Carbon trading has EXACTLY the same power as " salt tax" to control and exploit the entire globe , no wonder jews are excited
kangarooistan
salt tax , except it will be run by those who OWN the " rights " to
emmit carbon , check out the financial pages in newspapers to see how
enthusiatic some financial experts are , they openly claim it WILL be
more profitable and BIGGER than the oil industry
The consumer will pay , exactly like the salt tax , everybody will be
caught in their scam
Taxation of salt in India was greatly increased when the British East
India Company began to establish its rule over provinces in India. In
1835, special taxes were imposed on Indian salt to facilitate its
import. This paid huge dividends for the traders of the British East
India Company. When the Crown took over the administration of India
from the Company in 1858, the taxes were not repealed.
The stringent salt taxes imposed by the British were vehemently
condemned by the Indian public. In 1885, at the first session of the
Indian National Congress in Bombay, a prominent Congress Leader
S.A.Swaminatha Iyer raised the issue of the salt tax[1]. There were
further protests throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries
culminating in Mahatma Gandhi's Salt Satyagraha in 1930.
In the eastern coast, salt could be obtained extensively along the
coast of Orissa[2]. The salt produced by the salt pans called khalaris
in Oriya is of the finest quality in all India[2]. There has always
been a demand for Orissa salt in Bengal[2].
When the British took over the administration of Bengal, they too
felt its need and traded for salt. Gradually they monopolized Orissa
salt all over Bengal[2]. To check smuggling and illegal
transportation, they sent armies into Orissa resulting in the conquest
of Orissa in 1803[2].
Since the introduction of the first taxes on salt by the British East
India Company, the laws have been subjected to fervent criticism. The
Chamber of Commerce in Bristol was one of the first to submit a
petition opposing the Salt tax:
The price to the consumer here [in England] is but about 30s per
ton instead of 20 pounds per ton as in India; and if it were necessary
to abolish the Salt tax at home some years since it appears to your
petitioners that the millions of her Majesty's subjects of India have
a much stronger claim for remission in their case, wretchedly poor as
they are, and essentially necessary as salt is to their daily
sustenance, and to the prevention of disease in such a climate[7]
The Salt Tax was criticized at a public meeting at Cuttack in February
1888. In the first session of the Indian National Congress held in
1885 in Bombay, a prominent Congress member, S.A. Swaminatha Iyer
pleaded against the salt tax[8][9][10].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_salt_tax_in_India
The Salt Tax was criticized at a public meeting at Cuttack in February
1888. In the first session of the Indian National Congress held in
1885 in Bombay, a prominent Congress member, S.A. Swaminatha Iyer
pleaded against the salt tax[8][9][10].
It would be unjust and unrighteous if the tax on salt should be
increased. It is a necessary article both for human as well as animal
well-being... it would be bad policy and a retrograde movement to
raise the tax, especially at a time when the poor millions of India
are anxiously looking forward for a further reduction of the tax....
As any increase, therefore, of this tax will fall heavily upon the
masses of the people of the land, I would strongly urge upon the
attention of this Congress the necessity of its entering its strong
protest against any attempt on the part of Government to raise the tax
on salt[1]
At the Allahabad session of the Indian National Congress in 1888,
Narayan Vishnu, a delegate from Poona vehemently opposed the Indian
Salt Act. A resolution was passed wherein the delegates present
declared 'That this Congress do put on record its disapproval of the
recent enhancement of the salt tax as involving a perceptible increase
to the burden of the poorer classes, as also the 'partial adoption, in
a time of peace and plenty, of the of the only financial reserve of
the Empire.' The 1892 session at Allahabad concluded thus: '... We do
not know when the tax will be reduced. So that there is every
necessity for our repeating this prayer in the interests of the
masses, and we earnestly hope that it will he granted before long'. A
similar sort of protest was also issued at the Congress session at
Ahmedabad.
