• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.

Ever wonder why Green and Eco Groups are so pro EU?

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
It appears to be all about money.

Have you ever wondered why the eco-lobby is so pro-EU? Now you have your answer. Green pressure groups are becoming financially dependent on Brussels. Ten years ago, they received €2,337,924 from the European Commission; last year, it was €8,749,940.

A study by the International Policy Network reveals the extent to which Green lobbyists look to the EU for their income: Climate Action Network, Friends of the Earth, WWF, they’re all at it. Much of this money, the paper shows, is then recycled into lobbying the EU.

You see how the system works? The EU pays eco-lobbyists to tell it what it wants to hear. Its clients, naturally enough, tell it that the EU ought to increase its powers. A similar racket goes on between Brussels and the mega-charities (see here).

This isn’t just bad for democracy; it’s bad for the environment, because it equates conservation with state intervention and supranationalism. One of these Brussels-funded organisations recently produced a league of which MEPs were greenest. I like to think that I am pretty eco-conscious. I try never to fly or drive when trains are an option; Mrs H sources food locally, and reuses and recycles meticulously; we even had washable nappies for our children. But I came near the bottom of the table because I had voted consistently against giving more power to Brussels.

That’s the Left for you, I suppose, elevating motive over action, valuing the moralistic over the moral.
Green pressure groups get ?66 million from the EU – Telegraph Blogs

More hypocrisy. They don't seem to care that we are losing our sovereignty and our individual freedoms as long as their self interests are catered for. Selfishness disguised as saintly dogma. I'm so glad the Sun has decided to hit minimum at a century low. Perfect time sunny boy.
 


Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,457
Of course another, perhaps more obvious reason, for the boost in funding to Eco groups might be that European Leaders believe there's a problem with the earth's climate (or at least cause to investigate a possible problem) and think it might be nice if you fund groups who are concerned about that.

The solution for people is to elect leaders who don't think there's a problem, and thus refuse to fund the eco groups. It's silly. It's like the Telegraph complaining if Plaid Cymru became the largest party in Wales, and subsequently Wales started giving more money to Welsh Language groups. It's cause and effect of democracy.
 

setanta

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Messages
642
Dope ... more from the sacred church of tin-hattery! It's all a conspiracy you know :-(
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
Dope ... more from the sacred church of tin-hattery! It's all a conspiracy you know :-(
Dope? So please explain how the EU Emission Trading scheme is not in anyway as dangerous as a Collateralised Debt Obligation Derivative.
 

Sean O'Brian

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
900
The EU spends millions paying NGOs to lobby it, essentially funnelling taxpayer's money to groups who use it to try and 'convince' the EU to pursue its pre-set agenda. This is a form of deception, whatever you think about global warming itself.


Friends of the EU


The European Union is funding some of the most powerful environmental NGOs in Brussels – while in turn, they lobby the EU for more money and influence.

Environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have enormous influence in the European Union. However, some of the most vocal green groups are actually funded directly by the EU to lobby it. The EU funds many NGOs operating in Brussels whose main purpose is to influence EU policy-making and implementation. This report analyses one programme of funding, in which DG Environment (the division of the European Commission responsible for environmental affairs) distributed over €66 million to environmental NGOs between 1998-2009.

Specifically, we examine funds allocated to the Green 10 – a coalition of ten NGOs pushing for an “environmental” agenda in EU policy-making.

* Nine out of the Green 10 receive funds from the Commission.
* Eight members receive one-third or more of their income from the Commission, and five of those rely on the Commission for more than half their funding.

Under EU rules, an NGO can receive up to 70% of its income from the EU, and thus is obliged to find only 30% of its income from alternative sources.

From 1998 to 2009, there was a substantial increase in funds given by the Commission to environmental groups: from €2,337,924 (1998) to €8,749,940 (2009) – an average increase of 13% every year.

The EU’s funding of Green 10 members has also increased during this time period.

* Birdlife Europe funding increased by 900%
* Friends of the Earth Europe funding increased by 325%
* WWF European Policy Office funding increased by 270%.

The majority of Green 10 members now receive considerably more money from the Commission than in previous years. As a result, many have struggled to reduce their dependency on EU funds – in fact, three members depend more on EU funds today than in 2005.
 

Tombo

1
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
5,302
Of course another, perhaps more obvious reason, for the boost in funding to Eco groups might be that European Leaders believe there's a problem with the earth's climate (or at least cause to investigate a possible problem) and think it might be nice if you fund groups who are concerned about that.

The solution for people is to elect leaders who don't think there's a problem, and thus refuse to fund the eco groups. It's silly. It's like the Telegraph complaining if Plaid Cymru became the largest party in Wales, and subsequently Wales started giving more money to Welsh Language groups. It's cause and effect of democracy.
If you think something is worth understanding then you fund academic research - not political lobby groups.
 

Passer-by

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
1,428
It appears to be all about money.



Green pressure groups get ?66 million from the EU – Telegraph Blogs

More hypocrisy. They don't seem to care that we are losing our sovereignty and our individual freedoms as long as their self interests are catered for. Selfishness disguised as saintly dogma. I'm so glad the Sun has decided to hit minimum at a century low. Perfect time sunny boy.
So, since Mr Hannan MEP receives a nice salary plus generous expenses from the EU each year, he must therefore be pro-EU?

And the "Europe of Freedom & Democracy" Group (UKIP etc.) in the European Parliament which receives a large amount of money from the EU must also be pro-EU?

Right? :rolleyes:
 

rubensni

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
737
Dope? So please explain how the EU Emission Trading scheme is not in anyway as dangerous as a Collateralised Debt Obligation Derivative.
1. Neither are "dangerous" - get real.
2. CDOs were risky during the crash of 2008 because the assets they were backed with were worthless.
3. The ETS is a way of managing a tax and ensuring that the most efficient industries pollute.
 

