EcoRadio

Category: A sustainable economy

  • Fed Sees Up to $599 Billion in Bank Losses

    Fed Sees Up to $599 Billion in Bank Losses

    Worst-Case Capital Shortfall of $75 Billion at 10 Banks Is Less Than Many Feared; Some Shares Rise on Hopes Crisis Is Easing

    By DAVID ENRICH, ROBIN SIDEL and DEBORAH SOLOMON

    The federal government projected that 19 of the nation’s biggest banks could suffer losses of up to $599 billion through the end of next year if the economy performs worse than expected and ordered 10 of them to raise a combined $74.6 billion in capital to cushion themselves.

    The much-anticipated stress-test results unleashed a scramble by the weakest banks to find money and a push by the strongest ones to escape the government shadow of taxpayer-funded re

     

    Bank by Bank Findings

    View Interactive

    The Federal Reserve’s worst-case estimates of banks’ total losses and capital shortfalls were smaller than some had feared. Optimists interpreted the Fed’s findings as evidence that the worst is over for the industry. But questions remain about the stress tests’ rigor, in part since the Fed scaled back some projected losses in the face of pressure from banks.

    The government’s tests measured potential losses on mortgages, commercial loans, securities and other assets held by the stress-tested banks, ranging from giants Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. to regional institutions such as SunTrust Banks Inc. and Fifth Third Bancorp. The government’s “more adverse” scenario includes two-year cumulative losses of 9.1% on total loans, worse than the peak losses of the 1930s.

    Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Thursday that he is “reasonably confident” that banks will be able to plug the capital holes through private infusions, alleviating the need for Washington to further enmesh itself in the banking system.

    Banks also said they will consider selling businesses or issuing new stock to meet the toughened capital standards.

    The information provided by the stress tests will “make it easier for banks to raise new equity from private sources,” Mr. Geithner said. Still, he added, “We have a lot of work to do…in repairing the financial system.”

    Some of the banks told to add capital raced to accomplish that by tapping public markets. On Thursday, Wells Fargo & Co., which the Fed said needed to raise $13.7 billion, laid plans for a $6 billion common-stock offering. Morgan Stanley, facing a $1.8 billion deficit, said it will sell $2 billion of stock and $3 billion of debt that isn’t guaranteed by the U.S. government.

    If successful, the offerings “should be a meaningful step in restoring a modicum of confidence to the banks,” said David A. Havens, a managing director at Hexagon Securities. “It indicates that even the big messy banks are able to attract private capital.”

    Shares of more than a dozen stress-tested banks rose in after-hours trading as the government’s announcement soothed jitters about the industry’s immediate capital needs. Bank of America shares climbed 3.6% to $13.99, while Citigroup was up 6.3% to $4.05. Fifth Third jumped 19% to $6.35. SunTrust fell 2.5% to $18.05, and Wells Fargo slipped 0.9% to $24.54.

    WSJ’s Dave Kansas tells you what to do if your bank has failed the government’s stress tests.Nine of the stress-tested banks — including titans like J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Wall Street’s Goldman Sachs Group Inc. as well as several regional institutions — have adequate capital. That finding essentially represents a seal of approval from the Fed.

    The others need to raise anywhere from about $600 million for PNC Financial Services Group Inc. to $33.9 billion for Bank of America. In between are several other regional lenders: Fifth Third, which needs to raise $1.1 billion; KeyCorp, $1.8 billion; Regions Financial Corp., $2.5 billion; and SunTrust, $2.2 billion.

    Experts warn that the tests could have a serious unintended consequence: Loans could be harder to come by for consumers and businesses. That’s because the government’s intense focus on thicker capital cushions might prompt banks to hoard cash and further curtail lending, said Jim Eckenrode, banking research executive at TowerGroup, a financial consulting firm. He said banks will have less room to offer consumers low interest rates, while corporate customers may have a tougher time getting financing for commercial real-estate and property development.

    That would undercut a key goal of the Obama administration, which has been pushing banks to lend more in order to jump-start the economy.

    The test results were vigorously contested by some banks, which argued they were superficial and didn’t reflect significant differences in the health of various banks’ loan portfolios.

