Showing posts with label environmental issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environmental issues. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Monday, November 29, 2010
Ultra Elitist Environmental Group: Halt Economic Growth, Institute Rationing
Steve Watson
Infowars.com
November 29th, 2010
Infowars.com
November 29th, 2010
Ultra elitist environmental group The Royal Society has published a series of papers to coincide with the latest round of UN climate talks, in which influential scientists suggest that politicians should force the population of the developed world to adhere to a system of rationing in order to stave off rising global temperatures.The papers suggest that 1930s and 40s style crisis rationing should be implemented by Western governments in order to reduce carbon emissions. Such a move would see “limits on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.” the London Telegraph Reports.
“The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face,” one Royal Society affiliated professor states.
Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, added that in his view, economic growth in the developed world should be completely halted within the next two decades if the planet is to avoid mass upheaval in the form of rising sea levels, floods, droughts and mass migration.
“I am not saying we have to go back to living in caves,” he said. “Our emissions were a lot less ten years ago and we got by ok then.”
Ironically, Anderson’s point here reveals a fundamental flaw in the theory of anthropogenic warming, namely that CO2 emissions have increased, yet temperature rise is slowing. By all accounts, the warming trend observed predominantly throughout the 1980s and 90s stopped just over a decade ago.
Even the Royal Society itself was forced to admit this fact in a recently published guide, titled ‘Climate change: a summary of the science’ which was altered following multiple complaints from 43 of the Royal Society’s own members that “knowledgeable people” were seeing through brazenly alarmist climate change rhetoric.
The Met office concurs that global warming has been slowing for some time, and the admission was also recently noted by Professor Phil Jones, the figure at the head of the Climategate scandal.
It is hardly surprising to see the Royal Society still pushing a de-industrialization agenda, however, given it’s history and cadre of members and patrons.
The Royal Society, a 350 year old establishment outfit, has traditionally been the most vocal proponent for the hypothesis of AGW.
It was the former president of The Royal Society, Lord May, who made the infamous statement “The debate on climate change is over.”
When he was head of the Society, May told government advisors: “On one hand, you have the entire scientific community and on the other you have a handful of people, half of them crackpots.”
The Royal Society has thrown its full weight behind the global warming movement, lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80%, a process that will devastate the global economy and drastically reduce living standards everywhere.
It has been even more vehement than national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050.
Not surprising then that The Royal Society was also intimately tied to efforts to Whitewash the Climategate emails scandal.
The society has also conducted extensive research into geoengineering the planet, and continually lobbies the government to divert funding into it. A recently published lengthy UK Government report drew heavily upon the Society’s research and concluded that a global body such as the UN should be appointed to exclusively regulate world wide geoengineering of the planet in order to stave off man made global warming.
This information becomes even more disturbing when you consider the mindset of those who make up the membership of the Society. It is riddled with renowned eco-fascists, open eugenicists and depopulation fanatics.
One notable member is James Lovelock, an eco-fascist who advocates ending democracy and instituting an authoritative elite to oversee global climate management and a radical stemming of the human population in order to combat climate change. He is also a patron of the Optimum Population Trust, a notorious UK-based public policy group that campaigns for a gradual decline in the global human population, which it refers to as “primates” or “animals”, to what it sees as a “sustainable” level.
Lovelock is also an ardent advocate of geoengineering. In 2007 Lovelock proposed laying vast swathes of pipes under the world’s oceans in order to pump water from the bottom of the seas – rich in nutrients, but mostly dead – to the top. The idea being that the action would encourage algae to breed, absorb more carbon and release more dimethyl sulphide into the atmosphere, a chemical known to seed sunlight reflecting clouds. Such methods are also covered in the Commons report.
Another member is Jonathon Porritt, former chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission, one of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, who has stated that Britain’s population must be cut in half from around 60 million to 30 million if it is to build a sustainable society.
Porritt, also a member of the Optimum Population Trust, a connection that caused raised eyebrows when it was announced that Porritt was to be a part of a forthcoming Royal Society“Objective” Global Population Study.
Also on the Royal Society’s working group for their global population study is another of their patrons, and another OPT member, BBC darling wildlife broadcaster and film-maker Sir David Attenborough. Attenborough has called for a one child policy like that of Communist China to be implemented in Britain. The proposal is one of the OPT’s main initiatives. Again, how is this man’s influence going to result in an “objective” study on population?
Another member of that working group is Cambridge economist Sir Partha Dasgupta, also a fellow of the OPT.
Professor Malcolm Potts, another member of the working group was the first male doctor at the Marie Stopes Abortion Clinic in London, he also advised on the UK’s 1967 Abortion Act.
Marie Stopes was a prominent campaigner for the implementation of eugenicspolicies. In Radiant Motherhood (1920) she called for the “sterilisation of those totally unfit for parenthood [to] be made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.” That group, according to her, included non-whites and the poor.
Stopes, an anti-Semite Nazi sympathizer, campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich.
Stopes also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the “compulsory sterilization of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.
Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist), Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.
Perhaps most notably, the head of the Royal Society’s new study, John Sulston, most famously played a leading role in the Human Genome Project, the effort to identify and map the thousands of genes of the human genome. Sulston worked under James D. Watson, a notorious eugenicist who has previously argued that black people are inherently less intelligent than whites and has advocated the creation of a “super-race” of humans, where the attractive and physically strong are genetically manufactured under laboratory conditions. Watson is also affiliated with the Royal Society, indeed, in 1993 he received the society’s Copley Medal of honour for “outstanding achievements in research in any branch of science, and alternates between the physical sciences and the biological sciences”.
Sulston is also a leading advocate of the renowned Atheist group, The British Humanist Association.
It is clear that this organisation and these people are immersed in the science of eugenics, and that they have continued the science under the guise of environmentalism. They hate humanity and any notion that their studies will represent anything other than an establishment avocation of mass depopulation is farcical.
Given the standing of the Royal Society and its ability to influence policy making on an international scale, it is imperative that the media, places of education, government representatives and the wider public are made aware of these facts.
—
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor at Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and regular contributor to Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
Live Superfoods
Print this page
Friday, November 26, 2010
Free Market Famine Redux: Who Will Feed China?
Activist PostLong-time published author,Joseph E. Fasciani, wrote an article in May, 2004 for Axis of Logic titled, It’s Time to Again Ask: Who Will Feed China? Activist Post is honored to have been contacted by Joseph to publish an exclusive follow-up companion piece tracing the state of farming then and now, as well as what food shortages mean for all of us. The original article is reprinted by permission in its entirety to offer clarity and perspective.
May 23, 2004
It's Time to Again Ask: Who Willl Feed China?
When Lester Brown's book Who Will Feed China? came out in 1995, apart from the usual suspect environmentalists (such as myself), few people noticed it or thought it "realistic" in its forecasts. The prestigious author, president of the Worldwatch Institute, recipient of many environmental awards, predicted China's breakneck industrialization would lead to massive world grain shortages in the next century. Well, we're very near that point, China has developed even faster than what he foresaw, so what's next?
At that time he wrote that political leaders must recognize "the world is now on a demographic and economic path that is environmentally unsustainable." No argument there, I think, as most of us who are Internet users, have a high school education, and are halfway ecologically aware will admit. He used Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan as key examples of countries already densely populated when they set out to rapidly industrialize, parallel to China's present situation. Brown felt these countries developed in ways that compelled them to turn to imported grains for their populations. He cited many reasons for this, ranging from land scarcity, migration to cities from farms, general overpopulation, water scarcity, and unstable (i.e., unregulated free trade) prices on the world market.
To feed its 1.3 billion people, China may soon have to import so much grain that this could trigger unprecedented rises in grain prices. When Japan, a nation of just 125 million, began to import food, world grain markets rejoiced. But China's market is ten times greater, so there may not be enough easily available grain in the world to meet that market. And here's where it gets really sticky.
The advocates of "Free Trade" and global corporatism who are in these markets, giants such as Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, say that prices will rise to where those that have will get, and those that don't, won't. The neoconservatives' beloved Social Darwinism raises its New World Disorder head, as the Godzilla of food prices rises equally for the rich and the poor alike.
