Thursday, December 10, 2009

'Kabon Kaubois' oa 'Diwai *Dingos'

By Paul Oates

'Kabon Kaubois' oa 'Diwai *Dingos'

(*see a definition of an Oz dingo below)

In reference to the Aljazeera article highlighted on the Masalai.blog; I would like to offer a few suggestions. Firstly, while those in this program who are depicted as trying to broker carbon trading deals with forest owners appear to be Australians, please don't 'tar' all Australian's with the same brush.

Not all of us Australians tout dubious credentials and even more murky promises of cargo cult type wealth to innocent villagers. There are three main threads here that are being intentionally intertwined for disinformation and personal gain.

1. Carbon Trading as part of the global concerns about global warming,
2. Carbon Credits and Carbon Sinks and the promise of free wealth, and
3. Preserving forests and providing for forest depending people.

Global Warming and Carbon Trading - Currently being discussed at the Copenhagen Conference. In essence, the issue is whether by reducing the gas Carbon Dioxide emissions caused by burning carbon (wood, paper, coal,petrol, dung, or by millions of people breathing, etc.) we can reduce the current global warming and so prevent the Earth's climate changing.

The theory is that 'Developed' countries will have to reduce their emissions or be fined and that 'Developing' countries will be allowed to continue to pollute the world because they should be permitted to catch up to the developed countries in economic power.

Currently at Copenhagen, a spanner has just been thrown into the works by as mall Pacific country (Kiribati) who has suddenly realised the 'con' in this proposal that by allowing China and India (err.. sorry, developing countries), to continue to produce more and more emissions is not going to stop global warming.

Their Islands will disappear anyway. Carbon Credits (or Emissions Trading Schemes), is a concept that is being bandied around as a methodology for reducing Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The idea is that those producing CO2 by burning carbon to produce energy in the form of electricity or to run industry and commerce be 'fined' for doing so.

The money so gained from this 'fine' (read new tax), will be simplistically'given' to those people who can use their naturally occurring assets (e.g.forests, crops, etc.), to absorb this carbon dioxide. In addition and by way of disinformation, this concept is also being touted as a way to preserve existing forests as it is claimed, rich countries will pay poor countries to not log their forests.
No rationale is offered as to how this will stop people selling their trees once the credits are paid out however. Preserving forests for forest owners - This is an entirely separate argument and should not be confused with the previous two issues. Forests owners must be educated in the benefits of retaining their forests rather than selling them off for a pittance and then suffering from the effects of not having their previously available resource.

What is clearly portrayed in the Aljazeera program are 'Kabon Kaubois' who are promising wealth and services to people who have no real idea of what the actual global issues are. These charlatans are clearly in cahoots with other PNG 'people' of dubious character who also see a chance of hopping in on the new wealth game in town.

For example, selling bogus Carbon Credits and skimming 10% or more of the millions being bantered around by corporations desperate to claim they are reducing their carbon footprints. Enter the PNG government who quite naturally see its role as receiving any millions or billions on offer, on behalf of the PNG people.

Whether any of this potential windfall ever reaches the actual owners of the forests is questionable, given the current situation whereby all government monies seem to disappear before they actually achieve any real benefits to the people at the kunai roots.

What these Australian "dingoes' are actually promising is to negotiate a direct deal between CO2 producing countries and the PNG forest owners. In this they have no legal right to do so as this is a government responsibility. They are promising potential benefits to the people at village level when they have no intention nor ability to make these or anything happen.

If they ever did receive any money themselves, will they then go back to the village people and spend their money in ensuring the village people get what was promised them? i.e. Services, roads, airstrips, etc. I don't think so.

So rather than calling the people who are trying to gain a share in a cargo cult type wealth scheme as Kabon Kaubois, I prefer to refer to these people as 'Dinki Dai Diwai Dingoes'. That's Oz for ..... well you get the idea.
________________________________________________________________

Courtesy of the Macquarie Dictionary

dingo /'dinggoh/ noun, plural dingoes, dingos.

1. the Australian wild dog, Canis familiaris dingo, introduced by the Aborigines, often tawny-yellow in colour, with erect ears, a bushy tail and distinctive gait, and with a call resembling a howl or yelp rather than abark; native dog.