    In a news release Thursday, Regions publicly criticized the testing process. The Birmingham, Ala., bank said the Fed’s loss assumptions were “unrealistically high.” Regions said it “questions whether it should be required to raise additional capital now to provide for a two-year adverse economic scenario,” given recent hints that the economy may have hit bottom.

    With the tests complete, Washington’s effort to clean up the banking system now shifts into a new, potentially messy phase. While most of the banks that need capital are likely to be able to find it, analysts and bankers say a few others are likely to end up being largely owned by the U.S. government due to their inability to raise capital from private investors.

    Meanwhile, the tests don’t address a sea of problems confronting many midsize and smaller banks.

    Federal officials have repeatedly vowed to support the 19 banks, which essentially have been labeled too big to fail. Those reassurances have propelled the companies’ shares to their highest levels in months. The White House, Treasury Department and Fed hope that by restoring confidence in the industry, private investors will help troubled banks shore up their finances, eliminating the need for taxpayer-financed rescues.

    There are some encouraging signs. In recent weeks, a handful of healthy banks — ranging from giants like Goldman Sachs to Denver’s 34-branch Guaranty Bancorp — have raised money by selling stock in public offerings. That represents a seismic shift from earlier this year, when many investors refused to touch any bank stocks.

    “What we’re starting to hear from investors is a view that these companies were oversold and, although things are bad, they’re not as bad as was baked into the assumptions,” said Brian Sterling, co-head of investment banking at Sandler O’Neill & Partners in New York.

    Some Fed-blessed banks are likely to pursue public equity or debt offerings to flex their financial muscles and help pay back the funds that the government invested in them.

    State Street Corp. Chairman and Chief Executive Ronald E. Logue said the government’s conclusion that the Boston company needs no additional capital puts it “in a position to consider repayment of the TARP preferred stock and warrants under the appropriate circumstances.”

    State Street, one of the largest managers of index funds, got a $2 billion taxpayer-funded infusion under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal incorrectly reported that State Street had been told to come up with more capital.

    Bankers acknowledge that investors’ appetites are limited. Investors say not enough private funds are available to fill the big banks’ financial holes.

    “I think there is some demand in the market to raise a certain amount, but whether you could find $60 billion of capital in the next couple of months is highly unlikely,” said Joshua Siegel, managing principal at StoneCastle Partners LLC, a New York firm that invests in banks.

    Banks that can’t coax private investors have some other options. They can sell assets or business lines, a strategy already under way at Bank of America and Citigroup. They can push investors to swap so-called preferred shares for common stock, padding a measure of capital known as tangible common equity.

    During a Thursday conference with investors, Bank of America Chairman and Chief Executive Kenneth Lewis said, “Our game plan is designed to help get the government out of our bank as quickly as possible,” and vowed to abandon a loss-sharing agreement with the U.S. on $118 billion in assets.

    But bankers and analysts say at least a few lenders are in a vise. Too weak to lure investors, and lacking a large pool of privately held preferred stock, these banks likely will have to turn to Washington for help. Fifth Third and Regions both said in statements Thursday that they hope to raise private funds.

    The 19 tested banks, which all have at least $100 billion in assets, accounted for most of the industry’s total loans. But the companies represent a sliver of the roughly 8,000 banks nationwide.

    Among that vast field, many banks — from regional institutions to tiny community lenders — are holding huge portfolios of rapidly souring loans. Unlike their larger rivals, these banks lack the diverse income streams to overcome the brutal operating environment.

    Analysts at RBC Capital Markets estimate that 60% of the top 100 U.S. banks that weren’t included in the stress tests would need to raise new capital based on the Fed’s loss assumptions.

    —Jane J. Kim contributed to this article.

    Write to David Enrich at david.enrich@wsj.com, Robin Sidel at robin.sidel@wsj.com and Deborah Solomon at deborah.solomon@wsj.com

  • Brits wake up to palm oil blitz

    One of the stories from this week’s Independent

    It’s an invisible ingredient, really, palm oil. You won’t find it listed on your margarine, your bread, your biscuits or your KitKat. It’s there though, under “vegetable oil”. And its impact, 7,000 miles away, is very visible indeed.

