http://www.sunreign.com/info/SelfDefenceAgainstExtinctionSpecies are going extinct at a record pace since the start of the
industiral age. Hunting, fishing, pollution and habitat destruction are
all good explanations with the recently added newcomer: Climate Change.
Climate Change has been known to happen since the 50' and time and time
again industrialists have papered over an obvious major change to the
environment, a change with effects the scientific community is now
slowly grasping.
In short climate change due to carbon emissions is triggering a natural proces of release of methane hydrates. This has happened before,
triggered by vulcanic eruptions.
The methane hydrates create a positive feedback, or runnaway process of
rapid warming that arrests the ocean currents. Some reseach suggest
that in the past this alone could have resulted in massive 'Methane
conflegrations' as
5%-15% methane/air mixture becomes explosive.
But as it is, whith the release of methna hydrates, the oceans will
warm more and their movement will grind to a halt. In the process they
go anoxic, which precludes H2S from being absobed in the deep ocean, so
it is eventually emited into the atmosphere.
Hydrogen sulfide is as toxic as
hydrogen cyanide,
it will kill the earobic species at the ocean surface. Eventually the
toxic gas will kill most life in our biosphere, as it semed to have done
during previous mass extinctions.
"
Hydrogen sulfide has been implicated in some of the several mass ex..." (source Wikipedia)
The sequence of events can be constructed in one afternoon of googling
and seaching scientific publications. It is not deep knowledge, it is
not complex knowledge. It simply illustrates the fact that the lifeless
chemical reality of planet earth is still dominant, pushed to the
background by life, a quite sensitive guest.
More info to be found here.
I can draw several inferences from this evidence:
1. A number of individuals is racing us towards a treshold of natural positive feedback
2. Once this treshold is reached human life on earth including mine will be toast as will be anybodies posessions
3. I can act right now to slow this proces down or stop it/counter it in many ways
Stated simpler : Someone is killing me, waht am allowed to do about it?
Self defence
Normally if something is trying to kill you you are allowed to defend yourself. You are allowed to kill someone who is pointing a gun at you
that you believe he may use. If there is no way to avoid it there is.
If you have time to respond you should get law enforcement to assist
you. So what if someone is doing something that you, with the help of a
number of scientists, can deduce will kill you eventually, but you can
not convince the police they should intervene on your behalf? What if
the killer keeps running after you but the police does not believe you
are in danger.
Because of availability we test dutch law. Regarding selfdefense it states:
"Niet strafbaar is hij, die een feit begaat, geboden door de
noodzakelijke verdediging van eigen of eens anders lijf, eerbaarheid of
goed, tegen ogenblikkelijke, wederrechtelijke aanranding"
"Legal
are those that act, forced by the necessary protection of on... . In dutch law the act can be a criminal offence, but by the rule it is excluded form being prosecuted.
A dutch citizen is allowed to arrest a suspect if he is caught in the
act. He/she may even use force to detain the suspect until the police
arrives. Whatever means we (legaly) use is recognized as a criminal act
in itself and has to be proportional to the resistance we face.
All this is only allowed if the threat is instantaneous or we catch the
criminal in the act. If we find out later we are not allowed to do
anything except call the police.
The Assault
In the above law, "forced by the necessary protection of one's own or someone elses body, honour or property, against instantaneous unlawful
assault" seems to indicate the application to a close encounter with an
assailant. But can this interpretation be stretched? And What if it is
multiple assailants? What if the acts of the assailant are not
constituted as a crime in itself. What if they are not expressly
directed towards me (like a drunk doing pirouettes with a machine gun).
What if the police does not respond to the request for help, while there
are withesses that can confirm that an assault is ongoing?
How if an assault can not be esablished, can we translate the threat of extinction into something we can respond to?
How convinced to I need to be of the evidence of the assault? How clear
does damage need to be, for example if a man is pouring acid into the
crib of my child, can I act without knowing whether my child is hurt?
Can I act without knowing whether the fluid is acid?
If the information on the deadly effects of climate change are known to
the industrial participants, then does their continued activity
constitute a crime in itself? The fishing industry surly does not behave
like a normal business? The oil industry surely does not behave like it
has a conscience?