The Salt Tax was also protested by eminent people like Dadabhai
Naoroji. On August 14, 1894, he thundered in the House of Commons:
Then the Salt Tax, the most cruel Revenue imposed in any civilised
country provided Rs. 8,600,000/- and that with the opium 'formed the
bulk of the revenue of India, which was drawn from the wretchedness of
the people.... It mattered not what the State received was called -
tax, rent, revenue, or by any other name they liked - the simple fact
of the matter was, that out of a certain annual national production
the State took a certain portion. Now it would not also matter much
about the portion taken by the State if that portion, as in this
country, returned to people themselves, from whom it was raised. But
the misfortune and the evil was that much of this portion did not
return to the people, and that the whole system of Revenue and the
economic condition of the people became unnatural and oppressive, with
dangers to the rulers. So long as the system went on, so long must the
people go on, living wretched lives. There was a constant draining
away of India's resources, and she could never therefore, be a
prosperous country. Not only that, but in time India must perish, and
with it perish the British Empire[1]
In 1895, George Hamilton stated at a session of the House of Commons
that:
Time has, however, now come when the Government finds itself in
possession of larger surpluses and it is, therefore, its duty as
guardian of public exchequer, to reduce taxation on salt
When the Salt tax was doubled in the year 1923,
kangarooistan
> TheCarbon" TAX " /tradingpermits will be used exactly like the
> salt tax , except it will be run by those who OWN the " rights " to
Australia’s CSIRO's Clive Spash has come out fighting against the
Australian government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, saying
carbon trading and offset schemes appear ineffective in terms of
actually reducing greenhouse gases (GHGs).
"The public appearance is that action is being undertaken.
Reported in the Australian newspaper, Spash said trading schemes did
not efficiently allocate emission cuts because their design was
manipulated by vested interests.
For example, in Australia, large polluters would be compensated with
free permits while smaller, more competitive firms would have to buy
theirs at auction.
He said the schemes were flawed because global warming was caused by
gases other than carbon, emissions were difficult to measure, carbon
offsets bought from other countries were of dubious value and the
schemes "crowded out" voluntary action by individuals.
He said more direct measures, such as , regulations or new
infrastructure would be simpler, more effective and less open to
manipulation.
Spash’s comments are matched elsewhere, with Matthew Sinclair of the
Guardian in the UK claiming that emissions trading by the EU is
costing British consumers GBP3 billion a year – equivalent to around
GBP117 per family, a large part of it coming through higher
electricity prices.
Arguing against the EU system, he added: “We should make sure
developed and developing countries are prosperous and free enough to
cope with whatever climate change throws at them. We should also
directly support the development of technologies that can provide us
with new options, ideally with the kind of rigorous prizes that have
delivered dramatic results in the development of everything from
agricultural machinery and private suborbital spaceflight. That will
be far more effective and affordable than the current approach.
“The (EU) ETS has been an expensive failure.
Having been implemented through the EU without a real debate here, it
lacks democratic legitimacy and it is imposing a significant burden on
the poorest families while achieving very little. It should be
abolished.”
Elsewhere, the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) says government
ministers have misled the public about Britain’s reduction in its
greenhouse gas emissions.
The authority’s chairman, Sir Michael Scholar, said the use of “carbon
credits” bought under the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to
represent actual British emissions cuts could give a false impression
of progress.
He said tradeable “permits to pollute”, bought by British companies
under the ETS may in effect be “hot air”.
kangarooistan
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:37:46 -0800 (PST), Last Post
>
> <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
>
> The key phrase in the above post is this one.
>
> As planned, the president=92s stunt made headlines across the globe.
> Send us money - and lots of it - is his message.
Indeed mate , taaxing carbon will not stop global warming , it will
only make money for those who OWN the right to emit carbon ,and THEY
will sell the right every year to the highest bidder
Inventing an entire new industry
Those who OWN the RIGHTS to emit carbon will RULE THE WORLD in a few
decades
exactly like " salt tax "
EXACTLY like water trading wont save the river murray
carbon trading wont save the world from globalwarming
> Send us money.
> Who stands to make the most money out of AGW.
Its REAL easy to work ourt WHI will make themoney mate
We ALL know WHO will soon OWN the rights to emitt carbon
The JEWS are EXPERTS at controlling the carbon trading markets world
wide
They have cornered the carbon market for centuries
Diamonds are pure carbon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond
the JEWS will corner the entire market
Probably EXACTLY the same people will use EXACTLY the same offices and
modus operandi to trade CO2 as they use to control the sold carbon
trading
>
> How long before every pacific island nation suddenly discovers that
> their country is in danger from rising sea levels and wants lots of
> money to fix it.
>
> Then there slow lying countries like Sri Lanka , Bangladesh.
> Lots of money will be needed here.
carbon tax wont stop sea level rise
only adding iron to the ocean can CURE global warming
Its increased irrigation that stops iron fertilization of the oceans
that caused global warming , and adding iron even used tin cans that
can CURE global warming
Once the jews have their carbon tax in place , they will discover
adding tin cans to the oceans will cure global warming , but the jews
will NEVER give up their RIGHT to tax carbon , once they OWN it
no mate, the poor wont see a cent
carbon trading is simply a reincarnation of the " Salt Tax "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_salt_tax_in_India
>
> Sounds a bit like the Nigerian Bank Scam , just with a slightly
> differant story and UN approval.
and the police and armies to ENFORCE compliance at taxpayers expense
>
> How about this.
