Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Tyranny by treaty

By Teresa Platt - posted Monday, 28 June 2010


How many treaties?

The biodiversity and climate change treaties are just two of hundreds of UN treaties. From 1947 to 2006 the UN increased its treaty tally from 33 to 333.

While it takes two-thirds of our Senate to ratify most treaties and give them the force of federal law, the UN has 192 member countries. The EU has 27 votes and a group of developing countries in the Southern Hemisphere, the Group of 77, has aligned with China. Together they control the votes needed to activate treaties globally, rendering our single US vote irrelevant. With little on the table and nothing to lose, the developing countries are heavily invested in treaty development.

If you still think treaties don’t impact on you, think again. Article VI, clause two of the Constitution renders treaties the supreme law of the land, on the same footing with federal law.

Advertisement

Consider the American Power Act, a carbon cap and trade bill currently under consideration in Congress. Think about the Supreme Court ruling that triggered an EPA finding that CO2 - yes, that gas you exhale - is a pollutant. These actions are direct results of the FCCC.

And remember the spotted owl fiasco? All those jobs lost and sawmills closed for a bird the Fish and Wildlife Service later stated was never under any threat! The spotted owl issue was triggered by the Federal Endangered Species Act, which in turn, was spawned by a UN treaty, its Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

Back to Copenhagen

So, let’s return to Denmark and look more closely at the UNCERs that Denmark bought as mitigation of atmospheric pollution as mandated by the UN climate change treaty.

An $11 million World Bank credit line built $9 million worth of brickfields in Bangladesh, Project #1901, covering 100 acres and employing 1,800 people. The credit line was issued to the Industrial and Infrastructure Development Finance Company, which is 80 per cent privately owned. Over 20 years, Project #1901 will provide as much as $80 million worth of UNCERs to be sold to Denmark, generating tens of millions in profit - in Bangladesh, where the average per capita income is $1,500 a year.

But look closer still. It is estimated there are currently 4,000 small privately owned kilns making bricks in Bangladesh while generating 3~6 tons of CO2 annually. To secure the credit line, these figures were inflated to 6,000 kilns producing 9 tons of CO2. So, even before ground was broken on Project #1901, it had “saved”, on paper, as much as 6 tons of CO2 a year!

What is not noted, however, in any report, is that, based on basic economic principles, to save energy and labour while increasing the bottom line, over a 20-year period, the thousands of small, privately owned kilns would be upgraded with more efficient kilns and fuel usage, and therefore emissions, would decline.

Advertisement

But Project #1901 makes no mention of training or resettlement costs for what could easily be 10,000 small kiln workers and their families displaced by these large, subsidised, centralised brickfields. There is no mention of the costs, financial and environmental, of transporting bricks from the large brickfields back to the areas where demand is located - where the small kilns, individually owned and operated, are today. And there is no plan for decommissioning these monstrous Soviet-era style brickfields at the end of their 20-year lifespan.

So, in addition to making a profit from making bricks - if these large brickfields ever actually make any bricks - Project #1901’s investment consortium will clear tens of millions of dollars while replacing an entire private industry, an industry that would have slowly and organically modernised over time, just in response to the normal pressures of the free market system.

Whatever happened to “small is beautiful”?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

This is an abridged version of Teresa Platt’s  report. For the full version visit www.teresaplatt.com.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

13 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

The daughter of an agricultural banker, Teresa Platt has been involved in food and fiber production for over three decades. Teresa has experience in marketing and management, public relations and government affairs. To learn more, google “Teresa Platt” or visit her on Facebook. Teresa blogs at www.teresaplatt.com and you can reach her in California at TeresaPlatt.com@gmail.com

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 13 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy