Keystone XL | The Ivory Towers Crushing the Last Remnants of Climate Justice

By Cory Morningstar

January 20, 2011

 

A recent article was posted to an International Climate Justice Now! listserv written by “agent” Jamie Henn of 350.org/1Sky/Tar Sands Action. The 16 January 2012 article titled “Grassroots Strategy Is Key to Winning Keystone XL Fight” gave the impression that the mainstream green groups were a magnificent force to be dealt with due to an unprecedented “grassroots” effort united.

Really?

It appears he missed Tom Goldtooth’s (Indigenous Environmental Network) interview published 5 December 2011 by The Africa Report:

“We have challenged, and become very unpopular for raising the issue of, classism, which is [a] source of the problem and requires an economic analysis if the environmental and climate narrative is to be truthful…. Look at 350.org – we had to challenge them to bring us to stand with them on the pipeline issue. Bill McKibben, the ivory tower white academic, didn’t even want to take the time to bring people of colour to the organising. We managed a negotiation that allowed for both groups to unite.” … “Well, it is always the case with the media that ‘white is right’ or that global issues affecting people of color on the frontline should be represented by the type of voices that don’t engage, in a threatening way, the realities of capitalism. There are also many fashionable voices that become part of the establishment in the sense that while they do espouse the truth, it [does] not pose a threat for change, for ending the system, because someone has adopted a cause that they were not born into. The communities that live in the cancer hotspots, in the immediate environment, their voices are too real, too threatening. Meanwhile, infiltration continues – …”

 

When I start seeing articles posted on an international climate justice listserv from 350.org celebrating NRDC [1]and friends, co-opting MLK (Martin Luther King, Jr.) for their own (branding) purposes and legitimising the Obama tagline “Yes We Can” (language that in turn gives “hope” that citizens may see “a certain young senator from Illinois” re-emerge), with no dissent to be found, it tells me that my good friend and legitimate activist Sandy was right. This Climate Justice Network has become CAN (Climate Action Network)[2] in drag. [January 2012: “But as an openly gay man can I say that sometimes I read the cjn postings and feel like cjn at times is becoming CAN in drag, in other words we have been infiltrated, so I wonder whether it is too late to lock the chicken coop when the fox is already inside.”]

→

The Libyan Tragedy: Lessons for the Western Left

January 1, 2012

By Tim Anderson

One might have thought that with the “humanitarian’ pretexts for the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan fairly fresh in the mind, the western “left’ might have hesitated before backing (or refusing to oppose) a similar stunt in Libya.

Apparently not. Perhaps caught off guard by the rapid development of events, many of those who consider themselves “left’ or progressive, in the western-imperial cultures, happily joined in the big-power-orchestrated chorus against “dictator’ Gaddafi. In doing so they helped legitimise the overthrow of one of the more independent regimes in the middle east, and helped extend big power control of the region.

Never mind some quibbles over the carpet bombing and eventual public torture and murder of Gaddafi himself. Never mind the complaint that a “no fly zone’ should not have meant missile attacks. The damage was done. By joining in the chorus against this western-designated “dictator’, they effectively backed his very public torture and murder, along with the destruction of an independent political will in that small country.

The consequences of the “humanitarian intervention’ in Libya were pretty well understood by most of the left in developing countries (i.e. in most of the world). Fidel Castro, notably, expressed scepticism about Gaddafi’s political philosophy and some of his practice, but strongly opposed any NATO intervention (1). The western “left’, by contrast, was fragmented and confused on matters of basic principle.

I suggest here some lessons for a western “left’ that seems to have found itself deeply embedded in imperial culture:

1. Beware the “humanitarian’ pretexts for war and imperial intervention against “dictators’

The “civilian massacres’ by Gaddafi were invented. The insurrection, armed by NATO from day one (2), was being put down by the Libyan army, and the “rebels’ cried “we are civilians’ as they were being beaten. Others claimed attacks, such as the alleged air strikes on civilians of 22 February, were simply fabricated (3). After a while, the armed insurrection could be “justified’ by reference to the Libyan government’s earlier attacks on “civilians’. Later on the cluster bombing of the town of Misrata, by NATO, was falsely blamed on Gaddafi (4). The western “left’ should have recalled that most imperial wars and interventions were started on similar false pretexts. If Gaddafi and a relatively independent state could be wiped out so easily on such a pretext, the same could apply to many dozens of other independent states.

2. Beware of wishful illusions over a heroic “rising of the masses’

There was no such spontaneous uprising in Libya. The opposition factions were well established (if disunited) before 2011 and the creation of the NATO-backed “National Transitional Council’ (NTC): Islamic groups, exile groups armed by the US from the 1980s, Benghazi clans, including those linked to the deposed monarchy (5) along with technocrats who recently defected from Gaddafi’s government and wanted fuller engagement with western capital (notably Mahmoud Jibril and Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, along with the late Abdul Fatah Younis, murdered in July by his TNC colleagues) (6). It is no coincidence that those same groups, having prevailed only because of NATO air power, are now warring, not only with Gaddafi loyalists, but amongst themselves, over the spoils (7).

3. “Eccentric’ foreign leaders are not fair game for murder

Gaddafi certainly ran a different political system to the alleged western “democracies’ (which reify a nominal vote plus corporate dictatorship). While the point of international relations has never been whether outsiders agree with a national system, the Libyan system did have some advantages. Libya under Gaddafi, had a high degree of social inclusion and social citizenship. There was a free education and health system, cheap energy and credit and most owned their own homes. Libya’s human development ranking under Gaddafi was by far the best in Africa (8). Further, a UN Human Rights Council report in January 2011 recognised and supported a range of human rights developments in the country (9). All that was gone after the NATO-backed insurrection, complete with missile and drone attacks, carpet bombing, the slaughter of tens of thousands (western audiences have become accustomed to this) and the public assassination of the leader of a non-aggressive regime. Branding a foreign leader a “dictator’ has become the new “license to kill’.

4. Why see “humanitarian intervention’ as a desirable development?

The only regimes advocating “humanitarian intervention’ are the imperial powers and the former colonists (10). We know what their track record is (11). They habitually seek to control resources and markets, and to dominate entire regions. Why should any intelligent human being believe in the “Santa Claus’ theory of international relations? It should have been no surprise to anyone that the NATO-dependent rebels, early in the conflict, offered a large swag of their country’s strategic resources to a certain NATO member, in exchange for military backing (12).

5. Beware the imperial role of UN agencies, including the ICC

While the UN’s Security Council did not authorise the bombing of Libya and “regime change’, it did give NATO the proverbial foot in the door. Other multilateral agencies, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (in the constant attacks on Iran) and the International Criminal Court (which appears to only prosecute African leaders) are now heavily compromised by the big powers. In the Libyan case the ICC head Luis Moreno-Ocampo even backed US accusations against Gaddafi which had embarrassed the Europeans (13). But then, as Wikileaks showed, as early as March 2009 Moreno-Ocampo had been collaborating with US diplomats over the management of political regime change in Africa (14)

6. What option do “we’ have during a violent crisis, such as that in Libya?

First, forget the royal / imperial “we’. It is precisely imperial culture that encourages us to believe we can judge the world and determine the fate of other peoples.

Second read the first article of the twin covenants of the International Bill of Rights, which was lifted directly from the UN’s “Declaration on Decolonisation’ (1960): “All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.’

Next, get clear why colonisation and imperialism were declared to be at the root of the worst of all human rights violations.

Virtually all the imperial and colonial powers (Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, United States of America) abstained when the Declaration of Decolonisation was first put. Six years later self-determination came the founding principle of both the international covenants on human rights (the ICCPR and the ICESCR). The UN now refers to self-determination the “essential condition’ for the guarantee and promotion of all other rights, standing “apart from and before all the other rights’ in the Covenants. Nevertheless, in western discussions on “human rights’, the principle is ignored.

Educated people in developing countries understand that Libya – like Afghanistan and Iraq and other neo-colonies – will have to go through a renewed process of decolonisation. And that is the real tragedy of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

The neo-imperial theory of “the responsibility to protect’ attempts to rewrite the international order and to lend a gloss to brutal interventions. Yet imperial interventions never assist “human rights’. The Timor case of 1999 did nothing to undermine this principle of non-intervention (15). But after Afghanistan and Iraq we, the left in the imperial cultures, should have known better.

Footnotes

(1) Fidel Castro (2011) “NATO, war, lies and business’, see: http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Perspectives_1/article_7662.shtml

(2) Libya Rebels had NATO Weapons from Day 1 – Brand New in the box:

(3) “Airstrikes in Libya did not take place – Russian military’:

(4) Human Rights Investigation (2011) “Destroying Misrata to save it’, at: http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/05/23/destroying-misrata-to-save-it/

(5) See for example Peter Dale Scott (2011) “Who are the Libyan Freedom Fighters and Their Patrons?’, at: http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3504

(6) For example the former Gaddafi ministers who rapidly became the western favourites and leaders of the NTC: Mahmoud Jibril (see: http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/meet-mahmoud-jibril/); and Mustafa Abdul-Jalil (see: http://libyasos.blogspot.com/2011/11/mustafa-abdul-jalil-and-mahmoud-jibril.html).

(7) Chris Stephen (2011) “Libyan scramble for -100bn in assets fractures the peace at Tripoli airport’, at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/17/libya-tripoli-airport-assets-un

(8) According to the 2011 Human Development Report (UNDP 2011: Table 1, p.128), Libya ranked 64th, well ahead of the next two African countries, its neighbours Tunisia (at 94th) and Algeria (at 96th).

(9) UN Human Rights Council (2011) “Report of the Working Group on the Universal

Periodic Review, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’, 4 January, at: http://libyanfreepress.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/report_working_group_universal_periodic_review.pdf …

(10 )All the major developing countries opposed the attacks on Libya — see: VOA (2011) “BRICS Nations Oppose Use of Force in Libya’, 14 April, at: http://www.voanews.com/english/news/BRICS-Nations-Oppose-Use-of-Force-in-Libya-119833134.html

(11) William Blum (2011) “Killing Hope: US Military and CIA. Interventions Since World War II’, at: http://killinghope.org/

(12) Granma (2011) “Transition Council promised 35% of Libyan oil to France in return for support’, at: http://www.granma.cu/ingles/international-i/2sept-Libyan.html

(13) (a) Ewan MacAskill (2011) “Gaddafi ‘supplies troops with Viagra to encourage mass rape’, claims diplomat’, at: then (b) “I.C.C. Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo: Gaddafi Personally Ordered Mass Rape, Bought Containers of “Viagra-Type” Drugs for Troops’, at:

(14) The Guardian (2010) “US embassy cables: ICC prosecutor alleges Bashir secret fortune of $9bn’, at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/

(15) The sending of foreign troops to East Timor in 1999 was not an imperial intervention. The Timorese did not call in foreign air strikes against Indonesia, they fought and won that battle themselves, taking advantage of big changes within Indonesia. A diverse (eventually UN-backed) force was then called in to police an independence process that had already been won by the Timorese and conceded by the Indonesians.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/3/The-Libyan-Tragedy-lesson-by-Tim-Anderson-120101-709.html

Must Read Interview with Tom Goldtooth – Climate Change, the Big Corrupt Business?

Admin: By far the best interview out of Durban – If only everyone spoke the truth like Tom Goldtooth in this interview … we would be winning the battle instead of losing.

The Africa Report

By Khadija Sharife in Durban

05 December 2011

Tom Goldtooth, head of the Indigenous Environmental Network talks to The Africa Report about the manipulation of carbon trading data and the double standards assumed by richer countries.

“The carbon certificate, that says one corporation somewhere in the world now controls and owns what in our culture cannot be owned – land, air, the trees”- Tom Goldtooth/Photo/Reuters

Goldtooth expresses his misgivings about agriculture being included as part of the United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD). Arguing that “REDD is going to be the largest legal land grab the world has ever seen”, the indigenous North American warns of colonialism and forced privatisation. And according to him “those with the most money and power can – by remote control, lock up the largest land areas in developing countries”. “They are happiest to work with the most corrupt because it is easiest that way,” he says.

Interview.

The Africa Report: How do indigenous peoples, such as yourself, perceive REDD?

Tom Goldtooth: There are a number of reasons for profiling REDD as a false solution. For indigenous peoples, and as an indigenous organisation that specialises in environmental issues, and which has consulted with many indigenous peoples from the North of the world to the South, from the East to the West, one of the biggest issues is escalation of global warming. In Alaska, melting ice has forced entire villages to relocate, there is coastal land erosion. It is not an easy situation to pull up your entire life – as a community – and move, especially with the other issues involved like settlers with private land rights. So the biggest issue we feel, is putting a stop to climate change by shutting the valve of GHG. It is a matter of life and death.

So we are very concerned that the second round of the Kyoto Protocol is being held back by the powerful governments of the world, including my own government, the US. Any real mitigation is welcome with open arms because we are the people who are most vulnerable and desperate for a solution. But is REDD a real solution? Already, there has been manipulation of the data, displacement of peoples, narratives driven by industry-funded scientists. We are concerned that the same people who caused the problem are now shaping the solution to fit with their agendas – which is making a profit using the same principles that caused the problem. Look at how it is being implemented as well – corporations know that it is easy to exploit the peoples of the South given the state of their governments, the lack of land rights, the violation of human rights, through that piece of paper – the carbon certificate, that says one corporation somewhere in the world now controls and owns what in our culture cannot be owned – land, air, the trees. How can this belong to a one financier when it belongs – and has a right to belong, to the earth?

Give us your perspective on the US government’s position in the climate talks?

