Showing posts with label cameron. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cameron. Show all posts

Libyagate: NATO Deliberately Bombing Civilians

For the war crimes commission. July 24 2011
A peace march has been working its way through the Nafusa Mountains area pushing the terrorists and mercenaries back towards Tunisia. Whole families have joined the march. The reason is that NATO’s terrorists and mercenaries have been burning and looting villages and murdering residents. The terrorists and mercenaries have fired on the peace march. NATO has dropped bombs on them. NATO knows they are civilians because French “advisers” are among the terrorists.
In Brega NATO deliberately bombed the civilian waterworks killing 6 and wounding the CEO.
NATO must be outlawed and brought to book.
——-
Perhaps Soros’ Human Rights Watch would be honest enough for once to do some prompt reporting. Or more responsive Amnesty. There are abundant witnesses.
——-
News via Leonor’s posts (here):
Brega, Nafusa Mountains and the south July 24
Rebels in the area of the Nafusa Mountains burned more than 300 homes in the past week. Now [many of] the rebels have been taken by NATO to southern Libya, but do not know they are in a very different world. The people of the Nafusa Mountains have no weapons to defend themselves, but in the south every home has weapons, the people there are also very angry, they know each other and instantly recognize an intruder.
In the fighting near the border with Niger between rebel mercenaries transported by NATO and the Libyan army and there are some wounded and the Libyans say they recognized that there are now French among the casualties. This shows that the French have been significantly introduced into the Libyan territory.
Al Brega is a wadi full of dead people of Qatar, but they can’t go to get them out because it is in the midst of the fighting.
Original Spanish
Los rebeldes en el área de los Montes Nafusa han quemado en la última semana más de 300 casas particulares. Ahora estos rebeldes han sido trasladados por la OTAN al sur de Libia, pero no saben que están en un mundo muy distinto.
Las gentes de los Montes Nafusa no tenían armas para defenderse, pero el sur está todo armado en todas las casas, la gente se conocen entre ellos y reconocen al instante a un intruso además están muy enfadados.
En los enfrentamientos cerca de la frontera con Niger entre los mercenarios transportados por la OTAN y el ejército libio ya hay algunas bajas reconocidas y dicen los Libios que ya hay franceses entre las bajas. Esto nos muestra que los franceses están muy introducidos dentro del territorio libio.
En Al Brega hay un wadi lleno de gente muerta de Qatar, pero no pueden ir a sacarles del lugar porque está en medio de los enfrentamientos.

The caravan of peace in the Nafusa Mountains
Some injured people who are already hospitalized have told they were marching when rebels started shooting them with rifles with telescopic sights from a great distance by killing tribal leaders in order to frighten them to return to their homes .
Without a word the rebels started to shoot and then NATO aircraft entered the airspace of Libya to kill civilians in the caravan of peace in the Nafusa Mountains by dropping bombs.
Now we will give proof this time of killing [unarmed] civilians by carrying white flags of peace.
There are casualties. People tell me they do not know how many.
I think it is becoming clear that the Libyans are peaceful people seeking peace and negotiation and are only defending against this great and horrific assault.
Original Spanish
La caravana de la paz en Montes Nafusa
Algunas personas heridas que están ya hospitalizadas han hablado y cuentan que ellos se dirigían hacia donde están los rebeldes y les han empezado a disparar con fusiles de mira telescópica a gran distancia matando a los líderes de las tribus para así asustarles y que regresaran a sus casas.
Sin mediar palabra los rebeldes han empezado a dispararles y luego los aviones de la OTAN han entrado en el espacio aéreo de Libia para matar los civiles de la caravana de la paz en los Montes Nafusa lanzando les bombas.
Ahora veremos que razones darán esta vez para matar civiles con banderas blancas de paz.
Me dicen que hay muertos y heridos. Las personas que me lo cuentan no saben cuantos.
Creo que va quedando muy claro que los libios son gente pacifica que busca la negociación y la paz y solo se están defendiendo de esta magna y horrible agresión
.
---------
NATO’s Libya Lies (Thomas Mountain. Libya 360°. 7.23.11)
The lies used to justify the NATO war against Libya have surpassed those created to justify the invasion of Iraq. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both had honest observers on the ground for months following the rebellion in eastern Libya and both have repudiated every major charge used to justify the NATO war on Libya.
According to the Amnesty observer, who is fluent in Arabic, there is not one confirmed instance of rape by the pro-Gadaffi fighters, not even a doctor who knew of one. All the Viagra mass rape stories were fabrications.
Amnesty could not verify a single “African mercenary” fighting for Gaddafi story, and the highly charged international satellite television accounts of African mercenaries raping women that were used to panic much of the eastern Libyan population into fleeing their homes were fabrications.
There were no confirmed accounts of helicopter gun ships attacking civilians and no jet fighters bombing people which completely invalidates any justification for the No-Fly Zone inSecurity Council resolution used as an excuse for NATO to launch its attacks on Libya.
After three months on the ground in rebel controlled territory, the Amnesty investigator could only confirm 110 deaths in Benghazi which included Gadaffi supporters.
Only 110 dead in Benghazi? Wait a minute, we were told thousands had died there, ten thousand even. No, only 110 lost their lives including pro-government people.
No rapes, no African mercenaries, no helicopter gun ships or bombers, and only 110 ten deaths prior to the launch of the NATO bombing campaign, every reason was based on a lie.
Today according to the Libyan Red Crescent Society, over 1,100 civilians have been killed by NATO bombs including over 400 women and children. Over 6,000 Libyan civilians have been injured or wounded by the bombing, many very seriously.
Compared to the war on Iraq, these numbers are tiny, but the reasons for the Libyan war have no merit in any form.
Saddam Hussein was evil, he invaded his neighbors in wars that killed up to a million. He used Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s) in the form of poison gas on both his neighbors and his own people, killing tens of thousands. He was brutal and corrupt and when American tanks rolled into Iraq the Iraqi people refused to fight for him, simply put their weapons down and went home.
Libya under Col. Gadaffi hasn’t invaded their neighbors. Gadaffi never used WMD’s on anyone, let alone his own people. As for Gadaffi being brutal, in Libya’s neighbor Algeria, the Algerian military fought a counterinsurgency for a decade in the 1990’s that witnessed the deaths of some 200,000 Algerians. Now that is brutal and nothing anywhere near this has happened in Libya.
In Egypt and Tunisia, western puppets like Mubarak and Ben Ali had almost no support amongst their people with few if anyone willing to fight and die to defend them.
The majority of the Libyan people are rallying behind the Libyan government and “the leader”, Muammar Gadaffi, with over one million people demonstrating in support on July 1 in Tripoli, the capital of Libya. Thousands of Libyan youth are on the front lines fighting the rebels and despite thousands of NATO air strikes authentic journalists on the ground in western Libya report their morale remains high.
In Egypt the popular explosion that resulted in the Army seizing power from Mubarak began in the very poorest neighborhoods in Cairo and other Egyptian cities where the price of basic food items like bread, sugar and cooking oil had skyrocketed and lead to widespread hunger. In many parts of Egypt’s poor neighborhoods gasoline/benzene is easier to find then clean drinking water. Medical care and education is only for those with the money to pay for it. Life for the people of Tunisia is not that much better.
In contrast, the Libyan people have the longest life expectancy in the Arab world. The Libyan people have the best, free public health system in the Arab world. The Libyan people have the best, free public education system in the Arab world. Most Libyan families own their own home and most Libyan families own their own automobile. Libya is so much better off then its neighbors every year tens of thousands of Egyptians and Tunisians migrated to Libya to earn money to feed their families, doing the dirty work the Libyan people refused to do.
When it comes to how Gadaffi oversaw a dramatic rise in the standard of living for the Libyan people despite decades of UN inSecurity Council sanctions against the Libyan economy honest observers acknowledge that Gadaffi stands head and shoulders above the kings, sheiks, emirs and various dictators who rule the rest of the Arab world.
So why did NATO launch this war against Libya?
First of all Gadaffi was on the verge of creating a new banking system in Africa that was going to put the IMF, World Bank and assorted other western banksters out of business in Africa. No more predatory western loans used to cripple African economies, instead a $42 billion dollar African Investment Bank would be supplying major loans at little or even zero interest rates.
Libya has funded major infrastructure projects across Africa that have begun to link up African economies and break the perpetual dependency on the western countries for imports have been taking place. Here in Eritrea the new road connecting Eritrea and Sudan is just one small example.
What seem to have finally tipped the balance in favor of direct western military intervention was the reported demand by Gadaffi that the USA oil companies who have long been major players in the Libyan petroleum industry were going to have to compensate Libya to the tune of tens of billions of dollars for the damage done to the Libyan economy by the USA instigated “Lockerbie Bombing” sanctions imposed by the UN inSecurity Council throughout the 1990’s into early 2000’s. This is based on the unearthing of evidence that the CIA paid millions of dollars to witnesses in the Lockerbie Bombing trial to change their stories to implicate Libya which was used as the basis for the very damaging UN sanctions against Libya. The government of the USA lied and damaged Libya so the USA oil companies were going to have to pay up to cover the cost of their governments actions. Not hard to see why Gadaffi had to go isn’t it?
Add the fact that Gadaffi had signaled clearly that he saw both Libya’s and Africa’s future economic development linked more to China and Russia rather than the west and it was just a matter of time before the CIA’s contingency plan to overthrow the Libyan government was put on the front burner.
NATO’s war against Libya has much more in common with NATO’s Kosovo war against Serbia. But one still cannot compare Gadaffi to Saddam or even the much smaller time criminals in the Serbian leadership. The Libyan War lies are worse than Iraq.
Thomas C. Mountain
Asmara, Eritrea
thomascmountain@yahoo.com
Thomas C. Mountain is the only independent western journalist in the Horn of Africa, living and reporting from Eritrea since 2006. He was a member of the 1st US Peace Delegation to Libya in 1987.
© Copyright 2011 by Libya 360° This page may be republished for non-commercial purposes as long as reprints include a verbatim copy of the article in its entirety, respecting its integrity and cite the author and Libya 360° as the source including a live link to the article
——
My conclusion – The coalition of Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron, appropriately abbreviated to FUKUS, and NATO are committing unjustifiable homicide and contravening international law on a daily basis. The leadership has become worse than common bandits, they are pretending they have justification. They don’t. What they do have is a complete lack of morals and common decency. NATO gives every appearance of attempting to double its civilian kill count from the last report of over 1,000. These criminals need to be frog-marched out of office.
——
NATO is accountable – nation by nation.