Analysts long understood that the higher incomes of China's new industrial urban proles would increase food demand, especially for meats, eggs, beer, and grains in general. And these same analysts assumed China's domestic food production would rise to meet these demands. But how are you going to keep them down on the farm, after they've seen Beijing? Urban proles don't raise their own food, and most of these newly arrived just escaped from China's Third World farms, so they're not bloody likely to return! So who will feed China?
The world's great granaries are Canada, the USofA, and Argentina. But here we encounter some novel problems with supply, which is supposed to infinitely rise to meet infinite demand. In the airy-fairy world of academic economists, Professor Samuelson's Economicstext poses an absurd infinitely expanding pie of supply. Argentina is a basket case (created by the same Friedmanite economists who gave us global corporatism and free trade lies) and can barely feed itself, rising Summer temperatures make Canada's non-irrigated crops more dicey every year, and US stockpiles were deliberately run low. It is, as a recent article put it, “The End of the World as We Know It, Pentagon Style:”
Particularly vulnerable would be China, which has huge food demands for a population expected to reach almost 1.4 billion over the next 15 years. Much of its agricultural capacity is in low-lying coastal regions and river valleys already threatened by periodic flooding. The Pentagon planners suggest that an expansion into Russian territory might prove irresistible.
Well, flooding, schmuding, so long as there's a buck to be made. Now we arrive at the crux of our problem: thanks to its US dollar wealth, China can easily outbid other nations in a "free world" auction of remaining foodstocks. No more starving Chinese to take our table scraps! They'll eat the pricey food that our domestic poor can't afford! And that's OK, says the Bushies: that's compassionate conservatism in action! It gives missionary churches more chances to get those damned poor we always have too many of into the churches for their daily bread. (Please re-read "The Grand Inquisitor" from The Brothers Karamazov for an important update on this.)
I'm waiting to hear what the candidates have to say about "who's to eat, and who's to serve"* in the kitchen of this New World Disorder Café, brought to you by the same folks that created the Federal Reserve, World Wars 1 & 2, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the pillaging of Central and South American farming and industry, and the 25,000,000 landless urban poor within the USSA who, less than a century ago, could have survived in a less industrialized economy. A small price to pay for Progress, eh Dubya?
*Leonard Cohen: “Democracy,” from The Future
July 10, 2010
Free Market Famine of 2010
Just over six years ago I wrote an article for The Axis of Logic titled, It's Time to Again Ask: Who Will Feed China? As I've been intimately involved with agriculture and horticulture for more than forty years, including service as a governmental advisor to people starting out to farm for the first time, I felt I had some insight into what increasingly looked to be a dire future for the so-called “wealthy nations” of Kanada and the USSA [not typos].
When you read the earlier article, note that it was NOT written in a strident voice, nor was it calling for imminent doom and gloom. It was only a forecast of what I believed was likely the most probable outcome of trends already in place, trends not likely to slow, never mind cease. And now, as we used to say in VietNam, there it is!
Today China clearly has the cash and is ready to step up and buy what the world sells. And buy she has: from multi-billion dollar oil and gas deals to fertile land in the tens of thousands of acres, China has been dumping its US dollars, even as they slowly unwind in decreasing value. In turn, China's bought or secured long-term supplies of food, energy, minerals, metals, and other true necessities of life. The USSA has not done this for its citizens, but instead has arrogantly chosen to stand aside from true conservative practices, in order to let the privately-owned and so-called “free markets” dictate what will be public policy in food and water.
As to who is to pay and who is to eat, well, let the "free" markets decide! Be assured the fat white and black asses in our two ruling houses will be well-fed, at your expense, but hey! Ya got'cher freedoms, don'tya? Too bad them Afghanis don't, eh? Maybe some Iraqi oil will taste good to ya.... Gawd knows you paid and paid and paid for it in blood and wealth!
Finally, as I wrote to Jeff Rense on Thursday, June 22:
Sunday [the 18th] was the last day for Canadian grain farmers to get their seeding done for this year. Unfortunately, we're having torrential rain and floods, so the seeding will be 40% below normal, at best. But wait, it gets worse.