2. -a. a contemptible person; coward. b. one who shirks responsibility or evades difficult situations.

verb (i)

3. to act in a cowardly manner.

verb (t)

4. to shirk, evade, or avoid; to spoil or ruin.

phrase

5. dingo on someone, to betray someone. [Australian Aboriginal; Dharug din-gu domesticated dingo]

Labels:

'Kabon Kaubois' oa 'Diwai *Dingos'

By Paul Oates

'Kabon Kaubois' oa 'Diwai *Dingos'

(*see a definition of an Oz dingo below)

In reference to the Aljazeera article highlighted on the Masalai.blog; I would like to offer a few suggestions. Firstly, while those in this program who are depicted as trying to broker carbon trading deals with forest owners appear to be Australians, please don't 'tar' all Australian's with the same brush.

Not all of us Australians tout dubious credentials and even more murky promises of cargo cult type wealth to innocent villagers. There are three main threads here that are being intentionally intertwined for disinformation and personal gain.

1. Carbon Trading as part of the global concerns about global warming,
2. Carbon Credits and Carbon Sinks and the promise of free wealth, and
3. Preserving forests and providing for forest depending people.

Global Warming and Carbon Trading - Currently being discussed at the Copenhagen Conference. In essence, the issue is whether by reducing the gas Carbon Dioxide emissions caused by burning carbon (wood, paper, coal,petrol, dung, or by millions of people breathing, etc.) we can reduce the current global warming and so prevent the Earth's climate changing.

The theory is that 'Developed' countries will have to reduce their emissions or be fined and that 'Developing' countries will be allowed to continue to pollute the world because they should be permitted to catch up to the developed countries in economic power.

Currently at Copenhagen, a spanner has just been thrown into the works by as mall Pacific country (Kiribati) who has suddenly realised the 'con' in this proposal that by allowing China and India (err.. sorry, developing countries), to continue to produce more and more emissions is not going to stop global warming.

Their Islands will disappear anyway. Carbon Credits (or Emissions Trading Schemes), is a concept that is being bandied around as a methodology for reducing Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The idea is that those producing CO2 by burning carbon to produce energy in the form of electricity or to run industry and commerce be 'fined' for doing so.

The money so gained from this 'fine' (read new tax), will be simplistically'given' to those people who can use their naturally occurring assets (e.g.forests, crops, etc.), to absorb this carbon dioxide. In addition and by way of disinformation, this concept is also being touted as a way to preserve existing forests as it is claimed, rich countries will pay poor countries to not log their forests.
No rationale is offered as to how this will stop people selling their trees once the credits are paid out however. Preserving forests for forest owners - This is an entirely separate argument and should not be confused with the previous two issues. Forests owners must be educated in the benefits of retaining their forests rather than selling them off for a pittance and then suffering from the effects of not having their previously available resource.

What is clearly portrayed in the Aljazeera program are 'Kabon Kaubois' who are promising wealth and services to people who have no real idea of what the actual global issues are. These charlatans are clearly in cahoots with other PNG 'people' of dubious character who also see a chance of hopping in on the new wealth game in town.

For example, selling bogus Carbon Credits and skimming 10% or more of the millions being bantered around by corporations desperate to claim they are reducing their carbon footprints. Enter the PNG government who quite naturally see its role as receiving any millions or billions on offer, on behalf of the PNG people.

Whether any of this potential windfall ever reaches the actual owners of the forests is questionable, given the current situation whereby all government monies seem to disappear before they actually achieve any real benefits to the people at the kunai roots.

What these Australian "dingoes' are actually promising is to negotiate a direct deal between CO2 producing countries and the PNG forest owners. In this they have no legal right to do so as this is a government responsibility. They are promising potential benefits to the people at village level when they have no intention nor ability to make these or anything happen.

If they ever did receive any money themselves, will they then go back to the village people and spend their money in ensuring the village people get what was promised them? i.e. Services, roads, airstrips, etc. I don't think so.

So rather than calling the people who are trying to gain a share in a cargo cult type wealth scheme as Kabon Kaubois, I prefer to refer to these people as 'Dinki Dai Diwai Dingoes'. That's Oz for ..... well you get the idea.
________________________________________________________________

Courtesy of the Macquarie Dictionary

dingo /'dinggoh/ noun, plural dingoes, dingos.

1. the Australian wild dog, Canis familiaris dingo, introduced by the Aborigines, often tawny-yellow in colour, with erect ears, a bushy tail and distinctive gait, and with a call resembling a howl or yelp rather than abark; native dog.

