| The term red pill and its opposite, blue pill, are pop culture terms that have become a common symbol for the choice between the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue) and embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality (red). |
| Take The Journey |
|
|
Cut world population and redistribute resources, expert urges Paul Ehrlich
Nuclear disaster or plague likely unless population shrinks and natural resources are reassigned to poor, says Prof Paul Ehrlich.
The world’s most renowned population analyst has called for a massive reduction in the number of humans and for natural resources to be redistributed from the rich to the poor.
Paul Ehrlich, Bing professor of population studies at Stanford University in California and author of the best-selling Population Bomb book in 1968, goes much further than the Royal Society in London which this morning said that physical numbers were as important as the amount of natural resources consumed.
The optimum population of Earth – enough to guarantee the minimal physical ingredients of a decent life to everyone – was 1.5 to 2 billion people rather than the 7 billion who are alive today or the 9 billion expected in 2050, said Ehrlich in an interview with the Guardian.
“How many you support depends on lifestyles. We came up with 1.5 to 2 billion because you can have big active cities and wilderness. If you want a battery chicken world where everyone has minimum space and food and everyone is kept just about alive you might be able to support in the long term about 4 or 5 billion people. But you already have 7 billion. So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage.”
“The question is: can you go over the top without a disaster, like a worldwide plague or a nuclear war between India and Pakistan? If we go on at the pace we are there’s going to be various forms of disaster. Some maybe slow motion disasters like people getting more and more hungry, or catastrophic disasters because the more people you have the greater the chance of some weird virus transferring from animal to human populations, there could be a vast die-off.”
Agenda 21 in New York State — Home Rule and Article X
Numerous critics condemn the insidious nature of Agenda 21. Usually the arguments are based upon the intrusion of the United Nations to mismanage the planet and reduce people to a sinister petri dish experiment. Their reach and methods used by this octopus that is strangling the globe, include specific actions that force their agenda down the throats of government entities. The recent passage of Article X in New York State illustrates a direct assault on the treasured principle of Home Rule. Connecting the dots and tying the links together forecast a grim reality that is ready to explode into a vicious turf fight.
The United Nations publication for Sustainable Development describes their objectives and announcements.
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.
Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.
The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED, to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. It was agreed that a five year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session.
The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002.
IPCC exposed by Author Donna Laframboise
The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert
New book by Donna Laframboise
Almost nothing we’ve been told about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is true.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change writes a report informally known as the Climate Bible. Cited by governments around the world, this report is the reason carbon taxes are being introduced, heating bills are rising, and costly new regulations are being imposed. It is why everyone thinks carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous.
But rather than being written by a meticulous, upstanding professional in business attire (aka the world’s top scientists & best experts), the Climate Bible is produced by a slapdash, slovenly teenager who has trouble distinguishing right from wrong (aka, activists, 20-something graduate students, people appointed due to their gender or their country).
The world needs to confront the folly that is the IPCC.
Continue reading
Revisit: Global Warming or Global Governance?
If you were to ask ten people on the street if mankind was causing global warming, at least eight out of ten would say yes. After all, Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth provides incontrovertible “evidence” that this is the case. Yet, contrary to what is heard in the media, there is overwhelming evidence that the warming we are experiencing is natural, with maybe a small amount contributed by man’s activities. Nor is there any scientific consensus. The debate is still raging within the scientific community. Sovereignty International has put together interviews of climate scientists and biologists from numerous sources who explain, step by step, why Al Gore and the global warming alarmists are incorrect. In some cases, blatantly so. It also provides evidence that the global warming agenda is being funded with tens of billions of dollars as a mechanism to create global governance. Hear from congressmen, experts and even well-known news broadcasters how global governance puts global institutions that are not accountable to the American people in control of every aspect of our economy. The U.S. government is very close to making this a reality. Very close. Every American, every citizen of the world, needs to hear the other side of the global warming story.
Revisiting Carbon Trading
Carbon Trading puts corporate profits before climate justice. We need to dispel the misguided notion that carbon trading has anything at all to do with climate change mitigation, or the present and future well being of our communities.
Carbon trading lies at the centre of global climate policy and is projected to become one of the world’s largest commodities markets, yet it has a disastrous track record since its adoption as part of the Kyoto Protocol. Carbon Trading: how it works and why it fails outlines the limitations of an approach to tackling climate change which redefines the problem to fit the assumptions of neoliberal economics. It demonstrates that the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, the world’s largest carbon market, has consistently failed to ´cap´ emissions, while the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) routinely favours environmentally ineffective and socially unjust projects. This is illustrated with case studies of CDM projects in Brazil, Indonesia, India and Thailand.
UN climate talks in Copenhagen are discussing ways to expand the trading experiment, but the evidence suggests it should be abandoned. From subsidy shifting to regulation, there is a plethora of ways forward without carbon trading – but there are no short cuts around situated local knowledge and political organising if climate change is to be addressed in a just and fair manner.
Download high resolution version
www.dhf.uu.se/pdffiler/cc7/cc7_web.pdf [PDF 8.5mb]
Download low resolution version
www.dhf.uu.se/pdffiler/cc7/cc7_web_low.pdf [PDF 0.8mb]
Download: 350 Reasons Carbon Trading Won’t Work
See Also: Trading On Tnin Air
Weather Extremes Hint At Public Health Impacts Of Climate Change
After a year of unprecedented destruction attributed to weather extremes, federal officials and environmental advocates are focusing increased attention on the potential health impacts of global warming, which most scientists expect to spur not just more frequent instances of extreme heat, but also increases in rainfall, drought, snow, floods and violent storms.
“Climate change poses a serious threat to public health,” Dr. George Luber, the associate director for climate change at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said Thursday. Luber was speaking to reporters as part of the launch of an online, extreme-weather mapping tool developed by the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“We have to really understand the local context of these extreme events and how they impact our communities by looking at them in what we call a spatially specific way, or in a way that really gets down to the geography of risk,” Luber said, “by addressing those particular aspects of our communities, our cities and our populations that make people more susceptible to the negative health consequences of climate change.”