Our dairy and meat cattle are being drowned, as well. The remaining ones will go back to severely ravaged grazing grounds, lowering overall production by a yet-to-be determined amount, but surely at least 10%, more likely 20%.
Farm prices in general are at long-term lows, so even if farmers and ranchers were able to raise 100% of what they could, it still wouldn't be enough to cover the bills.
I think this Autumn could see a general collapse of the large-scale agricultural sector. Small family farms will survive, if just barely.
People who read history will recall that the collapse of the farm sector took place three years before the onset of the Great Depression. The crash of 1929 was only the industrial sector's confirmation of what had already happened in the hinterlands.
It's a'coming, be here all-too-soon.
All best, J
The real problem here is that with the noble exception of the Canadian Wheat Board's marketing, the people who raise our food receive barely enough to cover their costs of production. For all practical purposes, they have neither choice nor voice in who buys what they sell, and at what "market" price. As there are now only six major players in the international grains trade [how free is that, except free to conspire?], the opportunities for price-fixing are simply too, too wonderful to ignore.
We'll soon be visited by the likes of the villain of Frank Norris's famous trilogy of the wheat, "The Octopus,” the railroad's notorious Berman, when he tells the about-to-be-destroyed farmer that the railroad has but one policy: "Charge all the market will bear!"
Nothing's changed in more than a century; our Jeffersonian revolution's at least eight times over due. Look for it in September-October, always good months for collapse and chaos.
To arms, to arms, mon ami!
A free and better world awaits!
Feel free to contact Joseph E. Fasciani with your comments and questions
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
Live Superfoods
Print this page
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Agenda 21 Explained by John Bush to Austin City Council (VIDEO)
YouTube -- Texans4AcctGovt
RELATED ARTICLES:
U.N. Tricks and Treaties
Secretive Executive Order Establishes Big Brother Health Bureaucracy
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
Live Superfoods
It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!
Print this page
RELATED ARTICLES:
U.N. Tricks and Treaties
Secretive Executive Order Establishes Big Brother Health Bureaucracy
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
Live Superfoods
Print this page
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
"Overpopulation" Talk Is Pandering to Prejudice
A few weeks back, the old-school anti-fertility group Optimum Population Trust issued its index of "overpopulated" nations. It names 77 countries which, it says, are "consuming more resources than they are producing and are dependent on other countries, and ultimately the Earth a whole, to make good the difference." Singapore is ranked Number 1, the most overpopulated state, on their list. That's the same Singapore that, as The Economistreported last month, works hard to get its citizens to have more children. Which is a nice illustration of the difference between political reality and a fantasy of "stabilization and gradual population decrease". Among policymakers and social scientists, this idea is about as dead as the Soviet Union. It's politically absurd and scientifically unjustified. Yet, as the Trust's existence demonstrates, the notion persists in a certain kind of environmentalist.
In this and the next few posts, I'll describe what I think is the real state of the debate about population and the environment. (After all, it's "women and power" time here at Big Think, and all attempts to control fertility depend on how much power women have over their own bodies.)
First, though, let's look at the real-world consequences of this fervent supposedly "green" belief that the world is being ruined by the sheer raw number of people on it. Some environmentalists clearly have closed their minds to any evidence to the contrary, and that makes life awkward for environmental organizations. As I've said elsewhere, to be a political advocate for sound science is hard—you work between the open-mindedness of your mission and the close-mindedness of your "base."
This post and its successors are a case in point: I gathered this material for an article commissioned by OnEarth, the magazine of the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the sleekest, smartest and most effective of environmental advocacy groups. The editors proposed the topic because, they told me, population growth was the single largest source of letters from their readers. They wanted an article that would clue those readers into the latest thinking and data on the issue—to bring them out of their 1970's mindset (my words, not theirs, but that was the spirit).
We would, we decided, do this with some care: The article I wrote didn't trumpet that familiar "population control" beliefs were wrong; it reported, truthfully, that other people, including some of the best minds at work in the field, had other ideas.
