The Fairness of Climate Funding: Just Another 60 Million Euros?

According to Finland's public broadcaster Yle, the financing of climate action is increasingly shifting onto the shoulders of EU countries. This is because the Trump administration is unlikely to be enthusiastic about participating in the whole effort, while China and former developing countries enriched by oil want to continue as recipients of funds rather than contributors.

China and the G77 group of developing countries have also proposed a new target for climate financing. According to their proposal made in Baku, Azerbaijan, a staggering $1.3 billion should be allocated.

It remains to be seen how the EU will respond to this emerging situation. Will it continue humbly to keep its purse open, or will it declare the situation unfair and therefore unfeasible?

In any case, Finland’s government has already decided to reduce its contribution to the green climate fund from 100 million euros to 60 million euros. As a Finnish taxpayer, I believe that if China and the G77 continue along the line they've currently set, that amount should be further reduced by another 60 million euros and the saved funds used to curb the national debt, even though that, too, may be but a drop in the ocean.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Russia Pays the Price for Its Foolishness
Correct minister, ridiculous facts
Advice to participants of the COP27 climate implementation summit

The attractiveness of Finland to welfare-seeking economic migrants reduces

A couple of days ago, I mentioned that during this year, a total of 1 897 Bangladeshis, 1 445 Pakistanis, 1 120 Nigerians, 1 048 Turks, and 923 Iranians had submitted their first residence permit application to the Finnish Immigration Service.

These numbers are small compared to the figures from nearly ten years ago. In 2015, for instance, more than 20 000 Iraqis applied for international protection in Finland, and over 5 000 Afghans sought the same.

However, this does not mean that large numbers of people from developing countries are no longer trying to reach the EU. According to Verkkouutiset, the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) recorded a total of 513 000 asylum applications in the first half of this year alone, so the number of migrants in the Union is expected to exceed one million this year — just as it did last year.

This might indicate that the international "grapevine" has worked effectively, and asylum seekers are aware of the Finnish government's actions to more strictly target humanitarian immigration to those in genuine need.

Therefore, it is absolutely crucial that Prime Minister Petteri Orpo’s (National Coalition Party) government continues to effectively communicate and broadly publicize its immigration policy program. At the time of writing, two key sections of this program are in preparation and currently under review.

The first concerns family reunification, which is being amended to "tighten the requirements for family reunification by implementing the changes made possible by the family reunification directive". The second section relates to detention and entry bans, stating that "the regulations on detention will be tightened, the regulations concerning entry bans will be reformed, and it will be made possible to impose entry bans on individuals residing outside of Finland".

Just as important as making these changes is communicating them to people outside of Finland. This is the only way to minimize the motivation of  migrants looking for high social services to head to this cold northern country.

It is also essential to highlight that the government program still includes further restrictions related to humanitarian asylum, such as limiting reception services and tightening the requirements for obtaining permanent residence. Additionally, it has already been decided that, starting in October, a longer residence period in Finland will be required to apply for Finnish citizenship.

However, it remains to be seen how, for example, the tightening of Germany's immigration policy will affect the number of migrants from developing countries coming to Finland. Will those from developing countries in search of a provider turn their eyes to Finland under the North Star, or will they head elsewhere? And if so, where?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Information for Asylum Seekers in Finland
Afghans Had to Go
Sweden's Gang Crime Recruits Children – Is It Time for the EU to Reevaluate Asylum Policies?

Duck emphasizing the urgency of the new border law

In Finland, there is fear of a hybrid operation organized by Russia, which could result in an influx of asylum seekers from developing countries as spring arrives. Among them, there may also be activists or operatives playing into Putin's hands.

For this reason, the government has prepared a proposal to enhance our country's ability to defend against Russian aggression. During the preparatory consultation process, the draft legislation in question received some critical comments - as expected - so the potential enactment of the law is still ahead.

However, there is hope that this so-called "pushback law" - or the new border law - could be finalized and enacted as soon as possible, and that it would also be effective in practice. This has also been emphasized by both the former and current leaders of the country's foreign policy.

* * *

Relating to the text above, MTV3 published news yesterday stating that if something "looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck." The discussion was about a series of mischief in the Baltic countries, suspected to be a hybrid operation organized by Russia.