    The wildlife-rich forests of Indonesia and Malaysia are being chain-sawed to make way for palm-oil plantations. Thirty square miles are felled daily in a burst of habitat destruction that is taking place on a scale and speed almost unimaginable in the West.

    When the rainforests disappear almost all of the wildlife – including the orangutans, tigers, sun bears, bearded pigs and other endangered species – and indigenous people go. In their place come palm-oil plantations stretching for mile after mile, producing cheap oil – the cheapest cooking oil in the world – for everyday food.

    It’s not that people haven’t noticed what is going on. The United Nations has documented this rampage. Environmental groups have warned that what we buy affects what is happening in these jungles. Three years ago, Britain’s biggest supermarket, Tesco, was persuaded to join the only organisation that just might halt the chopping, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil.

    In his globe-trotting Tribe series two years ago, the TV explorer Bruce Parry was visibly moved by the sad fate of the Penan, a forest-dwelling tribe in Borneo. Most recently, the BBC’s prime-time Orangutan Diary showed the battle to create fresh habitats for “red apes” orphaned by deforestation, principally for palm oil.

    But if there’s plenty of evidence of the devastating environmental effects of palm-oil, little of it can be seen on the products in Britain’s biggest supermarkets.

    Until now, the best estimate of the number of leading supermarket products containing palm oil (Elaeis guineensis) has been one in 10, the figure quoted by Friends of the Earth in its 2005 report, “The Oil for Apes Scandal”. After a two-month investigation, The Independent has established that palm oil is used in far greater quantities. We can reveal for the first time that it is confirmed or suspected in 43 of Britain’s 100 bestselling grocery brands (see box, right), representing £6bn of the UK’s £16bn annual shopping basket for top brands. If you strip out drinks, pet food and household goods, the picture is starker still: 32 out of 62 of Britain’s top foods contain this tree-felling, wildlife-wrecking ingredient.

    It’s in the top three loaves – Warburtons, Hovis, and Kingsmill – and the bestselling margarines Flora and Clover. It’s in Special K, Crunchy Nut Cornflakes, Mr Kipling Cakes, McVitie’s Digestives and Goodfella’s pizza. It’s in KitKat, Galaxy, Dairy Milk and Wrigley’s chewing gum. It’s in Persil washing powder, Comfort fabric softener and Dove soap. It’s also in plenty of famous brands that aren’t in the top 100, such as Milkybar, Jordan’s Country Crisp and Utterly Butterly. And it’s almost certainly in thousands of supermarket own brands. Yet none of these manufacturers can prove their supply is “sustainable”.

    What, then, is “unsustainable” palm oil? Step one: log a forest and remove the most valuable species for furniture. Step two: chainsaw or burn the remaining wood releasing huge quantities of greenhouse gas. Step three: plant a palm-oil plantation. Step four: make oil from the fruit and kernels. Step five: add it to biscuits, chocolate, margarine, soaps, moisturisers and washing powder. At breakfast, when millions of us are munching toast, we’re eating a small slice of the rainforest.

    From outer space, borneo and sumatra resemble giant emerald stepping stones between Thailand and Australia. Reaching the heart of their still-massive jungles takes days of boat trips and trekking. Gibbons hoot and long-tailed macaques squawk. Mongooses and pangolins scamper through the undergrowth. Large-beaked rhinoceros hornbills soar above the forest. The huge green and black Rajah Brooke’s butterfly flutters by.

    These rainforests are honeypots for flora and fauna, among the most biodiverse places on Earth. Consider the figures. Sumatra – the size of Spain, owned by Indonesia – has 465 species of bird, 194 species of mammal, 217 species of reptile, 272 species of freshwater fish, and an estimated 10,000 species of plant. Borneo – the size of Turkey and shared between Indonesia and Malaysia – is even richer: 420 birds, 210 mammals, 254 reptiles, 368 freshwater fish and around 15,000 plants.