ECHR in landmark judgement – military accountable for human rights abuses

humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/07/08/echr-in-landmark-judgement…..abuses/
Rheinmetall munitions identified in Misrata
[...] Rheinmetall, through American Rheinmetall (ARM) has a contract to supply stun grenades to US special ops forces and other US military customers and this particular munition is dated 08/03, well before Germany was supplying Libya with any weapons.
So how did this particular munition get to be used in the battle for this strategically important building overlooking Tripoli Street? And how deeply involved were US Special Forces in supporting the Libyan rebels as they ethnically cleansed Misrata?
humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/07/13/flash-bang-rheinmetall-…….-in-misrata/
Lynching in Benghazi
[...] The footage of the lynching shows a large crowd in front of the rebel HQ, many holding up mobile phones to photograph/record the action. Two men, one in a yellow top with a hood and another with a brown top, yellow T-shirt and jeans haul the victim up to the window and tie him up to the bars by his feet as the crowd chants “Libya Hurra!”
As the camera comes closer to the window, we can see the victim – he appears to be a young, adult, dark-skinned man. He is bound by the feet and hanging from the bars, wearing olive trousers with no top. His back has three wounds and his face and arms are covered in wet blood. There is blood on the wall behind him. There is movement of the victim’s head and shoulders which indicates the victim is still alive.  There are further chants from the crowd.
The victim is then attacked by a young man with a beard wearing a striped hat who makes a number of attempts to decapitate the victim with a sawing motion of a sharp blade.
humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/07/17/lynching-in-benghazi/
Clinton’s Libyan Contact Group has recognised terrorists as sole representatives of the Libyan nation. Giving material aid to terrorists is a crime in every western country. The Libyan Contact Group is therefore a criminal gang. The coalition leaders and NATO in providing military, mercenaries, weaponry, food and cash to terrorists are criminals.
--------
North Atlantic Terrorist Org Update
The yankee invasion begins in earnest?
Over 70 Hummer vehicles, 50 U.S. tanks and more than 200 SUVs and eight other vehicles are on their way from Ajdabiya towards Brega, they were spotted 40km east by the armed forces.

The army is sweeping through the south with little resistance.
23rd July, the Libyan army easily recaptured the town of Al Qatrun and continued south towards Al Wigh.

War crimes commission note -
NATO planes have repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Tripoli and Zliten.The exact number of civilian deaths is still unknown. Four rockets hit the hotel where foreign journalists are staying. NATO bombed civilian neighborhoods and civilian institutions in Zliten. It also bombed a warehouse where food was stored, killing several people.

(Via http://libyasos.blogspot.com/p... Hat tip Leonor)

Black Star News Editorial
[June] The "rebels" in Misrata in Libya have driven out the entire Black population of the city, according to a chilling story in The Wall Street Journal today under the headline "Libya City Torn by Tribal Feud."
The "rebels" now eye the city of Tawergha, 25 miles away, and vow to cleanse it of all Black people once they seize the city. Isn't this the perfect definition of the term "genocide"?
According to The Journal's article, the "rebels" refer to themselves as "the brigade for purging slaves, black skin." The Journal quotes a rebel commander Ibrahim al-Halbous saying, of Black Libyans, "They should pack up," and that "Tawergha no longer exists, only Mistrata."
blackstarnews.com/news/135/ART...
Ref (from  June 21) http://online.wsj.com/article/...
----------

On August 13, there will be a major demonstration and march in Harlem, starting at 10 AM at 110 Street and Malcolm X Boulevard to protest the U.S. involvement in NATO's war of aggression against Libya. ——

Next post, another crime against humanity committed by the coalition. A grand plan to develop Ras Lanuf and Brega was underway (inception – 2008) that would have given temporary and permanent employment to tens of thousands, permanent jobs for 23,000 in Ras Lanuf alone so alleviating the unemployment and reducing the nation’s dependence on oil revenue. Of course the coalition gang bang stopped it dead.


Please visit http://my.telegraph.co.uk/clothcap/ if you wish to see previous Libyagate posts, (latest news and updates added to comments there)

Libyagate: Mr Cameron, about Libya

YOU LIED

You lied to the UN Security Council.
You lied to the Chinese.
You lied to the Russians.
You lied to Parliament.
But most importantly you lied to us, the British people.
The Libya intervention was never, ever about protecting civilians.
It was ALWAYS about removing Gaddafi and replacing the Libyan government.

A liar is not acceptable as the top representative of the nation.
Protecting civilians by killing them is unacceptable.

Libya says NATO raids kill 718 civilians
TRIPOLI. Libyan government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim said NATO air raids on Libya had killed as many as 718 civilians and wounded 4,067, Al-Jazeera TV reported Tuesday.
The world's major powers, the UK, the U.S. and France, started on March 19 to launch strikes from the air and sea against Gaddafi 's forces after the UN Security Council passed a resolution to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and authorize "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya.
NATO has formally taken over full command and control of military operations against Libya from the U.S. on March 31.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-06/01/c_13904091.htm

HOW MANY MORE WILL DIE BY YOUR LIE?

Fraud 1. Maldives, Tuvalu, sea levels

Obtaining money by deception
The guilty?
UN-EU-UK-BBC-Gore-Greenpiece-Nasheed-Rothschilds and others.
The authorities borrowed money from banks under the false title of saving the planet with e.g. the UK public purse as security.

[Link] Five years ago Pacific islands became a tragic poster children of Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth. The BBC called  the Maldives "a paradise faced with extinction"
But just four of the 27 islands studied by the team - chosen because sea levels had risen in the past sixty years - had diminished in size. The other 23 had expanded, one by as much as 60 per cent.
The islands apparently expand their mass by accumulating sediment, and through natural processes - not surprisingly, since they're built on live biomatter: coral.
Nasheed won a "Champion of the Earth" award from the United Nations, and something even more valuable from the EU. In April the European Commission pledged €6.5m in climate change aid.
That's well worth a read in detail, if you want to follow the money trail carefully.
How large are the sums in question?
The Copenhagen Accord (PDF) pledged $100bn a year for "adaptation and mitigation," specifically "prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries" including, you guessed it… "small island developing States" (p3).
It appears to be a clear case of the opportunistic pickpocketing the superstitious and the gullible. Is a fraud claim against these governments entirely out of the question?
*****
How long have authorities been aware that claims by the IPCC of endangerment due to CO2 emissions causing sea levels to rise were specious?
Officially 2005
2007 and 2009
How do we get the money back? Sue the guilty parties.

There had been no acceleration in sea level rises, and no net rise since 1970.


