Showing posts with label environmentalism. Show all posts

     Here is another example of the horrors that are being carried out in the name of climate change. Another company is in hot water over the killing of innocents in order to secure land for carbon credit schemes. See my earlier article on the recent news about Ugandans being treated in a similar manner.
British Corporation Evicts Villagers In Uganda

The reported killing of 23 Honduran farmers in a dispute with the owners of UN-accredited palm oil plantations has called into question the integrity of the EU's emission trading scheme (ETS), as carbon credits from the plantations remain on sale.

In Brussels, Green MEP Bas Eickhout called the alleged human rights abuses "a disgrace", and told EurActiv he would be pushing the European Commission to bar carbon credits from the plantations from being traded under the ETS. Several members of the CDM board have been "personally distressed" by the events in Bajo Aguán, northern Honduras, according to the board's chairman, Martin Hession, and have placed under review the CDM's stakeholder consultation process.

"Plainly, the events that have been described are deplorable," said Hession. "There is no excuse for them." But because they took place after the CDM's stakeholder consultations had been held, and fell outside the board's primary remit to investigate emissions reductions and environmental impacts, it had been powerless to block project registrations.

At the heart of the issue are the reported murders of 23 local farmers who tried to recover land that they say was illegally sold to big palm oil plantations, such as Grupo Dinant, in a country scarred by widespread human rights abuses.

In July, a report by an international fact-finding mission was presented to the European Parliament's human rights sub-committee, alleging that 23 farmers, one journalist and his partner, had all been murdered in the Bajo Aguán region between January 2010 and March 2011.

The alleged killings were facilitated by the "direct involvement of private security guards from some of the local companies who are complicit with police and military officials", the report said. In some cases it cited "feigned accidents" in which farmers were run over by security guards working for palm oil businessmen. In other cases, the farmers were simply shot, or had "disappeared"....

Charities like the Lutheran World Federation are particularly concerned, as they say the situation in Bajo Aguán is deteriorating. "There are worrying signs that the Honduran government is moving 1,200 police officers and military personnel into the area," said Toni Sandell, a rights worker with Christian NGO Aprodev.
Other human rights workers in the region claim linkages between Honduran state forces and the landowner's militias they protect, which are said to have connections to local drug traffickers.
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/03/eu-carbon-credits-murders-honduras?newsfeed=true

   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'

When the use of a propaganda technique is all you have left in order to defend your message you have clearly lost the argument. When you label your ideological appoints as this generation's racist you are circumventing the use of actual facts and reasoning. In this day and age people are programed to run from all things conceived as some form of racist or a different labeling mechanism. Don't allow yourself to be labeled unfairly.

Gore: Global warming skeptics are this generation’s racists

Published: 11:18 AM 08/28/2011 | Updated: 6:06 AM 08/29/2011

One day climate change skeptics will be seen in the same negative light as racists, or so says former Vice President Al Gore.
In an interview with former advertising executive and Climate Reality Project collaborator Alex Bogusky broadcast on UStream on Friday, Gore explained that in order for climate change alarmists to succeed, they must “win the conversation” against those who deny there is a crisis. (RELATED: Bill McKibben: Global warming to blame for Hurricane Irene)
“I remember, again going back to my early years in the South, when the Civil Rights revolution was unfolding, there were two things that really made an impression on me,” Gore said. “My generation watched Bull Connor turning the hose on civil rights demonstrators and we went, ‘Whoa! How gross and evil is that?’ My generation asked old people, ‘Explain to me again why it is okay to discriminate against people because their skin color is different?’ And when they couldn’t really answer that question with integrity, the change really started.”
The former vice president recalled how society succeeded in marginalizing racists and said climate change skeptics must be defeated in the same manner.
“Secondly, back to this phrase ‘win the conversation,’” he continued. “There came a time when friends or people you work with or people you were in clubs with — you’re much younger than me so you didn’t have to go through this personally — but there came a time when racist comments would come up in the course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural. Then there came a time when people would say, ‘Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that.’ That happened in millions of conversations and slowly the conversation was won.”
“We have to win the conversation on climate,” Gore added.
When Bogusky questioned the analogy, asking if the scientific reasoning behind climate change skeptics might throw a wrench into the good and evil comparison with racism, Gore did not back down.
“I think it’s the same where the moral component is concerned and where the facts are concerned I think it is important to get that out there, absolutely,” Gore said.
Gore also took shots at Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has lambasted climate change alarmists on the presidential campaign trail, and at other politicians who dare to question the veracity of global warming science.
“This is an organized effort to attack the reputation of the scientific community as a whole, to attack their integrity, and to slander them with the lie that they are making up the science in order to make money,” Gore said.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/28/gore-global-warming-skeptics-are-this-generations-racists/#ixzz1WQzK5oeC