2. -a. a contemptible person; coward. b. one who shirks responsibility or evades difficult situations.

verb (i)

3. to act in a cowardly manner.

verb (t)

4. to shirk, evade, or avoid; to spoil or ruin.

phrase

5. dingo on someone, to betray someone. [Australian Aboriginal; Dharug din-gu domesticated dingo]

Labels:

'Kabon Kaubois' oa 'Diwai *Dingos'

By Paul Oates

'Kabon Kaubois' oa 'Diwai *Dingos'

(*see a definition of an Oz dingo below)

In reference to the Aljazeera article highlighted on the Masalai.blog; I would like to offer a few suggestions. Firstly, while those in this program who are depicted as trying to broker carbon trading deals with forest owners appear to be Australians, please don't 'tar' all Australian's with the same brush.

Not all of us Australians tout dubious credentials and even more murky promises of cargo cult type wealth to innocent villagers. There are three main threads here that are being intentionally intertwined for disinformation and personal gain.

1. Carbon Trading as part of the global concerns about global warming,
2. Carbon Credits and Carbon Sinks and the promise of free wealth, and
3. Preserving forests and providing for forest depending people.

Global Warming and Carbon Trading - Currently being discussed at the Copenhagen Conference. In essence, the issue is whether by reducing the gas Carbon Dioxide emissions caused by burning carbon (wood, paper, coal,petrol, dung, or by millions of people breathing, etc.) we can reduce the current global warming and so prevent the Earth's climate changing.

The theory is that 'Developed' countries will have to reduce their emissions or be fined and that 'Developing' countries will be allowed to continue to pollute the world because they should be permitted to catch up to the developed countries in economic power.

Currently at Copenhagen, a spanner has just been thrown into the works by as mall Pacific country (Kiribati) who has suddenly realised the 'con' in this proposal that by allowing China and India (err.. sorry, developing countries), to continue to produce more and more emissions is not going to stop global warming.

Their Islands will disappear anyway. Carbon Credits (or Emissions Trading Schemes), is a concept that is being bandied around as a methodology for reducing Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The idea is that those producing CO2 by burning carbon to produce energy in the form of electricity or to run industry and commerce be 'fined' for doing so.

The money so gained from this 'fine' (read new tax), will be simplistically'given' to those people who can use their naturally occurring assets (e.g.forests, crops, etc.), to absorb this carbon dioxide. In addition and by way of disinformation, this concept is also being touted as a way to preserve existing forests as it is claimed, rich countries will pay poor countries to not log their forests.
No rationale is offered as to how this will stop people selling their trees once the credits are paid out however. Preserving forests for forest owners - This is an entirely separate argument and should not be confused with the previous two issues. Forests owners must be educated in the benefits of retaining their forests rather than selling them off for a pittance and then suffering from the effects of not having their previously available resource.

What is clearly portrayed in the Aljazeera program are 'Kabon Kaubois' who are promising wealth and services to people who have no real idea of what the actual global issues are. These charlatans are clearly in cahoots with other PNG 'people' of dubious character who also see a chance of hopping in on the new wealth game in town.

For example, selling bogus Carbon Credits and skimming 10% or more of the millions being bantered around by corporations desperate to claim they are reducing their carbon footprints. Enter the PNG government who quite naturally see its role as receiving any millions or billions on offer, on behalf of the PNG people.

Whether any of this potential windfall ever reaches the actual owners of the forests is questionable, given the current situation whereby all government monies seem to disappear before they actually achieve any real benefits to the people at the kunai roots.

What these Australian "dingoes' are actually promising is to negotiate a direct deal between CO2 producing countries and the PNG forest owners. In this they have no legal right to do so as this is a government responsibility. They are promising potential benefits to the people at village level when they have no intention nor ability to make these or anything happen.

If they ever did receive any money themselves, will they then go back to the village people and spend their money in ensuring the village people get what was promised them? i.e. Services, roads, airstrips, etc. I don't think so.

So rather than calling the people who are trying to gain a share in a cargo cult type wealth scheme as Kabon Kaubois, I prefer to refer to these people as 'Dinki Dai Diwai Dingoes'. That's Oz for ..... well you get the idea.
________________________________________________________________

Courtesy of the Macquarie Dictionary

dingo /'dinggoh/ noun, plural dingoes, dingos.

1. the Australian wild dog, Canis familiaris dingo, introduced by the Aborigines, often tawny-yellow in colour, with erect ears, a bushy tail and distinctive gait, and with a call resembling a howl or yelp rather than abark; native dog.

2. -a. a contemptible person; coward. b. one who shirks responsibility or evades difficult situations.

verb (i)

3. to act in a cowardly manner.

verb (t)

4. to shirk, evade, or avoid; to spoil or ruin.

phrase

5. dingo on someone, to betray someone. [Australian Aboriginal; Dharug din-gu domesticated dingo]

Labels: