Discord in the UN on "Green Economy"

In my writings, I generally tend to be critical. However In this case, I have some good, positive news to report. While there are some negative aspects, in total the news is good..

The United Nations has recently held a UN Conference on Sustainable Development. It is said to commemorate and build on a continuation of the 1992 Earth Summit, which was held in Rio de Janeiro and brought together scores of global leaders who signed the world's first treaties on climate change and biodiversity protection.

The article, which I am now using as reference is contained in the May 30 issue of C&E News. The recent UN Conference was held in New York City in May. UN Chief Ban said the UN is promoting a "green economy development through growth in income, decent work and poverty eradication". A noble statement. However in addressing the details, there was considerable disagreement.

The Conference attendees included an organization called the G-77. Its membership is 30 developing countries. The UN program is to have developed countries countries, such as the US, contribute substantial funds, in order to develop the "green economy". One would expect that the G-77 would easily accept this program. However, surprisingly they objected to it, but only indirectly. They generally did not agree to use of the phrase "green economy". The stated reason was that there was no agreed-on definition.

Another surprising statement came from the the US Representative John Matuszak, Chief of the US State Department's Sustainable Development and Multilateral Affairs Division. He works for Obama and yet made the statement that "the US, as with many other countries, is actively cutting budgets to reduce our deficit and cannot make new financial commitments or support costly new initiatives". Instead, he suggested that "governments, the private sector and others must engage to leverage the lack of resources in order to help the developing world on sustainable development issues". I like the first part but have less enthusiasm for the second part.

The delegate from India shed some light on the thinking of the G.-77 by saying that "requirements for green products may distort free flow of global trade and erect barriers to some products. Importing countries' environmental standards, subsidies, and market incentives for green goods could limit the ability of developing countries that export to achieve their sustainability goals".

Finally, some developing countries are opposed to significantly lower emissions of carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, Cheryl Hogue has shown her bias by volunteering that she believes carbon dioxide to be a major greenhouse gas, which it is not.

This is all good news, in that country leaders are starting to recognize that the situation is more complex than a simple hand-out and there could be disadvantages in controlling carbon dioxide emissions, without even considering that it is not necessary.

Who Can the US Sue for Damages?

EIN News says, "Chevron Chiefs Face Shareholders After Huge $18 Billion Ecuador Fine Chevron bosses are facing shareholders for the first time since the company was fined a total of $18 billion by a court in Ecuador over contamination from oil extraction in the Amazon. California's largest oil company is coming under increasing pressure from institutional investors and long-term shareholders who are gathering at the annual general meeting at Chevron's HQ in San Ramon, near San Francisco. (guardian.co.uk)".

Let's not assume that Chevron actually caused $18 billion of damage in Ecuador.

The sign of the times is to go after people or organizations with "deep pockets". Oil companies have made very large profits and what better way for individuals or companies to also obtain some benefits by suing them. Enter now lawsuits by governments, in order to solve their internal financial problems. It's not necessary that the lawsuits be legitimate. It is only necessary that the defendants pay.

We have some trillions dollars of debt. Who can we sue that has money? China?

Congressional Spending

Open Letter to Rep. Neugebauer:

I read your 5/25 newsletter.

You are communicating well through your newsletter program.

I partially agree that the budget is important. But, Harry Reid is also correct in saying that the budget is not important, and we don't need it. In effect, he is saying we don't need to spend time developing a budget, if we are not going to follow it. You well know that this is the way Social/Democrats operate. The key is in the spending (allocation of funds). Not in the planning (budget).

You seem to understand most of the problems, but I would like to see you take a much stronger position in trying to solve them. Overspending is a Congressional problem. What are you doing to STRONGLY correct it?

Only Congress Can Stop the Giveaway Progran to Egypt

Obama said on Thursday that the U.S. will relieve up to 1- billion-U.S.- dollar debt and guarantee another 1 billion dollars in loan for Egypt.

In his major speech on the Middle East policy, Obama said U.S. does not want Egypt to be "saddled by the debts of its past," and the loan will help Egypt on finance infrastructure and job creation.
Does this make sense to you? Egypt has just been taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is antagonistic to all Christian based nations, including the US. The US is itself strongly in debt for trillions of dollars. We have our own unemployment problem and need for infrastructure development.

Obama's interpretation of a loan guarantee is likely not the same as the usual interpretation. I suspect he plans to send Egypt a billion dollars of US currency to pay their debts to other lenders, while we pay interest to China on the new loan amount, which we have given to Egypt.

If Obama turns the previous billion $ loan into a grant, what do you think he will later do on the new billion $ loan?

Only Congress can stop this foolishness. I am depending on you. A word of caution. Avoid tying this in with Israel. It is a separate item and should be handled as such.

Make Heads Roll for the Stanford Ponzi Scheme

Open letter to Rep. Randy Neugebauer:

In your newsletter and at your website, I read about your investigation of the Stanford Ponzi Scheme, in which investors were defrauded out of $7.2 billion resulting in thousands of shattered lives in Texas.

You have apparently concluded that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) were negligent in performing their duties.

I am concerned that this investigation will follow the same course of action that most congressional investigations follow. That is, there is a lot of talk but little action. When are we going to get tough? I suggest a need for you to call for the resignations or firings of the chairmen of both these organizations.

Bloated Budgets of Federal Agencies

In the April 18 issue of C&E News, Susan Morrissey has an article involving the federal budgets of several science agencies. She discusses budget cuts in dollar terms rather than percentages. When the dollar reductions for the 2011 budget are compared with the expenditures in 2010, the percentage reductions are respectively for the NHS, NIST, and DOE, 0.7%, 12%, and 0.7%

The basic fault of the article is that it implies that there have been significant cuts in the new budgets for the three agencies, when the actual percentages show the reverse. Only the NIST has had a significant budget cut of 12%. The other two budget cuts are miniscule. This is unacceptable in these times of high budget deficits. All three of these agencies should have had their budgets cut by at least 30 to 40%.

I understand that we would not like to reduce the budgets too rapidly, since it would cut many federal emp-loyees from the payroll and exacerbate the unemployment problem. However, it still behooves us to keep in mind that the slight reductions of the two agencies mentioned above is not significant in terms of year to year change and also considering that the previous year budgets were likely considerably bloated.

Soak the Rich and Kill the Society?

I listened to President Obama's speech on fiscal deficits and debts this afternoon. I was not surprised. He used his usual socialistic approach in recommending silly solutions to our budget and debt crisis.

What made me really angry was his repeated attempt to establish economic class warfare by appealing to the jealousy emotion that normally rests in every human being to some degree. In effect, he said those who have benefited the most, should pay more in taxes.

However, for those who may be swayed by this approach to the dark side of human nature, let me bring into perspective what this actually means. President Obama is implying that the "rich" have accomplished their financial status through government benefit, and that is unfair to the average person. The fact is that in the majority of cases, the "rich" have achieved their success through imagination, risk, and hard work. Should an average "non-rich" person, who has not put in the required risk and effort be rewarded to the same extent? If so, why would anyone want to engage in hard work and risks, when the same benefits can be obtained by lethargy? He would not. That is the fundamental deficiency of socialism. There is a lack of incentive for anybody to do better. In most cases, the rich have achieved a better financial status The other implication of President Obama's statement is that the "rich" person has achieved his status in spite of governmental hindrances.

If we take the accomplishments of the "rich" and spread those benefits among the general public, do you believe that those "rich" people will continue on the same track of producing goods, services, and profits, which can be taxed. No! They will cease to produce and will live off their assets, or take their businesses to other countries, which are more favorably inclined to business ventures. The net result is fewer businesses, with fewer jobs for the middle class and a forced lower standard of living. Even government will not profit by the operation, since the companies and owners, which previously supplied tax revenue will no longer be available.

Andrew Carnegie privately established the steel industry in the United States. The steel, which he and his organization produced, went into the manufacture of automobiles, bridges, rails, and skyscrapers. Andrew Carnegie became rich through his steel operations, but did the public suffer? No. We owe those automobiles we have, and the bridges and skyscrapers we use to Andrew Carnegie's ingenuity and efforts. Government in those years was not an impediment. Andrew Carnegie could not achieve the same success in the present governmental climate.
Similarly, John D. Rockefeller established an international railroad system, which led to the development of all parts of the United States. Without the rail system, we would still be a disorganized set of white tribes, possibly still fighting Indians.

Am I implying that private industry can do everything and that it is completely honest in all of its endeavors? No. But that does not mean it should be abolished or even unreasonably hindered. It only means that government should exercise some control to keep the playing field level for various competitors and the general public. It does not mean that we need a government of tremendous size that will compete with private industry or overtax them to the extent of driving them out of business.

Bottom line: Do not soak the rich. Be sure they are getting their fair share, as an incentive to continue doing and expanding their good work. Private industry makes jobs, and improves finances in the average working-class family.

Government is a leech on society. When small, we can tolerate it, and in some respects need it. In its greatness, it is an abomination.