"The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations

By James Delingpole

Former US secretary to the United Nations John Bolton once famously said: “The [UN] Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.” (H/T Milo)
But I’d say Bolton was being too modest in his aspirations. Far too modest. I’d suggest that if we lost all 38 stories the benefits to mankind would be almost incalculable. Right now, indeed, it’s likely that the United Nations poses a far greater threat to Western Civilisation and the world’s economic future than Al Qaeda does. Have a glance at its latest report World Economic And Social Survey 2011 – and you’ll see what I mean.
The report argues that over the next 40 years our governments must spend an annual minimum of $1.9 trillion – that’s an eyewatering $76 trillion – steering the global economy onto the path of “green growth.”
But “Green growth” – as the report more or less acknowledges – is an oxymoron. That’s why, even though it was supervised by an alleged economist, Dutchman Rob Vos, the report is not at all ashamed to advocate limiting economic growth through rationing, punitive taxation and other forms of government intervention. Why? To combat “Climate Change”, of course.
Here’s the kicker:

“Hence, if, for instance, emission reduction targets cannot be met through accelerated technological progress in energy efficiency and renewable energy generation, it may be necessary to impose caps on energy consumption itself in order to meet climate change mitigation in a timely manner. Proposals to put limits on economic growth can be viewed in this context.” (P.19)

And if shaving off $1.9 trillion from the world economy each year (that’s 3 per cent of the world gross product in 2010) results in further economic stagnation and a lower standard of living for our children and grandchildren, well what the hell. As the report primly tells us, none of us actually needs to earn more than $10,000 a year. Anything more is greedy:

“For example, taking life expectancy as an objective measure of the quality of life, it can be seen that life expectancy does not increase much beyond a per capita income of about $10,000. Similarly…cross-country evidence suggests that there are no significant additional gains in human development (as measured by the human development index) beyond the energy-use level of about 110 gigajoules (GJ) (or two tons of oil equivalent (toe) per capita.”

Are they seriously suggesting that developed economies should ration their people’s energy use? They surely are:

“The Survey estimates that the emissions cap would be equivalent to primary energy consumer consumption of 70 gigajoules per capita per year, which means that the average European would have to cut his or her energy consumption by about half and the average resident of the US by about three quarters.”

So, instead of being able to enjoy a hot shower every day all you Americans, you’ll now confine your warm ablutions to weekends only. Same goes for air-con in summer. And heating in winter. Welcome to the New Green World Order.
What’s amazing about this stuff – and believe me, there’s plenty more where this came from – is the unblushing shamelessness with which it advocates this economic insanity. Here is the world’s most powerful intergovernmental institution essentially arguing for the destruction of the global economy, enforced rationing, Marxist wealth redistribution, greater regulation, the erosion of property rights and global governance by a new world order of technocrats and bureacrats. And being so upfront about it they actually issue press releases, telling us what they’re planning to do and encouraging us to write about it.
This is the thing that amazed while I was researching my book Watermelons. If the global green movement is any kind of conspiracy, then it’s a conspiracy in plain sight. The people in power who are advancing its agenda – be it President Obama’s house eco-activists John Holdren and Carol Browner, Green MP Caroline Lucas, and all those faceless apparatchiks at the UN and the EU – make absolutely no bones about what it is that they want to do to save the world from the peril of “Climate Change”: the end of Industrial Civilisation.
Which might be just about understandable if the crisis we were facing were so great that only the most extreme measures would suffice. But the crisis they describe is non-existent. As I argue in the second half of my book, economic growth and true environmentalism – as opposed to the sick, bastardised, warped, hair-shirt perversion of it currently being dumped on us by the Greenies – go hand in hand.
As economies grow richer, so they have more money to set aside for cleaner rivers, fresher air, as well as to invest in R & D projects for ever more eco-friendly forms of energy. It’s no coincidence that quite the worst environmental damage in the last century was done in those countries behind the Iron Curtain. Free market economies tend naturally to be cleaner and healthier because clean and healthy is what people choose anyway if they can afford it. They don’t need government to step in and take their money in order to spend it inefficiently trying to achieve something which would have happened quite naturally anyway.
What this ludicrous UN report is advocating is the exact opposite of what the world needs if it is to become genuinely greener. All those people in the developing world, if they’re to live healthier, less environmentally damaging lives the very last thing they need is hand-outs from richer economies. What they need is property rights and free trade and the chance to grow their economy to the point where – cf the Kuznets Curve – they can afford the luxury of having to breed fewer children and to heat and light their homes without having to chop down the nearest trees. What they also need for us in the rich West to have thriving economies in order that we can import more of their produce.
Rationing and limits to growth are not the answer. The UN is a menace and we listen to its eco-fascist ravings at our peril.