The defence
Self defence in Holland has to be proportional. If I am stuck in a room and an evil man throws in a gas grenade, I am allowed to nerutralize it.
Am I allowed to neutralize a refinery, a facility that brings toxic
fuel into the world that will push us closer to the treshold?
Holding a baseball club is legal. Swinging it towards a person is not legal.
Script
For the purpose of argument we may asume the situations:
1. Ecological situation is considered a legaly valid assault
2. It is not considered such, but an individual is accepted as believeing it is
3. What actions are justified in response? What is proportional to anihalition of mankind?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/06/wyoming-grand-teton-nat...
US national park faces sale
Governor of Wyoming threatens to sell chunk of Grand Teton unless White House boosts state's education budget
Some might call it blackmail. The governor of Wyoming calls it desperation.
Governor Dave Freudenthal is threatening to sell off a chunk of one of America's most beautiful national parks unless the Obama administration comes up with more money to pay for education in the financially beleaguered state.
He says he will auction land valued at $125m (£80m) in the Grand Teton
national park, one of the country's most stunning wildernesses. Part of
the park was donated by John Rockefeller Jr.
Other parts belong to the state government including two parcels of land of about 550
hectares (1,360 acres) designated as school trust lands to be "managed
for maximum profit" to generate funds for education in Wyoming.
At present Wyoming raises only about $3,000 a year from the land by
leasing it to a cattle rancher. Officials have menacingly suggested that
the property might make a nice site for a ski lodge.
Freudenthal recently wrote to the interior department asking the federal government
to trade the park land for mineral royalties. "If the federal government
won't dance with us, we will go look for another partner," said
Freudenthal. "The purpose is to force the federal government to come to
the table."
Washington says it is negotiating, but Freudenthal says the issue has dragged on for a decade. "The way the federal
government has treated us to date is that we are like the people who own
the land, but they figure there isn't anything else they can do with
it," he said.
Previous negotiations led Washington to offer 800,000 acres of federal land in a swap but state officials rejected it
as "trash land" not worth nearly as much as their "prime, in-park real
estate".
"I admit we aren't as bright as those boys on the Potomac," said Freudenthal. "But this ain't our first county fair."
Canada's Biggest MEPP in Dire Straits?
ZeroHedge
Tony Van Alphen of the Toronto Star reports, Workers in big pension plan could soon face cuts in benefits:
Canada’s biggest multi-employer pension plan says thousands of members could
soon face future benefit cuts of 15 to 50 per cent depending on
negotiations with companies.
The Canadian Commercial Workers Industry Pension Plan (CCWIPP), with 130,000 active members, said in a recent letter to members that
companies in Ontario will need to increase their contributions by up to
40 cents an hour per worker by Sept.1 just to maintain current levels
for future benefits.
Wayne Hanley, a senior trustee of the plan and president of the United Food
and Commercial Workers, also said Thursday that if some employers don’t
agree to negotiate adequate contributions in new contracts or in
special bargaining, the amount of future benefits could quickly plunge
by 50 per cent.
“If there is no additional negotiated contributions as of Sept.1, then
members of the plan with that employer will go on to a benefit scale
that is up to 50 per cent of what they are accruing on a future basis,”
Hanley said in an interview.
He added the situation of continuing funding shortfalls in the plan could lead to labour unrest.
“There may be a few strikes over this,” Hanley said. “This is an important issue to the members.”
The letter from trustees also disclosed that inactive members who have
left a contributing employer but are still eligible for a pension will
take a 40-per-cent hit on future benefits next month. However, those
inactive members over 50 years of age who would be eligible to draw a
pension now won’t be affected by the reductions.
The plan, which has assets of more than $1.58 billion, provides benefits
to about 20,000 retired union members and their spouses. It also has
130,000 active members working at more than 300 employers and another
150,000 deferred or inactive members.
The squeeze on the plan’s finances has not affected the pensions of retirees or accrued benefits of active members.
In the letter, the trustees said a significant recovery in 2009 hasn’t
made up for the steep decline in financial markets in the second half
of 2008.