Global sea levels rose approximately 8 inches in 100 years. If they hadn't we'd still be in the Little Ice Age. Warming oceans expand. Accurate measurements show levels falling since 2002.

Far from applauding the Maldives rip-off, people should be in jail. Fraud is an offence. Will this gov't do anything to redress the crimes?

Here's a clue. Governments borrow money from banks to give to the likes of the EU, the UN, whose stated agenda is world gov't, Africa, China, India. Rothschilds own or control the important banks not just in the UK but around the world. The money is paid into another Rothschild bank. Gov'ts pay high interest on the loans. Cameron and Osbourne are Rothschilds' friends. Rothschilds see themselves as saviours of the world through depopulation and centralisation of gov't by any means. They are responsible for the direction of EU and UN policy and for the sorry state of many countries, e.g. Greece was advised or bribed into its present sorry state by Goldman Sachs, a Rothschild partner. Rothschilds own or control almost all central banks including the BoE, and the Federal Reserve. They won't control Iran or S. Korea till their US, Israeli and UK gov'ts have bombed them into submission with permission of their UN and EC. It would be interesting to see whether the US aggression continued were those countries to allow Rothschild to control their currency.

How to get more money from the people into the Rothschilds' bank octopus? Give them the UK roads. (There won't be any money coming from the Rothschilds as the interest alone on money owed to their banks more than covers the cost.) Then pay them for use of the roads from the public purse, ie. tax money. Using the giveaway as the excuse, they also want to tag vehicles so they can monitor movement. (Better than police spy cameras, A co-ordinated revolt would require mass vehicle movement.)

Cameron, Osbourne, Cable (do you need a link?), Blair (and here), Brown, Mandelson, Rothschilds.

British currency and Rothschild, Goregle

De La Rue (Royal Mint contractor), The Carlyle Group, Rothschild.
Barclays (Royal Mint banker), Rothschild. (Goregle)
We really need to nationalise the banks in the UK and get Rothschilds out of gov't and out of Britain's currency before they screw it worse than they have screwed the US via the Federal Reserve.

Rothschild timeline.

Bankers, a history of the money changers.

Bilderberg 2010 (Africa next): Link1 Link2

Fraud 1. Maldives, Tuvalu, sea levels
Fraud 2. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Fraud 3. Carbon credits
Fraud 4. The Wind Energy Boondoggle
Supplement to Fraud 4. Wind Energy
Fraud 5. Biofuel Boondoggle
Fraud 6. AGW by CO2 is settled science (by consensus)
Fraud 7. The IPCC - Its Reason For Being

Fraud 5. Biofuel Boondoggle

Biofuels, like wind energy, carbon taxes and carbon trading are the products of stupid, deceptive and corrupt idealogues. What is happening now is that the incompetent and brain dead EC is just now noticing that their eco fascist impositions are being seen to be counter-productive from just about every aspect. Their baseless and of only negative benefit dictats and directives that have and are, with the collusion of member country gov'ts, investing enormous amounts from the public purse on boondoggles such as carbon trading, wind energy and biofuel that have been shown in many studies to increase CO2 emissions.

Gang-green brought Spain and California to the brink of bankruptcy. Britain is in the same condition as Greece except the day of reckoning has a few years grace due to the term of gov't bonds. As for Spain, the other PIIGS and the UK, gang-green idealogues have played a major role in bringing nations to their knees. If EC and governmental incompetence and deceit was payable in pounds of flesh from those responsible, bureaucracy would be 98% lighter. 

"Green" describes not environmentalism but the susceptibility of those that subscribe to the gang-green agenda. These range from the media, environmental groups, energy users, advocacy org's, scientific organisations such as the RS and NAS, judges and activists to taxpayers and product supporters such as huhne and Cameron with his comic domestic wind turbine.

"Gang-green" describes the bandwagon of interests that have hitched their carriage to the "green" gravy train. The IPCC, the EU, the UN and politicians have used propaganda and lies to get the public to support the base and baseless eco-fascist ideology in order to increase revenue and extend gov't control by growing bureaucracy, NGOs and quangos. Business such as wind turbine sellers have used deceptive presentation of facts and omission of huge downsides to derive profit from public and private investment. Energy suppliers have supported the scam in the same way even down to the National Grid that is set to reap a substantial income increase by upgrading infrastructure to support integration of wind, to the detriment of end users of course. Scientists have used the scam to get guaranteed funding by including such as "study to determine harmful influence of AGW emissions" when they know the benefits both of CO2 emissions AND warming far and away outweigh negatives. Food retailers have used the green tag to attach an otherwise unjustifiable price hike to products. Media has consistently presented a one-sided view. Investigative journalism went out of the window when gang-green moved in. I guess the allegiance of owners*** had nothing to do with it. 

The Club of Rome (Madrid and Budapest and thousands of offshoots) given form at Rockefellers estate in April 1968 with Aurelio Peccei, an Italian industrialist, and Alexander King, a Scottish scientist designated as founders is a major force behind gang-green. The political agenda is described here.

The highly profitable scam of carbon trading was set up by Enron, Dupont, Soros, Strong and Gore with aid from Obama, supported and endorsed by the EC that used credits as a method to transfer wealth to Asia as a gift. The CoR is highly influential being an advisor to the EC and with members in the EC-EU, UN and governments throughout the world. Their stated objective is an eco-fascist world gov't using any means including fabricated climate scares, medical and financial alarms, supported by the EC, successive prime ministers from Eden on, as well as Cameron, Obama, Houghton and his IPCC and Hadley CRU, the RS and many, many other influential eco fascists. CoR admitted the failure of the green agenda and came up with the blue agenda

EU renewable energy
The Renewable Energy Directive requires E.U. member states to replace 10 percent of transport fuel with renewable fuels — overwhelmingly biofuels — by 2020. Biofuels currently account for 3.4 percent of transport fuel use in the E.U. The Renewable Energy Directive takes effect in December 2010.    

E.U. Memo: Commission sets up system for certifying sustainable biofuels  
Just another reasonless, invented to extend bureaucracy and create quangos at the expense of VAT and taxpayers.

What are biofuels?
Biofuels are transport fuels made from biomass. The most important biofuels today are bioethanol (made from sugar and cereal crops; used to replace petrol) and biodiesel (made mainly from vegetable oils; used to replace diesel). Biofuels accounted for about 3.4 % of transport fuel consumption in 2008 – up from 0.5% five years earlier. 
Biofuels are killers. Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis. Internal World Bank study delivers blow to plant energy drive.

Why do we need biofuels?
  We need biofuels to fight climate change and to help reduce greenhouse emissions by 20% as pledged by the European Council in 2007. Biofuels are the main alternative to petrol and diesel used in transport, which produces more than 20% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union.   
Apart from the now blatant lie that human CO2 emissions are harmful, by their own disgraceful standards "We need biofuels" is patently false. Many countries have gas reserves sufficient for hundreds of years. Most countries have large coal reserves. Oil won't be in short supply unless foreigners like Obama ban drilling or tax maniacs make it prohibitively expensive.
 "... help reduce greenhouse emissions by 20%" is a patently false statement. Land use change from non cropped to biofuel cropped means an increase in irrigation. An increase in irrigation means more water going into the air as water vapour. WV is a much more effective GHG than CO2 in that it stores energy. CO2 instantly releases energy that it intercepts. But you can't get political and financial benefit from emissions of the GHG water vapour because the gullible public just ain't that gullible.

Read this:

Irrigation most likely to blame for Central California warming Evaporation cools the air next to the surface by moving heat into the atmosphere as latent heat that is released by condensation in cloud formation. Irrigation has increased globally. It accelerated to the late 70s then slowed dramatically.