Related to these incidents, Janis Sarts, the Director of NATO's Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, assessed that if Russia sees the method working in the Baltics, similar hybrid influence operations could also be seen in Finland in the future. This could include, for example, Molotov cocktail attacks or threats against daycare centers - something hardly any Finn would want.

It is evident that the suspicion of the hybrid nature of the crimes witnessed is correct, and therefore Sarts' assessment should also be taken seriously in Finland. Steps should be taken to ensure that Russia is not given leeway on our own soil.

Understanding this issue in all parliamentary groups - including those on the political left - is essential right now. And especially when the government's new proposal for the so-called "pushback law" is next up for discussion: in that context, I certainly wouldn't like to see a single useful idiot for Putin.

This is because the law will need to be enacted as a so-called emergency law, which requires a five-sixths majority in parliament. If such a majority cannot be found, there is a risk that we will soon find ourselves even more at the mercy of Russia's bloody dictator.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Desperate cry of Russians
The Finnish forest is life-threatening to asylum-seekers
Political rats and useful idiots

The Rwanda Law of Britain paves the way for the future of Western Europe

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - as the island nation's official name goes - is undergoing a process aimed at mitigating the impact of economic migrants from developing countries. In its latest development, the lower house of Parliament approved a bill that would designate Rwanda as a safe country, allowing asylum seekers to be sent there to await the processing of their cases— and, following a positive decision, potentially resettling them in the same country.

The bill now moves to the next stage, awaiting approval from the House of Lords, known as the curious relic of Britain's innate social inequality, the monarch's favorites, and the conclave of priests and senior jurists. If it also approves the bill, left-leaning legal scholars would no longer be able to argue claims of Rwanda's insecurity.

The entire process has, of course, arisen because so-called humanitarian immigrants have caused various issues in their new homeland. Muslims, in particular, are well-represented in violent crimes, accounting for about 20 percent, despite worshippers of Allah making up less than seven percent of the country's population.

This trend is familiar in Finland and other Western countries as well. Therefore, the decision of the British upper house is crucial for all of Western Europe, as it would likely halt asylum applications based on false premises in the island nation.

In the short term, this could mean increased pressure on EU countries. As a result, the ongoing rapid political developments in these countries (examples being Germany, the Netherlands, France, and Sweden) would likely accelerate, and the pressure to update international legislation related to asylum-seeking would strengthen.

This would not only be desirable but also vital for Western Europe to remain a prosperous home and haven for the continent's indigenous peoples and as a driving force for scientific and technological development serving the entire world.

Therefore, the outcome of Britain's Rwanda Law is by no means inconsequential, even for the Finns. On the contrary, its result is likely to shape our future and that of our descendants more profoundly than, for example, the ongoing presidential election.

The original thought in Finnish: 
Britannian Ruandalaki viitoittaa koko Länsi-Euroopan tulevaisuuden

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A white family does not represent real Londoners
Finnish journalist called for British Prime Minister´s head to be placed on London bridge to dry
African female and Persian male ancestors

Strong statement or intellectual dishonesty in COP27?

A historical decision was made in COP27 meeting in Egypt. According to that, wealthy countries will pay for developing ones from damages attributable to the climatic change, which is considered to happen due to the wealthy nations.

The decision was made, and I can only accept it. I would, however, like to hear if developing countries are willing to give up those modern things, which were created along the development that led to the compensations decided. That is: vehicles, flights, internet, phones, electricity etc... 

I think that would be a great sign of their willingness to refuse from such a negative developments, that their innovators are expected to pay for their existence. In others words, staying in each nation´s own innovations would make a strong statement on their willingness to stick in a sustainable way of life. 

If no one shows any willingness to give up those harmful innovations, I am afraid that the decision of compensation made in the COP27 meeting looks like intellectual dishonesty and only a new way to transfer money from north to south. Which may or may not be well justified due to some other reasons. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
China is betting on scientific excellence
They want to wipe out from Finland what is good for Africa
World Resources Institute had an arrogant demand

A new route for the Ukrainian crops

Ukraine is one of the most important producer of crops. Therefore the Russian attack to Ukraine might have a major impact on the food availability in some countries - especially in the Near East/North Africa.

