India and the Global Warming Debate

[S.Gautam]

I feel like I'm going to join the skeptic camp soon or at least the ambivalent camp. This is getting a little ridiculous. See the Himalayan glacier story below. This was virtually my only reason for giving a rat's ass about global warming but now even this is being doubted? Read the whole thing. By the way, why is this Ramesh clown still around? He seems only interested in selling out his country to win a Nobel piss prize or some other award from the goras. Regardless of one's opinion on this issue, it's clear that 1) we have to hedge, in case this whole thing turns out to be bogus as the economic stakes are too high and 2) under no circumstances can we have a cap that puts per capita emissions below the west (whether this is explicit or implicit). That's _fully_ equivalent to saying Indians are not entitled to the same standard of living as goras. He seems to have abandoned these two principles as his backtracking is utterly unconvincing.

Himalayan glaciers' 'mixed picture' from Al-BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8355837.stm

A scientific debate has been triggered over the state of glaciers in the Himalayas.

Some recent findings seem to contradict claims that the glaciers are retreating rapidly. Some glaciers are even said to be advancing.

...

There are clear signs of glacial retreat and ice melt from other parts of the world, but few field studies have been carried out in the Himalayas.
(and yet...)
Its glaciers too were widely believed to be receding fast. Fact 1: My dog died today after being hit by a car. Fact 2: There are cars all over the world. -> Conclusion: All dogs are facing imminent and inevitable death unless we revert to horse carriages.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had said that Himalayan glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world.

The panel observed: "If the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by 2035 (see below...) and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

...

In the western Himalayas, some scientists have also reported findings that conflict with the long-held view that glaciers are retreating.

The Indian government has issued a discussion paper based on these findings.

It says: "Himalayan glaciers, although shrinking in volume and constantly showing a retreating front, have not in any way exhibited... an abnormal annual retreat, of the order that some glaciers in Alaska and Greenland are reported to have done.

"It is premature to make a statement that glaciers in the Himalayas are retreating abnormally because of global warming."

...

But, he adds, "I do not know of any scientific study that supports a complete vanishing of [Himalayan] glaciers within this century." Good job, IPCC. 25 years, 90+ years... no difference, right? And they won a Nobel... that prize sure is getting cheap these days. I have my hopes up for one myself for the excellent omelette I made this morning.

[brihaspati]

The apparent confusion over claims of warming up actually inducing an ice-age, is actually based on lack of understanding over the complex interlinks between different components of the global climate mechanism.

Actually, if warming does take place

(1) sea-ice melts and reduces the reflectance of sunrays from the polar areas. In the north this means exposure of sea-water which is darker and absorbs greater heat - increasing the temp further.

(2) melting sea-ice and melting Greenland ice sheet releases a lot of fresh water into the North Atlantic. Freshwater being lighter than denser saline water does not sink to the bottom of the ocean. However this dropping is crucial to pull the warmer tropical surface sea-water through the Gulf Stream into North Atlantic. It is this warm current that keeps Atlantic Europeans coasts and adjacent land ice free. If this current slows down or weakens much less heat is transported into the subpolar lanmasses. Then those areas will get colder much faster and the polar ice sheets will begin to increase.

More ice on the land will mean more back radiation of the sunrays and lesser heating in the north. This is how another ice-age can start with "warming".

(3) Initially coastal water levels rise and low-lying coastal areas get flooded. At the height of the last Ice Age, some 18,000-21,000 YBP, the global sea-levels were lower by as much as 150 metres. So corresponding rises by warming can not only just flood low lying delta areas like in BD or even in Kerala, TN, etc., but encroaching salinity destroys still unsubmerged subcoastal agricultural lands.

(4) More seriously for countries like India, warming initially releases more moisture into the atmosphere. This causes heavier and more concentrated rainfall and general disruption of stable distribution in such rainfall. So we may see more drought events side bys ide with flooding.

(5) However over the long run, as temps fall, and more water gets locked into the northern or southern ice, India is likely to suffer from a weakening Monsoon. Long period coolings typically have made the plains of India arid - this is the record of cave deposits, and sea-cores from geologic past.

I think, Indian scientists should take an independent stand and study their own geological and climate records. There are many reasons to believe that the East Asian monsoon, and Indian subcontinent has unique climate features. A much more intensive study of geological past records of climate, as well as modern data can be undertaken.

For India, much less than a direct temperature as concern, we need to be concerned about two things only - (a) effect of sea-level rise on coastal settlements, which I think can be easily tackled by India because of her greater land mass depth by proper planning, (b) but much more seriously - droughts and aridity.

Sustainabiltiy in energy terms is a goal of strategic importance independent of any global arm-twisting. There shoudl be no reason to be eager to compromise with the failing economies.

[krisna]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... p-us-deal/

"It's an 11th-hour smear campaign where they've stolen personal e-mails from scientists, mined them for single words or phrases that can be taken out of context and misrepresent what scientists are saying," said Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth Systems Science Center, in a teleconference Friday with reporters.

The science increasingly is being scrutinized after the e-mail disclosures, and the methodology of scientists such as Mr. Mann is under question.

On Thursday, two Republican senators asked NASA to look into why it has not yet answered a researcher who filed a Freedom of Information Act request two years ago seeking temperature data and e-mails similar to the ones from the British university.

U.S. law gives the agency 20 days to respond to the request, and Mr. Horner said he suspects NASA is delaying because it is afraid of what the data would show.

But the degree of commitment the Obama administration is prepared to make at Copenhagen has worried some congressional Democrats as well.

On Thursday, nine Democratic senators wrote to the president that, while they remain committed to tackling climate change, they want assurances that any agreement reached at the conference "is environmentally sound, affordable and fair," and includes "significant commitments and actions by all major emitting countries."