Climate Change Impacts on Global Agriculture
Fischer et al. (2007) estimated an increase in global irrigation water requirements of 45 percent between 2000 and 2080. Irrigation water requirements were projected to increase by around 50 percent in developing regions and 16 percent in developed regions.
----
Note increasing CO2 volume reduces water dependency of crops. The estimates are probably wrong by 10-15%.
In the half-century after World War II, the irrigated area of the world tripled from approximately 90 million hectares to 270 million hectares, an annual compound growth rate of over 2.5%. Most of the irrigated land is in the developing countries; over half is in Asia. There is a wide variation among regions in the fraction of cropland irrigated. Almost all of the cropland in North Africa and the Middle East is irrigated, over 20% in Asia, but 12% or less in the rest of the world.
The growth of irrigated areas in the developing world during this period was strongly influenced by two periods of severe drought: the drought in the Indian subcontinent in the mid-1960s, and the more general drought and shortfall in grain production accompanied by the energy crisis and fertilizer shortages in the mid-1970s. The Green Revolution—the development and spread of higher-yielding, shorter-season, fertilizer-responsive varieties—was closely associated with the expansion of irrigation.
The expansion of irrigation has been based mostly on the construction of new dams and reservoirs or, where ground water is readily available, through the use of tube wells. These reservoirs help to assure water supplies and allow carry-over of surplus flows in the rainy season for use in the dry season. Of the more than 40,000 large dams (defined by the International Commission on Large Dams as measuring 15 meters from foundation to crest), all but 5,000 have been built since 1950 .
Hmm.
I wonder how much of a water surface increase dams have given us. Plucking a number from the air, say an average 20 sq. miles would give 700,000 sq. miles. Then there is the acceleration of evaporation of the Caspian due to dams. How many marinas, garden ponds and swimming pools, since the 50s? The list is endless. I remind that WV is a GHG.
See the tables below for carbon debt offset terms.

How does the EU promote biofuels? Deceptively.
The 2009 Renewable Energy Directive1 sets binding targets for renewable energy. Every Member State has to reach individual targets for the overall share of renewable energy in energy consumption. In addition, in the transport sector, all Member States have to reach the same target of a 10% share of renewable energy. Biofuels are the main form of renewable energy used in transport.   
What the effect of this new web of deceit entanglement will be is to cause an artificial shortage of biofuel in Europe and force up the price bringing higher returns to investors such as perhaps commissioners and representatives. It will do nothing to alleviate land use change that is at the root of emissions. Even by their own standards of incompetence, self service and obeisance to the banking octopus dictates, this is a new low for the criminals in the EC and its rubber stamp parliament.   

What is new in two Communications? A different certificate scam.
  • Sustainable Biofuel Certificate: The Commission encourages industry, governments and NGOs to set up voluntary certification schemes for biofuels. The Commission will assess whether these schemes are reliable and have fraud-resistant auditing. The certificates guarantee that all the biofuels sold under the label are sustainable and produced under the criteria set by the Renewable Energy Directive. All schemes have to have independent auditors which inspect the whole production chain, from the farmer to the trader and the fuel supplier.
  • Protecting nature: The Commission explains very clearly which types of land can NOT be used to produce biofuels. These are: natural forests, protected areas, wetlands, peatlands. It explicitly rules out that forests can be converted into palm oil plantations.
    So it's OK to produce biofuel on land that was cleared before this latest act of deception and fraud comes into force?
  • Promote only biofuels with high greenhouse gas savings: The Commission explains how to prove that the biofuels used have high greenhouse gas savings. It explains that all those which do not achieve greenhouse gas savings of 35 % compared to petrol and diesel, will not be accepted. This threshold will rise to 50% in 2017. In the calculation, not only carbon dioxide is included, but also methane (CH4) and di-nitrous oxide (N2O), both stronger greenhouse gases than CO2.
    The best thing for the planet, humanity and civilisation would be for the creators of these scams to find a very high bridge and do us all a favour. They are a hazard to the climate, life and civilisation as is everyone that supports them.
Does this mean that only these biofuels can be imported into the EU?
  No. It means that only biofuels that meet these conditions will count for the national targets the 27 EU Member States have to reach by 2020 under 2009 Renewable Energy Directive. This applies for all biofuels, whether they are produced within the European Union or imported from outside the EU. Only these biofuels can receive national public support such as tax relief.
So importation of biofuel produced by deforestation will continue. 

How does the certificate work in practice?
  Through any number of new quangos and increased bureaucracy.
An example: A UK fuel supplier who is using ethanol from Brazil has to notify the quantities of biofuels to the UK authorities. To show that they are sustainable according to the Directive, he can join a voluntary scheme. The fuel supplier has to make sure that throughout the production chain all records are kept, by the trader he buys the biofuels from, by the ethanol plant the trader buys the ethanol from, and by the farmer who supplies the ethanol plant with sugar cane. This control is done before the company is joining the scheme and at least once a year thereafter. The auditing is done as in the financial sector: The auditor is checking all the paper and inspects a sample of the farmers, mills and traders. He will check whether the land where the feedstock for the ethanol is produced has been indeed farm land before and not a tropical forest.
If the price of non certified biofuel is lower than the price of certified minus tax breaks, which would you buy considering certification is just another fraud to earn money for the EC and Al Gore types? Either way the users will pay more, i.e. who pays for the tax breaks?

Can I see a label, when I go to the filling station?
  It is not obligatory for a certification scheme to mark the end product with a label. However, schemes are free to do so. It would also make sense from a promotional point of view, if filling stations could show that they have sustainable biofuels. This is even more the case when a scheme applies sustainability criteria going even further than those required by EU law. 
Can I see clear labelling of how much of the price is tax? Nope. Green tag= price hike - always.

Have companies or governments already shown interest in setting up such a scheme?
  The Commission is in contact with many different companies and organisations interested in setting up voluntary schemes. It is expected that now that it is clear what the requirements for auditing will be, they will come soon to ask the Commission for recognition of their voluntary schemes.

Can there not be fraud? Auditors are not there all the time. In the very unlikely case – and despite the independent auditing – that there would still be a suspicion of fraud, any one can bring a case to the Commission and the Commission could take back the recognition of a scheme.   
If fraud was a concern of the EC it would have closed its accounts 14 years ago. That the self anointed bureaucratic layer has continued to receive illegal payments from nations means the commission past and present (that includes Kinnock) should be in front of a court for receiving monies illegally transferred by nations.   
Under the fraudulent and ridiculously maintained litany that CO2 is a harmful GHG, (despite the increasing abundance of observational research that debunks models that haven't got it right for the last 15 of 22 years), carbon trading will continue. Biofuels producers that can show compliance will get credits. The fraudulent carbon credit scam that criminals found so easy to commit further fraud through is now to be extended to, tah da de dahhhh--- biofuel certificates. (Has the Obama/Strong/Soros/Gore quartet got the Chicago biofuel cert. exchange ready?)

What biofuels are used in transport?
  In 2007 biodiesel accounted for 75% (6.1 Mtoe) of EU renewable fuels in transport, bioethanol constituted 15% (1.24 Mtoe), and the remaining 10% was pure vegetable oil.

How much biofuel is imported into the EU? In 2007, about 26% of biodiesel and 31% of bioethanol consumed in the EU was imported. Most of those imports came from Brazil and the USA. The overall majority of biofuels are produced in the European Union. On top of the sustainability criteria, EU biofuels have to show compliance with EU environmental law and agricultural requirements, including landscape maintance, protection of soil against erosion and management of the use of water. 
Much of that was dumped in the EU by the US that has a surplus.

Land is limited. Do you not need to cut down forests to produce biofuels?
The 10% target would require some 2 – 5 Million hectares of land, according to different estimates of the net land use change impact. The EU has sufficient amount of land previously used for crop production and now no longer in arable use to cover the land needed, even if all the biofuels consumed were to be produced in Europe. Also in other parts of the world, there are alternatives to fresh deforestation. In Indonesia, there are an estimated 3 – 12 Million hectare of land that has been deforested in the past and left to become wasteland. It makes sense to bring this land into use.   
See the chart below. Only 48 years to repay the carbon debt from such land use change alone.

Can you cut down rain forests and produce palm oil to make biofuels for the EU targets?
No. The Communication rules this out. It explicitly says that forests can not be converted into palm oil plantations.  Yet that contradicts what was said above, it says that rain forests already cleared can be used instead of allowing recovery by secondary growth. 
It also contradicts that such products are not banned, they just don't qualify for handouts of taxpayer money unless friends in the EC give a certificate.  

Are most biofuels from palm oil?
Only about 4-5% of biofuel in the EU is produced from palm oil. This is about 1% of world palm oil production. Outside the EU the use of palm oil for biofuels is not large either. More than 95% of palm oil is used for food and industrial uses such as cosmetics. Between 2000 and 2008, palm oil production increased by 20 million tons. That is forty times as much as the amount of palm oil going into biofuels in the EU (500.000 tons). So, biofuels are not the main cause of deforestation. The sustainability criteria are however a clear deterrent for deforestation.   
See the charts below. Biofuel crop prices drive deforestation and land use change by making cropping more attractive than e.g. growing real trees or animals.