“Assets have shrunk while liabilities have increased, leaving large unfunded
liabilities,” the trustees’ letter added. “The CCWIPP, like all others,
did not escape the financial crisis which has affected the funding
status of the plan considerably.”
The trustees warned members of a “benefit restructuring” a year ago but
would not comment on the possibility of any significant benefit cuts at
that time. The plan had already cut future benefits for members by 20
per cent in 2005,
In 2008, the plan posted a negative 19.6 per cent return on investment
but it turned into a 17.1-per-cent gain last year, which outpaced many
other major plans.
The plan has not released an actuarial valuation for 2009. But at the end
of 2008, actuarial liabilities topped assets by $759.3 million on a
“going concern” basis, which underscored the plan’s difficulties.
Trustees representing the union have pushed employers to jack up their contributions to bolster the plan for more than a year.
Hanley said some companies such as the Metro Inc. grocery store chain have
“stepped up” in bargaining to make the adequate hourly contributions to
maintain future benefit levels.
But he said it is a major issue in current bargaining for a new contract covering thousands of workers at Loblaw Cos.
Greg Hurst, a prominent Vancouver-based pension consultant, said active
plan
members not close to retirement should be “very concerned” if their company closes and they become a deferred or inactive member and a
potential victim of a 40-per- cent cut.
“The impact of a decision or circumstance (which may not be in the
individual’s control) that results in termination from the plan prior
to retirement is draconian and extraordinary,” Hurst said. “If I were a
member, I would make my concerns known to the Financial Services
Commission of Ontario and my local MPP.”
A court fined nine trustees of the plan including Hanley and founder
Cliff Evans a total of $202,500 earlier this year for spending too much
of the fund’s money on questionable investments in Caribbean hotels
and resorts.
On those "questionable investments", Mark Zigler
and Anthony Guidon of Koskie Zigler LLP were the defence lawyers for 5
of the 9 trustees for the Canadian Commercial Workers Industry Pension
Plan,
whom the Ontario Court of Justice found guilty on December 7, 2009 of
the offence of failure to supervise the Investment Committee as was
prudent and
reasonable, as it related to the 10% limit that was to have restricted
the
plan's investment in Caribbean resorts and hotel properties, contrary to
section 22(7) of the Pension Benefits Act. Madame Justice Beverly Brown
imposed a fine of $18,000 on each defendant for a total fine of $162,000
plus victim surcharge (you can read more on this case by clicking here).
I went over the CCWIPP's 2009 Annual Report. The results were impressive, especially in public markets and hedge funds:
- The Canadian Commercial Workers Industry Pension Plan (the “Plan”) had a
strong year in 2009, achieving an aggregate rate of return of 17.1%,
which outperformed the average Canadian pension fund return of 15.4%.
- The Plan’s investment portfolio generated investment income of $232
million, increasing its net assets to approximately $1.6 billion.
- The equity component (both domestic and foreign) of the Plan’s investment portfolio realized a combined 68.3% return in 2009, which outperformed each of its respective
benchmarks (S&P/TSX Composite and MCSI World - CAD) of 35.1% and 12.9%. As at
December 31, 2009, the Plan’s total equity allocation was valued at $657
million.
- The fixed income component of the Plan’s investment portfolio achieved a 7.5% rate of return in 2009, which outperformed its
benchmark (DEX Universe Bond Index) of 5.4%. Included in the Plan’s
fixed income investments are a series of segregated long-term bond
portfolios, collectively valued at $268 million, which are under
management by CIBC Global Asset Management.
- The hedge fund component of the Plan’s investment portfolio achieved a 32.9% rate of return in 2009, which outperformed its benchmark (HFRI Hedge Fund of Funds Index - CAD)
of negative 3.8%. The Plan invests in hedge funds in an effort to
increase diversification and generate returns, in both rising and
falling markets, that are not highly-correlated to major stock market
indices. As at December 31, 2009, the Plan’s total hedge fund allocation
was valued at $90 million.