US can lead the way

[krisna]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1259977 ... %3Darticle

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told the BBC the allegations were serious. "We certainly don't want to brush anything under the carpet," he said.

House and Senate Republicans argued that the Obama administration's climate-change efforts should now be reconsidered because the Environmental Protection Agency uses reports from the U.N. climate-change panel to support the regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions. The IPCC's reports often extensively cite data provided by the University of East Anglia's climate unit.

also
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

[Neshant]

By the way, why is this Ramesh clown still around?

The guy is screwing up India's position which had been clear until he showed up - equal per capita emissions for all.

[S.Gautam]

This is absolutely comical. The BBC now has a more detailed story on the Himalayan glaciers. The 2035 doomsday melting date for the Himalayas... was actually 2350. I kid you not. No, really:
Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'

First, what the IPCC said in its 2007 report:

"Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2035," the report said.

The actual 1996 source used by the IPCC? Here, no typos:

"The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates - its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2350," Mr Kotlyakov's report said.

Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and "misread 2350 as 2035".

Other than that they sourced some article in a popular science magazine which said 40 years.

"Astonishing" is a massive understatement. The world's largest glaciers outside the poles... and the most authortiative climate report in the world was off by an order of magnitude. I almost suspect it was intentional for political purposes. How can they be this incompetent?

Our glorious government's response:

When asked how this "error" could have happened, RK Pachauri, the Indian scientist who heads the IPCC, said: "I don't have anything to add on glaciers."

[sugriva]

74,000 crores better spent elsewhere ?
http://business.rediff.com/report/2009/ ... tbacks.htm

[amit]

74,000 crores better spent elsewhere ?
http://business.rediff.com/report/2009/ ... tbacks.htm

Boss, curious why you think the money could be better spent elsewhere. From the link you posted:

The cost of installing super critical power generation equipment is typically 15 to 20 per cent higher than the cost of installing conventional power plants. Super critical plants can, however, achieve efficiencies of over 40 per cent compared to 35 per cent in conventional sub-critical power plants.

All these initiatives, according to sources, would lead to a total of over 20,000 Mw of 'avoided' capacity addition by 2015. This would also mean an overall avoided investment of Rs 1,95,980 crore (Rs 1,959.8 billion) in the three sub-sectors of generation, transmission and distribution in the same period.

More efficiency means less investment per MW of extra power.

India must absolutely not commit to a fixed emission reduction cap. (Do note that a 20-24 per cent cap on "carbon intensity" is not the same thing as 20-24 per cent cut in emissions. If you do the calculations you'll find out that a 24 per cent cap in carbon intensity will hardly make a difference to the amount of Co2 emissions that we would have had without this figure in 2020).

However, at the same time it does not make sense for us to behave Ostrich like and bury our heads in the sand to the damage being caused to the environment in India . That could result in the type of environmental problems that China faces today. So anything that can be done, without affecting GDP growth rates, should IMO be done - not because Obama says so but because that's the best for our future.

[sumishi]

This is absolutely comical. The BBC now has a more detailed story on the Himalayan glaciers. The 2035 doomsday melting date for the Himalayas... was actually 2350. I kid you not. No, really:
Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'
...
"Astonishing" is a massive understatement. The world's largest glaciers outside the poles... and the most authortiative climate report in the world was off by an order of magnitude. I almost suspect it was intentional for political purposes. How can they be this incompetent?
...

Here's an article to whet the devious political and business angle.
Capitalists and Bankers need Copenhagen to play the next great game to line their pockets while the world suffers.
Carbon Capitalists Warming to Climate Market Using Derivatives

The carbon tax system is basically for international financing -- IMF, UN, World Bank etc (arms of the so called NWO) -- and to provide moneys for slush funds of the international capitalists and bankers.

[Katare]

Cracks appear in G-77 bloc on Day One

It seems some kind of deal is going to happen, failure would cause too big of an disaapointment and dispair!


Guys keep in mind two things when making wise guy comments.....

1) It is an extreamly complex technical issue that most people, even technically educated ones, might not understand fully even after extensive reading and research

2) People who are negotiating will have to give something to accomplish a deal. Don't call 'em traitor on a jiffy, they have extreamly difficult job to do.

[ramana]

Cracks appear in G-77 bloc on Day One

It seems some kind of deal is going to happen, failure would cause too big of an disaapointment and dispair!


Guys keep in mind two things when making wise guy comments.....

1) It is an extreamly complex technical issue that most people, even technically educated ones, might not understand fully even after extensive reading and research

2) People who are negotiating will have to give something to accomplish a deal. Don't call 'em traitor on a jiffy, they have extreamly difficult job to do.

That G-77 block is subject to break up in every instance. There are a lot of folks who band together and desert it when the time comes due to inducements and yet India always puts its faith in those groups.



The issue is:

In the early 19th century, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air was 280 parts per million. It is now 390 ppm, and four-fifths of that extra CO2 was put there by the ancestors of the one billion people who live in the developed countries. The point of no return, after which we risk runaway warming, is a rise in average global temperature of two degrees Celsius. That is equivalent to 450 ppm of carbon dioxide.

All we have left to play with is the distance between 390 ppm and 450 ppm, and on a business-as-usual basis we’ll cover it in less than 30 years. All the economic growth of rapidly developing countries like China, India and Brazil — 3 to 4 billion people — has to fit into that narrow band of 60 ppm that the developed countries left for them.

So its about managing the less developed countries while the developed marginally reduce their levels.

[joshvajohn]

I think whether one believes in Global warming or not the following considerations can be given strong priorities in agreeing.