In our country, there has been the expansion of fossil fuel development, so even while they are talking a green policy view, they are expanding dirty industry right in our backyards, which is also the homeland of indigenous peoples. Look at the tar sands in Northern Alberta, Canada – this is within the traditional homelands of the Dine’ people – I’m a Southern Dine’. Another group, the Namate, live downstream and with the immediate zone. They are about 22 corporations – many of them state-funded, including Statoil from Norway, and Total from France. The companies involved are not only polluting the atmosphere and the earth, but they’re depleting water, and the same companies are involved with clearing away the boreal forest. It is a viable option now that the price of fuel is going up. Yet Canada, which has not come close to meeting their commitments and is a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol, has gone ahead with tar sands. These are the governments that are supposed to provide the solution?

Has there been any co-option of the indigenous leadership through corporatising policies such as Alaska’s ‘native corporations’?

Yes – there are many shams, precisely like the native corporation. At the top, our allies in the UN tell us they are still wondering whether it can even scientifically work or not – offsetting biotic carbon in trees for the carbon mine from the earth and burnt through combustion. In the long term, we pay the price. The indigenous peoples in Alaska are very concerned about the destruction of their leadership through the native corporations that was a mechanism by the US government and politicians to gain title to buy them out with money through forming these corporations, which also locates negotiating tactics within these capitalist structures. We work with the Alaskan organisation Redoil – some have resisted becoming part of it and still call themselves traditional governments, they are not part of the regional corporation structures. Some have sold their shares. Others still participate to try and make a difference. These corporations are lobbied and collaborate with the business-as-usual fossil fuel leaders. It has taken us away from our traditional principles and values which is the opposite of commodifying, privatisation resources that are destructive and spell a death sentence. The native corporation heads – we see them in meetings, wearing designer suits, and talking designer talk. We don’t talk because their agenda is the same lethal talk that has caused a global crisis.

If we look at the way in which the UN is structured, is there legitimacy to this UNFCCC event – should it be delegitimised or engaged with?

It is a two-way street for us. Certainly, the UN is what you say. But look – we tried to use it as a way of lifting up issue of human rights, social and environment justice, and bring that to the framework. We know that the first Kyoto Protocol had many problems including that the emissions target that Annex 1 (developed) nations were signatories too, was the bare minimum. It was very hard for us to accept the compromise. Some of the bigger organisations said, ‘Tom Goldtooth – this is the first step, we can strengthen it later.’ But here, it is ‘later’ and the issue of relevant binding agreements holding industrialised countries accountable has to happen. But as indigenous peoples, we cannot wait for another international agreement to be negotiated – another wasted decade. You have petroleum companies now that are investing millions to offset their pollution by owning the environment. Our people end up as renters. But what happens when the carbon market falls apart or collapses? Who is liable? Who pays the price? We are told to safeguard and trust the process, but the advisors in the UN and World Bank, have even admitted that it is going to be very weak.

There is a lot of risk. We fear that at the end of the day, with agriculture now being included as part of REDD, REDD is going to be the largest legal land grab the world has ever seen. Back to colonialism, back to forced privatisation, especially for forest communities. Those with the most money and power can – by remote control, lock up the largest land areas in developing countries. And they are happiest to work with the most corrupt because it is easiest that way.

Do you have representation through large green political muscles – and if so, how, if not, why not?

“When indigenous peoples started to call into question the false solutions, we were attacked by large environmental organisations, saying that we were not looking at the bigger picture, at the benefit of REDD. We saw a campaign mounted to disrupt us, and to marginalise what we’re saying. But indigenous people no longer are able to stand back and let the ‘good intentioned’ voices speak on our behalf. In 1999, it used to be five or six people, at most, holding the line. Only when REDD became part of the picture, did indigenous peoples begin to stand up and actively resist. Corporations that fund some of the green organisations know how to play the game, and the organisations play back, to stay in business. The corporations know there is money to be made from investing in privatised trees, and that it looks good in paper. If you look at the NGOs, these are European ‘white’ NGOs, and there is tremendous racism and classism woven into that. When an ethnic person speaks up, they get offended they don’t want a solution from the marginalised. They want to devise the solution they feel is best for the whole system – and we have to ask ourselves what the system they actually represent, entails.

Many have proposed ‘eco-socialism’ and other similar models as the solution. Renowned Marxist David Harvey says it may be necessary to separate indigenous-type peoples living in the commons, like the Amazon, from the ‘natural’ commons – what is he advocating and from what standpoint?

“The white-is-right dogma – where they don’t care to understand what the reality is and the culture and beliefs, of indigenous peoples, all over the world, especially the most marginalised, the forest peoples. We are the ones most anxious to protect, our cultures are principles on the belief that we cannot own and abuse the earth for our short-term benefit.”

Youth from all over the world have flown in – yet many lack understanding of the political economy of pollution, both problem and solution. Why is this?