> How many extra UN bureaucrats will need to be employed around the wold
> to verify every countries CO2 emissions so as to ensure they are
> complying with UN targets.
> Lots of money needed here.
>
> The toothfairy is going to be very busy.
the sheeple are too silly to even notice it mate
we can only TRY and warn them
sadly the jews will get their carbon tax
We will need have WW4 to free the sheeple once they eventually wake up
and the jewish strangle hold of the world economy will AGAIN need to
be removed at great cost
several billion sheeple will die before we see the end of carbon tax
We must still TRY
Future generations MUST know somebody TRIED to save the world from
carbon tax , that will KILL far more people than global warming ever
could
we MUST try and save the planet as we only have a few weeks until the
jews take over in copenhagen , after that it will be too late
kanga
=====
kangarooistan
> Time has, however, now come when the Government finds itself in
> possession of larger surpluses and it is, therefore, its duty as
> guardian of public exchequer, to reduce taxation on salt
>
> When the Salt tax was doubled in the year 1923,
The Carbon " TAX " / trading permits will be used exactly like the
kangarooistan
enslave every person on earth forever , forced to pay whatever the USA
chooses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_salt_tax_in_India#Taxation_of_salt
One of the strongest criticisms of the World Bank has been the way in
which it is governed. While the World Bank represents 184 countries,
it is run by a small number of economically powerful countries. These
countries choose the leadership and senior management of the World
Bank and as such, their interests are dominant within the bank.[23]
It has also been suggested that the World Bank is an instrument for
the promotion of US or Western interests in certain regions of the
world. .[29]
Criticisms of the structure of the World Bank refer to the fact that
the President of the Bank is always a citizen of the United States,
nominated by the President of the United States (though subject to the
approval of the other member countries).
There have been accusations that the decision-making structure is
undemocratic, as the US effectively has a veto on some constitutional
decisions with just over 16% of the shares in the bank;[30] moreover,
decisions can only be passed with votes from countries whose shares
total more than 85% of the bank's shares.[31]
as the USA owns 16% of the shares in the world Bank and it needs over
85% to over turn a decision ,
AND the USA has the right to choose its leader
CLEARLY the World Bank is completely under FULL control of the USA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank
Clean Technology Fund management
The World Bank has been assigned temporary management responsibility
of the Clean Technology Fund (CTF), focused on making renewable energy
cost-competitive with coal-fired power as quickly as possible, but
this may not continue after UN's Copenhagen climate change conference
in December, 2009, because of the Bank's continued investment in coal-
fired power plants.[18]
In the 1990s the World Bank and the IMF forged the Washington
Consensus, a set of policies which included deregulation and
liberalization of markets, privatization and the downscaling of
government.
viewable at: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dcgk9t7p_190cd2vfsdg
======================================================
About the World Bank Carbon Finance Unit
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/ENVIRONMENT/EXTCARBONFINANCE/0,,contentMDK:21841841~menuPK:4125909~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:4125853,00.html
Logo
The World Bank Carbon Finance Unit's (CFU) initiatives are part of the
larger global effort to combat climate change, and go hand in hand
with the World Bank and its Environment Department 's mission to
reduce poverty and improve living standards in the developing world.
The CFU uses money contributed by governments and companies in OECD
(Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries to
purchase project-based greenhouse gas emission reductions in
developing countries and countries with economies in transition. The
emission reductions are purchased through one of the CFU's carbon
funds on behalf of the contributor, and within the framework of the
Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) or Joint
Implementation (JI).
Unlike other World Bank development products, the CFU does not lend or
grant resources to projects, but rather contracts to purchase emission
reductions similar to a commercial transaction, paying for them
annually or periodically once they have been verified by a third party
auditor. The selling of emission reductions - or carbon finance - has
been shown to increase the bankability of projects, by adding an
additional revenue stream in hard currency, which reduces the risks of
commercial lending or grant finance. Thus, carbon finance provides a
means of leveraging new private and public investment into projects
that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, thereby mitigating climate
change while contributing to sustainable development.
The Bank's carbon finance operations have demonstrated numerous
opportunities for collaborating across sectors, and have served as a
catalyst in bringing climate issues to bear in projects relating to
rural electrification, renewable energy, energy efficiency, urban
infrastructure, waste management, pollution abatement, forestry, and
water resource management.
The World Bank's carbon finance initiatives are an integral part of
the Bank's mission to reduce poverty through its environment and
energy strategies. The threat climate change poses to long-term
development and the ability of the poor to escape from poverty is of
particular concern to the World Bank. The impacts of climate change
threaten to unravel many of the development gains of the last several
decades. The Bank is therefore making every effort to ensure that
developing countries can benefit from international efforts to address
climate change.
A vital element of this is ensuring that developing countries and
economies in transition are key players in the emerging carbon market
for greenhouse gas emission reductions. The role of the Bank's Carbon
Finance Unit is to catalyze a global carbon market that reduces
transaction costs, supports sustainable development and reaches and
benefits the poorer communities of the developing world.
For more information, please contact the Carbon Finance Helpdesk.
Permanent URL for this page: http://go.worldbank.org/B8P2785TX0
Frequently Asked Questions
* What is Carbon Finance?
* How does Carbon Finance work at the World Bank?
* Why has climate change become a development issue?
* Which countries are engaged in the Kyoto Protocol?
* Is the CDM letting the North off the hook for their carbon
reduction obligations and what’s in it for the South?
* What is carbon finance?
* Why do greenhouse gas emission reductions have value?
* What is the World Bank’s involvement in Carbon Finance?
* What specific role is the Bank playing in the development of a
market for carbon trade?
* Who are the beneficiaries of the Bank’s actions in carbon
finance?
* The Bank has created several carbon funds. How do they work? Who
owns these funds?
* Why do investors and governments find the World Bank Carbon
Funds an attractive business proposition?
* Who are the main players in the carbon market at this point in
time?
* What types of renewable energy projects should be eligible for
carbon trade? Should the eligibility of hydropower projects for carbon
trade be restricted to 10 MW?
* How are the recommendations of the World Commission on Dams
(WCD) addressed in World Bank projects?
* Does the World Bank purchase Verified Emission Reductions
(VERs), Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) or EU Allowances (EUAs)?
* Top 10 things the World Bank is doing to facilitate a carbon
market
Leadership
The President of the Bank, currently Robert B. Zoellick, is
responsible for chairing the meetings of the Boards of Directors and
for overall management of the Bank. Traditionally, the Bank President
has always been a US citizen nominated by the United States, the
largest shareholder in the bank. The nominee is subject to
confirmation by the Board of Governors, to serve for a five-year,
renewable term.[14]
The Executive Directors, representing the Bank's member countries,
make up the Board of Directors, usually meeting twice a week to
oversee activities such as the approval of loans and guarantees, new
policies, the administrative budget, country assistance strategies and
borrowing and financing decisions.
The Vice Presidents of the Bank are its principal managers, in charge
of regions, sectors, networks and functions. There are 24 Vice-
Presidents, three Senior Vice Presidents and two Executive Vice
Presidents.
viewable at: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dcgk9t7p_190cd2vfsdg
kangarooistan
It has also been suggested that the World Bank is an instrument for
the promotion of US or Western interests in certain regions of the
world.
Criticisms of the structure of the World Bank refer to the fact that
the President of the Bank is always a citizen of the United States,
nominated by the President of the United States (though subject to the
approval of the other member countries).
There have been accusations that the decision-making structure is
undemocratic, as the US effectively has a veto on some constitutional
decisions with just over 16% of the shares in the bank;[30]
moreover, decisions can only be passed with votes from countries
whose shares total more than 85% of the bank's shares.[31]
as the USA owns 16% of the shares in the world Bank and it needs over
85% to over turn a decision ,
AND the USA has the right to choose its leader
CLEARLY the World Bank is completely under FULL control of the USA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank
Clean Technology Fund management
The World Bank has been assigned temporary management responsibility
of the Clean Technology Fund (CTF), focused on making renewable energy
cost-competitive with coal-fired power as quickly as possible, but
this may not continue after UN's Copenhagen climate change conference
in December, 2009, because of the Bank's continued investment in coal-
fired power plants.[18]
In the 1990s the World Bank and the IMF forged the Washington
Consensus, a set of policies which included deregulation and
liberalization of financial markets, privatization and the
downscaling of government controls.
USA bankers created the global financial crisis , and now want us to
give them TOTAL control of all world banking , and unchallenged rights
to SET TAX ON CARBON and with 16% of the votes NOBODY can ever
challenge ANYTHING they choose to do EVER , they can set the carbon "
tax " at any rate THEY choose, and do as THEY please with the funds