- The private equity/private debt component of the Plan’s investment portfolio achieved a negative 28.2% rate of return in 2009. However, based on the assets held within this asset class, there is no
industry-recognized benchmark from which to draw a comparison. The
portfolio generated income of $5.3 million, which was offset by: a)
currency adjustment in the amount of $38.6 million, resulting from the
appreciation of the Canadian dollar; and, b) a negative market value
adjustment in the amount of $55.2 million, resulting from the economic
impact of the post-2008 worldwide reduction in travel on the Plan’s
hospitality-related investments. As at December 31, 2009, the Plan’s
total private equity/private debt allocation was valued at $233 million.
- The real estate and loan component of the Plan’s investment portfolio realized a negative
0.8% rate of return in 2009. As in the case of private equity/private debt, based on the assets held
within this asset class, there is no industry-recognized benchmark from
which to draw a comparison. As at December 31, 2009, the Plan’s total
real estate allocation was valued at $51 million, the largest portion of
which is comprised of the Plan’s investment in Citi Plaza
(www.citiplazalondon.com), a mixed-use commercial property located in
London, Ontario.
Weakness in 2009 was concentrated in the private equity and private debt portfolio, which should recover in
2010. However, I'm not familiar with the funds they chose to invest in
this space, and cannot comment further on their performance and track
record.
The outperformance in hedge funds is undoubtedly related to the strategies selected. Remember, 2009 was the year of big beta, so I'm not surprised their
hedge fund portfolio did well relative to the HFRI Fund of Funds Index.
The latter is not an appropriate benchmark if they're investing all the
assets in L/S funds or other strategies which did extremely well last year as equity markets
rallied sharply off their March lows. (Note:
HFRI Fund Weighted Composite Index, HFRI Equity Hedge Index, HFRI
Convertible Arbitrage Index, and HFRI Fixed Income Corporate Index
returned 20%, 25%, 58% and 31% respectively in 2009. For details, click here).
But the biggest concern remains the plan's funded status:
The Plan’s actuary, Buck Consultants, prepares an annual valuation of the
Plan’s financial position, which is filed with the Ontario regulatory
authorities (Financial Services Commission of Ontario). The most recent
valuation established a going-concern funding deficiency of $760 million
as at December 31, 2008, based on a $1.68 billion actuarial value6 of
assets and total liabilities of $2.44 billion. A going concern funding
deficiency is not uncommon for a multi-employer pension plan (MEPP),
particularly in the aftermath of the 2008 market meltdown.
The going-concern funded status assumes the Plan continues indefinitely. The
Plan was 69% funded7 as at December 31, 2008, a decline of 12% over the
previous year, and not surprising given the financial turmoil of 2008.
The very favourable investment performance in 2009 will have a positive
impact on the financial position of the Plan.
On a windup basis the Plan was 42% funded as of December 31, 2008, meaning
that, if the Plan had been wound up on that date, accrued benefits
would have had to be reduced significantly.
As part of the process in dealing with the deficiency in the 2008 valuation, the Trustees
have approved a Funding Improvement Plan (FIP) designed to provide the
Plan with a more solid financial foundation. In addition, the Plan is
electing to become a Specified Ontario MEPP (SOMEPP), which allows for a
more favourable funding framework to be applied.
Hopefully none of the companies will be closing their doors anytime soon. One
major governance concern I have is in regards to the
trustees:
The Plan is administered by a Board of Trustees, consisting of an equal number of individuals appointed by
UFCW Canada and by the participating employers.
The Trustees receive no personal benefit, financial gain or fee payment
from the Trust Fund for their role as fiduciaries of the Plan.
I happen to think you need some outside, independent experts (eg., an independent professor of finance with no industry ties whatsoever or a
retired senior pension officer) to help them manage this fund. Trustees
should be paid and they should be held accountable for the decisions
they take on behalf of plan members. Most of these multi-employer plans
suffer from poor governance, leaving them exposed to corruption and
questionable decision-making.
Finally, while the funded status is a concern, the situation isn't
hopeless. It's just that they need to raise contribution rates to close
the gap and make up for the shortfall left after 2008. They're not
alone. Others are also struggling with the same issues, which bolsters
the case for an enhanced Canada Pension Plan (CPP).
