COP 15 The Deal sabotage “Coal & Oil lobby throws

in the spanners”at Copenhagen

Climate Change : Positive Solutions Series CE 82: “Sabotaging Kyoto & Climate pacts ” !!!

What Kyoto proposed ?

• The Kyoto pact of 1997 introduced binding targets for greenhouse gas GHG emissions in all the 37 industrialised nations from 2008 to 2012 with an objective of 5 % reduction by 2012.

What Kyoto achieved

GHG Emissions of G7 rise from 2000-2007 says UNFCC http://bit.ly/5DoKX

Carbon emissions of G7 rise 3 % despite carbon cap.

So Carbon Capping did not work

• Only $ 366 million raised in U.S. and similar small sums in Europe in country wise carbon auctions in 2008.

• Mega market pipe dream busted as real numbers appear. http://tinyurl.com/luzxss

Carbon prices remain low

U.S. Carbon auction price less than $ 4 / unit at RGGI auctions in 2008 CERA estimates of carbon prices of $ 60 / unit to reduce emissions by 22% by 2030 remains illusive.

Europe’s Carbon price artificially pegged by stopping the issue of EU Carbon allowances in 2008

http://bit.ly/4kzzIz

High emission units force Governments to issue free permits.

Carbon market realizations fall as Governments in Europe distribute free Carbon permits to overcome buyer resistance .

Telegraph Report on British auctions exposes the story of 93% of Carbon permits being distributed free in 2008 http://bit.ly/4kzzIz

EU Poised to Give Heavy Industry Free Carbon Permits http://is.gd/4ONxj // as businesses threaten to move outside Europe

Why Kyoto failed ?

•Refusal of the largest emitter of greenhouse gasses the U.S. to play ball.

•Phenomenal emission increase in Australia, Canada, Turkey and U.S as per UNFCC data.http://bit.ly/5DoKX.

.

The Emission leaders

U.S. has 25 times per capita emission as India, 8 times that of Brazil and China and twice of France and Britain as per Norwegian Institute of Science and Technologies “Carbon footprint calculator”

Australian emission doubles over last 20 years with second highest per capita emission among the G7 behind the U.S.

Pole positions in the emission raceCountry Footprint per capita

[ton CO2 equ./person]United States 29Australia 21Canada 20Switzerland 18Finland 18Netherlands 17Belgium 17Ireland 16Cyprus 16United Kingdom 15Denmark 15 SOURCE Norwegian Institute Of Science & Technology NTNU http://tinyurl.com/yfk9hmw

Poor response to emission curbs

• Overall rise of emissions since the pact despite lower emissions from Europe especially from central and eastern Europe where socialist economies collapsed.

• Because some nations stepped up while others slowed down their emissions

Where lobbies drive their nations…

• Per Capita emission rise of U.S. and Australia are the highest amongst the developed countries not because their living standards are higher but because they are home to the oil lobby and the coal lobby which largely influences energy policies and politicians of those nations

Most Americans & Australians are fighting for a sustainable planet

But still the lobbies prevail….Why ?Because the lobbies grasp technicalities thoroughlyFor the lobbies hire professionals to execute plans

Because the lobbies control the bureaucracy effectively

Because the lobbies manage the media wellBecause the lobbies fund the politicians liberally

THE LOBBIES EXERT TO CONTROL A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY

Who benefitted as emissions rose ?

• Countries like Australia who also did not ratify the pact till recently produced the largest growth in Co2 emissions between 1990 – 2007 as their Coal industry prospered.

• Australia records a 42% rise in Co2 emissions in the 1990-2007 period as per UNFCC . Canada and U.S. follow with 29% & 20% rise

• http://bit.ly/4AgTL6

The real beneficiaries

• The top exporters of Coal http://tinyurl.com/ykdqxe2

Why America procrastinates • Because American legislation today is governed by

the Oil and the Investment lobby and not the by American people.

• Because America is energy surplus and does not think fresh investment in clean energy is a priority. Its leaders are guided by its industry lobbies.

• For stopping climate change, reducing emissions & supporting clean energy is a mere political slogan for the American politician.

How lobbies doctor legislations

• All legislations drafted into the acts are heavily influenced and sponsored by industries or their associations.

• Political parties and influential politicians, committee heads are then funded by the industry groups who are also given detailed

Instructions on legislation management.

Is the American Clean energy act 2009 really clean?

• It is heavily weighted in favor of the CCS ( Carbon Capture and Sequestration) the

expensive lifeline to the coal based energy units that is called Clean Coal

• A minimum coverage is given to renewable energy, the solar , wind power and rainforest projects in the act that could really help slow down climate change.

Is Clean Coal (CCS) really clean. • Coal is anti environment from mining to

transportation to storage and burning. Each operation is polluting and hazardous

• CCS merely captures the exhaust of a coal power plant and scrubs it to isolate Co2 and then pumps to bury it deep in the earths layers. It is at best a solution that consumes large resources for dubious benefits

CCS is expensive & not proven

CCS is expensive, complex and not proven and tested commercially despite being in circulation for 20 yrs.

Norway’s Sleipner 12 MW unit has been the only CCS power plant running since 10 yrsa pilot plant that has consumed more than it has delivered.

Look what you will pay for CCS !

As per World Energy Council the cost of a CCS Power Generation Project is $ 100 / tonne of Carbon easily over 20 times the global average of today’s Carbon auction prices

http://tinyurl.com/y8uvb5u

But Oil & Coal lobbies will force it down your throat

• Still G8 countries met twice in 2009 and their leaders committed themselves to start building 20 CCS pilot plants by 2010 to appease the coal and oil lobby

• http://tinyurl.com/ya5wrsd

Renewable energy is a step child.

But G8 countries are not keen to fund Solar Energy or Wind Power projects directly.

These must wait for funds from the Cap and Trade Carbon Credits

CCS has the Oil & Coal lobby support

CCS is a expensive spin off technology from the oil industry and a fig leaf for dirty coal, trying to hijack the clean energy platform.

Exxon Mobil runs the world’s biggest carbon-capture facility, at La Barge, Wyoming. America boasts a network of 5,800km (3,600 miles) of pipes to carry carbon dioxide from such facilities to the oil- and gasfields where it is needed.

Leaders bow to the lobbies.Why is CCS the favored child of our politicians ?

Because CCS, erroneously called Clean Coal, is supported by the Oil & Coal lobby. Its promotion and campaign is well funded and supported and hence CCS is the blue eyed boy.

This was to appease the oil and coal lobby that politicians will do their bit to keep coal based plants running, even if it meant diverting resources from clean energy projects.

Global Clean Energy Policyand the Cap & Trade

• There is an excessive emphasis on developing a global carbon market and generating cap and trade funds for doubtful end consumption which could end up in tax rebates or subsidies or free carbon permits to polluters & not used for clean energy !

• Will cap funds be truly spent for Clean Development Mechanism or cleverly diverted back to business ?

Does Cap & Trade help clean energy?

•The cap & trade funding scheme nullifies the demand for direct budgetary allocation for renewable energy and hence helps protect the oil lobby from competition. http://bit.ly/4kzzIz

But even the mighty oil industry needed direct developmental support in its initial years.

Put money on the table !!!

• If you are serious about clean energy put money on the table.

• Be it domestic or international obligations the politicians must not hide behind carbon funds

• You cant curb emissions by big talk alone.

• Fund Solar, Wind power and Rainforest projects directly.

Where do the Cap & Trade funds go to

• No provision in Carbon auctions or Kyoto pact stipulates that Carbon funds shall be essentially used for funding clean energy.

• Clean development is not mandatory.

• Kyoto’s main international offsets scheme, the Clean Development Mechanism http://tinyurl.com/59at69

The U.S. Clean Energy Act & the GAO report recommending usage of cap funds• The American Clean Energy and Securities

Act 2009 places high emphasis on cap and trade funds for generation of CDM

• But the follow up U.S. GAO report that recommends the use of cap funds gives a clear indication where such cap and trade funds will find their way…..not surely to clean energy development.

Let us see where U.S. puts its money• U.S GAO recommendations on distribution of emission allowances wants to

spend the money on everything other than clean energy development :

• 1) The government could reduce the overall cost of the program by reducing taxes on capital or income that currently make the economy less efficient.

• 2) The government could distribute lump-sum rebates to consumers, who would likely pay the bulk of the economic costs associated with a cap-and-trade program.

• 3) Revenues could be used to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to assist low-income working families.

• 4) Policymakers could compensate covered entities for their increased costs through free allocation—an approach equivalent to selling allowances on the market and transferring all the revenue to covered entities.

• 5) Revenues could help fund climate-related programs or activities, including research and development, energy-efficiency programs, or international aid to developing countries that face challenges in mitigating and adapting to climate change.

How lobbies short circuit clean energy

• Public anger against emission is thwarted by an elaborate and complex intellectual babble on emissions and cap and trade economics. This is supported by eminent scientists , economists and heads of states and the United Nations.

• The carbon & emission cap intellectuals are serious academics but not energy specialists .

• They have over the years generated complex climate change models and worked out a impressive financial regime far away from the realities of energy mathematics but still justifying a virtual carbon economy where none is needed.

The carbon infrastructureA huge carbon capping and trading infrastructure is then set in motion over the decade to show that leaders are serious about stop polluting industries, and thousands of people are employed doing some of the worlds most unproductive exercise to stop climate change .

Not surprisingly this leaves out the main players of renewable energy and sustainability like solar energy, wind energy and rainforests.

They increase complexities & costs

They cleverly start using layers of needless technology and indirect route maps to avoid reaching clean energy goals by choosing ingenious and devious methods.

For if the Carbon route is exposed and found ineffective they will try and thrust a more complex emissions or GHG route which would include half a dozen more gasses and complexities that will take decades to unveil.

For only high cost technology can maintain exclusivity that is needed to cover the truth of climate change under a haze of emission crap.

Controlling the Carbon Economy

The Carbon economy is innovative but theoretical.

The boundary limits for such economies are complex and expensive to monitor and manage as ground level manipulations are impossible to detect or monitor by enforcing authorities without operational knowhow.

The Carbon economy and the free disbursement of emission allowances will create carbon balloons i.e. super-profits out of grant of free emission allowances http://tinyurl.com/yh2zgd9 to a chosen few among the fossil fuel driven industry.

How EU struggles with Cap & Trade

EU struggles with the EUA as Carbon prices plunge in 2008 due to oversupply of free emission allowances in 2007 issued by EU Governments

Power firms enjoy their own multi-billion pound bonus in previous years by raising power prices to consumers as if they'd had to buy their pollution permits when in fact they'd be given plenty of permits free of charge says BBC News Research http://tinyurl.com/yh2zgd9The lobby members enjoying the fruits of carbon balloon at the consumers expense.

EU Cap & Trade has new headaches

Spain, France, Portugal curb emissions while Finland, Britain and Poland show rising trends. Poland & Estonia win European Court of Justice ruling against EC and the right to distribute its free emission allowances to its domestic power sector. Ref: BBC news http://tinyurl.com/yjq4ckq

Several phony projects , carbon leakage and corruption deals erupt across Europe to corner the several billion dollar emission allowances and free handouts and tax free permits given by the political powers to industries.6 arrested in GBP 38 million carbon fraud in Britain.Ref: Telegraph http://tinyurl.com/oujh2j

Cap and trade: opportunity or threat

• Carbon trade also cross subsidizes the high emission industries . Former Soviet Block nations, Hungary, Bulgaria Latvia and Romania are suing EC for more permits for their heavy industries on lines of the Polish victory and preferential quota received by Australia in the past for Global emission reduction targets.

• The cap & trade funding scheme nullifies the demand for direct budgetary allocation for energy and hence helps protect the oil & coal lobby from competition. http://bit.ly/4kzzIz

Support Direct Funding of clean energy, not a emission cap.

• If EU is struggling with climate change economics can Asia or Africa handle it ?

• No

• So don’t talk Carbon don’t talk Emission, come to the table only when direct funding is the done. If the lobby nations are sabotaging the deal just stay away till they come around.

Why Australia & U.S. are a team.

Because the Coal lobby decides the Australian policy on climate change and not its people & the Oil lobby the American policy.

Because the Coal lobby knows that the Carbon game is up. Cap & Trade is exposed as instrument of great complexity but little use.

Why Aussies want to change the goalpost.

• With the largest rise in Carbon emissions between 1990 to 2007 ( 42 % rise ), the second highest global carbon footprint of 21 tons of Co2 equivalent per person, Australia ratified Kyoto last year, but knows that it is sure to fail the test well before 2012.

• So Aussies proposed to scrap Kyoto and replace Carbon Cap by Emission Cap a coal lobby backed move http://tinyurl.com/yddclsk slammed globally.

Why climate change talks fail

Cheap Clean Energy is not a priority for the West

They have energy

They want carbon profits

http://bit.ly/4kzzIz

LOBBIES SEARCH NEW STRATEGIES

• BUT WHAT NOW, THAT

CAP AND TRADE IS FAILING ?

The Lobby cheerleaders

propose a new deal

Aussies throw the joker !

• 15 years they talked carbon cap for 38 industrial nations and achieved nothing

• For the next 15 years they want to talk of emissions cap for 138 + nations

• Rudd Proposes Obama seconds …..… for emissions cap will again achieve nothing and keep the Oil and Coal lobbies in business.

But will the world play ball ?

• The European Union which has heavily invested in Kyoto plan

• Technology powerhouses waiting to leverage clean energy consisting of Spain, Germany, France, Portugal and Norway.

• Global Corporations & Investment Banks itching for deal making

• The BRIC economies the worlds most potential energy market

• Developing economies deficient of energy & resource base

The lobbies threaten climate change talks ?

Who caused the global focus to shift from clean energy to cap & trade ?

Who wants to drop Kyoto pact and now waste time with a new toy called emissions control ?

Who has the least interest in developing cheap clean energy technologies ?

Who has the money to make politicians talk for them?

THE OIL & THE COAL LOBBIES WHO FUND POLITICS

Money talks• The lobbies know that money talks.

• The lobbies know that politicians can be bought.

• The lobbies are working to tie up with the bastions of last resistance China and India.

• If the big two can be roped in the dynamics of cap and trade then renewable energy can be written off.

• Will the lobbies succeed at Copenhagen or will the deals come unstuck ?

The Emission tracking goal.

Confusion helps inaction. Carbon tracking took 15 years to monetize. Emission tracking will take 15 years or more .

Needless and acrimonious debate amongst nations resulted in a dozen COP Conferences during the past decade that achieved little in terms of stated objective. The acrimony shall be scaled up with the Australian proposal.

Negative solutions can never deliver.

Capping Carbon or Capping Emissions are negative economic solutions that only tells you

What not to do ?

Carbon Cap or Emission Cap

Both are based on theoretical computations and influenced by hundreds of factors beyond control and monitoring that spread over the entire planet .

The experience of the past 15 years has shown that the capping exercise is expensive and inefficient.

Ref: COP 15: Gassing 15 yrs on Carbon Economy http://bit.ly/4kzzIz

We need Positive solutions today!!

• Needed Cheap Clean Energy Global solutions that tell you

•What to do ?

The focus

•SOLAR ENERGY

•WIND ENERGY

•RAINFOREST PLANTATION

THE METHOD

DIRECT FUNDING OF CLEAN ENERGY PROJECTS

EXTENSIVE USE OF GLOBAL AGENCIES FOR FUNDINGBOTH GRANT BASED & SOFT LOAN BASED PROJECTS

CAPPING UNDER KYOTO MUST BE THE GUIDELINES AND PROPORTIONAL CURBS SHOULD APPLY TO ALL DEVELOPING NATIONS AUTOMATICALLY ONCE THEY CROSS THE BENCHMARK OF PER CAPITA SUSTAINABLE EMISSION FIGURES & GET ADMITTED AUTOMATICALLY IN GROUP OF 37 INDUSTRIALISED NATIONS.

THE POST KYOTO PLAN

THE POST KYOTO PLAN MUST HAVE CLEAN ENERGY TARGETS WITH TECHNOLOGY AND FINANCE PLANS.

NOT VAGUE COMMITMENTS.

THE POST KYOTO PLAN

THE POST KYOTO PLAN MUST HAVE DEFINABLE POSITIVE SOLUTIONS, IN DEVLOPING CHEAP

SOLAR ENERGY PROJECTS

WIND ENERGY PROJECTS

RAINFOREST PLANTATION PROJECTS

THE POST KYOTO PLAN

THE POST KYOTO PLAN MUST BE

• FEASIBLE

• SCALABLE

• EQUITABLE

• ECONOMICAL

• SUSTAINABLE.

THE POST KYOTO PLAN

THE POST KYOTO PLAN MUST BE DRAWN UP BY PRACTICAL ENERGY SPECIALISTS WHO HAVE WORKED WITH ENERGY INSTALATIONS AND NOT ACADEMICS WITHOUT PLANT AND INDUSTRY KNOWHOW .

Look forward to our next issues:• “Change The Deal at Copenhagen.Do Clean

Energy Deal not Carbon Cap.” Planned release December 2009 • “Cost reductions and positive solutions” for clean energy using the 4 forces of Globalization CE -91….onwards

• Watch for its release from February 2010 rescheduled from October 2009 planned previously.

Others to follow in the climate change positive plan “clean energy” series

CE 21…… onwards “Solutions in solar energy”

CE 41……. onwards “Solutions in rainforest plantation”

CE 61…….onwards “Solutions in wind energy”

CE 81…….onwards “The perils of carbon trade” CE91……. onwards “ Cost reductions and positive solutions for clean energy and climate change initiatives to make it a profit plan.”

Our references & acknowledgements

Ecology to EconomicsOur goal is to help promote clean, safe and better practices in economy and ecology worldwide. Balanced, efficient and a little more sustainable. Read more in : Amazon Kindle Blog : Ecothrusthttp://bit.ly/7XwAG

Kyoto agreement & Data UNFCCC & COP DataNorwegian Institute Of Science ReportCERA & Carbon Point on Carbon EconomyUS Clean Energy & Securities Act & GAO ReportOur Previous presentation CE-01Our Previous presentation CE-81Telegraph U.K. and BBC News & other websites

Other Presentations by User

Climate Change Positive Solutions Series CE-01

http://www.slideshare.net/SandipSen/cop15bullshitting-15-years-on-climate-change

Climate Change Positive Solutions Series CE-01

http://www.slideshare.net/SandipSen/cop15bullshitting-15-years-on-climate-changehttp://tinyurl.com/luzxss

Climate Change Positive Solutions Series CE-81

http://www.slideshare.net/SandipSen/climate-change-positive-solutions-ce-81

http://bit.ly/4kzzIz

Other presentations by user

Business Risk management Serieshttp://www.slideshare.net/SandipSen/living-dangerously-managing-risks-in-business-ba01ppt

Business Risk Case Studies Ba31http://www.slideshare.net/SandipSen/business-risk-case-study-ba31

Other Presentations by User

Business Risk Case Study – Ba 33 http://www.slideshare.net/SandipSen/business-risk-case-study-ba33

Business Risk Case Studies Ba32

http://www.slideshare.net/SandipSen/business-risk-case-study-ba-32-1751378

Authors Note

• The Clean energy positive plan series is an elaborate in depth study in the feasibility, scalability and efficiency of major solutions

and its user friendly low cost implementation with a total of approx. 30 presentations .

For any queries please e mail to sen.sandip@gmail.com