Interlocking Directorships

EIN News says, "Low-Carbon Power Would Deliver Just Half Required CO2 Cuts, IEA Says Decarbonizing the world's electricity supply, which in itself is an "unprecedented" challenge, would deliver a little less than half the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions necessary by 2035 to limit the eventual increase in global temperatures to two degrees Celsius, the International Energy Agency said in a report. (nasdaq.com)".

Wikipedia says the IEA (International Energy Agency ) is a Paris-based autonomous intergovernmental organization. The IEA was initially dedicated to responding to physical disruption in the supply of oil, as well as serving as an information source on statistics about the international oil market and other energy sectors. The IEA acts as a policy adviser to its member states, but also works with non-member countries. The Agency's mandate has broadened to focus on the "3Es" of sound energy policy: energy security, economic development, and environmental protection. The latter has focused on mitigating climate change. The IEA has a broad role in promoting alternate energy sources (including renewable energy), rational energy policies, and multinational energy technology co-operation.

In other words, it is one of the many international organizations set up by governments, similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which started the "end of the world" fear of rising global temperatures caused by increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

Examples of other international organizations involving government are the G8, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations. I call all of these and other similar organizations "Interlocking Directorships". The nations, which are part of the membership, are almost routinely the same from one organization to the other. This is similar to the "interlocking Directorships" we have for corporations in the US. In that case, individual companies are represented on several boards of directors.

In the case of international organizations, each of those organizations adhere to a philosophy and modus operandi of the total Interlocking Directorship. The motivation for each country within an organization is to gain power, and the individual persons representing their countries operate on that same basis, including an interest in their personal wealth.

In the case of US corporations, the situation is similar but simpler. An individual person on a company's board of directors is motivated primarily by his interest in his personal wealth. However, there is limited potential in working with that single board. The situation becomes radically different if that same person is on several boards. For example, Person A is Chairman of Board X. He is also a member of Board Y. Person B. is a member of Board X and Chairman of Board Y. Persons A and B then agree that as Chairman of their respective boards to "promote" each other's interests, with respect to voting on significantly increased salaries and bonuses for the other person. This is the system which has led to the ridiculous salaries and bonuses which are currently being received by corporate officers.

In the case of international organizations, the "Interlocking" works on the same basis, with the exception that the leadership members not only agree from one organization to the other on salaries and other benefits, but also on the philosophy and modus operandi of the total Interlocking Directorship. The philosophy is the same. If the total directorship's philosophy is to accept carbon dioxide as a global warming agent, each member organization must adhere to the same philosophy. This is very likely the basis on which the IEA has said above that decarbonizing the world's electricity supply would deliver a little less than half the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions necessary by 2035 to limit the eventual increase in global temperatures to 2° C..

The question may be raised on how the Interlocking Directorship establishes a total philosophy. This is done through the leading organization, and the leading organization is usually controlled by the national member that contributes the most money. For the Interlocking Directorship on global warming, the United States is by far the largest contributor of funds to the World Bank, the G8, United Nations, etc., in which case it establishes the Directorship's philosophy. It does so because of the misguided notion that wind and solar could replace fossil fuels as energy sources and, that in the interim, large revenue increases could be obtained through taxing CO2 emissions from fossil fuel users.

The abysmal situation of the International Interlocking Directorship on global warming is fortunately being automatically resolved. The US is already in debt and there is no longer a bottomless pit from which to obtain loans. This means the US must cut back in its contributions to each of the various international organizations that make up the Interlocking Directorship. This will mean a loss of power to the US and also a loss of its ability to establish the interlocking directorship philosophy. In all probability, the global warming philosophy will either go away or be significantly reduced.

With respect to Interlocking Directorships of US corporations, we already have an Antitrust Law, which should be able to eliminate this abuse, if the law is enforced. If the present Antitrust Law is insufficient, Congress can easily pass an amendment or new law which limits membership of a person to only one board of directors, either as a member or chairman.