“Look at the role of the WWF-type organisations. These are educators. Al Gore – pushing for the carbon market, he is an educator on the environment and climate. They are slumming it out in Durban, it is fashionable for a young white kid from the US or UK to be concerned about a global poverty issue, not the reality in their own backyards, but somewhere where they can be special, become heroes. We challenged the big organisations with environmental racism – the top ten movements, including Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, to bring our voices to the board, to the way in these campaigns are shaped. They resisted us. Even when they do appoint a person of colour, it is usually from within the mentality of surburbia, so that they are never questioned or taken out of the comfort zone where ‘white is right.’ And these organisations and their narratives are so popular – you have young kids coming, getting their hands dirty. They leave, feeling vindicated, slumming around – as if they have done their share. But this is our life, and that parachuting in and out of communities, the ruckus society, is destructive and presents the distorted reality. We have challenged, and become very unpopular, for raising the issue of classism which is source of the problem and requires an economic analysis if the environmental and climate narrative is to be truthful…. Look at 350.org – we had to challenge them to bring us to stand with them on the pipeline issue. Bill McKibben, the ivory tower white academic, didn’t even want to take the time to bring people of colour to the organising. We managed a negotiation that allowed for both groups to unite.

Concerning celebrated activist voices like Naomi Klein – they appear to come from a specific formula – What are your thoughts?

“Well, it is always the case with the media that ‘white is right’ or that global issues affecting people of color on the frontline should be represented by the type of voices that don’t engage, in a threatening way, the realities of capitalism. There are also many fashionable voices that become part of the establishment in the sense that while they do espouse the truth, it is not pose a threat for change, for ending the system, because someone has adopted a cause that they were not born into. The communities that live in the cancer hotspots, in the immediate environment, their voices are too real, too threatening. Meanwhile, infiltration continues – how the corporations lend their money to the media – how the media shapes the tones and get the right voices to provide just the right amount of dissent. Meanwhile, Mayor Bloomberg donated millions to the Occupy Wall Street. We need a systems change, not an isolated trendy environmental change. The organisations that speak need to have a real constituency – they need to be accountable to the people they represent. There is no time for egos and games anymore.

As Navaho people, as Dakota people, we are struggling to understand how the problem that created the problem becomes the solution? In our language, we have no translation of ownership for the air – or carbon. One of my elders told me, if you ever have a hard time translating something into your language, beware that it may lack the truth.

http://www.theafricareport.com/index.php/news-analysis/climate-change-the-big-corrupt-business-50176874.html

Greenpeace Meets George Orwell: Greenpeace Rewrites History

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Commentary by Captain Paul Watson, Greenpeace Co-Founder

Caption before: Greenpeace co-founders Paul Watson and Robert Hunter blockade the sealing ship, Arctic Endeavor, Labrador 1976 New revised caption: Greenpeace founder Bob Hunter and early activist Paul Watson protest the Canadian seal hunt.

Greenpeace Attempts to Make Captain Paul Watson "Disappear"

Greenpeace has become very angry with Sea Shepherd and myself because of Sea Shepherd interventions against illegal Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean and illegal tuna fishing in the Mediterranean and because of criticisms of Greenpeace ineffectiveness. In fact, Greenpeace has become so angry that it has now posted on its website that I am no longer to be regarded as a co-founder of Greenpeace. They now classify me simply "as an early member."
This means that a bunch of people who were not around at the time, and many of whom had not even been born, have decided to rewrite Greenpeace history. As a result, the Greenpeace website has officially removed me from the list of Greenpeace founders.

Greenpeace has torn a page out of the old Russian Bolshevik manual on media relations and has chosen to simply re-write its own history. I imagine I will be deleted from early photographs next.

You would think that if I were not a founder, they would simply sue me for saying that I am, but the problem with that course of action is that the truth would be my defense, and the evidence would shrivel their revisionism on the vine.

It is really very amusing. Apparently, I have become such a threat to the bureaucrats in charge of what has become one of the world’s largest feel-good organizations that they felt motivated to deny my role as a founder of the organization that now pays their salaries.

They did this once before in the Netherlands in 1997 when I was temporarily jailed for my role in sinking a Norwegian whaling ship. However at that time, my fellow Greenpeace co-founder, friend, and first Greenpeace President, Robert Hunter, came to Amsterdam to hold a media conference to defend my position as a legitimate co-founder of Greenpeace.