EU studies show that biofuels are not saving greenhouse gas emissions. How is the EU reacting to this?
This is not the case. The recently released reports suggest that biofuels are saving greenhouse gas emissions. The Commission will publish a report on indirect land use by the end of the year, as requested in the Renewable Energy Directive on the basis of these studies. 
Cherry picked research is what got us this deep into debt, why would the EC divert from the con? Here we have patent lies from idealogues, idiots useful to the gang-green agenda and control freaks.
The following images (source U.S. corn subsidies drive Amazon destruction) demonstrate the price of soy has been forced as for wheat (corn) by its use as biofuel and so has driven deforestation. Deforestation is a major source of CO2 emissions.
An important study (Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt - below the images) shows it can take up to 430 years for biofuels to repay the carbon debt for land change alone.



Biofuel production causes an increase in CO2 emissions.

For land clearance alone, when considered as a carbon debt it can take over 400 years to repay for palm oil and over 300 years for soy oil.
Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt. Feb 2008 www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/...
Carbon debt, biofuel carbon debt allocation, annual carbon repayment rate, and years to repay biofuel carbon debt for nine scenarios of biofuel production. Means and SDs are from Monte Carlo analyses of literature-based estimates of carbon pools and fluxes (5).
(A) Carbon debt, including CO2 emissions from soils and above ground and below ground biomass resulting from habitat conversion.
(B) Proportion of total carbon debt allocated to biofuel production.
(C) Annual life-cycle GHG reduction from biofuels, including displaced fossil fuels and soil carbon storage.
(D) Number of years after conversion to biofuel production required for cumulative biofuel GHG reductions, relative to the fossil fuels they displace, to repay the biofuel carbon debt.
Also in an article (Biofuels May Hinder Antiglobal-Warming Efforts), the following image shows carbon debts.
Add to that crops sequester far less CO2 than forests.
Add to that the emissions and real (not the US/EU pretend) pollution in converting plant matter into combustible ethanol and biodiesel.
Biofuel plants pollute U.S. rivers
 
Add to that biofuel NOx emissions.
Concerns over air quality could sink biodiesel sales in Texas
Add to that the (not a pollutant except to idealogues) CO2 produced by burning the damned stuff.
Cellulosic biofuels endanger old-growth forests in the southern U.S.
Cellulosic energy may trigger dramatic collapse in the Amazon

Biofuels 200 times more expensive than forest conservation for global warming mitigation


Facing criticism, biofuels industry forms new lobby group to influence lawmakers

Beyond high food prices, little to show for $11B/yr in biofuel support, says OECD report
Corn ethanol is worsening the Gulf dead zone
World fertilizer prices surge 200% in 2007, hurting the poor

UN: biofuels are starving the poor by driving up food prices

With subsidies, biofuel volume is ~same price as fosfuel. Except it produces ~a third less energy per unit.

Hemp yields ~3 times more ethanol per acre, 350 v 1000 gallons using far less fertiliser and water
, and it is drought resistant. Is there a braincell to share in the EC?
If they can't make hemp legal for investment, greased palms and-or lobbyist reasons, get the Afghans to replace the heroin crops with hemp and give them a decent price for it.
The EC is committing blatant fraud by deception in several ways. Aside from the fraud that biofuel will reduce global warming, aside from the fraud that CO2 emissions are harmful, in the first instance biofuel from palm oil from new trees and soy grown on already deforested areas, palm oil and soy plantations already in existence in former rain forest land qualify. This is a carbon debt to the account of EC legislators, the commission and on the Bush/Obama admin. How many lifetimes to pay that back? These lands should be returned to secondary forest growth. Trees regulate the weather, and so the climate, not CO2.
More? Even with this addendum the whole downside is not covered.
*There are strong indications that the process to produce the fuel – including the machinery necessary to cultivate the crops and the plants to produce the fuel – has hefty carbon emissions.
*Water Use: Massive quantities of water are required for proper irrigation of biofuel crops as well as to manufacture the fuel, which could strain local and regional water resources.
*Smell: Biofuel production produces heavy smells depending on the type of materials used, and those smells are generally undesirable near large communities. While manufacturing plants can be isolated, this will add to the carbon emissions necessary to bring fuel to population centers.
As with wind energy, there is a small but genuine demand for biofuel. Inflated bureaucracy, especially unelected NGOs like the European Commission are like AIDS to society and like AIDS, the effects are devastating and remedies can be dire. When ideology supplants common sense, damaged and feeble minds are fertile ground. The free market and the public are subjected to the impositions of the beliefs of lunatic billionaires and fanatic activists without the legal constraint of cost benefit studies.
Had truly independent and exhaustive studies been conducted on CO2 emissions reduction (regardless of whether it is a warming gas), biofuels, wind farms and carbon credits with the results binding, I believe we would be bureaucratic boondoggle and propheteer free today, and much better off as individuals.
The US subsidised biofuel production with $29 billion between 2002-8, (the EU €45 subsidy per hectare of energy crops). Without that, as for wind energy, the boondoggle would be hot air. Without millstone legislation, carbon credits (hot air trading of EC permission to pollute) would be toilet paper.
Also see:
co2didit.blogspot.com/2008/03/cost-of-enviro-lunacy.html

Quotes by Rockefellers
[closely associated with and agent of the Rothschild bank octopus]
*** We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National autodetermination practiced in past centuries.
-- David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991
Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.
–- David Rockefeller
"You know, gentlemen, that I do not owe any personal income tax. But nevertheless, I send a small check, now and then, to the Internal Revenue Service out of the kindness of my heart."
-- David Rockefeller, before a Congressional committee
"...conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
--David Rockefeller / More here.

Fraud 1. Maldives, Tuvalu, sea levels
Fraud 2. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Fraud 3. Carbon credits
Fraud 4. The Wind Energy Boondoggle
Supplement to Fraud 4. Wind Energy
Fraud 5. Biofuel Boondoggle
Fraud 6. AGW by CO2 is settled science (by consensus)
Fraud 7. The IPCC - Its Reason For Being

Fraud 7. The IPCC - Its Reason For Being

In my opinion. 
The simple fact is that it has never been about climate. Had it been, CO2 emission levels across the world would not have been allowed to continue to increase. Year in year out. E.g. China is building a coal fired energy plant a week until 2030 without CO2 capture. The EU cannot reduce its emission increases except by printing carbon credits.


Each of the italicized statements is an outrageous lie.

The IPCC, (charged with proving human produced CO2 is dangerous) is a politically motivated advocacy that has used propaganda and deceit to persuade world governments that CO2 emitted by humans is harmful, that the science is settled and that action needs to be taken to curtail CO2 emissions.

The IPCC with help has taken an unproven broken fingernail and convinced the political world and the public via the compliant media that amputation is the only way to fix it. A confidence trick combining brilliance, duplicity and stupidity.

IPCC reports have been found biased to show almost exclusively papers that have been fund-directed to support IPCC claims. Some were peer reviewed. Most rely on the assumption that CO2 drives warming (and CRU or GISS data), none proved it. The journals from which the IPCC drew their "evidence" have been strongly influenced by threats from central scientists and by dogmatically biased editors evidenced by "climategate" and that one editor was excluded from the Oxburgh review for just that reason.

The proof that the IPCC is controlled by incompetents, self-serving liars and propagandists is shown not just by the disconnect of the summaries for policy makers but in the full report AR4 that took a disgusted public to find the truth.

All 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined
5,587 are not peer-reviewed
IPCC chairman's claim that the report relies solely on peer-reviewed sources is not supported
Each chapter was audited three times; the result most favorable to the IPCC was used
21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references, they get an F
43 citizen auditors in 12 countries participated in this project
Full report card here
Detailed results here

The IPCC is guilty of lying by omission. The overwhelming benefits of warming (longer growing seasons, more rain, lower energy use etc.) and the benefits of rising CO2 levels (free fertiliser, increased crop yields needing less water etc.) have been ignored in their entirety.

Pachauri, IPCC leader is a proven liar, a seeming compulsion and qualification for the role very likely the same for panel members. So called scientists seem oblivious to reality or the need for competence. Two famous examples of wrongness are the Briffa et al hockey stick and the Mann et al hockey stick that the IPCC used as a motto for years after it was proven false.

After decades of research and worldwide more than £50 billion spent, the best evidence the IPCC can produce is a selection of computer scenarios that are produced based on assumptions, that still fail to deliver. Hence the argument  that models could become right in decades hence and just in case they are, civilization should be impoverished and governance centralised.

Change the data to suit the purpose is the IPCC motto.
The IPCC used only one Solar Physicist. Her name is Judith Lean. On the basis of this "consensus of one" solar physicist, the IPCC proclaimed solar influences upon the climate to be minimal.
Judith Lean, along with Claus Frohlich, are responsible for the scandalous rewriting of graphs of solar activity. Satellites showed that the TSI (measured in watts) between 1986 and 96 increased by about one third. Judith Lean and Claus Frohlich (authors of the single study noted above) "manipulated" the data.