    All these species evolved to live in this unique forest environment. The Sumatran rhino is the smallest, hairiest and most endangered in the world; the Sumatran tiger is the smallest tiger. The black sun bear, with its U-shaped patch of white fur under its chin, is the smallest bear. Some of them are curious in the extreme: the bug-eyed western tarsier; the striped rabbit; the marled cat; and the tree-jumping clouded leopard, which feasts on pygmy squirrels and long-tailed porcupines.

    Of all the animals, though, the most famous by far is the orangutan (or “man of the jungle”). With its orange hair and long arms, the orangutan is one of our planet’s most unusual creatures. And one of the smartest, too. The Dutch anthropologist Carel van Schaik found that orangutans could perform tasks which were well beyond chimpanzees, such as making rain hats and leakproof roofs for their nests.

    The primatologist Dr Willie Smits estimates that orangutans can distinguish between 1,000 different plants, knowing which ones are edible, which are poisonous, and which cure headaches. In her book Thinkers of the Jungle, the psychology professor Anne Russon recalled that one orangutan keeper took three days to solve the mystery of who’d been stealing from the fridge. It turned out that an orangutan had been using a paperclip to pick the lock of its cage, then hiding the paperclip under its tongue.

    Along with chimpanzees, gorillas and bonobos, orangutans are great apes, sharing 97 per cent of their DNA with humans, having split from us a mere 13 million years ago. They exist only in these forests of Borneo and Sumatra, and it is their arboreal nature that leaves them so vulnerable to deforestation. Between 2004 and 2008, according to the US Great Ape Trust, the orangutan population fell by 10 per cent (to 49,600) on Borneo and by 14 per cent (to 6,600) on Sumatra. As the author Serge Wich warned: “Unless extraordinary efforts are made soon, it could become the first great-ape species to go extinct.”

    Native people too, known in Borneo as Dayaks, are under threat. About 10,000 members of the semi-nomadic Penan tribe survive but their traditional lifestyle – which includes harvesting the starchy sago tree – is being felled.

    A researcher with Survival International, the London-based human-rights organisation, returned to the UK last month with transcripts of interviews with the Penan conducted deep in the jungle. According to one headman, called Matu, hunters were increasingly returning empty-handed. “When the logging started in the Nineties, we thought we had a big problem,” he complained. “But when oil palm arrived [in 2005], logging was relegated to problem No 2. Our land and our forests have been taken by force.

    “Our fruit trees are gone, our hunting grounds are very limited, and the rivers are polluted, so the fish are dying. Before, there were lots of wild boar around here. Now, we only find one every two or three months. In the documents, all of our land has been given to the company.”

    “There were no discussions,” said another Penan. “The company just put up signs saying the government had given them permission to plant oil palm on our land.”

    Indonesia is trying to crack down on illegal foresting, but corruption is rife hundreds of miles from Jakarta. Satellite pictures show logging has encroached on 90 per cent of Borneo’s national parks – and according to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP): “New estimates suggest 98 per cent of [Indonesia’s] forest may be destroyed by 2022, the lowland forest much sooner.”

    In its 2007 report, “The Last Stand of the Orangutan”, UNEP warned that forest rangers were outnumbered and outgunned by logging guards with military training and automatic weapons – and faced “high and sometimes lethal risks” in confronting them. The programme’s executive director Achim Steiner wrote: “The driving forces are not impoverished farmers, but what appears to be well-organised companies with heavy machinery and strong international links to the global markets.”

    In its own way, palm oil is a wonder plant. Astonishingly productive, its annual yield is 3.6 tonnes a hectare compared with half a tonne for soy or rapeseed. Originally found in West Africa, palm oil is uniquely “fractionable” when cooked, meaning its properties can be easily separated for different products. Although high in artery-clogging saturated fat, it is healthier than hydrogenated fats. For manufacturers, there is another significant benefit. At £400 a tonne, it is cheaper than soy, rapeseed or sunflower.

    Some 38m tonnes of palm oil are produced globally, about 75 per cent in Malaysia and Indonesia. Borneo’s 11,000 square miles of plantations produce 10m tonnes a year while Sumatra’s 14,000 square miles yield 13m tonnes.