Did that article appear, sparking a lively and instructive debate? Reader, it did not.
The magazine's publisher, I learned, decided the organization's 1.2 million members couldn't bear such news. Maybe he was right. What would have been the point of sending people word that their prejudices might be mistaken, if that only caused them to shut their ears (and, more importantly, their checkbooks)? I will say this, though: If you're an NRDC member who fervently and angrily believes "overpopulation" is the key to all our troubles, please—please!—preach to me about the narrow-mindedness and ignorance of Tea Partiers and climate deniers. I love a good laugh as much as the next guy.
Related Article:
Climate Change: A Failed Attempt To Establish "Scientific Dictatorship"
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
Live Superfoods
Print this page
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Limit families to two children to save the planet: doctor
Couples should not have more than two children for the sake of the planet, a leading expert argues.
Rebecca Smith
Telegraph
Professor John Guillebaud will tell a conference of GPs that a non-rigid guideline should be introduced in Britain that says 'a two child maximum is the greatest contribution anyone can make to a habitable planet for our grandchildren'.
GPs should encourage patients not to have more than two children when they are offering family planning and contraceptive advice, he will say today at Royal College of General Practitioners annual conference in Harrogate.
Professor Guillebaud, Emeritus Professor of Reproductive Health and Family Planning, at University College London, is due to present a paper entitled Sex and the world population ‘youthquake’ – a sustainable future?
The birth rate has been rising for a number of years in Britain and there are around 790,000 babies born a year.
The latest figures from the Office of National Statistics show that in 2009 the average number of children per woman was just under two. This is mostly because larger families are balanced out by a growing number of women choosing not to have children.
Professor Guillebaud told the Daily Telegraph: "The world is experiencing a 'youthquake'. In Uganda where I went to my first school, 49 per cent of the population is under 15.
"In the UK our teenage pregnancy rate remains the worst in Europe.
“GPs rightly play a significant role in preventing unplanned pregnancies, especially among young people, but what about planned pregnancies?
"Without censoring those who through ignorance of these issues had larger families in the past, shouldn’t we now promote a non-rigid guideline to UK couples that a two child maximum is the greatest contribution anyone can make to a habitable planet for our grandchildren?”
Two children per couple would ensure the population remained stable while three children each having three children leads to nine children.
Read Full Article
RELATED ARTICLES:
Sheep for Slaughter: Is the Elite Really Trying to Kill Us?
7 Secret Ways We Are Being Poisoned
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!
Print this page
Telegraph
Professor John Guillebaud will tell a conference of GPs that a non-rigid guideline should be introduced in Britain that says 'a two child maximum is the greatest contribution anyone can make to a habitable planet for our grandchildren'.
GPs should encourage patients not to have more than two children when they are offering family planning and contraceptive advice, he will say today at Royal College of General Practitioners annual conference in Harrogate.
Professor Guillebaud, Emeritus Professor of Reproductive Health and Family Planning, at University College London, is due to present a paper entitled Sex and the world population ‘youthquake’ – a sustainable future?
The birth rate has been rising for a number of years in Britain and there are around 790,000 babies born a year.
The latest figures from the Office of National Statistics show that in 2009 the average number of children per woman was just under two. This is mostly because larger families are balanced out by a growing number of women choosing not to have children.
Professor Guillebaud told the Daily Telegraph: "The world is experiencing a 'youthquake'. In Uganda where I went to my first school, 49 per cent of the population is under 15.
"In the UK our teenage pregnancy rate remains the worst in Europe.
“GPs rightly play a significant role in preventing unplanned pregnancies, especially among young people, but what about planned pregnancies?
"Without censoring those who through ignorance of these issues had larger families in the past, shouldn’t we now promote a non-rigid guideline to UK couples that a two child maximum is the greatest contribution anyone can make to a habitable planet for our grandchildren?”
Two children per couple would ensure the population remained stable while three children each having three children leads to nine children.
Read Full Article
RELATED ARTICLES:
Sheep for Slaughter: Is the Elite Really Trying to Kill Us?
7 Secret Ways We Are Being Poisoned
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
Live Superfoods
Print this page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)