Tombo

1
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
5,302
1. Neither are "dangerous" - get real.
2. CDOs were risky during the crash of 2008 because the assets they were backed with were worthless.
3. The ETS is a way of managing a tax and ensuring that the most efficient industries pollute.
Interesting.

Now, could you explain what assets back the emissions permits being bought and sold under an ETS?

Then explain how they are not "worthless"
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
1. Neither are "dangerous" - get real.
2. CDOs were risky during the crash of 2008 because the assets they were backed with were worthless.
3. The ETS is a way of managing a tax and ensuring that the most efficient industries pollute.
1. Get real? What's real about 1.6 Quadrillion US Dollars? Thats 240,000 per capita for the planet. How does that represent scarce finite resources?

2. CDOs are risky full stop. As are CDSs. Goldman Snakes made more out of the bankruptcy of CIT Group through CDSs than what they actually had invested in it. It removes the concept of risk for certain parties. Now look at what is happening to Greece.

3. The ETS is not a tax. It provides corrupt countries like Russia an opportunity to bribe heavy CO2 emitters through their excess credits. And its not about the actual credits themselves its about the shadow derivtives involved.

Here is a good illustration on how 1.6 Quadrillion US Dollars of derivatives are sucking away real wealth. No matter how much money they print its getting mopped up by phantom digits on computer screens.

 

rubensni

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
737
Interesting.

Now, could you explain what assets back the emissions permits being bought and sold under an ETS?

Then explain how they are not "worthless"
Buying emissions credits allows you to pollute. No asset backs them. They are worth something because if you don't have them you will be charged more in the long run.

What asset backs car insurance? None. It is a guarantee or a promise from the insurance company. But that does that make it worthless? Hardly.
 

rubensni

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
737
1. Get real? What's real about 1.6 Quadrillion US Dollars? Thats 240,000 per capita for the planet. How does that represent scarce finite resources?

2. CDOs are risky full stop. As are CDSs. Goldman Snakes made more out of the bankruptcy of CIT Group through CDSs than what they actually had invested in it. It removes the concept of risk for certain parties. Now look at what is happening to Greece.

3. The ETS is not a tax. It provides corrupt countries like Russia an opportunity to bribe heavy CO2 emitters through their excess credits. And its not about the actual credits themselves its about the shadow derivtives involved.

Here is a good illustration on how 1.6 Quadrillion US Dollars of derivatives are sucking away real wealth. No matter how much money they print its getting mopped up by phantom digits on computer screens.
Talk about going off on a tangent!

 

Tombo

1
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
5,302
Buying emissions credits allows you to pollute. No asset backs them. They are worth something because if you don't have them you will be charged more in the long run.

What asset backs car insurance? None. It is a guarantee or a promise from the insurance company. But that does that make it worthless? Hardly.
Don't they do irony where you come from?

ETS is a bubble waiting to happen, worse than CDOs.

CDO were in fact entities back by mortgages - those are contractual promises to pay a stream of cash flows; something that has material value. The probability of full repayment of those mortgages was higher lower than markets came to believe, but they were not back by "worthless" assets.

On the other hand, as you point out the ETS is based on "permits" to emit CO2. That is truly intrinsically worthless. At the whim of a new (rational) legislator that stops regulating carbon emissions, they can be rendered worthless at a stroke.

They can be collateralised and geared and inflated in price on the basis of erronous expectations and information.

No, the ETS is a dangeorous beast indeed.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
These are the same Greens that opposed every single EU Treaty before Lisbon, and abstained on Lisbon I?
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
Don't they do irony where you come from?

ETS is a bubble waiting to happen, worse than CDOs.

CDO were in fact entities back by mortgages - those are contractual promises to pay a stream of cash flows; something that has material value. The probability of full repayment of those mortgages was higher lower than markets came to believe, but they were not back by "worthless" assets.

On the other hand, as you point out the ETS is based on "permits" to emit CO2. That is truly intrinsically worthless. At the whim of a new (rational) legislator that stops regulating carbon emissions, they can be rendered worthless at a stroke.

They can be collateralised and geared and inflated in price on the basis of erronous expectations and information.

No, the ETS is a dangeorous beast indeed.
To be fair it is all straightforward, rational and comprehensible to even the most foolish of Green Party members...

 

Passer-by

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
1,428
It would appear that posters are going out of their way to avoid discussing the contention from the OP, namely, that receipt of EU monies make the Green movement "pro-EU".

Do posters believe that Eurosceptics in the European Parliament are also pro-EU because they too receive money from the EU?

Or was the original contention just nonsense?
 

Tombo

1
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
5,302
It would appear that posters are going out of their way to avoid discussing the contention from the OP, namely, that receipt of EU monies make the Green movement "pro-EU".

Do posters believe that Eurosceptics in the European Parliament are also pro-EU because they too receive money from the EU?

Or was the original contention just nonsense?
Where was it established that "Eurosceptic organisations receive money from the EU".
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
It would appear that posters are going out of their way to avoid discussing the contention from the OP, namely, that receipt of EU monies make the Green movement "pro-EU".

Do posters believe that Eurosceptics in the European Parliament are also pro-EU because they too receive money from the EU?

Or was the original contention just nonsense?
How is discussing the methodolgy of how scamming money on derived products from EU ETS going out of the way from the title of the thread?
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
Where was it established that "Eurosceptic organisations receive money from the EU".
UKIP, Sinn Fein...Libertas would have received EU money too, if they'd been successful.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top