    Since 1990, the amount of land used for palm-oil production has increased by 43 per cent. Demand is rising at between six and 10 per cent a year. China’s billion-plus population is the biggest consumer, importing 18 per cent of global supply. About 16 per cent arrives in the EU.

    In the UK, almost every major food manufacturer uses palm oil, among them Kellogg’s, Cadbury, Mars, Kraft, Unilever, Premier Foods, Northern Foods and Associated British Foods (ABF). Companies typically say they are working to source sustainable supplies – and insist their use is “small”, “very small” or “minute”.

    The US household giant Procter & Gamble, which uses palm oil in detergents, shampoos and soaps, says: “P&G uses very little palm oil – about 1 per cent of a worldwide production of palm and its derivatives.” One per cent of global production is 380,000 tonnes a year. P&G says it hopes to source a sustainable supply by 2015 – six years’ time.

    Right now no multinational can vouch that its supply is sustainable. The Anglo-Dutch household giant Unilever, the world’s biggest user of palm oil, is swallowing up 1.6m tonnes a year, 4 per cent of global supply. It admits the product causes huge damage, but believes it has a solution. Together with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Unilever set up the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) in 2004. For its first four years – to the frustration of green groups – the RSPO talked, devising eight principles and 39 practical criteria designed to protect native peoples, plantation workers, small farmers and wildlife.

    Forty per cent of palm-oil suppliers are now members of the RSPO and it hopes all of them will eventually join. Members promise not to chainsaw any virgin forest; but they are still allowed to chop down “degraded forest” – where some trees have been felled – preventing other trees from re-growing and animals from returning.

    Palm-oil plantations are barren places. When vast blocks of palms are planted in straight lines, stretching for mile after mile, 90 per cent of the wildlife disappears. In the words of Junaida Payne, of WWF Malaysia’s Sabah office, they are “biological deserts”.

    Jan Kees Vis, Unilever’s director of sustainable agriculture and chairman of the RSPO, says it is “not realistic” to halt palm-oil expansion, but believes much growth can be achieved by raising yields. The best plantations currently yield 10 tonnes per hectare, but in the future this could hit 18 or even 50 tonnes, he says.

    The best plantations can obtain RSPO certification for sustainability – but only 4 per cent of global supply (1.5m tonnes) is currently certified sustainable. The first shipment arrived in Rotterdam last November and costs about 35 per cent more than normal supplies. Another scheme, Green Palm, is already bringing prices for RSPO supplies down further, adding just 5 per cent to the cost.

    Unilever has publicly committed to sourcing only certified palm oil by 2015. Premier Foods has a date of 2011, United Biscuits 2012. Most companies, however, including Cadbury, Kellogg’s, Nestlé, Mars and Heinz, have given no commitment to switch to an RSPO-certified supply. They merely say that their suppliers are members.

    As Vis puts it bluntly: “The volume of certified palm oil traded is disappointingly low so far; the reason for this being that many companies are not prepared to pay a premium for certified oil.”

    Environmentalists fear that the RSPO is itself greenwash, cover for a programme of vicious and unrelenting deforestation. Even the RSPO concedes that its members have subsidiaries who plant palm oil, and who are not bound by – and do not abide by – its rules.

    As if this were not enough, in the rush to replace diminishing fossil fuel, palm oil is being mixed into petrol. The EU Biofuels Directive aims to put biofuels in 5 per cent of all fuel pumps. Destroying peat forests for palm oil is especially bad for the climate, as these semi-saturated soils are dense “carbon stores” which release colossal quantities of C02 when they are burnt to make way for palm oil.

    In its “Cooking the Climate” report, Greenpeace calculated that the burning of South-east Asia’s peat forests – largely for palm-oil plantations – spewed 1.8bn tonnes of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere: 4 per cent of global climate-change emissions from 0.1 per cent of Earth’s land. According to Greenpeace forest campaigner James Turner, “The destruction of these forests is a really serious cause of climate change, but some companies are still trying to look the other way. It’s time for them to cancel contracts with the worst suppliers, because purchasing power is a highly effective tool in changing this industry.”