1. Carbon emission from Industries and automobiles/planes....are damaging the human existence to many extent. This must be stopped at all costs. So there should be a kind of time frame to have 100% cap for all industries and automobiles and others to stop emission by developing a technology and research on this. Say 2030 to 2040 100% caps should come into reality for emissions regardless of countries.

2. There are avaiable technology to reduce or stop this emission, which can be reduced in price so that everyone can buy it and produced in a large quantities that can bring down the prices for the industries and others to afford. This is where the West has to think intelligently that if they reduce the price for such technology there will be many buyers and so they still get profit rather than keep it to themselves and have high price without selling the technology. Many Western researers and industrialists were playing fools for themselve by keeping the price artificially high and not letting other countries have this technology rather keep it to themselves.

3. If technology is cheap everyone must buy it and use it in their countries so no excuse for anyone in this regard.

4. We need to work on disaster information management so that any information (authentic) is shared among the nations before hand.

[sumishi]

Here are some real WEIRD western views on climate change and population!!
And the last one is thought provoking!
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
– Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
– Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells, the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof. Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis.”
– David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive manager

“In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”
– Dr. Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General

“Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty to the international community and beginning to create a new system of international environmental governance as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises.”
– Lester Brown, WorldWatch Institute

[sumishi]

THE GAME UNFOLDS! WE ARE SUCKERS!! ALL OF US!!

Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak

The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.

The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.

The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.

The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks".

A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:

• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;

• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";

• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;

• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.

Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: "This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed."

Hill continued: "It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks."

The text was intended by Denmark and rich countries to be a working framework, which would be adapted by countries over the next week. It is particularly inflammatory because it sidelines the UN negotiating process and suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week.

Few numbers or figures are included in the text because these would be filled in later by world leaders. However, it seeks to hold temperature rises to 2C and mentions the sum of $10bn a year to help poor countries adapt to climate change from 2012-15.

A little research will show that the "Green Fund" is sought to be diverted to bank(s) which will be under the control of private international banker(s). No government can audit them!

Hell, the Federal Reserve, which affects the financial markets of all nations by their actions, is private!! The US congress (i.e. elected respresentatives of the people) has failed in attempts to audit it till date.

[sumishi]

Two recent articles of interest at telegraph.co.uk. The comments following these article are interesting too!!

Climategate: Barack Obama's rule by EPA decree is a coup d'etat against Congress, made in Britain

Climategate: Barack Obama's rule by EPA decree is a coup d'etat against Congress, made in Britain
-- Gerald Warner
-- Gerald Warner is an author, broadcaster, columnist and polemical commentator who writes about politics, religion, history, culture and society in general.

Who needs tanks on the lawn when you have the Environmental Protection Agency? Barack Obama’s use of the EPA to pressurise the Senate to pass his climate change Nuremberg Decrees shows his dictatorial mentality. He wants to override Congress, which is hostile to his climate gobbledegook because it is representative of the American electorate, and sideline the nation’s elected Senators by ruling by decree, courtesy of the EPA. This is a coup d’état.

And what is the justification for this undemocratic action? The allegedly imminent threat from “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. There is always a supposed threat, when tyrants take the stage. The President of the United States has just reduced his moral authority to the level of any Third World dictator heading a “Government of National Emergency”. Fortunately, the world’s leading democracy, which he is trying to subvert, has guarantees of liberty so deeply embedded in its Constitution that US citizens are well placed to fight back.

In the first place, regulation can be challenged in a way that laws cannot. So the EPA’s proposed ruling on so-called “Greenhouse Gases” can be opposed extensively with litigation, to the point that the ruling might not yet be in force when Obama demits office. In the second place, the EPA is funded by Congress. So, if the Agency is being used to bypass or neuter Congress, why should legislators not play hardball and retaliate by cutting off its funding? The EPA may look formidable, but its situation is rather as if Rommel were buying the fuel for his tanks from the Allies.

But what is of compelling interest on this side of the pond is the way in which the bullets to shoot down American democracy were made in Britain. The trail is not hard to follow. When the EPA published its “Endangerment Finding” on greenhouse gases and proposed rule, back in April, almost every paragraph of the text (Federal Register, April 24, 2009, pp 18886-18910) cited as authority the IPCC’s 2007 Report, which the Agency acknowledges it “relies on most heavily”. And whence came the main input on climate change to that report?

Yes, that’s right! You’ve got it: from Phil Jones, Michael Mann and the rest of the lads at the CRU, East Anglia. From the innovative, creative “scientists” who wanted to “beat the crap” out of a climate change sceptic; who “just completed Mike’s Nature trick”; who “can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”; who deleted e-mails in the interests of science; who tried to prevent publication of dissenters’ views; who coined the historic phrase “hide the decline”.

Those jokers are the main authority for the extravagant claims in the IPCC report and, by extension, for the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding”. That is the authority that is being invoked to overturn the principles of 1776 in the United States. The Protocols of the Elders of Norwich are the justification for EPA tyranny. It is with that weighty evidence at his back that Barack Obama is going to Copenhagen to sell out American taxpayers to Third World subsidy junkies, profiteering “green” corporations and the ever entrepreneurial Al Gore. This is the steal of the millennium: forget the Great Train Robbery and the Brinks Mat caper – these hoodlums are targeting $45 trillion.

Obama hates America and, increasingly, that sentiment is being reciprocated. This is a socialist, World Government putsch. Have the American people the resolution to resist it? We shall soon know.

Copenhagen climate summit: Behind the scenes at the sceptics' conference

Copenhagen climate summit: Behind the scenes at the sceptics' conference
In the charming backstreets of downtown Copenhagen, where Hans Christian Andersen, once wrote his famous stories, the climate sceptics gathered. They came from far and wide, from business and science, to dispel the biggest fairy tale of them all: global warming.