Bob Hunter passed away in 2005, so he can’t do anything to counter their revised revisionist statements a second time. Other co-founders like Ben Metcalfe, Irving Stowe, Dr. Lyle Thurston, and Captain John Cormack also have died since. But Bobbi Hunter, Rod Marining, David Garrick, Paul Spong, Rex Weyler and even Patrick Moore are alive, and Greenpeace has not quoted one of them as saying I am not a Greenpeace co-founder, nor has it produced a single document to back up its accusation. The best history of Greenpeace ever written, entitled Greenpeace by Rex Wyler, and of course Bob Hunter’s legendary book Rainbow Warriors both attest to my role as a co-founder.

Below is the statement on the Greenpeace web site concerning my newly revised history. I have elected to make comments on their statements so as to correct the record. Initially, I ignored this, but too many comments have been made in the media citing this page as “evidence” that I am not a Greenpeace co-founder. I thus have no choice but to defend my position on this.

However to really get to the bottom of this, I am personally offering 25,000 Euros to any person, Greenpeace member, journalist, or lay person who can provide the proof to back up this ridiculous revisionism by Greenpeace. If anyone can prove that I am not a founding Greenpeace member, than I shall pay 25,000 Euros from my own pocket.

Not that I have anything to worry about, since the proof to back up this absurd accusation from Greenpeace does not exist, but for those who doubt and wish to back up their doubts with evidence, the reward is on the table.

So here are my remarks in response to this drivel on the Greenpeace website.

Greenpeace: Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace: some facts.

Paul Watson: Stating that something is a fact does not necessarily mean it is a fact.

Greenpeace: Paul Watson is the founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and an early member of Greenpeace. Over the last few years, Paul has become extremely critical of Greenpeace in the press and at his website. The information below is provided as a service to our supporters to get a few facts out on the table about Paul’s history with Greenpeace and the nature of our disagreements.

Paul Watson became active with Greenpeace in 1971 as a member of our second expedition against nuclear weapons testing in Amchitka, and went on to participate in actions against whaling and the killing of harp seals. He was an influential early member but not, as he sometimes claims, a founder.

Paul Watson: I was on the list for the 1st crew on the first ship, but was assigned to the Greenpeace Too. It was the Greenpeace Too that was on site when the test occurred. In 1972, we changed the name of the Don’t Make a Wave Committee to the Greenpeace Foundation. I was one of the original directors of the Greenpeace Foundation from the very day of this incorporation.

I became active in October 1969 when I attended the first protest against nuclear testing at Amchitka organized by the Sierra Club and the Quakers. I was a member of the Sierra Club at the time. This protest led to the first meetings and subsequent meetings of the Don’t Make a Wave Committee at the Unitarian Church at 49th and Oak Street in Vancouver. It was in 1970 when we launched the idea to take a ship to the test site in the Aleutians. We worked throughout 1970 and 1971 to raise funds for this campaign. We held a concert with Joni Mitchell, James Taylor, and Phil Ochs to raise the money to charter the first boat. I hosted Phil Ochs at my house.

At one of the early meetings, someone left the meeting and flashed a V peace sign and said “peace”. Bill Darnell responded and said “make that a green peace.” Robert Hunter flashed on that as the name for the boat and thus the boat Greenpeace and the Greenpeace Too came before the organization named Greenpeace.

I was the youngest member of the Don’t Make a Wave Committee in 1970 and participated as a crew-member on the first Greenpeace campaign to oppose nuclear testing at Amchitka. Greenpeace states that it was the second expedition, but both the Greenpeace and the Greenpeace Too were part of the same expedition. I was on the Greenpeace Too, the ship that was in the Aleutians when the bomb went off. The first ship had already returned. When Greenpeace was officially registered as the Greenpeace Foundation in 1972, I was one of the signatory founding directors. I was also one of the eight people who established Greenpeace International in 1979. In 1972, Robert Hunter’s membership number was # 000, Roberta Hunter’s membership was #001, and mine was #007. I’ve still got the card. I was in fact the youngest founding member of Greenpeace. I was 18 when I attended the demonstration at the border in 1969 and 20 when we sailed to oppose the bomb in 1971. I do find it amusing that some of the Greenpeacers today who accuse me of not being a founder of the organization were not even born at the time.

I like how they go on to say that I participated in the actions against whaling and the killing of harp seals when in fact Robert Hunter, Paul Spong, and I initiated the anti-whaling campaign, and I personally initiated the anti-sealing campaign along with David Garrick. I was first officer on the 1st and 2nd Greenpeace campaigns to protect whales in 1975 and 1976, and I was the expedition leader for the seal campaigns of 1976 and 1977.

In September 1979, I was one of the eight signatory founders of Greenpeace International. Interesting, since this was two years after Greenpeace claims I was dismissed from the organization for advocating “violent” tactics.

A little more background on the first Greenpeace voyages:

The voyage of the Greenpeace Too, the ship that I was on, was not a 2nd expedition. It was part of the 1st expedition. The Phyllis Cormack took a crew of 13 to the Aleutians. After a month, they returned, and they were relieved by the 35 crew on the Greenpeace Too. I was one of the crew. It was our ship that was on site when the underground bomb was detonated. In fact, Rod Marining, Chris Bergthorson, and myself were the only co-founders near Amchitka that day. Although I was active with the Don’t Make a Wave Committee in 1969, Greenpeace now claims I was active in Greenpeace in 1971. This was the year of the first voyage of which I was an active crewmember, but Greenpeace did not actually exist until 1972 when the name Don’t Make a Wave Committee was changed to the Greenpeace Foundation.

Greenpeace: He was expelled from the leadership of Greenpeace in 1977 by a vote of 11 to one (only Watson himself voted against it).

Paul Watson: I was in fact never expelled from Greenpeace. I was voted off the Board of Directors in a motion tabled by Patrick Moore who opposed my aggressive opposition to baby seal killers. The underlying reason for this was I was a threat to his taking over the leadership of Greenpeace from Bob Hunter. I was free to continue to work with Greenpeace, but I chose not to. I was indeed voted off the Greenpeace Board, but I resigned voluntarily from Greenpeace. Greenpeace states this above when they say I was expelled from the leadership (meaning the Board). They do not say that I was expelled from Greenpeace. In fact, I remain a lifetime member of Greenpeace, unless they have now revoked my lifetime membership.

Greenpeace: Bob Hunter (one of Greenpeace’s early leaders, after whom a Sea Shepherd vessel was named) described the event in his book, the Greenpeace Chronicles:

"No one doubted his [Watson’s] courage for a moment. He was a great warrior brother. Yet in terms of the Greenpeace gestalt, he seemed possessed by too powerful a drive, too unrelenting a desire to push himself front and center, shouldering everyone else aside He had consistently gone around to other officees, acting out the role of mutineer. Everywhere he went, he created divisiveness We all felt we’d got trapped iin a web no one wanted to see develop, yet now that it had, there was nothing to do but bring down the axe, even if it meant bringing it down on the neck of our brother."

Paul Watson: Bob did indeed write those words, and later he left Greenpeace to sail with me on my ships, and he wrote many positive things about Sea Shepherd and myself in books like Red Blood and in his columns. He was a lifelong friend and comrade, and he and his wife Bobbi put up their house as collateral to help me finance the purchase of the Sea Shepherd II. But it should be noted that Bob used the term “brother” in that excerpt from the book. Why? Because I was not just anyone. I was an original co-founder and original crewmember. That was why Bob said it was a tough decision. The reason I was rebelling was because Patrick Moore had seized control of Greenpeace and that disturbed me. My concerns were realized years later. Patrick now works as a lobbyist and public relations flak for the logging industry, the mining industry, the salmon farmers, the chlorine industry, and President George Bush appointed him to promote the nuclear industry.

Robert Hunter did not write this in a book entitled Greenpeace Chronicles. He wrote it in a book entitled Warriors of the Rainbow. It is interesting that later, Robert Hunter told me that I was right in going the direction that I did, and he became a Sea Shepherd activist and crewmember sailing with us on numerous occasions between 1988 and 2001. Bob and Bobbi Hunter even lent me funds to help purchase the first Sea Shepherd vessel. Bob later told me and wrote in his books that it was a positive thing that I had left Greenpeace to pursue a different path. Greenpeace never named a ship after Robert Hunter, but Sea Shepherd did.

Greenpeace describes Robert Hunter as one of Greenpeace’s "early leaders". This certainly diminishes Bob Hunter’s incredible contributions to Greenpeace. The fact is that Robert Hunter is "the" founding father of Greenpeace. If not for Robert Hunter, Greenpeace would have expired as an organization in 1974. It was Hunter’s vision, drive, and determination that placed Greenpeace in the position to become a worldwide force to defend the environment.

Most of these people re-writing the Greenpeace history today never met Robert Hunter or myself and have no first-hand knowledge of the early days of Greenpeace.

A more accurate history of Greenpeace can be found in the book Greenpeace by Rex Wyler, who first served with Greenpeace on the 1975 campaign to protect the whales alongside Robert Hunter and myself.

Greenpeace: Confusion: Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd

Watson founded his own group, Sea Shepherd, in 1977.

• in 1986, Sea Shepherd carried out an action against the Icelandic whaling station in Hvalfjoerdur and sank two Icelandic whaling vessels in Reykjavik harbor by opening their sea valves;[1]
• in December 1992, Sea Shepherd sank the vessel Nybroena in port;[2]
• Sea Shepherd claimed to have sank the Taiwanese drift net ship Jiang Hai in port in Taiwan and to have rammed and disabled four other Asian drift net ships;[3]
• a Canadian court ordered Watson and his former ship, the Cleveland Armory, to pay a total of $35,000 for ramming a Cuban fishing vessel off the coast of Newfoundland in June 1993;[4]
• in January 1994 the group severely damaged the whaling ship Senet in the Norwegian port of Gressvik.[5]

Each of the whaling ships noted above was refloated and refitted for continued whaling.