    Conservationists are increasingly wondering whether the wholesale destruction of rainforests to make margarine is the most striking of all examples of environmental lunacy. It isn’t just destroying one of the last great wildernesses, its rare animals and some of the remaining people whose ways are at odds with modern living. It also threatens to damage our own lives in the West.

    Deforestation causes 18 per cent of Co2 emissions, according to British government figures – a key element in the rising temperatures that in coming decades will alter our world for ever. No one can be exactly sure what climate change will bring but, in Britain, we can expect more flooding and winter gales, drier summers, water shortages, and more food poisoning and skin cancer. The sea will not just sweep over Bangladesh and the Maldives, but possibly threaten low-lying parts of Britain, such as London, too. Meanwhile, millions of people in developing countries with failing agriculture could migrate to northern Europe.

    The wealthy Western countries who have already felled their own forests (woods once covered Britain from Cornwall to Caithness) may have to pay more and more to protect those that remain in other parts of the world. At the Copenhagen summit in December, Britain and other countries will press for REDD (Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Degradation) – essentially a scheme for funding jungles in developing countries.

    In the meantime, forest campaigners hope that big companies will come under increasing scrutiny over palm oil. The Unilever-backed RSPO wants them to commit to a sustainable supply. Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace say palm-oil use should be reduced or phased out altogether. A few have already done so – PepsiCo, for instance, is phasing out palm oil from its remaining two products. United Biscuits says it has reduced palm oil in Digestives by 65 per cent and in McCoys by 76 per cent since 2005.

    So far, companies have managed to avoid much scrutiny over the havoc palm oil is wreaking. For now, it is “only” the native peoples, the orangutans and the other animals of the rainforest who have experienced the most profound changes. They are losing the habitat that they thought would be around for ever.

    “When I was a young girl I used to be so happy walking in the forest,” one Penan woman told Bruce Parry after trekking overnight to pass on her message. “I used to sing while I was looking for sago. I loved to hear the sound of the wild peacocks, the hornbills and the gibbons, and when I looked at the forest it was lovely.”

    Palm oil facts

    90 per cent of Sumatra’s orangutan population has disappeared since 1900. They now face extinction

    90 per cent of wildlife disappears when the forest is replaced by palm, creating a biological desert

    98 per cent of Indonesia’s forests may be destroyed by 2022 according to the United Nations

    43 of Britain’s 100 top grocery brands contain or are thought to contain palm oil

  • Small farmers unplug from global financial crisis

    From The Land

    Highly efficient small-area farming operations are providing a solid foundation for growth for a northern NSW community based financial institution, against a backdrop of widespread global financial uncertainty.

    The 54,000-member Bananacoast Credit Union (BCU), – started almost 40 years ago by a group of banana growers who were having trouble getting finance from banks – has lifted its lending to small-area primary producers by more than 20 per cent in the past six months.

    While some of that is the result of bringing in new members who were previously bank clients, most of the increase has gone to fund new farms or expand existing farm businesses.

    Producers looking to acquire additional or larger properties, take advantage of the good North Coast season and build up stock numbers, increase their mechanisation on-farm, improve soils and build up infrastructure have propelled the credit union into optimistic ground at a time when many Australian financial institutions struggle to deal with mass downturns in the economy.

    BCU agribusiness specialist, Rod Cross, Coffs Harbour, said the coastal farmers his organisation dealt with – which cover industries ranging from beef and dairy to macadamias, blueberries, stone fruit, sugar cane, potatoes and bananas – had built businesses positioned to meet the needs of their markets.

  • UK orchestrates G20 protests

    Government Decides Who Protests At G20: Violent anarchists allowed to smash up buildings despite announcing target in advance, yet anti-poverty group barred from protesting

    Who Controls The Black Bloc Anarchists? 020409topa

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet.com
    Thursday, April 2, 2009

    The British authorities seemed to have little problem with allowing a group of violent black bloc anarchists smash up the RBS building while provoking police yesterday, despite the group announcing their target in advance, yet a legitimate anti-poverty organization has had its “accreditation” to protest at the G20 removed on the orders of Downing Street.