Today it was reported by the Helsingin sanomat that a new route has been established to Ukrainian agricultural products. That goes via Poland and Baltic sea. Using that route, the first ship managed to bring 18 000 tons of corn to Spain. The ship - named Alppila - was sailing under the Finnish flag.

This news was of extreme importance taken that hunger is understandably the strongest force causing instability in the developing world and pushing masses of people towards north to look for better life. And that will - ultimately - cause many kinds of problems even in the receiving countries as seen e.g. in Sweden. 

Therefore it was important that the cargo managed to make its way to Spain, and will have successors in the near future. At the same time, it reduces the effects of Russian actions to stop export of Ukrainian products and its attempt to put pressure on western nations to stop their military support to the attacked nation. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ivory trade from Greenland to Ukraine
Riots in Sweden: what next?
Military specialist: Russian plan in Ukraine was incredibly poor

They want to wipe out from Finland what is good for Africa

The chairman of the Finnish Social Democratic Party Antti Rinne would like to reduce forest cuttings in Finland, because he thinks that "we are cutting too much in relation to the carbon sink". Also the Green party would like to reduce cuttings in our forests during the next four years electoral term and even the Left Alliance is along the same lines.

At the same time, the Finnish Broadcasting company Yle made a very positive story on the thoughts of Andrew Collins who is the CEO of Miro Foresty, which is producing lumber and charcoal in West African countries Ghana and Sierra Leone. According to Yle he has said that professional forestry is the only solution in this situation in a similar way as agriculture is the only solution for food production. And also that we cannot cut natural forests forever, but we need to grow trees for the increasing demand.

Collins mentioned also that e.g. access to forest plantations is less demanding and therefore it is easier to organize their cuttings. Furthermore, the logs are of the same tree species and therefore their economic use is easier.

The views of Collins are based on the loss of African forests due to the uncontrollable population growth of people. That is, the increasing cuttings of natural forests for the economic and domestic use of growing human population.

After reading the story I was left in thinking about the intellectual honesty of the green-leftist´s ideology. If forests in Finland should be removed from the economic use, then why in the world it would be desirable to increase economic forests in Africa? Is it enough that in Africa there is plenty of former forest land that has been taken to agricultural and other use, and that reforesting would make them a carbon sink for a couple of decades. Or actually less than a decade if fast growing eucalyptus would be planted.

Furthermore, I was left in waiting some of our politicians to notice that in Finland we have forests only because they have produced income to their owners. That is the very reason why forest owners have invested in their forests, which is why the forest growth in Finland (and thus their carbon sink) has increased continuously since 1960´s.

Could it be so that green-reddish people assume those investments to continue if owners will not get any income from their properties? Or do they think that there would really be enough of taxpayers money to pay for all Finnish forest owners for their forest protection at the same time when the reducing amount of wood usage in industry reduces the total yield of taxes?

For those who are not aware, I may tell that it is annually a question of billions of euros when we consider forest owners profits for their lumber and profits of wood processing companies. And even more, if we consider the disappearing jobs from forestry sector, that would increase unemployment and thus further reduce the amount of public capital.

Aiempia ajatuksia samasta aihepiiristä:
Suomen metsäpolitiikka on kohdallaan
Suomalaispuolueet päättivät ilmastonmuutoksen torjuntakeinoista
Maapallon metsäpinta-ala kasvaa vauhdikkaasti

Trump is leaving Africa

The public broadcasting company Yle told us that the United States will reduce its military presence in Africa. More specifically, Americans will reduce especially troops intended to fight against terrorism.

According to Yle the decision was affected by the threats caused by Chinese and Russians, against which Americans are willing to fight somewhere else than in black Africa. And naturally we all remember the promises president Donald Trump gave during his inaugural speech, according to which USA has focused too much on the borders of other countries instead of its own.

The story by Yle included few items, on which I would like my reader to put attention.

The first one stated that Americans are not any more willing to support fruitless operations for peace, and that they have already reduced their contribution to the development aid. My intrerpetation is that president Trump and his regime have got tired of spending their voter´s tax money and even American lives on futile operations in Africa.

Professor Emmanuel Kwesi Aning from Ghana has obviously not understood this connection as he pointed out that islamistic groups Boko Haram, al-Qaida and al-Shabaab are still timely threats. However, from the Trump´s point-of-view they are not threats to America as long as they stay in Africa and therefore neither targets on which American resources should be used.

It is also clear, that Chinese will not tolerate islamistic organizations any more than Americans, and as they have much less problems with their home fronts, they may use brutal actions to get rid of them. The same holds also Russians now settling more deeply in Africa. Therefore Boko Haram, al-Qaida and al-Shabab will only lose if Americans will be replaced by Chinese or Russians.

The other item I would like to discuss here was the comment of Kwesi Aning, who pointed out the real problem of Africal countries: he said that if you look at the ratio of soldiers and growing populations of African countries, the poor countries are not able to invest enough to their defense against safety challenges. I just wonder if also Trump regime would have understood that no number of soldiers or quantity of help will be enough if the African population growth will not be stopped - and therefore made his decision to give up.

Although I do not know whether Trump regime have understood this or not, it is a fact. And it remains to be seen how Chinese of possibly Russians will get on with the African population explosion.

I have understood that the purpose of China is to hit two flies with one hit - to turn Africa into a colony that supports their own economy and in order to get that done stabilize the African communities by creating local business opportunities. It remains, however, to be seen, whether they have means to handle the  population explosion. I do doubt that.

What is anyway clear, are the Chinese motives. Even Professor Kwesi Aning noted that he does not consider Russia or China to be friends of Africa as they do not care about democracy or human rights.

Unfortunately, the rhetoric question to asked here is that what good the Western countries - putting a lot of energy on democracy and human rights - have provided to Africa since mid 20th century with their developing aid - except of course that they have launched the population explosion that right now looks like the ultimate barrier preventing all development in Africa.

The original though in Finnish:
Trump on poistumassa afrikkalaiselta areenalta

World Resources Institute had an arrogant demand

World Resources Institute -organization demanded me and other people in western countries to reduce our consumption of meat. The demand was based on a claim that in future there will not be enough food to everyone, because the global number of people grows rapidly and the size of agricultural fields cannot be increased as that would reduce forest area and therefore accelerate the climatic change.

In other words, the organization asks me to change my eating habits in order to allow people in developing countries to continue their uncontrolled reproduction behavior. The logical reasoning here is interesting. Or actually similar to the one in the following two examples.

One. Imagine an economic adviser from a bank with a male customer, who has lost his control over playing net poker, and therefore loses all family income to internet players. The adviser proposes that the wife of the playing husband should stop having once-a-month restaurant evenings with her friends, and save the money that goes to good food and wine. And also proposes that children should give up their expensive hobbies. So the man could afford his poker playing.

Two. Imagine a policeman coming to an apartment, because a violent man with gonorrhea demands a right to spend a night with the family wife - with all the rights. In order to fix the problem without violence, the police proposes that the wife should agree with the gonorrhea-man. The husband, therefore, should spend his night in the sofa of the living room, and reserve to his wife an audience for a medical doctor to get antibiotics to cure the possible gonorrhea infection. With these arrangements there is no need for the gonorrhea-man to give up his desire.

For some reason I do not believe that any of my readers - not even possible vegans or polygamous people - would accept the solutions of the economic adviser or the police in these imaginary situations, but understand that such solutions would be intellectually dishonest and therefore unjustified. It is weird, however, that the fully analogical demands by the World Research Institute seems to receive full support among many journalists and politicians.

In a poll by a Finnish afternoon magazine, 57% of respondents considered wide civil rights as an important feature of the Finnish nationalism. During the independence day of my country (December 6th)  I enjoyed this freedom by having delicious food including mushroom soup and a large beef steak with excellent wine. And thereafter a bilberry pie with a sweet dessert wine.

Thus, I have no intention to change my eating habits to enable people in developing countries to continue their irresponsible behavior, because such a demand does not make any sense (reasons are explained here).  Instead, I send here a free advise to the World Resources Institute: they should focus on real problems instead of sending arrogant demands to me. The first topic to be addressed - if the goal is to feed all people in the world - should be to stop the self-indulgent population growth in developing countries.

The original though in Finnish:
Järjestö esitti järjettömän vaatimuksen