The Copenhagen Climate Challenge was signposted by a hand-written piece of paper and a small picture of a happy-looking person in a sun hat declaring: “Global warming: Hurrah!”

But do not be fooled by the amateurish approach, these are serious people with a very important message: “Global warming is not man made and in fact may not be happening at all.”

As 15,000 people gathered down the road for the world’s biggest summit on change and the Met Office released figures showing the noughties were the warmest decade on record, around 50 people gathered to hear about the alternative view.

The 2 day schedule boasted serious scientists from the universities of Adelaide, Stockholm and Western Australia. They argued that global warming was a natural phenomenon caused by solar activity and the natural rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They questioned sea level rise and the melting of the ice caps and most of all the “global conspiracy” happening up the road.

The meeting was organised by Danish group Climate Sense and the lobby group Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).

Craig Rucker, Executive Director of CFACT, admitted the organisation have taken funding from Exxon Mobil in the past but pointed out that many environmental groups are also receiving funding from major corporations and are currently receiving far more cash to support the climate change argument.

He argued that the world should have the courage to “do nothing until the science is clear”.

“We think there is no consensus on climate change and there should not be a treaty from Copenhagen based on a lack of consensus,” he said.

The audience, that was almost exclusively male and middle-aged, nodded in agreement.

They may be small in number but television cameras squashed into the tiny room and the ongoing ‘climategate’ scandal will ensure the sceptics continue to get coverage.

Whether they will make a difference and there will be a happy ending to global warming is another question.

[arun]

X Posted.

If this is indeed the truth, our Government led by Dr. Manmohan Singh must be reprimanded for this duplicitous behaviour of keeping the nation in the dark:

China, India helped draft 'Danish text,' insider says

A source with deep knowledge of the negotiations says many developing countries knew in advance about the controversial provisions they publicly protested.

By Jim Tankersley

Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
4:03 AM PST, December 10, 2009
Reporting from Copenhagen

In public at least, the early days of the climate summit here have been dominated by developing nations' furor over a proposed "Copenhagen Agreement" that leaked to environmentalists and reporters Tuesday.

But many developing nations -- including China and India -- in fact had a hand in drafting the "Danish text," a source with deep knowledge of the negotiations said today.

Developing countries including China, India, Brazil, Algeria, Ethiopia and Bangladesh had "input into the process and product" of the proposed agreement, the source said.

Representatives of those nations knew about the agreement's most controversial provisions, including commitments for greenhouse gas reductions by developing countries and a reduced role for the United Nations in climate policy, well before the summit began. It was unclear if everyone in the room agreed to every provision. …………………….

L.A. Times

[sumishi]

X Posted.
If this is indeed the truth, our Government led by Dr. Manmohan Singh must be reprimanded for this duplicitous behaviour of keeping the nation in the dark:
...

Very interesting!! But if those phirangis can play the game of climate-gate and what not, this might be a strategically placed article to muddy the waters further and divert attention from their nefarious schemes. Or then, it might be as is said.

Who knows! All these revelations related to international devious plots, hidden agendas and compromised scientific establishments -- one just doesn't know "how deep the rabbit hole goes."

[AnimeshP]

X Posted.

If this is indeed the truth, our Government led by Dr. Manmohan Singh must be reprimanded for this duplicitous behaviour of keeping the nation in the dark:

China, India helped draft 'Danish text,' insider says

A source with deep knowledge of the negotiations says many developing countries knew in advance about the controversial provisions they publicly protested.

By Jim Tankersley

Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
4:03 AM PST, December 10, 2009
Reporting from Copenhagen

In public at least, the early days of the climate summit here have been dominated by developing nations' furor over a proposed "Copenhagen Agreement" that leaked to environmentalists and reporters Tuesday.

But many developing nations -- including China and India -- in fact had a hand in drafting the "Danish text," a source with deep knowledge of the negotiations said today.

Developing countries including China, India, Brazil, Algeria, Ethiopia and Bangladesh had "input into the process and product" of the proposed agreement, the source said.

Representatives of those nations knew about the agreement's most controversial provisions, including commitments for greenhouse gas reductions by developing countries and a reduced role for the United Nations in climate policy, well before the summit began. It was unclear if everyone in the room agreed to every provision. …………………….

L.A. Times

The bolded text is the key point to be noted in the above report . As mentioned by Sumishi, this could be a ploy by the developed countries to put BASIC countries on the back foot.

[Vriksh]

I for one have never thought per capita emission norms that is being touted as a panacea in Copenhagen as legitimate. It is disingenuous to suggest that a country can simply get away with being ecologically irresponsible by simply increasing its population.

In my opinion any state should have a emission cap based on its geography and its climatic conditions. For example a desert is a poor carbon sink and rainforest are good carbon sinks. Therefore it makes eminent sense to apportion emission caps based on the amount of forest coverage that a nation can foster, some nations with great climate (eg Ecuador > 70% rainforest) can get emissions credit since their climate allows them to grow forests to absorb the excess releases elsewhere.

Each nation should strive to increase the forest cover so as to get more credit for emissions... those who cannot will necessarily have to reduce their emission or pay other nations to absorb their excess emissions. This way industrial nations can pay someone to grow forest elsewhere. Different types of forest can get different emission control ratings for example a classical rainforest will be high, a deciduous forest somewhere lower, a alpine forest, a wild paire etc etc.

Obviously this will have nothing to do with population. You can emit as much pollution you want as long as the means to mop up that pollution (some kind of forest cover) is paid for.

[Neshant]

sounds great but not all nations are starting at the same starting line.

India has a humoungous population with hardly any space for people let alone trees.

If India had to pay to grow trees in foreign countries, it would be exporting capital rather than developing the economy. Then, trees will be growing in foreign countries while Indians life & die in poverty.

Pollution is a necessary evil to get from developing to semi-developed state. That's why you are hearing oecd countries pushing the climate change agenda. They want to limit as much as they can the rise of the developing world as they feel their own standard of living will be negatively affected.

[Vriksh]

sounds great but not all nations are starting at the same starting line.

Not a good reason to avoid responsibility

India has a humoungous population with hardly any space for people let alone trees.

Incorrect! India has plenty of space however land use is not optimum. Available records show that much of the land in India is lying fallow due to lack of land use taxes or even inducements and a resource that could be used constructively is lying unused.

If India had to pay to grow trees in foreign countries, it would be exporting capital rather than developing the economy. Then, trees will be growing in foreign countries while Indians life & die in poverty.

Why the heck would we pay other nations when we easily pay Indians to increase forest cover. For example why not pay the Seven Sister states money as carbon tax to act as pollution sinks to absorb pollution elsewhere in India. Heck if the law was imaginatively implemented then people with low maintenance forests growing on their lands would automatically get renumerated. This has the added benefit of subsidiary products such as timber etc.

Pollution is a necessary evil to get from developing to semi-developed state.

Industrialization not equal to development. I would consider India developed if we are able feed our people, ensure that they get quality education, good housing, civic services, leisure time, personal mobility and a whole host of other factors that people can get together and decide. But almost none of this necessarily needs a huge consumption based economy that has been the hallmark of western economies... this is increasingly recognized as wasteful and leads to destruction.

That's why you are hearing oecd countries pushing the climate change agenda. They want to limit as much as they can the rise of the developing world as they feel their own standard of living will be negatively affected.

India has to offer alternative models for development. India has to reclaim its ancient stature as the fountainhead of ideas instead of the present situation where ideas are imported and let us not worry too much on what others are doing.

Charity begins at home! Lets us make a beginning at home to reward ecologically sound ideas instead of just punishing omission as the system is currently setup to do.We have pollution control boards that are dens of corruption, however there is no mechanism to formally reward those industries and individuals that help clean up the pollution. At the first pass how about we have a mechanism where pollution control money is paid directly to people willing to grow forests etc.

In time (perhaps even a decage) a properly calibrated afforestation policy will not only improve pollution control but will have subsidiary effects of improving improving water security and not to mention value addition to forest based products like timber, tourism, agro-forest products like honey and medicinal plants etc

[Virupaksha]

Industrialization not equal to development. I would consider India developed if we are able feed our people, ensure that they get quality education, good housing, civic services, leisure time, personal mobility and a whole host of other factors that people can get together and decide. But almost none of this necessarily needs a huge consumption based economy that has been the hallmark of western economies... this is increasingly recognized as wasteful and leads to destruction.

repeat once again and slowly re read your own para.
Let me see what we need, feed our people - means more agriculture, viola more land use/ more use of fertilizers/pesticides/machinery voila more industries

quality education - decent stable buildings, electricity, labs, libraries, equipment, computers voila more industries

good housing - comes without production of bricks, cement, without electricity i.e. powerplants, drainage, water voila more industries

civic services - roads, hospitals, right

roads - manufacture of tar, quarries for stones, heavy machinery like rollers, tar mixers, cement grinders, large scale design equiment voila more industries

hospitals - buildings, equipments, hospital daily replacement, manufacture of medicines, which again requires manufacture of bulk drugs and so on voila more industries

personal mobility - this got to be the most humorous part of that sentence. If you used public transport, I would atleast thought ok, personal mobility means individual cars, mopeds, which again require huge huge industries.

Is there even one thing which you mentioned except leisure (read by me as sitting in home doing nothing) which doesnt require industrialization? Ingenious I say really ingenious. Do you think through while you write or is it basically rambling?

P.S: If I had interpreted leisure as watching movies, pubs, alcohol - each of them require industries, power, manufacture in their back, voila more industries

[Vriksh]

Disregarding the personal barbs... and yes sometimes I do ramble out here to generate new ideas or vet ideas I have been thinking about.

The question really boils down to this: Is centralized industry such as massive powerplants, massive fertilizer plants massive steel plants etc all the correct way to develop. Many seem to think so since such ideas are well proven in the Western world. However all the above are underwritten by cheap oil and energy resources being mined out of the earth at ever increasing rates that will perhaps lead to problems later on... and many on this planet are working hard to evolve paradigms that challenge this status quo.

repeat once again and slowly re read this par.
Let me see what we need, feed our people - means more agriculture, viola more land use/ more use of fertilizers/pesticides/machinery voila more industries

Not necessarily but such things will be proven in the market place of ideas. Based on research on fundamental of soil chemistry that I have been privy to, we can improve agricultural productivity without fertilizers and pesticides . Many of my ideas are shaped by this belief and for some reason if this research is incorrect then my opinions will change.

quality education - decent stable buildings, electricity, labs, libraries, equipment, computers voila more industries. good housing - comes without production of bricks, cement, without electricity i.e. powerplants, drainage, water voila more industries

civic services - roads, hospitals, right

roads - manufacture of tar, quarries for stones, heavy machinery like rollers, tar mixers, cement grinders, large scale design equiment voila more industries

hospitals - buildings, equipments, hospital daily replacement, manufacture of medicines, which again requires manufacture of bulk drugs and so on voila more industries

personal mobility - this got to be the most humorous part of that sentence. If you used public transport, I would atleast thought ok, personal mobility means individual cars, mopeds, which again require huge huge industries.