    This once again underscores the completely undemocratic power of the government to decide who is allowed to protest against them and who is not. When you have to get permission from the government to exercise a God-given right, as in China or Russia, then we know we are already living in a police state. The freedom to protest is not one that has to be “accredited” by the state, a license to protest as it were, it is an innate human right.

    Apparently, if you wear black hoods and scarves, smash up private property and provoke police, then that’s absolutely fine and you’ll be left largely untouched. But God forbid if you’re a middle of the road anti-poverty group that just wants to peaceably march down the street.

    “An anti-poverty group expressed “outrage” after its accreditation to attend Thursday’s G20 summit was suddenly withdrawn on Wednesday,” reports the Telegraph.

    “The World Development Movement said it had no idea why the decision was taken but claimed it was on the orders of 10 Downing Street.”

    “The group, which was part of last weekend’s huge (and peaceful – ed) Put People First Alliance which held a rally in London, said the Foreign Office received a note from 10 Downing Street telling it to revoke the accreditation.”

    Benedict Southworth, the group’s director, said that the decision was part of the government’s plan to “stage-manage events and prevent voices of dissent and disagreement being heard.”

    The black bloc anarchist assault on the Royal Bank of Scotland building yesterday certainly had an air of being stage-managed. The target was announced in advance, the authorities knew that the building was a prime target, and yet it was the only one in the street not boarded up. A cafe across the street was boarded up and yet the RBS building was left completely vulnerable to attack.

    Who Controls The Black Bloc Anarchists? window
    Stage-managed? Press photographers outnumber anarchists as the RBS siege is perfectly “produced” for a live television audience.

    Cue a relatively small gaggle of black-bloc anarchists, followed by an similarly sized press corps to photograph every angle of every smashed window, and you have the makings of a stage-managed event to instantly be consumed by the watching middle classes thus enlisting their support for a police state crackdown. In this instance, the police stood back and let them do pretty much whatever they liked, which is highly suspicious within itself, but the week is far from over and a wider crackdown could ensue now that public acquiescence has been garnered through repeated footage showing the hostility of the anarchists.

    We’re not saying for a minute that every anarchist group is working at the behest of the authorities as provocateurs, nor that the majority are not legitimate protesters expressing their right to free speech, but as we have documented, this particular black bloc sect are at best completely infiltrated by provocateurs who can routinely be relied upon to provide the media with violent footage with which to demonize legitimate protesters at every major global summit stretching back nearly two decades.

     

  • Monbiot slams G20 resolution

    The communique from last week’s G20 meeting proves that world leaders are determined to save the banks at the cost of ordinary people and future generations according to UK Guardian columnist, George Monbiot.

    He lampooned the final communique summarising it as saying, “we will use every cent we don’t possess to rescue corporate capitalism from its contradictions and set the world economy back onto the path of unsustainable growth. We have already spent trillions of dollars of your money on bailing out the banks, so that they can be returned to their proper functions of fleecing the poor and wrecking the Earth’s living systems. Now we’re going to spend another $1.1 trillion.”

    Oh – and we nearly forgot. We must do something about the environment. We don’t have any definite plans as yet, but we’ll think of something in due course.”

    Read the full article

  • Macquarie follows smart money into food

    From The Land

    Shares in Macquarie Group – the corporate flagship of Macquarie Bank and its raft of subsidiaries – are no longer a market favourite, but that doesn’t seem to faze investors in Macquarie Pastoral Fund.

    From a 2008 high of $66 in May, Macquarie Group shares have plunged to below $20 as the global financial crisis raises questions about the investment bank’s debt – and fee-driven business model.

    But that model, honed to a high pitch with Macquarie’s highly-geared infrastructure funds, is seemingly on a different planet to Macquarie Pastoral Fund and its operating arm, Paraway Pastoral Company.

    Paraway is evolving more along the lines of some of the old-time conservative land companies that dominated the eastern Australian pastoral scene for much of last century.

    Like Scottish Australian Company, Australian Estates, Dalgety, and others of that era, it is building a strategic chain of pastoral properties to give investors low-risk access to Australia’s livestock sector.

    Full story in The Land, March 5.