Monday, July 21, 2014

Mining 40: MICC and its Proposed 79 Percent Effective Tax Rate

Early this month, the Mining Industry Coordinating Council (MICC) has proposed  an effective mining tax rate of 79 percent. From BWorld, July 07, 2014,

“We are dismayed that the MICC has moved forward with a proposed increased tax policy without taking into consideration comments and observations not only from the mining industry that will be directly affected by said policy but by authoritative third parties,” CoMP said.

The MICC proposed a payment of 10% of gross revenue, or 55% of the Adjusted Net Mining Revenue, whichever may be higher.

Perhaps the MICC, in particular the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), environmental militants and LGUs want the big, legal mining firms to become illegitimate "small scale" miners, them who pay zero tax to the BIR, only small fees to LGUs, do not undertake any CSR or reforestation after mining.

I heard that the MICC bills are DTI versions, Am curious, why did they stop at 79% effective tax rate, why not 89% or 99%? Kunin na lahat ng gobyerno?

More news stories below.

From Sun Star, July 13, 2014

Julian Payne, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines,... called for actions to make investments in mining competitive with that in other countries.... government should review the recent "no-go zones" in maps that have been published, which, he said "make 85% of the country off limits to minerals exploration."

From Philippine Star, July 11, 2014

The MICC approved in May the imposition of either a 10 percent tax on gross revenues or a tax of 55 percent on adjusted net mining revenues (ANMR) plus a percentage of windfall profit, whichever would give higher revenues to the government.

ANMR pertains to the difference between gross sales and direct cost (direct mining cost and administrative expenses).

Contractors shall still be liable to pay real property tax, stock transaction tax, documentary stamp tax, withholding tax on passive income, as well as regulatory fees and charges.

Incentives to mining investments shall be limited to duty-free importation of specialized capital equipment and five-year amortization of pre-operating expenses....

The Canadian business chamber is also urging the replacement of the MICC by a new Consultative and Advisory Council on Mining (CACM) which would have a wider stakeholder representation in government, private sector and business groups.

From the PDInquirer, July 07, 2014

“There are other countries with more reasonable tax structures and are equally [if not better] endowed than the Philippines,” (COMP) said.

“The results of our financial modeling indicate that the government share under such proposal will be much higher than [those of] large mineral producing jurisdictions such as Canada, Queensland (Australia), Peru, South Africa, Chile and Papua New Guinea.”

Since July 2012, only one or first mining exploration permit has been issued? See 1st mining permit issued, Manila Standard, July 01, 2014, Mining is really "evil." The production and manufacturing of cell phones, watches, laptops, tv, cars, buses, etc., all products of mining, should be limited to restrict the march of this "evil" industry. 

A friend from EITI commented that "the social cost of mining is different from mining in Canada, Peru or Australia. Mining tax which constitutes the bigger chunk of social benefit from mining should outweigh social cost."

My friend saw Rio Tuba nickel mining that responsible mining -- zero mine tailings in rivers and sea; rehabilitation and reforestation of mined out areas, giving livelihood projects to nearby communities even if the people there are not employees, etc. -- is happening. Only large-scale corporate mining can do that. What reallly causes high "social cost of mining" is small-scale mining. Zero tax payment to BIR, zero reforestation and rehabilitation after deep and wide quarrying, zero education/ healthcare/ housing programs for employees, etc. So by pushing for heavy taxation of large-scale, legal mining, government and the militant NGOs are pushing some of these companies to sub-contract the work to "small-scale" while reporting small revenues that are subject to 79 percent tax rate, exclusive of the cost of mandatory CSR projects to communities.

I think if government will further raise mining taxes, only the corrupt players will survive. The tax assessors and collectors will extort money while the players will pay and bribe them, in exchange for understatement of revenues and hence, the taxable income. The honest big players will slowly fade away.

See also: 

Friday, July 18, 2014

Inequality 19: Notes and Quotes on Globalization and Inequality

Reposting here some notes and quotes on the subject which I posted in the facebook group, Government and Taxes, Liberty and Responsibility last month.

A good chart from Cato last May 3, 2014. Globalization eradicates poverty, posted by Daniel Castro.

Actually, the term "globalization eradicates poverty" may be wrong. Poverty may never be eradicated as there are many factors that contribute to it, including personal irresponsibility and laziness. A better term would be "globalization reduces poverty" and inequality among countries. Free trade can lead to factor price equalization (FPE) and commodity price equalization (CPE) across countries over the long term.

Many activists complaining of "widening inequality" will not be happy with this data from The Economist daily chart -- the number of "extremely poor" in developing countries is declining while the number of "developing middle class" and "developed middle class" is rising. 

In a paper last May 8, 2014, Where is the Inequality Problem?, Harvard University economist Kenneth Rogoff wrote,

Reading Thomas Piketty’s influential new book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, one might conclude that the world has not been this unequal since the days of robber barons and kings. That is odd, because one might conclude from reading another excellent new book, Angus Deaton’s The Great Escape (which I recently reviewed), that the world is more equal than ever.

... over the last few decades, several billion people in the developing world, particularly in Asia, have escaped truly desperate levels of poverty. The same machine that has increased inequality in rich countries has leveled the playing field globally for billions.... when it comes to reducing global inequality, the capitalist system has had an impressive three decades.

From Freedom Barometer June 12, 2014, written by Dr. Sethaput Narueput.

One can even argue that globalization has reduced inequality. Most discussions of inequality focus on national inequality, which has increased. But global inequality, which looks at differences in income across people regardless of what country they are in, has dropped because many more Chinese and Indians now have higher incomes, in significant part due to globalization and freer markets.

... globalization is an inevitable phenomenon and a good one. It is the one that has helped mitigate the income inequality situation. Income inequality actually comes from not enough globalization and protectionism and monopoly. Thomas Piketty’s idea on global tax of wealth is plainly wrong.

 From BBC, The next billionaires in numbers June 13, 2014,

The extremely wealthy are growing in numbers and entire industries are being created to cater to their desires but where are the individuals who are amassing vast fortunes based and what do we know about them?

Multi-billionaire Edward Zhu, who moved to China from the United States two decades ago, says talented people should start from nothing and that is what he wants for his children.

Meanwhile, here are some photos during my talk on "Globalization, Mobility and Inequality" at La Salle Green Hills (LSGH) 4th year high school/graduating students, Honors Class, last February 17, 2014.

The officers of the Honors Class. Mike Roa, the class President, right most. He's the son of a batchmate from UPSE 1984, Malou Roa.

See also::

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Energy Econ 23: Death of Australia's Carbon Tax

Today, Australia officially killed the onerous and climate alarmism law, carbon tax. I am posting below portions of selected news reports on the subject.

From The Australian today, 

The Prime Minister, while claiming victory after a five-year campaign against carbon pricing, also launched a new campaign against the Labor Party’s promise to take a replacement emissions trading scheme to the next election.

And from the WSJ today,  

"He said the carbon price was acting as a A$9 billion a year handbrake on the economy, which was adjusting to the end of a record mining investment boom that helped shield Australia through much of the recent global economic downturn....

The carbon tax has affected industries ranging from mining and energy to aviation, and was widely opposed by manufacturers and a majority of business representative groups including the country's main chamber of commerce....

Airline operators also said they had been hurt badly by the tax, at a time when intensifying competition in Australia's domestic travel market was already driving down ticket prices. Virgin Australia Holdings Ltd. VAH.AU 0.00% said it lost A$27 million in the six months through December 2013 due to the carbon tax, saying it couldn't pass costs on to passengers because of stiff market competition. It reported a first-half loss of A$83.7 million."

Earlier, WUWT, June 10, 2014, noted the alliance between the two leaders of Australia and Canada. 

“It’s not that we don’t seek to deal with climate change,” said Harper. “But we seek to deal with it in a way that will protect and enhance our ability to create jobs and growth. Not destroy jobs and growth in our countries.”

Abbott, whose Liberal party came to power last fall on a conservative platform, publicly praised Harper for being an “exemplar” of “centre-right leadership” in the world.

Abbott’s government has come under criticism for its plan to cancel Australia’s carbon tax, while Harper has been criticized for failing to introduce regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada’s oil and gas sector.

From International Business Times (IBT) Australia, June 10, 2014, 

Abbott, who is visiting Canada for talks with the country's prime minister and his close friend Stephen Harper, said efforts are underway to form a new "center-right" alliance under the leadership of Canada, UK, Australia, India and New Zealand....

In a report by the Sydney Morning Herald, it said the alliance may be a "calculated attempt" to push back on what both Mr Abbott and Mr Harper sees as a "left-liberal agenda" to raise taxes and "unwise" plans to address the issue of global warming.
From The Telegraph, June 10, 2014,

""Like-minded” countries such as Britain, Canada and India should form a conservative alliance with Australia to limit action on climate change and to prevent the introduction of carbon pricing, the country's prime minister Tony Abbott has said.

Seeking to counter Barack Obama’s efforts for international action to reduce carbon emissions, Mr Abbott has reportedly sought to create a “combined front” with fellow Commonwealth nations that have conservative governments."

September last year, Tony Abbott also abolished the Ministry of Climate Change, helped shrink the size of Australian government.


16 Sep 2013 09:40 Last updated: 16 Sep 2013 09:51
BEIJING, Sept 16 (Reuters Point Carbon) - The new Australian Cabinet will be the first in six years to not have a ministerial role for climate change issues, merging instead global warming with the wider environment portfolio.

Announcing his Cabinet on Monday, incoming Prime Minister Tony Abbott appointed Greg Hunt, the Liberal-National Coalition’s spokesman on climate change issues since 2009, as the new Minister for the Environment.

So, RIP, carbon tax, at least in Australia.

I hope that other developed countries will realize the folly of making things, from electricity to manufacturing to mining to flying and tourism, become more expensive than what they should be. People want affordable products and services so they can live a more prosperous, more comfortable life. It is the reward for their hard labor and work efficiency.

See also:
Energy Econ 16: Electricity and Development, March 20, 2014

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

PAGASA 4: On Unjustified Class Cancellations

Yesterday, I was upset that the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) declared public storm warning signal (PSWS) #1 over Metro Manila at 11:45am, when it was sunny, thin clouds above. So pre-school afternoon classes have been cancelled. My younger daughter who was excited to go to her 12:30 – 3:30pm class was sad when I told her that classes have been cancelled.

The range of PAGASA warning was far out, signal #1 from Marinduque & Burias Islands south of M.Manila up to Tarlac and Pangasinan in the north. Tropical storm  “Rammasun” (local name “Glenda”) was still several hundreds of kilometres away from any Philippine island when the storm signal was declared. I could understand putting Marinduque, Batangas, Quezon under signal #1 at 11:45am, but not Metro Manila. There was no strong rain the whole day yesterday until evening, until this morning.

Below, PAGASA graphics as of 11 am today.

As of 11am yesterday, PAGASA said,

"Forecast Positions: Tropical Storm“GLENDA” is expected to be in the vicinity of Virac Catanduanes by tomorrow morning and at 240 km Northwest of Dagupan City by Wednesday morning."

So a landfall about 20 hours away, in Catanduanes island far away from Metro Manila, was far out to declare signal #1. PAGASA was being paranoid.

Also yesterday at its 3:02pm advisory, PAGASA said,
"Expect thunderstorm over Nueva Ecija, Metro Manila and other areas of Rizal in the next 2 hours."

By 5 pm, there was no thunderstorm in M.Manila. So even a forecast for the next two hours, PAGASA can be imprecised. One reason why people and meteorological agencies like PAGASA and others under the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) should stop claiming with certainty that global temperature will rise by 1 or 2 or even 4 C some 100 years from now.

Some friends suggested that it is a “no win situation” for PAGASA, especially if they do not declare a storm signal and it pours hard, they will be blamed by the public.

Rainfall amount as of 9:40pm last night. Zero rainfall nationwide, 10 hours after the "signal #1" warning.

My concern is the prolonged class cancellations. All classes from pre-school to high school have been suspended today in Metro Manila and surrounding provinces; and there was class cancellation yesterday afternoon. And possible class cancellations again tomorrow as the storm exits the country. Up to 2 ½ days cancellation.

Paranoia can cause damages like loss of productivity. Parents pay for school fees and schools don't hold classes because of some paranoid weather announcement.

Problem here, no one can hold PAGASA liable. It has no contract with anyone of us, so it breaks not a single contract, so no one can sue it or penalize it, like cut its annual funding. We have gotten used to government inefficiencies that one inefficiency after another becomes tolerable and even defensible. The usual solution is to give more tax money to an inefficient agency. "Ayy inefficient sila, kulang kasi sa pondo, dagdagan natin."

Below, a news headline from Philippine Star yesterday. 

If one has a big event, say a musical/rock concert, and PAGASA says there will be storm signal #2 or #3 on the day of the event, the organizer cancels the event two  or three days ahead, and the storm was not even of signal #1 strength, who can the organizer blame and possibly ask for compensation for the damage? Not PAGASA, it has no contract anyone in the country except Congress. Sorry na lang tayo pag palpak forecasting nila. Most likely they will get additional funding from Congress next year. A monopoly is rewarded, not penalized, for its inefficiency. If it is a private forecasting company, it will go bankrupt if it continues to provide false forecasts.

Again, weather and climate are highly uncertain and forecasts are highly unreliable the longer the projected period.  When some government agencies predict a global warming of 2 C or 3 or 4 C100 years from now, they can be practicing voodoo science to produce voodoo scare in the hearts and minds of the public. And the public can be easily hoodwinked to accept various environmental regulations, energy taxation and cronyism, huge climate loans, climate bureaucracies and frequent climate junkets.

See also: 
PAGASA Bureaucracy 1: On Temperature Data, July 14, 2011
PAGASA Bureaucracy 2: Deregulate Weather Forecasting, Privatize PAGASA, December 20, 2011.
PAGASA Bureaucracy 3: On Giving Local Names to Storms with International Names, August 20, 2012
Fat Free Econ 44: Deregulate Weather Forecasting, July 10, 2013

Climate Tricks 30: On the term "CC Denial/Denier", May 06, 2014
Climate Tricks 31: High Intolerance by the Alarmist Camp, May 14, 2014

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Telecom Modernization and the Developing World

Related to the never-say-die hypothesis that with more globalization and global capitalism, "the poor are getting poorer". This table says that hypothesis is, once again, wrong. Even the poor in poor countries like Bangladesh, Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines, India, Indonesia, China, etc. can afford to buy mobile phones. Many of them are even buying 3G and 4G phones.

I like their title, "The 100 million club". The Philippines is one of the 14 countries in that club worldwide. The reported noted that "Iran and Egypt are knocking at the door" of the club. It further noted that 

• The top 14 countries account for more than 61 percent of the world’s total mobile subscriptions. 
• 29 percent of the world’s mobile users live in India and China. Subscriber numbers in either country dwarf the number of subscribers in third place USA.
And here is the overall global picture. Some 90 percent or 5.4 billion people in the developing world, have mobile phone subscriptions. Until about two to three decades ago, many middle class could not even afford to buy a mobile phone. Now even taxi drivers, bus drivers, ambulant vendors, have smart phones.

The report also noted the following:

• Portio Research – in the excellent free Mobile Factbook 2013 predicts that mobile subscribers worldwide will reach 7.5 billion by the end of 2014 and 8.5 billion by the end of 2016. 
• More than half of the world’s mobile subscribers are in Asia Pacific. With 3.6 billion subscriptions, according to the ITU, Asia Pacific accounts for 52.1 percent of the global number. This share is expected to rise – Portio estimates that Asia Pacific’s share of the mobile subscribers will be 54.3 percent in 2016. Portio also predicts that by 2016 Africa and Middle East will overtake Europe as the second largest region for mobile subscribers.

There. The anti-capitalism, anti-globalization logic is proven to be wrong again. Global capitalism works for the poor. The fierce competition among mobile phone manufacturers, among global telecom companies and related sectors or industries have forced the various players to keep churning out more products and models that cater to all segments of consumers including the poor, both in the developed and developing world. One can have a brand new smart phone now for only $50, just get the lesser known brands like Cherry or MyPhone.

On inequality, the poor before ride cows, carabaos, horses or bicycles while the rich ride a Toyota corolla, etc. Now the poor ride motorcycles while the rich ride SUVs, if not a Benz, BMW, Audi or Ferrari. Is this bad for the poor? Some may say Yes but most poor people would say No.

Some people suggest a "smartphone vs food or education" in their household budget. I think it is not a "vs" but rather "and". Let me cite the example of our part time caretaker in our farm in Bugallon, Pangasinan. He is a tricycle driver, rice farmer, part time worker in the farm, helps his wife manage a small sari sari store, while taking care of their 2 young kids. Some of his friends or neighbors will text him and ask him to drive them to Lingayen or Dagupan or San Carlos, etc. This raises his income, thanks to texting and his mobile phone. Then he can ask by text how much are prices of dried fish in Labrador, about 20 kms away, if the price is low, he would drive there and buy various dried fishes and retail them in the barrio and that again raises his income.

That is why access to telecom and mobile phones is largely an income-enhancing experience and investment of the poor. It is a more effective poverty-fighting event than some government welfare and dole out programs.

A German friend cited the example of watching tv in the UK after tv was introduced more than a century ago. One might say watching a comedy on tv is a waste of time. but perhaps the person is sitting on a sofa watching a comedy together with wife and not going to a pub instead. He is saving money, he can spend it on other things. In addition. after tv was introduced, about two-thirds of Britain's pubs had to close, there was more in the average household kitty (usually administered by women) and drink-related violence (stabbings, etc) decreased.

Less government interventionism and regulation, more competition among players and capitalists, they are led by an "invisible hand" to serve the interests of the poor which may not be their original intention.

See also:
Telecom oligopoly 1: Smart takeover of Sun, April 02, 2011
Telecom oligopoly 2: Slow internet in the Philippines, April 13, 2011
Steve Jobs and innovation, October 07, 2011
Fierce Competition is Fair Competition, January 22, 2013
Globalization, Mobility and Inequality, February 18, 2014

Thursday, July 10, 2014

FDIs, Hong Kong Democracy and China Communism

This 2013 data does not include foreign direct investment (FDI) outflows, only inflows and thus, the net inflow is not shown. Still a useful data.

For European economies in this list, including the fiscally-unstable ones like Spain and Italy -- and note, France is not in the top 20 -- most of those FDI inflows I think are from EU members also. I am interested to see the net or balance (inflows minus outflows). In the ASEAN for instance, Malaysia has high FDI inflows but FDI outflows are also high, so net inflow is negative for 2012 and 2013. I don't remember where I saw the data.

I got the above chart from The Vincenton. The article noted, 

"Hong Kong is undeniably one of the greatest free market experiments in Asia. It is certainly not a 100% free market economy, but it is one of the freest, if not the freest and most capitalistic, economies in the world. Despite imposing limited restrictions and regulations (such as limited restrictions on foreign ownership of land), which technically make Hong Kong a mixed economy with a higher degree of economic freedom, the HK government has the most liberalized investment policies in Asia, enticing local and foreign investors to put up businesses and provide jobs....

More taxes and higher tax rates do not necessarily lead to higher tax revenue collection and economic success. Know the concept of Laffer curve. At present, Hong Kong applies low and simple tax regime. Despite levying 15% salaries tax (the equivalent of our income tax) and property tax, HK government does not impose sales tax or VAT, withholding tax, tax on dividends and estate tax."

About the US' high FDIs, it has a perennial trade deficit, around $1.5 billion a day on average. But it is also gaining with huge FDI inflows. High negative current account is somehow offset by positive capital account, so overall balance of payment (BOP) is not so damaging. Have to check the numbers. China should be bulging with high trade surplus but it also has high FDI outflows, buying many US companies via FDIs or portfolio investments, in US stock markets.

HK government's main revenue I think, is not from taxes, but in selling land. It is the biggest land owner, the biggest land developer. Besides, if you have a dynamic economy, lots of private investments and private enterprises, many people have jobs in the private sector, government does not need to create too many welfare and subsidy programs, nor government should hire too many people.

There is an interesting article in WSJ yesterday by Joe Sternberg. He wrote,

Some local companies have grown increasingly vocal in recent weeks in opposing pro-democracy activists. The Occupy Central movement—a respectable group, unlike those who camped out in Lower Manhattan a few years ago—is promising to bring gridlock to Hong Kong's central business district if Beijing doesn't follow through on its pledge to allow genuine democracy in the territory by 2017. 
Many businesses are concerned about the risks and costs of business disruption if parts of Hong Kong come to a standstill. The Hong Kong offices of the Big Four accounting firms late last month took out an ad in several local newspapers warning that the protests would "shake" international confidence in the territory and could send foreign investors fleeing…. 
The companies err badly on the merits. If it's allowed to continue, the territory's slide into Beijing-lite authoritarianism, with the loss of rule-of-law and concomitant rising public discontent, will be far worse for business than the temporary disruptions of a public protest. But in most political systems, including Hong Kong's (for now anyway), being wrong is not a crime…. 
In response to the Big Four newspaper ad, an anonymous group of the firms' employees bought their own ad supporting Occupy Central. To the extent that the universal suffrage those employees support undermines the influence of functional constituencies, the accountants are arguing against their electoral self-interest. But they seem to realize that real democracy is in the political and economic best interests of all Hong Kongers, and Hong Kong's companies. It's a more enlightened view than that of their employers.

I am against street occupations because they are another form or type of coercion and massive prohibition. People's freedom to walk, pass by, do business in the affected areas are prevented  or restricted.  But I am also against permanent BIG government coercion and dictatorship, like the China communist government dictatorship. I hope the Occupy movement in HK will minimize business disruption in the business district, while sustaining the campaign to free HK from the clutches of Beijing's long distance communist intervention.

See also:

Saturday, July 05, 2014

Weekend Fun 56: Some Photos at Sic O'clock News

With endless corruption and other political scandals on-going in the Philippines today, the public would have great fun if the political satire program on tv more than two decades ago, Sic O'Clock News, is still around. The program ran from around early 1987 to late 1990. I joined its last 10 or 12 months shows, late 1989 to late 1990, as among the minor comedians :-).

In this photo,  I was the one standing. Others from left): Direk Marilou in action (facing us), Wilson Go, Dina Padilla, Khryss Adalia (RIP) and Celeste Bueno.  See Weekend fun 19: Sic o Clock News.

From left: Errol Dionisio (partly hidden, RIP), Wilson Go, Jimmy Fabregas, Ching Arellano (RIP), Manny Castaneda, Noni Buencamino, me, and Khyss (partly hidden). See Weekend Fun 55: Sic O'Clock News, Again.

Yesterday, a friend, Rommel Banlaoi, posted this in my fb wall. I don't know where he got it, but thanks a lot, Rommel.

Some photos in September 2011, at an event for Direk Marilou at the Yuchengco Museum, RCBC Plaza, Makati City. Direk was undergoing chemo treatment then. From top left clockwise: with Jimmy Fabregas, Noni Buencamino and his wife Sharmaine, with Direk Marilou, Direk in earlier years, and with Ces Quesada. See Transitions 4: Direk Marilou Diaz-Abaya.

Is it possible to bring back Sic and its key actors and actresses? No. Many have migrated to the after life already.  I miss those who have departed -- Direk Marilou, main scriptwriter Mads Lacuesta, actors Khryss, Ching and Errol, our producer then Gus, and so on. The living ones, we still "see" each other in facebook. We have a close fb page, "Sic O'Clockers".

Fun days then. We were young, wild and free. Now, we are old, wild and free.

See also:

Friday, July 04, 2014

9th ICCC, Las Vegas

The 9th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC) will be held next week in Las Vegas, USA. It is an annual, sometimes twice a year (2009, NYC and Wash DC; 2010, Chicago and Sydney) conference sponsored by the Chicago-based free market think tank, the Heartland Institute.

I was able to attend the 2nd ICCC in March 2009 in NYC, and the 4th ICCC in Chicago in May 2010. In both instances I was given a travel grant by Heartland because MG Thinkers was among the minor NGO co-sponsors of the event, courtesy of our membership at the IPN-initiatied Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change (CSCCC).

I really learned a lot from those two conferences. Listening to famous climatologists, geologists, solar physicists, meteorologists, biochemists and other natural scientists from many countries was sort of a mind-blowing experience for me. Seeing dozens if not hundreds of graphs, charts and tables per day from different panels for 2 1/2 days was conversing to a Greek-speaking person for me in the 2nd ICCC in 2009. Not so when I attended the 4th ICCC in 2010 because I became familiar with many literatures and a number of key speakers then.

The topics and speakers in the ICCC next week are "salivating", to say the least. If I have modest funding, I definitely would have liked to attend this conference and fly back immediately. I hope that I can find a sponsor, or have money of my own, to be able to attend the ICCC next year.

Here is the list of panel discussions and their respective speakers.

July 07

Dinner, Opening Keynote Speakers and Awards
Meteorologist Joe Bastardi and Congr. Rohrabacher (invited) will open the program and  set the tone for the conference.. The first of a series of awards will be given for Outstanding achievement in science, communication, and other fields.

July 08

Breakfast Speakers and Awards
Dr. Patrick Moore, a cofounder of Greenpeace, and John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, plus awards

Panel 1. Climate Change and the Hydrosphere
Oceans have a major effect on the planet’s climate, and global temperatures are strongly affected by changes in ocean currents. What does the latest science say about how ocean cycles and related factors drive climate change?

Dr. John Dale Dunn, M.D., Emergency Physician, Brownwood, Texas - Moderator
Dr. William Kininmonth, Australian meteorologist
Dr. William Gray, Colorado State University
Dr. Roy Spencer, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Panel 2. Carbon Taxes and the Social Cost of Carbon
Are carbon taxes a market-friendly solution to global warming? An expert panel address es the pros and cons of carbon tax schemes.

James L. Johnston, The Heartland Institute - Moderator
Dr. David Kreutzer, The Heritage Foundation
Marlo Lewis, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Kenneth Haapala, Science and Environmental Policy Project

Panel 3. Combating Climate Myths with Science Facts
Media outlets and global warming activists present a constant parade of asserted global  warming impacts. A panel of experts discuss how they separate fact from fiction when talking with reporters and making public presentations.

Norman Rogers - Moderator
Tom Harris, International Climate Science Coalition
James Taylor, The Heartland Institute
Walter Cunningham, Apollo Astronaut, NASA (retired)

Panel 4. NIPCC versus IPCC: Physical Science
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Non governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) have released several dueling reports on recent climate change. How does their physical science compare?

Craig Idso, Center for the Study of CO2 and Climate Change - Moderator
Dr. Willie Soon, solar physicist and geoscientist
Dr. S. Fred Singer, Science and Environmental Policy Project
Dr. Robert M. Carter, Institute of Public Affairs

Panel 5. Who Benefits from Alarmism?
The global warming debate is filled with accusations of financial gain and personal self-interest. Who really benefits from alarmism, and how?

James L. Johnston, The Heartland Institute - Moderator
Ron Arnold, Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
Dr. Sonja Boehner-Christiansen, editor, Environment & Energy
Larry Bell, author, Climate of Corruption

Panel 6. The Right Climate Stuff
A team of scientists and engineers who worked with NASA to put men on the moon have looked carefully at the science of climate change. They will discuss what they found.

Leighton Steward, Plants Need CO2 - Moderator
Thomas Wysmuller, meteorologist, NASA (retired)
Dr. Hal Doiron, rocket scientist, NASA (retired)
Walter Cunningham, Apollo Astronaut, NASA (retired)