Is there even one thing which you mentioned except leisure (read by me as sitting in home doing nothing) which doesnt require industrialization? Ingenious I say really ingenious. Do you think through while you write or is it basically rambling?

P.S: If I had interpreted leisure as watching movies, pubs, alcohol - each of them require industries, power, manufacture in their back, voila more industries

Suffice to say... all India has to do is to improve sustainable energy availability to the common person and all the above points will still happen without irredeemable damage to the environment. Just to be clear eco-friendly industrialization is very very desirable.

Ecologically making bricks is probably the worst thing one could do... where else would we take life giving top soil and convert to into a charred mass releasing huge quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere in the process. Some alternatives exist but better need to be invented. Fundamentally we have been viewing all processes with the cost of installation only, however if we include the cost of reuse and recycling into our cost matrix then a lot things that people do today are unsustainable. This may not be the right forum for this obvious ramble... but bricks and cement are unsustainable building materials... once made they cannot be reused... we should only be using metals, wood, thermoplastics, glass and other fully recyclable materials for construction. In the growth phase yes heavy industries may be required to buildup a reserve of such recyclable materials and afterwards the requirements are met via reuse. Industrialization to achieve this is desirable.

One note about personal mobility. I do not own a car (used to and then sold it off) and have since switched to zipcar, public transport and my trusty bicycle. Suffice to say my carbon footprint is very low and I am hoping as my tribe increases the requirement of paving over large parts of the earth will ease. Heavy transport should be handled via dedicated freight corridors either Road or Rail (Rail since it is fully recyclable).

[sumishi]

Disregarding the personal barbs... and yes sometimes I do ramble out here to generate new ideas or vet ideas I have been thinking about. ...

Ignore the barbs Vriksh and continue with your "ramblings." They are welcome to a lot many here .

[Katare]

Half time in Copenhagen shows unclear horizon

Ahead of round-two of the conference, negotiators from all camps privately admit that the optimism of the early days of the talks, when a raft of countries including the US, China and India had made concrete climate-related pledges, is dimming.

It now looks increasingly likely that unless world leaders are able to pull a last-minute rabbit out of the negotiations’ hat, the agreement they announce at the end of the week will be a feeble, non-binding, political statement, strong on intentions and weak on deliverables.

[nithish]

seems India might get blamed if it all goes t*ts up, as it likely will be..

India virtually isolated at Copenhagen

The clock is ticking to Friday, when heads of state will descend, all to sign a global ‘accord’ or at least some pact on how the world will cut emissions. Things are deadlocked, seemingly stalled. But this is only for the eyes of the uninitiated.

The fact is that the spin-masters are at work, feverishly building momentum for the blame-game to culminate — finger-pointing to countries, which are blocking the deal, destroying the one chance the world has to save the planet. India is already moving to the top of that list.

This when the industrialized world has refused to put anything meaningful on the table — no reduction at home, no money or technology transfer agreements. Instead, the two draft agreements for negotiations only harden their position. They demand, first, that developing countries (India) take on emission reduction targets, without any financial assistance. That is not a problem.

Our minister has already ‘offered’ that India will cut its carbon intensity by 20-25% by 2020. We have accepted the white man’s burden as our own.

But what the minister did not perhaps know is that he has now stepped on a slippery slope. The next demand is already ratcheting up. Industrialized countries have now demanded in no uncertain terms that all actions done domestically must be internationally monitored, reported and verified. The reason is simple as by doing this, domestic targets become legally binding global commitments. The language is getting nasty as well. ‘‘We cannot trust these nations,’’ is what US envoys said. Others repeat.

The call is growing that India wants its right to pollute. In all this, the worst fears of the Indian establishment are bound to come true: we will get isolated and blamed for the failure of the global agreement. We will be hated in the rich man’s world.

This situation is of our own making. The fact is that when the minister declared the domestic target in Parliament, he changed the goalpost. He accepted that India must switch sides to join the league of polluters, instead of being able to demand its right to development. He accepted that there is no distinction between the countries which have been historically responsible for creating the problem, and the rest, who need funds and technology to make the low-carbon leapfrog so that the world can avoid emissions. He, therefore, also implicitly rejected the notion of an agreement based on equal-burden sharing.

The carbon sums are clear, any which way: From 1890 to 2007, rich countries contributed some 60% of the carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere; India some 3%. US, with just 5% of the world’s population, alone is responsible for some 30% of the carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere.

But forget the past. If you factor in the targets of the rich world (and US), which Copenhagen is poised to endorse, industrialized countries will still occupy some 50% of the global carbon budget till 2020. US, assuming for a moment that their Senate endorses the 3% reduction over its 1990 levels, will still use up a fifth of the world’s carbon budget between 1890 and 2020.

Worse, India with its self-imposed domestic target will get some 4% of the global carbon budget between 1890 and 2020 for its people who add up to 17% of the world’s population. This agreement, therefore, will freeze inequity in the world. This when it is known that these negotiations are about the right to development. No country, as yet, has delinked the growth of its economy from emissions of carbon dioxide.

So, we can now cry wolf. But this is an outcome of the ‘pragmatic global diplomacy’ that many in the government believe is the need of the day. They openly reject the idea that global agreements can and should be based on principles of equity or justice. They say this is old-fashioned and idealistic, not fit for the real world. Their world is about global deals that give and take. The question we in India must ask is what did we get: other than the official stamp of a third-class citizen of the world?

The circle has closed. Gandhi took on the British Empire when he was thrown out of the first-class compartment. He refused to be a third-class citizen. In Copenhagen we may just decide that we must wear that shame forever.

[joshvajohn]

India needs to announce on her own the cuts again! India should try to reach the emission cuts by 30 to 40 percent in 20 to 30 years. It is essential. We cannot blame poverty for emission. It is the industries who should invest in the technology of curbing their emission. and also automobiles should be build up with technology of zero emission!!! This is a must.

But in Copenhagen India needs to make sure that US and EU gets into a signed agreement to cut emissions. India should not stand as if they can represent all the developing countries. Developing countries who are already developed should take responsibility of cutting their emission at least 20 percent within 10 years of time.

While brining in the responsibility of the developed countries cutting in a huge way, the developing countries should also respond and cannot escape simply by pointing to poverty.

India should lead in this. If US and others are not getting into an agreement, India should do volutarily a cut and ask other developing countries to follow the same. Or India should work with other developing countries for a particular cut say upto 20 percentage in ten years as their own agenda on emissions

[KarthikSan]

[sarcasm] They are also proposing a cattle tax because of methane emissions from cattle. India should voluntarily announce a human tax due to the huge amount of curry we eat and the copious amounts of methane we emit. India should then request China to follow suit and Hindi-Chini being bhai-bhai, they will immediately do so. Pakistan will also accept double taxation per human due to the vast quantities of Pindi channa they eat. The world is one nice big family and we can all sit around the fire drinking Kool-Aid and sing kumbhaya [/sarcasm]

[Mort Walker]

India needs to announce on her own the cuts again! India should try to reach the emission cuts by 30 to 40 percent in 20 to 30 years. It is essential. We cannot blame poverty for emission. It is the industries who should invest in the technology of curbing their emission. and also automobiles should be build up with technology of zero emission!!! This is a must.

But in Copenhagen India needs to make sure that US and EU gets into a signed agreement to cut emissions. India should not stand as if they can represent all the developing countries. Developing countries who are already developed should take responsibility of cutting their emission at least 20 percent within 10 years of time.

While brining in the responsibility of the developed countries cutting in a huge way, the developing countries should also respond and cannot escape simply by pointing to poverty.

India should lead in this. If US and others are not getting into an agreement, India should do volutarily a cut and ask other developing countries to follow the same. Or India should work with other developing countries for a particular cut say upto 20 percentage in ten years as their own agenda on emissions

The US can not sign an agreement due to its internal laws. Any international treaty requires 2/3 US Senate vote. There are US Senators in Copenhagen who are openly stating that ANY treaty signed by the US will be rejected in the US Senate.

[sumishi]

India needs to announce on her own the cuts again! India should try to reach the emission cuts by 30 to 40 percent in 20 to 30 years. It is essential. We cannot blame poverty for emission. It is the industries who should invest in the technology of curbing their emission. and also automobiles should be build up with technology of zero emission!!! This is a must.

But in Copenhagen India needs to make sure that US and EU gets into a signed agreement to cut emissions. India should not stand as if they can represent all the developing countries. Developing countries who are already developed should take responsibility of cutting their emission at least 20 percent within 10 years of time.

While brining in the responsibility of the developed countries cutting in a huge way, the developing countries should also respond and cannot escape simply by pointing to poverty.

India should lead in this. If US and others are not getting into an agreement, India should do volutarily a cut and ask other developing countries to follow the same. Or India should work with other developing countries for a particular cut say upto 20 percentage in ten years as their own agenda on emissions

Whatever India does, it should not accept international monitoring, reporting and verification. We will be handing over a part of our freedom to the global warming mafia if we do that.
In the hypothetical case that this carbon tax thingy gets implemented, does anyone here have an idea on the resultant approximate rise in electricity bills? I came across a speculation of more than doubling of the bills.

[sumishi]

The US can not sign an agreement due to its internal laws. Any international treaty requires 2/3 US Senate vote. There are US Senators in Copenhagen who are openly stating that ANY treaty signed by the US will be rejected in the US Senate.

Obama administration has announced plans to impose sweeping controls on emissions of carbon dioxide by executive fiat, through the EPA, bypassing the legislature altogether.

[Vikas]

Pardon me for the dumb question , but err.. Why is GOI so desperate to get an agreement signed in this summit. If it is not helping Indian cause then, have some chai-biscuit, enjoy Copenhagen and come back. there is always tomorrow to start new round of negotiations.
Let the countries and NGO's & Mr. Gore, who are most worried about environment bend more. After all we have lived with this polluted environment for so many years and few more years are not going to end the civilization (with all due respect to Maldives).

This whole charade sounds like a conspiracy where suddenly environment and pollution has become the most important agenda on this earth. I wonder who is going to make money once the dust settles down and the Global warming is proven as a big hoax.

[sumishi]

Pardon me for the dumb question , but err.. Why is GOI so desperate to get an agreement signed in this summit. If it is not helping Indian cause then, have some chai-biscuit, enjoy Copenhagen and come back. there is always tomorrow to start new round of negotiations.
Let the countries and NGO's & Mr. Gore, who are most worried about environment bend more. After all we have lived with this polluted environment for so many years and few more years are not going to end the civilization (with all due respect to Maldives).

This whole charade sounds like a conspiracy where suddenly environment and pollution has become the most important agenda on this earth. I wonder who is going to make money once the dust settles down and the Global warming is proven as a big hoax.

How right you are! Its time we stopped sucking up to the developed nations and tried to build up our own technological competencies, with strategic international help as relevant and possible.

Pollution is in the biosphere - there is no doubt about it. But this Copenhagen summit is a devious ploy in the name of CO2 as a dangerous pollutant (Hell! Photosynthesis depends on it -- No photosynthesis no life), with doctored data on global warming for the last decade, to trammel development and rake up money from all nations.

[sumishi]

I Pledge Allegiance to Global Warming

I Pledge Allegiance to Global Warming
British scientists sign a government loyalty oath.

The Met Office, Britain's national weather service, "has embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate-change science" in the wake of a whistle-blower's revelation of widespread misconduct by climate scientists, London's Times reports:

More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the "professional integrity" of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. . . .

One scientist told The Times he felt under pressure to sign. "The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming," he said.

The concept of scientists--or journalists, or artists--signing a petition is ludicrous. The idea is that they are lending their authority to whatever cause the petition represents--but in fact they are undermining that authority, which is based on the presumption that they think for themselves.

The problem with the petition as a form is also a problem with the Met Office petition's substance. The purpose of the petition is to shore up scientists' authority by vouching for their integrity. But signing a loyalty oath under pressure from the government is itself a corrupt act. Anyone who signs this petition thereby raises doubts about his own integrity. And once again, the question arises: Why should any layman regard global warmism as credible when the "consensus" rests on political machinations, statistical tricks and efforts to suppress alternative hypotheses?

To be sure, Joseph McCarthy was right about communism even though the ways he combated it were wrong and counterproductive. But that's all the more reason that honest scientists who view global warmism as credible--if such creatures exist--should rise up against these McCarthyite tactics.

...

[krisna]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5 ... 22&sp=true

Delegates, journalists, activists and observers from almost 200 countries have gathered at the Dec 7-18 summit and their travel and work will create 46,200 tonnes of carbon dioxide, most of it from their flights.

This would fill nearly 10,000 Olympic swimming pools, and is the same amount produced each year by 2,300 Americans or 660,000 Ethiopians -- the vast difference is due to the huge gap in consumption patterns in the two countries -- according to U.S. government statistics about per person emissions in 2006.

The temporary buildings housing delegation offices are not well insulated and are warmed by oil heaters, so this area is the most energy-wasteful, she said.

Balslev said most of the energy used by the conference was from coal fired power stations that power the electricity grid, but some was from wind power.

Comment in the article

Cap and Trade:
Cap the food supply and Trade abundance for scarcity and famine.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas for good reason: green=photosynthesis, photosynthesis requires C02 and light. Consequently, limiting atmospheric CO2 emissions will suffocate plants and turns the green to brown. High levels of greenhouse production are achieved by controlling CO2 and light; i.e.: increased greenhouse production is accomplished using bottled or gas-generated CO2 and oftentimes even artificial light to promote the photosynthesis required to make plants grow and produce. Pumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere also stimulates plant growth. The burning of fossil fuels and the resulting tons of carbon emissions can be claimed responsible, at least in part, for the abundance of the food supply during the last century thereby helping us to avoid the Malthusian famines predicted for our day over 200 years ago. Luckily, Parkinson’s Law of photosynthesis indicates that vegetation will expand to deplete the CO2 in the atmosphere regardless of the source and/or the amount released into the atmosphere. Bottom line: drive your car, heat and cool your home, create as much CO2 as possible, your may just be saving the planet for others and preventing a future famine!
Green = Photosynthesis. Photosynthesis requires CO2 and sunlight. Why not associate the increased worldwide food production as actually being made possible by the increased CO2 emissions be they man made or otherwise. Burning coal, oil, and driving your SUV may actually help prevent famine and food shortages in our future. On the other hand, preventing CO2 emissions slows photosynthesis and equates with going brown not green.

CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) is the most friendly gas in our atmosphere. CO2 remains as a trace gas because photosynthesis converts it to O2 (Oxygen) almost immediately. We need mega-tons of CO2 to be put into our atmosphere daily to grow our food for an expanding population of the world. Our food supply depends on the CO2 emissions of SUVs, Volcanoes, Fires, and Plant-rot, to supply this essential greenhouse gas at sufficient levels to ward off famine. By the way, current levels of CO2 have been measured at 385 p.p.m., yet a good greenhouse requires 4 to 5 times that level to get a decent green plant production. To avoid a famine the government regulators better hope they do not lower the atmospheric level of CO2 from current levels; in fact, they should hope CO2 levels will rise to accommodate the increasing global food supply requirement, otherwise, world-wide anthropogenic famine!

[Sanjay M]

China Refuses to Accept International Monitors:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/scien ... imate.html

Hah, but they want us to accept monitors thru NPT? Ridiculous.


We could conceivably found the C5 to offset the P5, and then back it up with the Hydrocarbon Suppliers Group, to prevent transfer of hydrocarbon materials to non-signatories like China.

Nah...

[sumishi]

Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up

[sumishi]

X Posting from "S-e-S Redux: Copenhagen?"

Crash course on how to divert/muzzle inconvenient questions, the a***holes!!
They don't like the truth on tape!

An Inconvenient Question - Journalist Phelim McAleer Asks Prof. Stephen Schneider

Inconvenient Question to Al Gore

[Katare]

sumishi,

Please tone down your rehtoric and choice of words. You can make your argument without resorting to cheap antics and name calling. Climate change holds a lot of value and meaning for majority of the world. You can hold and put your view without being mean and overly sarcastic.

The number 350
Is it the most important number for the world?
Why the churche bells were ringing at 3:50 in Europe?

350

[sumishi]

sumishi,

Please tone down your rehtoric and choice of words. You can make your argument without resorting to cheap antics and name calling. Climate change holds a lot of value and meaning for majority of the world. You can hold and put your view without being mean and overly sarcastic.
...
350

Yeah! u'r right, sorry for that!

I have got carried away, not because I doubt the reality of man's effect on the environment through pollution etc., but because of the huge scam they are trying to carry out in the name of CO2 (through data falsification) for taxing the entire world and putting into the coffers of IMF and the World Bank which are just non-democratic bureaucracies (and we know their history of interference too well) under the control of international bankers.