in Papua New Guinea

Letter from Kirk Roberts to Kevin Conrad

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on StumbleUpon

Letter from Kirk Roberts to Kevin ConradThis morning, REDD-Monitor received an email, apparently from Kirk Roberts of Nupan Trading Corporation Ltd. The email is signed “Kirk William Roberts For and on behalf of the people of PNG,” and attached to it is an letter from Roberts to Kevin Conrad, Papua New Guinea’s Special Envoy and Ambassador for Environment and Climate Change.

The letter is available here (pdf file 1.8 MB) and below.

The temptation to headline this post “Man living in glass house throws stone,” was almost overwhelming. I could have pointed out that Roberts is perhaps better known as a “cock-fighting, carbon cowboy, king pin, tree tyrant,” and that Conrad was busy in Cancun on Papua New Guinea’s behalf watering down safeguards in the REDD text.

But that will have to wait for another day. It is, in any case, perhaps better to simply post Roberts’ letter and allow readers to form their own opinions. As ever, REDD-Monitor would be interested to hear from you.

Letter from Kirk Roberts to Kevin Conrad

Letter from Kirk Roberts to Kevin Conrad
 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on StumbleUpon

Leave a Reply

31 Comments

  1. In todays PNG paper Post Courier , I thought this article would proberly balance the comments from Chris especially Kevin Conrad watering down Safeguards in Cancun COP16 , which I know is incorrect. Forests have to go’
    By Harlyne Joku
    MORE forest areas need to be cleared in order to improve the welfare of Papua New Guineans.
    Two development experts hold this view, which is contradictory to that of environmentalists.
    The experts recently made the remark after conducting an independent review of a report by the PNG Forest Industries Association (FIA) on the REDD+iness program for Papua New Guinea – a strategy to promote sustainability and growth.
    Emeritus professor Ron Duncan from the Crawford School of Economics and Gov-ernment, Australian National University College of Asia and Pacific and Tim Curtin, an associate professor from the same institution, said if the welfare of the vast majority of Papua New Guineans is to be improved, agricultural employment opportunities and incomes have to be greatly increased.
    Further to that, with the population increasing at around 2.5 per cent annually, the experts say that just ensuring food security at the current level means that agricultural productivity has to increase at this rate or the area of land farmed has to increase at around 2.5 per cent annually.
    The FIA reports states that: “Limiting or stopping the clearance of forest will condemn the rural population to declining standards of subsistence, while denying them the option to improve their living standard.”
    Professor Duncan said the FIA report makes an excellent argument for the development of palm oil in PNG.
    “The global market for palm oil is very promising with both China and India generating strong demand as their incomes increase,” he said.
    “For this reason the opportunity cost of not increasing palm oil is higher than other crops.”
    Tim Curtin said there is also the danger that REDD (reduction of emissions from degradation and deforestation) payments – if any ever materialise – will have the character of “sit down” money, whereby persons currently engaged in productive activities that generate incomes may well be induced by REDD to abandon work. This would result in a welfare dependency, he said.
    According to the FIA report, large-scale plantations in PNG are important for generating jobs and income in the rural areas of PNG with smallholders who are the main producers.
    They account for 84 per cent of coffee, 90 per cent of cocoa and 33 per cent of crude palm oil output..

  2. Good question Chris and when I receive the documented proof you will be the first to see it, but as you know its all becoming less transparent these days.
    However , to try and explain ,
    The topic of discussion for the last 20 years for not only PNG has been securing Land Tenure Globally , the conversations and attitudes since COP15 especially behind close doors have been numerous , through the year there has aristocratically influence to obtain land and still it is more obvious till now at COP16.
    If you take the time and read between the lines of your own data stored in Red Monitor , McKinsey , Norway’s pay- per-results two that are obvious to suggest, you will notice that referral or result is simply based on securing Land Tenure in the donors control.
    Its nothing new and has been since the start of mankind , its just now we use the the forked tongue to conquer in place of the sword.
    I believe on the contrary Chris you should show me evidence of any diluting or watering down of any safeguards in Cancun especially by Kevin Conrad and Brazil.
    Carbon Trading is not the issue at present.

  3. Chris Lang
    October 7th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
    @A Witness – Thanks for filling in the missing sentences in this post.
    Another Witness
    October 8th, 2010 at 6:17 am
    They do have a very good looking set of power point presentations though. They must have cost a bit.

    Sure, evidence is lacking, but the queue of developing countries stretches around the block, desperate for their expertise in cost curves, abatement levers, and transparent inclusive processes.

    What are we mad at? That Mckinsey are getting paid a fortune?

    Frankly their salaries are bizarrely high, but so are a lot of people’s. Look at the UN-REDD money vortex.

    But we should be furious that they are pumping out of their economics sausage factory generalized, bland versions of what developing countries want to hear – that BAU scenarios are essentially compatible with REDD+. Don’t want to stop logging? No problem, go ahead. Oil palm on logged over forest? Sure, why not! Reforestation with non native trees? Sounds good!

    In the case of PNG, voluntary carbon projects are being forcibly prevented from development precisely because they advocate a route which doesn’t allow the Government to continue BAU destruction and to net the profits from corrupted REDD+.

    Mckinsey has a great deal of power in these situations. They are the shadow government in these countries in terms of climate policy. Yet, as we know, with great power comes great responsibility. Do Mckinsey consultants genuinely believe that their models and cost curves will actually drive the process forward? I doubt it. How can they? They are very,very intelligent people – they must realize.

    They are milking the REDD cash cow while they still can, and doing it with flair, and ultimately it is the communities, as always, that will lose out.
    Dawg
    October 12th, 2010 at 10:18 am
    WHATS MORE INTERESTING IS THAT MCKINSEY ARE NOW RUNNING THE CLIAMTE CHANGE AGENDA IN PNG, ITS VERY COMMON HOW KEVIN CONRAD HAS ENTICED THE GOVERNMENT IN CONTRACTING MCKINSEY INTO PROVINDING THE WORK FOR PNG’S PREPARATION FOR THE COPENHAGEN MEET IN DEC 2009, WELL THAT WHAT PNG PAID TO MCKINSEY, IMAGINE THE OTHER USD$2M THAT WAS USED TO FERRY THE PNG DELEGATION TO COPENHAGEN LAST YEAR!!
    Chris Lang
    October 7th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
    @A Witness – Thanks for filling in the missing sentences in this post.

  4. Chris I am just trying to follow your question regarding the above comments .Opposing REDD , the article is saying the exact opposite , its also saying that forests need to be cleared to make way for agriculture .
    To me that article and the advise from these so called scholars is absolutely fraudulent and its obvious because they have been contract by PNG’s biggest threat its own Forestry Department of the PNG government.
    It would interesting to know who organised them and better still who paid them.
    PNG has some of the best soil for agriculture, the fruit and vegetables taste like most people in Western countries have never tasted before fantastic, like what a potato should taste like.
    But you dont grow produce and vegetables in Tropical Rain Forest areas in PNG or raise healthy cattle or domestic pigs, who are these experts.

  5. I would like to futher comment, that since its obvious and realistic REDD or REDD+ cannot deliver until 2020 why the hell do we bother to talk about fiction, and why is the world spending so much on fiction as this letter says.

  6. Chris I agree with you for a change, both men no doubt have focussed their biases towards self interest. However, I do also think both men honestly believe their chosen paths will provide the most benefit to landowners.

    I do find it truly bizarre how Roberts and the rest of his supporters post comments rubbishing REDD when it is exactly what their projects are. Sure they are promoting voluntary instead of compliance and I suppose if Roberts is supposedly stopping logging in existing logging concessions it is technically Improved Forest Management under VCS nomenclature however it is still basically a REDD project.

    This talk of spending his own millions of dollars. Please…. first there was Carbon Planet, once their money was gone it was M2M (or similar) and as soon as their money ran out they disowned them and started crawling up the rear end of a US fund mananger. Roberts spending his own millions my arse…

    The throwing stones in glass houses comment is also apt. Roberts accusing Conrad and UNFCCC on not delivering promised money, hmmm sounds familiar.

    The one thing I will agree with Roberts on and was stated well above in Spencers comment (attributed to A Witness?) the PNG government does not support the voluntary market because it may threaten the politicians ability to get their hands on any money. PNG politicians in general are shockers.

  7. @ Douglas Spencer

    If the Forest Industries Association is suddenly so concerned with the well-being of Papuans (though I smell the distinctly unpleasant odour of one Alan Oxley behind this latest public relations move), perhaps it could get its members to re-patriate to the country all the money they have been stealing, transfer-pricing, using for bribes, non-payment of taxes, under-reporting of volumes, illegal shipments etc etc etc.

  8. Lets put the squabbling aside for a minute, it looks like Roberts has a point, if Conrad you have received then, show the people of PNG the money.
    Otherwise lets wait and see if Roberts actually does deliver to the people of PNG before we crucify him.

  9. Many many theories on this date and payments of readiness by economist’s and commentators, I just have asked for some advice on this 2020 comment.: the economics of carbon trading are supposed to incentivize you to lower your footprint asap;

    Japan found is that after just 5 years, companies where having to spend 300% more annually to reduce less than 2 or 3 %—-2020 is 19 years from now less 3 years.

    ,they were supposed to have x by now, but that was.pushed out to the next year, then after 2012, now 2015, the original funding still has not been met, but the time line has gone out by 5 years so far, so 2012 becomes 2020, apparently 3 years is calculate in arrears.
    According to many economists the scale is fiction as the letter saids.

    but what everyone has missed is that the start date is not when the money is available, think Norway and Indonesia, but where the process has to be ready to implement, think M&E, and the money only comes after they proved that can do what they are supposed to do , ‘Land Tenure ‘ for number 1….How long will countries take to comply to the donors(if at all possible)(results) , will the donors be able to afford to pay . could 2020 be NEVER.
    that’s why all the talk is about readiness
    they can’t without an economic miracle… any magicians or enconomists with a better calulated proof argument?

  10. @Douglas Spencer

    Below are the changes to the language in the negotiating text (part of the ‘Long-term Cooperation Agreement’ text) on REDD safeguards that Kevin Conrad of the PNG delegation, on behalf of the Coalition for Rainforest Nations, was promoting and lobbying for:

    Original text:

    “Para 68:
    Requests, developing country Parties aiming to undertake … activities para 27 …, to develop:

    (d): A system for monitoring and informing the Convention on how the safeguards referred to in Annex II to this decision are being addressed and respected throughout the implementation of the activities referred to in paragraph 27, while respecting sovereignty.”

    Proposed Kevin Conrad text:

    “(d) A process for sharing information on how the safeguards referred to in Annex II to this decision are being addressed and respected throughout the implementation of the activities referred to in paragraph 27, while respecting sovereignty.”

    This might seem like a superficial change, but it would have weakened the status of any REDD safeguards in two very important ways:

    1. There would be no obligation for ‘monitoring’ of how safeguards were being implemented, therefore it would be easy to get away with *not* implementing them, and merely ‘sharing information’ about them (whatever that means);
    2. By removing the requirement for ‘informing the Convention’, it removes the requirement for reporting to any particular body, and therefore probably effectively removes the requirement for any reporting *whatsoever*.

    Thus, as worded in the proposed Kevin Conrad/PNG amendment, the safeguards would effectively have become completely anulled as any meaningful operational requirement.

  11. @ Amber Smithfield

    What point. I am not aware of anyone else except Roberts and cohorts suggesting Conrad has accepted money in relation to REDD projects in PNG. There is no evidence or even suggestion of by whom he was given money, when or even what for? If you suggest giving Roberts a chance before crucifying him why not extend the same to Conrad.

    @ Don

    I quote “Japan found is that after just 5 years, companies where having to spend 300% more annually to reduce less than 2 or 3 %—-2020 is 19 years from now less 3 years”

    wtf are you talking about? Why are your posts always mostly nonsense? By the way under a voluntary project, that I know you support as you are in Roberts camp, the start date is also not when the money is available. In theory you actually have to demonstrate that deforestation or degradation has been avoided through verification before money is available.

    @ A Witness

    Yes well argued and sourced. Conrad is trying to obtain money for PNG with as little scrutiny as possible. He is actually doing his job well on behalf of PNG. REDD funding obviously must have proper scrutiny, oversight and benchmarks for it to actually mean anything in the fight against deforestation and climate change.

  12. @Douglas Spencer – I’m fully aware that there are logging and plantation industry lobbies that oppose REDD, because it would interfere with their profits. This, however, has little to do with this post.

    I’d be grateful if you could explain how you you know that it is incorrect to state that Conrad was watering down safeguards in the REDD text in Cancun. If you could provide evidence of his interventions where he attempted to strengthen safeguards, for example, I would consider editing the post.

  13. @Don – I posted this letter because it illustrates an interesting conflict between Roberts (who is trying to set up REDD projects in PNG that would trade REDD credits on voluntary markets) and Conrad (who is trying to set up a market for REDD credits that would be part of a compliance market). Both men may be allowing their own potential profits to colour their preference for either voluntary or compliance markets.

    I have no idea where Roberts gets his date of 2020 from in this statement:

    “The UNFCCC now admits that it is unlikely to see anything from REDD or REDD+ until 2020, let alone a correct mechanism that is supported by all nations.”

  14. @Don…Thanks for explaining your situation and yes my comments were hostile and for that I apologise.

    However I do believe it is you who is confused re IFM/REDD. I will demonstrate. The following is cut from the the VCS AFOLU Program: GHG Accounting for Agriculture and Forestry Projects (http://www.v-c-s.org/programs.html):

    Current VCS afolu project types:
    – Afforestation, Reforestation and Revegetation (ARR)
    – Agricultural Land Management (ALM)
    – Improved Forest Management (IFM)
    – Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD)

    There are currently two or three approved REDD methodologies and no approved IFM methodologies under the VCS. Having demonstrated the above I still know what you are talking about. Perhaps you should rally against the UNFCCC process or the World Bank facilities rather than against REDD itself as it is actually also part of the VCS.

    In answer to your question which part of the Gov’t does not support VCS I would answer the elected PM Sir Michael Somare (granted he is not currently acting), the National Executive Council of Parliament through Decision 55/2010 Number 7. “…the Government’s position that voluntary trading of forest carbon is inadvisable and premature..”. I would also add the Gov’t Executive responsible for Climate Change Dr Warri Iamo also opposes the voluntary market. You have cherry picked the only two in gov’t to publicly support volunatry trading and they have gone against the stated NEC and PNG OCCD policy.

    For the record I support voluntary carbon trading and agree it should give the landowners more autonomy if the right project developer is in place. Whether Roberts is it remains to be seen. I am not really passing judgement just trying to correct the record where blatant bullshit is standing in the way of the facts.

  15. @ Greenie Cap… your story draws to mind one question. If Roberts is above board why instruct Leamey to structure the companies in Hong Kong to channel money through. Why not Papua New Guinea where the actual projects and landowners are?

  16. @ John…firstly your comment in comparing REDD and IFM the same is a perfect example of pure ignorance and no understanding of either process.
    REDD and REDD+ have no ability or future for PNG, show us how REDD or REDD+ avoids deforestation , has it a methodology to suggest that?
    Your next line of comments seem personal and one wonders how you are informed.
    Which part of the PNG government does not support VCS , most certainly its not the then acting PM who will be the new PM in the new year, it is not the Parliamentary legal adviser to the Somare, as those letters two post some months back confirm.
    I support the better of PNG , I am married to highland women for now 24 years, I have seen this climate change debate from the start, and I seen what is good for PNG which is my country now, and I can also see the difference in PNG because of climate change.
    As plain as day the UNFCCC REDD or REDD+ as not done one thing for PNG except sell news papers and give inexperience commentators like you fuell to burn.Its whole structure is to ‘ control ‘ and secure land ownership , PNG will never allow it.
    The VCS structure gives each forest area security and comfort on its on merits its achievable it is a practising mechanism , REDD and REDD+ is only a hypothetical.
    I am not an economist but I can assure I am learning in regards to this subject, but for one example recently Qld just cancelled a clean coal project because the upfront cost couldn’t be recovered in less than 50 years, maybe this would be an easier an less complex way of explaining my economist friends theories.
    So far your comments are hostile and your aim at me has missed.

  17. Simple Hong Kong is a much cheaper and better place to work from, it is a popular International meeting place it has a much better reliable Banking system and there are more real people there.

    If this question has ever anything to do with you.

  18. Executive Council of Parliament through Decision 55/2010 Number 7. “…the Government’s position that voluntary trading of forest carbon is inadvisable and premature..”.
    As there is no other mechanism the people of PNG say this is very poor advice for NEC to ever consider and irresponsible as a NEC decision.
    NEC have been given instruction to remove Wari Iamo , and this is one reason of many.

    You have cherry picked the only two in gov’t to publicly support voluntary trading and they have gone against the stated NEC and PNG OCCD policy—this is a ridiculous comment and you have no idea of what PNG people are supporting,nobody is supporting fiction, and this NEC referal and opinion is most certainly not a policy.

    Funnily enough you have not demonstrated anything regarding
    IFM–UNFCCC Redd what are you trying to say as they are totally opposite.

    For the record I support voluntary carbon trading and agree it should give the landowners more autonomy if the right project developer is in place. Whether Roberts is it remains to be seen. I am not really passing judgement just trying to correct the record where blatant bullshit is standing in the way of the facts.

    It appears you have a grudge against Roberts and it has already been pointed out and confirmed that you are that a criminal and a lawyer from Sydney David John Leamey, your comments are harassing and becoming also pointless.
    I would prefer to end my communication with you.

  19. @ Don…Yes our discussion has become pointless…I should have known better than to even bother…

  20. @ A.Witnes thank you for your , watering down of safeguards”
    and in your own words ‘superficial’ and ‘what ever that means’ is 100% correct.
    Its just a smoke screen and diversion, the bottom line is that UNFCCC or who ever it will become, want to control the land and Monitor and Evaluate then calculate, to create carbon offsets for their supposed World Carbon Bank.
    The PNG people argument is that their land has nothing to do with Kevin Conrad or any part of any PNG government, so why is there any participation from Conrad and Wari Iamo.
    I notice you did not mention the ‘ weasel words'(quote CL) regarding the denial of ‘ human and enviromental’ rights of PNG people, may be you could add to that and Conrads supposed distribution fantasy’s.

  21. Thanks Kirk, please keep up the good work. Unlike others who are paid for expensive globetrotting by PNG taxpayers who cannot afford it, you are spending your own money in learning and understanding the real issues on the ground and creating awareness among the people who are most affected. Your money is well spent and I am sure because of you, the ILG and PNG people will keep control of our land.
    God Bless
    Regards
    From the PNG Government today , sorry but the name has to be retained.

  22. Land Title ownership is the direct concern and a Global carbon trading agreed price.
    Some important dot points are raised in this topic.
    I personally think REDD can not deliver either.

  23. @ john on 22nd December 2010, I said IF Conrad had received not that he HAD. Just looks to me like he has had many opportunities but still hasnt delivered anything to the people.

  24. The North Fly District of Western Province has engaged an international consultant to take charge of all environmental issues arising from resource developments in the area.

    The Joint District Planning and Budget Priority Committee (JDP&BPC) has engaged
    Nupan (PNG) Trading Corporation Ltd to work with all resource developers and landowners to ensure maximum benefits go to the local people.

    “My people of North Fly district, who are legitimate landowners of the gas and oil deposited area (Tarime, Juyar, Piyan, Elewala and Ketu) are proud to engage your expertise in providing high level dialogue to represent them in the international markets to lure and secure a best commercial deal to suit the landowners needs and wants,” North Fly MP and chairman of the JDP&BPC Boka Kondra wrote to the company’s chief executive officer Kirk Roberts.

    Mr Kondra said his district, classed as under privileged and least developed, was inviting investors to develop the vast, rich and diverse resources for the greater benefit of the local people.

    He said this was in line with the National Government’s Vision 2050 which embraced
    the national goals and principles enshrined in the National Constitution.

    In the letter, dated February 25, Mr Kondra urged Nupan to work with all stakeholders to ensure that the people gain maximum benefits in the form of better health, education, infrastructure and communication services from the exploitation of the natural resources.

    North Fly resource owners understand the environmental future and the damage that gas, oil exploration is causing and what serious damages oil and gas extraction will do if they allow extraction licenses to local and foreign companies in their resource areas, without the proper environmental precautions and environmental audits for these companies to be environmentally responsible to international satisfaction, Mr Kondra said in the letter.

    He said he had mandated a negotiating consultant to organise and manage this situation.

    Mr Roberts said he has been mandated to negotiate an appropriate percentage of sales and returns from the resources, monitor and evaluate all environmental and social damages and costs and to ensure all investors were environmentally audited and to make sure that they take responsibility for the work all stakeholders to register all carbon units that originates from the area.