Another lie, a consensus for AGW of thousands of scientists turned out to be a few dozen.

Whole organisations central to the IPCC (not just individual players) are being shown either deceptive or wholly incompetent. Hadley CRU data has been shown to be manipulated and rather than accept the charge, the CRU claimed lost raw data and skulked off to Turkey to begin to redo the whole series claiming it would take 3 years. (Does it work the same for government accountants and bankers?)

One wonders how heavily the data needs to be massaged to eliminate the siting and other problems with over 80% of the gold standard US temperature measuring stations? Obviously if the US is the best, then there are going to be many times worse problems with none US stations.

One has to question whether the 3 years claim is a hibernation tactic hoping the storm will blow past by then. If heads don't roll, it won't. If the lies about CO2 continue, it won't. If the abuse of science for political and profit purposes continues, it won't. If ideologues and profiteers continue their whitewashes of what is criminal misuse of public funds, I assure you, it won't.

GISS has stated that their data products are not as good as CRU's.

NOAA has several times been found publicising data favouring warming and omitting moderating data.

GHCN, the originator of data on which products from the above organisations are based has been found to be biased.

Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception? A documenting of the deceit.

We now have satellites that produce far more accurate data. CRU, GISS, NOAA, GHCN, with regard to surface temperature measurement are untrustworthy dinosaurs and more, unnecessary dinosaurs.

There is no credible evidence that natural and human CO2 additions since WWII have influenced the climate significantly or adversely influenced weather. (No evidence of CO2 influence in deserts here.)

Every event blamed on CO2 emissions has been due to warming, not CO2.
Ice cores show CO2 increases and decreases after temperature increases and decreases - by 600 to over a thousand years. Sediment cores confirm the ice cores represent naturally smoothed but reasonably accurate past variation, albeit the volume appears to be below reality. CO2 cannot be a driver of climate temperature without time travel.

Men claiming to be scientists relate modern CO2 increases to modern temperature when the underlying driver of CO2 levels is the Medieval Warm Period. The oceans carry CO2 down and around the thermohaline circulation that can take approx a thousand years to do a full circuit before the absorbed CO2 is available to be released.

Modern CO2 levels follow temperature. It can't time travel. The reason for the lag is that the air temperature responds to ocean temperature variation faster than the ocean can release CO2. The Sun drives ocean temperature. Ozone, clouds and aerosols regulate the solar radiation reaching the surface.

The human contribution to natural emissions is ~4% max. (UNIPCC AR4 natural emissions 98ppm human emissions 4ppm). 4% of the 1.9 parts per million per year that gets added to the atmosphere cannot in any way drive temperature.

IN FACT 1.9ppm (0.00019% of the atmosphere) cannot drive climate temperature.

Water vapour can and does regulate the air temperature. The upper troposphere is drying. That means less delay in infrared radiation escaping the atmosphere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suspect the Club of Rome, whose stated OWG agenda includes using climate scares is the principal driver behind the scam with the Fabian Society that has similar objectives to the CoR in alignment.

Maurice Strong, (2nd link) an alleged fraudster, former UN star, Kyoto architect, instrumental in forming UNEP and the IPCC with superstitious crank Sir J Houghton, advisor to Blair. Known earth worshipper with strange ideas on how the world should be. Club of Rome member.

George Soros, (remember Black Wednesday?) regularly associated with financial misdealing, recently in court for his dishonesty. Friend and associate of Strong and Obama (Chicago Climate ExchangeSoros). Club of Rome member.

Al Gore, friend and associate of Strong and Soros, with past and present business dealings with both. Known liar. Club of Rome member.
-----
Politicians and their advisors are the duplicitous participants and or stupid means used to implement the scam on an unaware public.

The UN is a fraudulent instrument strongly influenced and possibly controlled by CoR. Funding should stop immediately. The UK has £1 billion earmarked to gift it.
The EU's EC is a fraudulent instrument strongly influenced by the Fabian Society and CoR (both have similar objectives), with members of both societies in influential positions. Participant in the scam.

It seems A. Blair, Club of Rome member, set the UK up to be fleeced and G. Brown delivered the goods.

Banks.

Image Source A Tougher Cap on Size

Rockefeller is a Rothschild. He was instrumental in founding CoR and UNEP and establishing the agenda of the Club of Rome that looks to have been written by the Rothschild family.

Rothschild advises the UK government and controls the major banks. The Rothschild family and close associates control almost all the central banks in the world. They want bankers to be the world government.

George Osbourne and Dave Cameron are friends and associates of Rothschild.

The Royal Society and the Grantham Institute were instrumental in convincing the public of the need for action where it was obvious to a child that it could neither be achieved nor was it needed. One can only wonder why.

Lord Oxburgh, RS, is impartial.

Fraud 1. Maldives, Tuvalu, sea levels
Fraud 2. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Fraud 3. Carbon credits
Fraud 4. The Wind Energy Boondoggle
Supplement to Fraud 4. Wind Energy
Fraud 5. Biofuel Boondoggle
Fraud 6. AGW by CO2 is settled science (by consensus)
Fraud 7. The IPCC - Its Reason For Being
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wannabe Napoleons posture while a serious change in climate is being precipitated. Dust clouds have triggered (or been the signal for) rapid climate change to cooling every time it happened during the last 80,000 years that can be observed so far, possibly every one that has happened ever was triggered by them. East Africa has seen drought for 15 years, that means 15 years of major dust storms. Cooling commenced in 2003. It will accelerate. It is probably too late to stop, meanwhile throwing public money at private ne'er do wells and pretending CO2 is a problem is an act of utter, utter stupidity or self serving duplicity.

Fraud 5. The Biofuel Boondoggle

At live Journal
Fraud 1. Maldives, Tuvalu, sea levels
Fraud 2. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Fraud 3. Carbon credits
Fraud 4. The Wind Energy Boondoggle
Supplement to Fraud 4. Wind Energy
and MyTelegraph
Fraud 1. Maldives, Tuvalu, sea levels
Fraud 2. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Fraud 3. Carbon credits
Fraud 4. The Wind Energy Boondoggle
Supplement to Fraud 4. Wind Energy

Gang-green brought Spain and California to the brink of bankruptcy. Britain is in the same condition as Greece except the day of reckoning has a few years grace due to the term of gov't bonds. As for Spain, the other PIIGS and the UK, gang-green idealogues have played a major role in bringing nations to their knees. If EC and governmental incompetence and deceit was payable in pounds of flesh from those responsible, bureaucracy would be 98% lighter. 

"Green" describes not environmentalism but the susceptibility of those that subscribe to the gang-green agenda. These range from the media, environmental groups, energy users, advocacy org's, scientific organisations such as the RS and NAS, judges and activists to taxpayers and product supporters such as huhne and Cameron with his comic domestic wind turbine.

"Gang-green" describes the bandwagon of interests that have hitched their carriage to the "green" gravy train. The IPCC, the EU, the UN and politicians have used propaganda and lies to get the public to support the base and baseless eco-fascist ideology in order to increase revenue and extend gov't control by growing bureaucracy, NGOs and quangos. Business such as wind turbine sellers have used deceptive presentation of facts and omission of huge downsides to derive profit from public and private investment. Energy suppliers have supported the scam in the same way even down to the National Grid that is set to reap a substantial income increase by upgrading infrastructure to support integration of wind, to the detriment of end users of course. Scientists have used the scam to get guaranteed funding by including such as "study to determine harmful influence of AGW emissions" when they know the benefits both of CO2 emissions AND warming far and away outweigh negatives. Food retailers have used the green tag to attach an otherwise unjustifiable price hike to products. Media has consistently presented a one-sided view. Investigative journalism went out of the window when gang-green moved in. I guess the allegiance of owners*** had nothing to do with it. 

The Club of Rome (Madrid and Budapest and thousands of offshoots) given form at Rockefellers estate in April 1968 with Aurelio Peccei, an Italian industrialist, and Alexander King, a Scottish scientist designated as founders is a major force behind gang-green. The political agenda is described here.

The highly profitable scam of carbon trading was set up by Enron, Dupont, Soros, Strong and Gore with aid from Obama, supported and endorsed by the EC that used credits as a method to transfer wealth to Asia as a gift. The CoR is highly influential being an advisor to the EC and with members in the EC-EU, UN and governments throughout the world. Their stated objective is an eco-fascist world gov't using any means including fabricated climate scares, medical and financial alarms, supported by the EC, successive prime ministers from Eden on, as well as Cameron, Obama, Houghton and his IPCC and Hadley CRU, the RS and many, many other influential eco fascists. CoR admitted the failure of the green agenda and came up with the blue agenda

EU renewable energy
The Renewable Energy Directive requires E.U. member states to replace 10 percent of transport fuel with renewable fuels — overwhelmingly biofuels — by 2020. Biofuels currently account for 3.4 percent of transport fuel use in the E.U. The Renewable Energy Directive takes effect in December 2010.    

E.U. Memo: Commission sets up system for certifying sustainable biofuels  
Just another reasonless invention to extend bureaucracy and create quangos at the expense of VAT and taxpayers.

What are biofuels?
Biofuels are transport fuels made from biomass. The most important biofuels today are bioethanol (made from sugar and cereal crops; used to replace petrol) and biodiesel (made mainly from vegetable oils; used to replace diesel). Biofuels accounted for about 3.4 % of transport fuel consumption in 2008 – up from 0.5% five years earlier. 
Biofuels are killers. Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis. Internal World Bank study delivers blow to plant energy drive.

Why do we need biofuels?
  We need biofuels to fight climate change and to help reduce greenhouse emissions by 20% as pledged by the European Council in 2007. Biofuels are the main alternative to petrol and diesel used in transport, which produces more than 20% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union.   
Apart from the now blatant lie that human CO2 emissions are harmful, by their own disgraceful standards "We need biofuels" is patently false. Many countries have gas reserves sufficient for hundreds of years. Most countries have large coal reserves. Oil won't be in short supply unless foreigners like Obama ban drilling or tax maniacs make it prohibitively expensive.
 "... help reduce greenhouse emissions by 20%" is a patently false statement. Land use change from non cropped to biofuel cropped means an increase in irrigation. An increase in irrigation means more water going into the air as water vapour. WV is a much more effective GHG than CO2 in that it stores energy. CO2 instantly releases energy that it intercepts. But you can't get political and financial benefit from emissions of the GHG water vapour because the gullible public just ain't that gullible.

Read this:

Irrigation most likely to blame for Central California warming Evaporation cools the air next to the surface by moving heat into the atmosphere as latent heat that is released by condensation in cloud formation. Irrigation has increased globally. It accelerated to the late 70s then slowed dramatically.

Climate Change Impacts on Global Agriculture
Fischer et al. (2007) estimated an increase in global irrigation water requirements of 45 percent between 2000 and 2080. Irrigation water requirements were projected to increase by around 50 percent in developing regions and 16 percent in developed regions.
----
Note increasing CO2 volume reduces water dependency of crops. The estimates are probably wrong by 10-15%.
In the half-century after World War II, the irrigated area of the world tripled from approximately 90 million hectares to 270 million hectares, an annual compound growth rate of over 2.5%. Most of the irrigated land is in the developing countries; over half is in Asia. There is a wide variation among regions in the fraction of cropland irrigated. Almost all of the cropland in North Africa and the Middle East is irrigated, over 20% in Asia, but 12% or less in the rest of the world.
The growth of irrigated areas in the developing world during this period was strongly influenced by two periods of severe drought: the drought in the Indian subcontinent in the mid-1960s, and the more general drought and shortfall in grain production accompanied by the energy crisis and fertilizer shortages in the mid-1970s. The Green Revolution—the development and spread of higher-yielding, shorter-season, fertilizer-responsive varieties—was closely associated with the expansion of irrigation.
The expansion of irrigation has been based mostly on the construction of new dams and reservoirs or, where ground water is readily available, through the use of tube wells. These reservoirs help to assure water supplies and allow carry-over of surplus flows in the rainy season for use in the dry season. Of the more than 40,000 large dams (defined by the International Commission on Large Dams as measuring 15 meters from foundation to crest), all but 5,000 have been built since 1950 .
Hmm.
I wonder how much of a water surface increase dams have given us. Plucking a number from the air, say an average 20 sq. miles would give 700,000 sq. miles. Then there is the acceleration of evaporation of the Caspian due to dams. How many marinas, garden ponds and swimming pools, since the 50s? The list is endless. I remind that WV is a GHG.
See the tables below for carbon debt offset terms.

How does the EU promote biofuels? Deceptively.
The 2009 Renewable Energy Directive1 sets binding targets for renewable energy. Every Member State has to reach individual targets for the overall share of renewable energy in energy consumption. In addition, in the transport sector, all Member States have to reach the same target of a 10% share of renewable energy. Biofuels are the main form of renewable energy used in transport.   
What the effect of this new web of deceit entanglement will be is to cause an artificial shortage of biofuel in Europe and force up the price bringing higher returns to investors such as perhaps commissioners and representatives. It will do nothing to alleviate land use change that is at the root of emissions. Even by their own standards of incompetence, self service and obeisance to the banking octopus dictates, this is a new low for the criminals in the EC and its rubber stamp parliament.   

What is new in two Communications? A different certificate scam.
  • Sustainable Biofuel Certificate: The Commission encourages industry, governments and NGOs to set up voluntary certification schemes for biofuels. The Commission will assess whether these schemes are reliable and have fraud-resistant auditing. The certificates guarantee that all the biofuels sold under the label are sustainable and produced under the criteria set by the Renewable Energy Directive. All schemes have to have independent auditors which inspect the whole production chain, from the farmer to the trader and the fuel supplier.
  • Protecting nature: The Commission explains very clearly which types of land can NOT be used to produce biofuels. These are: natural forests, protected areas, wetlands, peatlands. It explicitly rules out that forests can be converted into palm oil plantations.
    So it's OK to produce biofuel on land that was cleared before this latest act of deception and fraud comes into force?
  • Promote only biofuels with high greenhouse gas savings: The Commission explains how to prove that the biofuels used have high greenhouse gas savings. It explains that all those which do not achieve greenhouse gas savings of 35 % compared to petrol and diesel, will not be accepted. This threshold will rise to 50% in 2017. In the calculation, not only carbon dioxide is included, but also methane (CH4) and di-nitrous oxide (N2O), both stronger greenhouse gases than CO2.
    The best thing for the planet, humanity and civilisation would be for the creators of these scams to find a very high bridge and do us all a favour. They are a hazard to the climate, life and civilisation as is everyone that supports them.
Does this mean that only these biofuels can be imported into the EU?
  No. It means that only biofuels that meet these conditions will count for the national targets the 27 EU Member States have to reach by 2020 under 2009 Renewable Energy Directive. This applies for all biofuels, whether they are produced within the European Union or imported from outside the EU. Only these biofuels can receive national public support such as tax relief.
So importation of biofuel produced by deforestation will continue. 

How does the certificate work in practice?
  Through any number of new quangos and increased bureaucracy.
An example: A UK fuel supplier who is using ethanol from Brazil has to notify the quantities of biofuels to the UK authorities. To show that they are sustainable according to the Directive, he can join a voluntary scheme. The fuel supplier has to make sure that throughout the production chain all records are kept, by the trader he buys the biofuels from, by the ethanol plant the trader buys the ethanol from, and by the farmer who supplies the ethanol plant with sugar cane. This control is done before the company is joining the scheme and at least once a year thereafter. The auditing is done as in the financial sector: The auditor is checking all the paper and inspects a sample of the farmers, mills and traders. He will check whether the land where the feedstock for the ethanol is produced has been indeed farm land before and not a tropical forest.
If the price of non certified biofuel is lower than the price of certified minus tax breaks, which would you buy considering certification is just another fraud to earn money for the EC and Al Gore types? Either way the users will pay more, i.e. who pays for the tax breaks?

Can I see a label, when I go to the filling station?
  It is not obligatory for a certification scheme to mark the end product with a label. However, schemes are free to do so. It would also make sense from a promotional point of view, if filling stations could show that they have sustainable biofuels. This is even more the case when a scheme applies sustainability criteria going even further than those required by EU law. 
Can I see clear labelling of how much of the price is tax? Nope. Green tag= price hike - always.

Have companies or governments already shown interest in setting up such a scheme?
  The Commission is in contact with many different companies and organisations interested in setting up voluntary schemes. It is expected that now that it is clear what the requirements for auditing will be, they will come soon to ask the Commission for recognition of their voluntary schemes.

Can there not be fraud? Auditors are not there all the time. In the very unlikely case – and despite the independent auditing – that there would still be a suspicion of fraud, any one can bring a case to the Commission and the Commission could take back the recognition of a scheme.   
If fraud was a concern of the EC it would have closed its accounts 14 years ago. That the self anointed bureaucratic layer has continued to receive illegal payments from nations means the commission past and present (that includes Kinnock) should be in front of a court for receiving monies illegally transferred by nations.   
Under the fraudulent and ridiculously maintained litany that CO2 is a harmful GHG, (despite the increasing abundance of observational research that debunks models that haven't got it right for the last 15 of 22 years), carbon trading will continue. Biofuels producers that can show compliance will get credits. The fraudulent carbon credit scam that criminals found so easy to commit further fraud through is now to be extended to, tah da de dahhhh--- biofuel certificates. (Has the Obama/Strong/Soros/Gore quartet got the Chicago biofuel cert. exchange ready?)

What biofuels are used in transport?
  In 2007 biodiesel accounted for 75% (6.1 Mtoe) of EU renewable fuels in transport, bioethanol constituted 15% (1.24 Mtoe), and the remaining 10% was pure vegetable oil.

How much biofuel is imported into the EU? In 2007, about 26% of biodiesel and 31% of bioethanol consumed in the EU was imported. Most of those imports came from Brazil and the USA. The overall majority of biofuels are produced in the European Union. On top of the sustainability criteria, EU biofuels have to show compliance with EU environmental law and agricultural requirements, including landscape maintance, protection of soil against erosion and management of the use of water. 
Much of that was dumped in the EU by the US that has a surplus.

Land is limited. Do you not need to cut down forests to produce biofuels?
The 10% target would require some 2 – 5 Million hectares of land, according to different estimates of the net land use change impact. The EU has sufficient amount of land previously used for crop production and now no longer in arable use to cover the land needed, even if all the biofuels consumed were to be produced in Europe. Also in other parts of the world, there are alternatives to fresh deforestation. In Indonesia, there are an estimated 3 – 12 Million hectare of land that has been deforested in the past and left to become wasteland. It makes sense to bring this land into use.   
See the chart below. Only 48 years to repay the carbon debt from such land use change alone.

Can you cut down rain forests and produce palm oil to make biofuels for the EU targets?
No. The Communication rules this out. It explicitly says that forests can not be converted into palm oil plantations.  Yet that contradicts what was said above, it says that rain forests already cleared can be used instead of allowing recovery by secondary growth. 
It also contradicts that such products are  banned, they just don't qualify for handouts of taxpayer money unless friends in the EC give a certificate.  

Are most biofuels from palm oil?
Only about 4-5% of biofuel in the EU is produced from palm oil. This is about 1% of world palm oil production. Outside the EU the use of palm oil for biofuels is not large either. More than 95% of palm oil is used for food and industrial uses such as cosmetics. Between 2000 and 2008, palm oil production increased by 20 million tons. That is forty times as much as the amount of palm oil going into biofuels in the EU (500.000 tons). So, biofuels are not the main cause of deforestation. The sustainability criteria are however a clear deterrent for deforestation.   
See the charts below. Biofuel crop prices drive deforestation and land use change by making cropping more attractive than e.g. growing real trees or animals.

EU studies show that biofuels are not saving greenhouse gas emissions. How is the EU reacting to this?
This is not the case. The recently released reports suggest that biofuels are saving greenhouse gas emissions. The Commission will publish a report on indirect land use by the end of the year, as requested in the Renewable Energy Directive on the basis of these studies. 
Cherry picked research is what got us this deep into debt, why would the EC divert from the con? Here we have patent lies from idealogues, idiots useful to the gang-green agenda and control freaks.
The following images (source U.S. corn subsidies drive Amazon destruction) demonstrate the price of soy has been forced as for wheat (corn) by its use as biofuel and so has driven deforestation. Deforestation is a major source of CO2 emissions.
An important study (Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt - below the images) shows it can take up to 430 years for biofuels to repay the carbon debt for land change alone.



Biofuel production causes an increase in CO2 emissions.

For land clearance alone, when considered as a carbon debt it can take over 400 years to repay for palm oil and over 300 years for soy oil.

Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt. Feb 2008 www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/...
Carbon debt, biofuel carbon debt allocation, annual carbon repayment rate, and years to repay biofuel carbon debt for nine scenarios of biofuel production. Means and SDs are from Monte Carlo analyses of literature-based estimates of carbon pools and fluxes (5).
(A) Carbon debt, including CO2 emissions from soils and above ground and below ground biomass resulting from habitat conversion.
(B) Proportion of total carbon debt allocated to biofuel production.
(C) Annual life-cycle GHG reduction from biofuels, including displaced fossil fuels and soil carbon storage.
(D) Number of years after conversion to biofuel production required for cumulative biofuel GHG reductions, relative to the fossil fuels they displace, to repay the biofuel carbon debt.
Also in an article (Biofuels May Hinder Antiglobal-Warming Efforts), the following image shows carbon debts.
Add to that crops sequester far less CO2 than forests.
Add to that the emissions and real (not the US/EU pretend) pollution in converting plant matter into combustible ethanol and biodiesel.
Biofuel plants pollute U.S. rivers
 
Add to that biofuel NOx emissions.
Concerns over air quality could sink biodiesel sales in Texas
Add to that the (not a pollutant except to idealogues) CO2 produced by burning the damned stuff.
Cellulosic biofuels endanger old-growth forests in the southern U.S.
Cellulosic energy may trigger dramatic collapse in the Amazon

Biofuels 200 times more expensive than forest conservation for global warming mitigation


Facing criticism, biofuels industry forms new lobby group to influence lawmakers

Beyond high food prices, little to show for $11B/yr in biofuel support, says OECD report
Corn ethanol is worsening the Gulf dead zone
World fertilizer prices surge 200% in 2007, hurting the poor

UN: biofuels are starving the poor by driving up food prices

With subsidies, biofuel volume is ~same price as fosfuel. Except it produces ~a third less energy per unit.

Hemp yields ~3 times more ethanol per acre than wheat (corn), 350 v 1000 gallons using far less fertiliser and water
, and it is drought resistant. Is there a braincell to share in the EC?
If they can't make hemp legal for investment, greased palms and-or lobbyist reasons, get the Afghans to replace the heroin crops with hemp and give them a decent price for it.

The EC is committing blatant fraud by deception in several ways. Aside from the fraud that biofuel will reduce global warming, aside from the fraud that CO2 emissions are harmful, in the first instance biofuel from palm oil from new trees and soy grown on already deforested areas, palm oil and soy plantations already in existence in former rain forest land qualify. This is a carbon debt to the account of EC legislators, the commission and on the Bush/Obama admin. How many lifetimes to pay that back? These lands should be returned to secondary forest growth. Trees regulate the weather, and so the climate, not CO2.

More? Even with this addendum the whole downside is not covered.
*There are strong indications that the process to produce the fuel – including the machinery necessary to cultivate the crops and the plants to produce the fuel – has hefty carbon emissions.
*Water Use: Massive quantities of water are required for proper irrigation of biofuel crops as well as to manufacture the fuel, which could strain local and regional water resources.
*Smell: Biofuel production produces heavy smells depending on the type of materials used, and those smells are generally undesirable near large communities. While manufacturing plants can be isolated, this will add to the carbon emissions necessary to bring fuel to population centers.

As with wind energy, there is a small but genuine demand for biofuel. Inflated bureaucracy, especially unelected NGOs like the European Commission are like AIDS to society and like AIDS, the effects are devastating and remedies can be dire. When ideology supplants common sense, damaged and feeble minds are fertile ground. The free market and the public are subjected to the impositions of the beliefs of lunatic billionaires and fanatic activists without the legal constraint of cost benefit studies.
Had truly independent and exhaustive studies been conducted on CO2 emissions reduction (regardless of whether it is a warming gas), biofuels, wind farms and carbon credits with the results binding, I believe we would be bureaucratic boondoggle and propheteer free today, and much better off as individuals.
The US subsidised biofuel production with $29 billion between 2002-8, (the EU €45 subsidy per hectare of energy crops). Without that, as for wind energy, the boondoggle would be hot air. Without millstone legislation, carbon credits (hot air trading of EC permission to pollute) would be toilet paper.
Also see:
co2didit.blogspot.com/2008/03/cost-of-enviro-lunacy.html

Quotes by Rockefellers
[closely associated with and perhaps agent of the Rothschild bank octopus - more, more]
*** We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National autodetermination practiced in past centuries.
-- David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991

Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.
–- David Rockefeller

"You know, gentlemen, that I do not owe any personal income tax. But nevertheless, I send a small check, now and then, to the Internal Revenue Service out of the kindness of my heart."
-- David Rockefeller, before a Congressional committee

"...conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
--David Rockefeller / More here.