Crown Capital Eco Management Indonesia Fraud



The Vermont Times Argus published a spot-on review of a new book by Bill McKibben -one of many who made a career out of jetting between conferences about the environment.


It’s written by Suzanna Jones, described as “an off-the-grid farmer living in Walden.” She does not object to local power – but disagrees with McKibben about the trend towards industrial scale renewables. It is, she says, part of the mainstreaming of the environmental movement.


“In his 2008 book “Deep Economy,” Bill McKibben concludes that economic growth is the source of the ecological crises we face today. He explains that when the economy grows larger than necessary to meet our basic needs – when it grows for the sake of growth, automatically striving for “more” – its social and environmental costs greatly outweigh any benefits it may provide.


Unfortunately, McKibben seems to have forgotten what he so passionately argued just five years ago. Today he is an advocate of industrial wind turbines on our ridgelines: He wants to industrialize our last wild spaces to feed the very economy he fingered as the source of our environmental problems.


His key assumption is that industrial wind power displaces the use of coal and oil, and therefore helps limit climate change. But since 2000, wind facilities with a total capacity equivalent to 350 coal-fired power plants have been installed worldwide, and today there are more – not fewer – coal-fired power plants operating.


(In Vermont, the sale of renewable energy credits to out-of-state utilities enables them to avoid mandates to reduce their fossil fuel dependency, meaning that there is no net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.)


At best, industrial wind simply adds more energy to the global supply. And what for? More! More energy than the grid can carry, more idiotic water parks, more snowmaking, more electronic gadgets, more money for corporations.


Why should we spend millions of dollars to destroy wildlife habitat, kill bats and eagles, pollute our headwaters, fill valuable wetlands, polarize our communities, make people sick, mine rare-earth metals – just to ensure that we can consume as much or more next year than we did this year?


The costs of industrial wind far outweigh the benefits – unless you are a wind developer. Federal production tax credits and other subsidies have fostered a gold rush mentality among wind developers, who have been abetted by political and environmental leaders who want to appear “green” without challenging the underlying causes of our crises.


Meanwhile, average Vermonters find themselves without any ability to protect their communities or the ecosystems of which they are a part. The goal of an industrial wind moratorium is to stop the gold rush so we can have an honest discussion on these issues.


Why does this frighten proponents of big wind? Because once carefully examined, industrial wind will be exposed for the scam that it is.


McKibben’s current attitude toward the environment has been adopted by politicians, corporations, and the big environmental organizations. Environmentalism has been successfully mainstreamed, at the cost of its soul.


This co-opted version isn’t about protecting the land base from the ever-expanding empire of humans. It’s about sustaining the comfort levels we feel entitled to without exhausting the resources required. It is entirely human-centered and hollow, and it serves corporate capitalism well.


In “Deep Economy,” McKibben points out that the additional “stuff” provided by an ever-growing economy doesn’t leave people happier; instead, the source of authentic happiness is a healthy connection to nature and community. As Vermonters have already discovered, industrial wind destroys both.




The Crown Capital Management Jakarta International Relations: Indonesia protested over China passports


Indonesia has revealed that it protested to Beijing about China’s publication in its passports of its “nine-dash line” claim to almost the entire South China Sea.


Beijing’s decision to print the new map last year prompted protests from the Philippines and Vietnam, which also claim large parts of the South China Sea. India, which has a border dispute with China, also criticised Beijing’s move.


Marty Natalegawa, Indonesia’s foreign minister, told the Financial Times in an interview that Indonesia lodged a protest with Beijing several weeks after the new passports were issued,


“We said that usage of that passport should not be inferred as being a recognition of that claim,” he said. “We exercised nice low key diplomacy but getting our point across.”


At the time that the dispute arose last year, Mr Natalegawa said China’s move was “disingenuous” and that Beijing was “testing the water to see its neighbours’ reactions”, according to the Jakarta Post.


But Indonesia made no public statement at the time about the fact that the nine-dash line cuts through its Exclusive Economic Zone in the gas-rich Natuna Sea, where international energy companies such as ExxonMobil and Total are operating.


Indonesia has long tried to play down its territorial dispute with Beijing for fear of upsetting relations with China, which is a key trade and investment partner.


“We believe that by doing quiet diplomacy we get a better result,” said Evi Fitriani, an international relations expert at the University of Indonesia. “So I’m quite surprised that the foreign minister admitted making this protest.”


Ristian Atriandi Supriyanto, a maritime security analyst at S Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, said Indonesia was reluctant to increase tensions with China for fear of inflaming public opinion and risking a damaging economic backlash from Beijing.


But he argued that there was an “increasing risk that Indonesia will be drawn into the fray” as China’s navy continues to grow at a much faster rate than Indonesia’s already inferior maritime forces.


As a thriving, young democracy and a member of the Group of 20 world’s largest economies, Indonesia is keen to play a more active role in regional and global diplomacy. But the rise of China and the recent US “pivot” to Asia have made it more difficult for Jakarta to maintain its traditional position of not aligning with any major powers while remaining friends with all.


“Indonesia is worried about China but they are more worried about being seen to be in any particular camp,” said a senior western diplomat in Jakarta.


Mr Natalegawa has spearheaded Indonesia’s rise on the world stage since he was appointed as foreign minister by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in 2009.


“We’ve been trying to be the country that connects the dots and brings different elements together in an appropriate and measured way,” he told the FT interview, citing Indonesia’s efforts to convince southeast Asian nations to form a united position on how to resolve maritime disputes with China and to encourage the repressive military junta that ruled Myanmar until 2011 to open up.


But, despite his hopes for collaborative, multilateral diplomacy, the foreign minister accepted that the peace and stability that has allowed Asia to become a key driver of the global economy could come under threat because of the emergence of China as a major power.


“China’s rise, how it transpires, how it plays out, will really determine the state of the region, whether it’s part of the solution or part of the problem,” he said.


But, with some in Beijing fearing that the US rebalance toward Asia is designed to contain China, Mr Natalegawa warned that countries should be careful not to antagonise China unnecessarily.


“In Indonesia on the whole we see China’s rise as an opportunity rather than a threat,” he said. “It’s how we respond to it that could become a threat.”