    *Post Courier 23-3-2011*

  25. 7Chris Lang says:
    22 December 2010 at 6:06 pm
    @Don – I posted this letter because it illustrates an interesting conflict between Roberts (who is trying to set up REDD projects in PNG that would trade REDD credits on voluntary markets) and Conrad (who is trying to set up a market for REDD credits that would be part of a compliance market). Both men may be allowing their own potential profits to colour their preference for either voluntary or compliance markets.

    I have no idea where Roberts gets his date of 2020 from in this statement:

    “The UNFCCC now admits that it is unlikely to see anything from REDD or REDD+ until 2020, let alone a correct mechanism that is supported by all nations.”

    “[T]he United States is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs of developing countries. We expect this funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance. This will include a significant focus on forestry and adaptation.”
    — Hilary Clinton in Copenhagen, December 2009

  26. @greenie cap (#25) – Fascinating. Just a couple of points:

    1. Nowhere in her statement does Hilary Clinton say that we are unlikely to see anything from REDD or REDD+ until 2020.

    2. Hilary Clinton is not the UNFCCC.

    Given your acquaintance with Roberts, do you happen to know whether Conrad replied to the letter?

  27. 1 well you need to learn to read between the lines.
    2 correct USA(Clinton) is not the UNFCCC,but the UNFCCC needs the USA as China and India with the EU to comply.
    However the USA agenda today is to have more control of the WB which could mean that the USA may be then a huge factor of the UNFCCC.
    Any way around 2020 will be very fascinating to say the least.

  28. Roberts,kevin conrad have being terminated by climate change and forest minister and deputy prime minister belden namah today at 7.30pm tonight.

    Cheers

  29. A UN conference has passed a package of agreements extending the life of the Kyoto Protocol, as Australia and 36 other industrialised countries signed up for binding emission cuts by 2020.

    Agreement on the modalities of a Kyoto ‘second commitment period,’ which seeks to rein in climate change pending a new global pact due to enter into force in 2020, concluded 12 days of tough haggling in Qatar.

    After several days of deadlocked talks, conference chairman Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah finally rushed through the package of deals which he termed the Doha Climate Gateway, riding roughshod over country objections as he swung the gavel in quick succession proclaiming: ‘It is so decided.’

    Observers said Russia had been trying to halt the extension of Kyoto, whose first leg expires on December 31.

    Moscow objected to the passing of the deal, and noted that it retained the right to appeal the president’s action.

    The talks, scheduled to have closed on Friday, ran a whole day into extra time, paralysed as rich and poor countries faced off on issues including finance and compensation for climate damage.

    An extension of Kyoto was finally approved with the 27-member European Union, Australia, Switzerland and eight other industrialised countries signing up for binding emission cuts by 2020.

    They represent about 15 per cent of global emissions.

    The protocol locks in only developed states, excluding major developing polluters such as China and India, as well as the United States which refuses to ratify it.

    One of the key disputes in Doha was ‘hot air,’ the name given to greenhouse gas emission quotas that countries were given under the first leg of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and did not use – some 13 billion tonnes in total.

    The package also includes agreement to scale up funding to help poor countries deal with global warming and convert to planet-friendlier energy sources.

    This had been a key area of dispute, with developed countries under pressure to show how they intend to keep a promise to raise climate funding for poorer states to $US100 billion ($A95.82 billion) per year by 2020 – up from a total of $US30 billion in 2010-2012

  30. 1. Nowhere in her statement does Hilary Clinton say that we are unlikely to see anything from REDD or REDD+ until 2020.

    2. Hilary Clinton is not the UNFCCC.

    Given your acquaintance with Roberts, do you happen to know whether Conrad replied to the letter?

    Dear Chris FYI,The PNG government wrote to the UNFCCC to explain that Conrad is unattached from any representation of PNG at the recent Doha Climate talks.
    Regarding the prediction of 2020,our office suggests that 2020 is more likely to be on and beyond of that date 2020 and closer to eternity.

    More scary predictions is, that the World Bank is now trying to imply a ‘World Tax’ that will some how control or deter climate change. (we wonder who the auditor’s may be)

    Australia has fraudulently created new tax called Carbon which the UNFCCC and EU have supported unanimously, basically it has nothing to do with deterring Climate Change in any capacity what so ever.

    Could this be a pilot for the rest of the world?