously rich” as much as a little island in the sun to call your own. For Sir Richard Branson it is Neckar in the Caribbean, the billionaire Barclay brothers prefer Brecqhou in the Channel Islands, while Aristotle Onassis married Jackie Kennedy on Skorpios, his Greek hideway.

Now Greece is making it easier for the rich and famous to fulfill their dreams by preparing to sell, or offering long-term leases on, some of its 6,000 sunkissed islands in a desperate attempt to repay its mountainous debts.

The Guardian has learned that an area in Mykonos, one of Greece’s top tourist destinations, is one of the sites for sale. The area is one-third owned by the government, which is looking for a buyer willing to inject capital and develop a luxury tourism complex, according to a source close to the negotiations.

Potential investors also looking at property on the island of Rhodes, are mostly Russian and Chinese. Investors in both countries are looking for a little bit of the Mediterranean as holiday destinations for their increasingly affluent populations. Roman Abramovich, the billionaire owner of Chelsea football club, is among those understood to be interested, although a spokesman denied he was about to invest.

Greece has embarked on the desperate measures after being pushed into a €110bn (£90bn) bailout by the EU and the IMF last month, following a decade of overspending and after jittery investors raised borrowing costs to unbearable levels.

The sale of an island – or convincing a member of the international jet-set to take on a long-term lease – would help to boost its coffers. The Private Islands website lists 1,235-acre Nafsika, in the Ionian sea, on sale for €15m. But others are on for less than €2m – less than a townhouse in Mayfair or Chelsea. Some of the country’s numerous islands are tiny which could barely fit a single sunbed.

Only 227 Greek islands are populated and the decision to press ahead with potential sales has also been driven by the inability of the state to develop basic infrastructure, or police most of its islands. The hope is that the sale or long-term lease of some islands will attract investment that will generate jobs and taxable income.

Told by the Guardian that such sales or leases were in prospect, Makis Perdikaris, director of Greek Island Properties, said that he would be unhappy at the prospect of any outright sale of state land: “I am sad – selling off your islands or areas that belong to the people of Greece should be used as the last resort,” he said. But he was not necessarily against long-term leases: “The first thing is to develop the economy and attract foreign domestic investment to create the -necessary infrastructure. The point is to get money.”

In its battle to raise funds, the country is also planning to sell its rail and water companies. Chinese investors are understood to be interested in the Greek train system, as they already control some of the ports. In a deal announced earlier this month, the Greek government also agreed to export olive oil to China.

After the socialist government of prime minister Geórgios Papandreou responded to the IMF bailout with draconian budget cuts, rioters took to the streets, costing three lives in May.

In the midst of the crisis, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, delayed her support as she faced local elections and popular opposition to any public-funded help to Greece.

As strikes almost paralysed the country and hedge funds bet against the economy, German politicians called for Greece to start selling islands, historic buildings and artworks. It now appears that the Greek government has heeded their demands.

The City, where investors are increasingly shunning Greek investments, welcomed any island sales. “It’s a shame if it has come to this but it does at least demonstrate that Greece is prepared to take all actions necessary to try and meet its obligations,” said Gary Jenkins, a credit analyst at Evolution Securities.

Property prices have fallen between 10% and 20% since the May riots in Athens, as bad publicity has drawn visitors away, Perdikaris said.

“We have experienced a very slow booking season. Most tour operators offer hugely discounted rates,” he said. Britons account for more than 60% of his company’s property sales.

• This article was amended on 25 June 2010. The original heading – Greece puts its islands up for sale to save economy – went beyond what the story said. This has been corrected. More context has been added to a quotation from Makis Perdikaris, director of Greek Island Properties, to make clear that he was not expressing knowledge of existing Greek government sales of island land.

Internet Police: The ACTA Copyright Treaty

GIGAOM

After years of secrecy, the eighth round of talks aimed at drafting an international treaty called the Anti-Counterfeiting Tradeinternet policeAgreement (ACTA) recently concluded in New Zealand — and in the face of public pressure, a version of the text was subsequently made available to the public. The ACTA is neither a trade agreement nor one focused primarily on counterfeiting, but a copyright deal featuring provisions on Internet service provider and Internet company liability, DMCA-style notice and takedown requirements, legal protection for digital locks, and requirements for statutory damages that could result in millions in liability for non-commercial infringement — even heightened searches at border crossings.

Ever since the ACTA partners — among them the U.S., E.U., Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Morocco and Singapore — announced negotiations plans in October 2007, ACTA has been dogged by controversy over a near-total lack of transparency. Early talks were held in secret locations with each participating country offering virtually identical, cryptic press releases that did little more than fuel public concern. Now that the ACTA text is public, some might wonder whether there’s still cause for concern. Indeed, given widespread support for measures that target genuine commercial counterfeiting, some might believe it’s time to actively support ACTA.

It’s not — at least not this version.

Still secret

From a transparency perspective, the text release still feels like the exception to the general secrecy rule. The ACTA governments have revealed that the next round of negotiations will take place in Switzerland in June, but currently refuse to provide a specific location or dates. Moreover, the official release scrubbed all references to country positions (such information was available in a previously leaked version), so as to U.S. government claims that ACTA is fully consistent with current U.S. law, at this point we have to take their word for it.

Different region, different rules

Of even greater concern are the provisions themselves. Because of the large number of substantive rules and the differences in domestic law among the ACTA countries, fears about specific provisions vary from region to region. In the U.S., ACTA might means the rules for obtaining injunctions would have to be changed, removing some of the balancing safeguards that currently exist. In Europe, ACTA’s privacy implications have generated concern from data protection authorities and the prospect of mandatory statutory damages, which has led to the multimillion-dollar file-sharing lawsuits in the U.S., would represent a major change in the law there.

Virtually every member country would have to amend its own rules and regulations: Japan would have to change its laws to require ISP policies on allegations of subscriber infringement, Australia would need anti-camcording rules, New Zealand would have to change its anti-circumvention rules and Canada would be forced to adopt a notice-and-takedown system similar to the one found in the U.S. Of course, the many countries excluded from the ACTA talks — including China, Brazil and India — would likely face pressure to conform to ACTA standards and if they complied, even more dramatic changes.

Behind closed doors

Beyond the fundamental reshaping of intellectual property law on a global scale, ACTA is also reframing how those laws are made. The alphabet soup of international organizations typically responsible for such issues — WTO, WIPO, WHO, UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT, UNCTAD, OECD –- are all far more open, transparent and inclusive than ACTA.

More…