In one of the most disgusting displays of the realities of what government getting involved in the global warming issue brings us, thousands of poor Ugandans have been forcibly removed. The officials are saying that they left peacefully, but the words of the Ugandans themselves are starting to be heard, and it is not good. The aid organization Oxfam has recently reported on the fact that 20,000 Ugandans have been forcibly removed from their homes in recent years. Stories of children being shot, houses burned, and crops destoryed are coming from the villagers theemselves.
     These evictions are being carried out on behalf of New Forest Corporation. The company buys licenses from African countries to grow forests in order to sell the carbon credits from the carbon in which their forests soak up. The idea is that other companies buy these offsets for the pollution that they produce. The New Forest Corporation have licenses in Uganda, Tanzania, Mozambique, and Rwanda. This issue is about a 50 year lease in 2005 for these lands in Uganda. This investment was believed to have the possibility of returns up towards $1.8 million per year. The only problem with this land was that there were still Ugandans living on the land. The interesting point about this company New Forest Corporation is that its largest owners is the World Bank and HSBC. They are accused of burning out homes, shooting resisters, and destroying crops in order to remove these innocent Ugandans. The New Forest Corporation denies these stories of violence as it sets up its newest headquarters in the only schoolhouse of one of the villages that was cleared out.
    This is the sad reality of the environmental movement, and such treaties as Agenda 21 (and supplemental agreements). The rights of the people will be usurped in favor of nature or the corporations and organizations that claim the right to operate in the name of protecting nature. People will be kicked off their lands in order to consolidate populations into urban centers in the belief that humanity will do less damage to the environment if located only within the controlled urban environment instead of spread out over the land. There are numerous other results that also please those in control, but with the biggest message here is that you do not have the rights to your land if you are deemed to not be using it for the good of nature (very similar to the idea that native Americans were not using the land for good and must be removed). Now these villagers will be forced to move and most likely be subject to the labor and lifestyle of the cities instead of the freedom of the wilderness. As greater measures of land management spreads across the global our homes will be subject to certain environmental considerations as well. We may not be chased away at gun point, but will we be allowed to live where we please or will they find other economic and legal pressures to confine us more and more in the cities of America?
    Read of the devastation and injustice done to innocent people whose only wrong was living in a forest: 
In Scramble for Land, Group Says, Company Pushed Ugandans Out 
Ugandan farmer: 'My land gave me everything. Now I'm one of the poorest'