Captain Paul Watson: Greenpeace only touched on a few of our actions but seems to give the impression they were of little consequence. Saying that the ships were damaged and then refloated is not exactly true. The two Icelandic whaling ships were refloated but never used again because all the equipment and electronics were destroyed. That hit cost the Icelanders $10 million and shut them down for a decade. Greenpeace did not mention the whaler Sierra or the two Spanish whalers sunk in 1981. All three of them never whaled again. Nor did the whaler Astrid or the South African whalers Susan and Theresa. They are incorrect on the fine. Sea Shepherd never paid a fine for ramming a Cuban trawler, and in fact, the court ruled that the trawler was not rammed at all – there was no evidence of any contact. The Norwegian whalers were repaired and refloated and the result was a 3000% increase on marine insurance premiums. Our campaigns to destroy illegal whalers have been very successful and very costly to the whalers.

Greenpeace: In a 2008 article in the New Yorker, Watson claims that Sea Shepherd has sunk ten ships since its founding, but the author of the article notes, with some skepticism, that she was unable to verify that number.

Captain Paul Watson: It’s hard to verify covert actions, but no one else claimed the sinkings. Sea Shepherd did. So if not us, then who? Greenpeace seems to want to condemn us for sinking whaling ships and also for not sinking whaling ships. The article was written by a man, not a woman as Greenpeace states above.

Greenpeace: Paul Watson’s and Sea Shepherd’s actions have sometimes been wrongly attributed to Greenpeace, often in an attempt by others to damage Greenpeace’s reputation for non-violence.

Captain Paul Watson: It concerns me that Greenpeace gets credit for our actions, but it may have something to do with Greenpeace running ads to coincide with our actions or immediately following our actions so as to capitalize on the publicity. I don’t see how being accused of stopping a whaling activity can damage the reputation of an organization that claims to defend whales.

Greenpeace: Greenpeace has never sunk a whaling ship.

Captain Paul Watson: No indeed they have not. Greenpeace takes pictures and videos of whales dying, and Greenpeace has failed to save a single whale. Sea Shepherd saved 528 whales in 2010, 305 whales in 2009, some 500 in 2008, another 500 in 2007, and 83 in 2006. We also ended the careers of numerous whaling ships saving many thousands of whales. Sea Shepherd proudly claims credit for sinking whaling ships, and we are also proud of the fact that we have never injured a single person.

Greenpeace: Some anti-environmentalists try to use the fact that an extreme minority in the environmental movement resorts to force and sabotage to brand the movement as a whole as "terrorist." One such attempt has been specifically condemned by a Norwegian court.

Captain Paul Watson: The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is not a terrorist organization, and we have never been convicted of a single felony (unlike Greenpeace), and we have never had anyone seriously injured (unlike Greenpeace), and we have shut down numerous illegal whaling, sealing, and fishing operations (unlike Greenpeace). Sea Shepherd does not break laws, we enforce them. Greenpeace has had numerous felony convictions; Sea Shepherd has had none.

Greenpeace: In 1991, we had an agreement with Sea Shepherd that we would refrain from public criticism of one another. Today, many of Sea Shepherd’s fundraising communications and Paul Watson’s public communications are filled with attacks on Greenpeace, our methods, our activists, and our supporters. They are often peppered with inaccuracies and outright untruths. Paul Watson is still fighting a one-sided battle that was over for Greenpeace in 1977.

Captain Paul Watson: I am not aware of any such agreement, but I think it would be a good idea. What Greenpeace describes as attacks by Sea Shepherd are in fact our response to their accusations against us. I do not take accusations of terrorism lightly, and I do not agree that they should raise money to send ships to Antarctica when they do not do so. In my book, that is stealing money from the public. I have written to Greenpeace every year asking for an agreement that will allow us to cooperate with each other, and every year Greenpeace has rejected my offer.

Greenpeace: In most cases, we simply don’t respond to Paul Watson’s criticism. While we don’t agree with Sea Shepherd’s methods, we also know that stories of divisiveness within the ranks of environmental groups distract from the real issues which unite us, and we prefer that when the media writes about whaling, they write about the real issues. Although Paul Watson is a vehement anti-whaling activist, he regularly lends his support to attacks on Greenpeace — some of them organized by the whalers themselves. [8]

Captain Paul Watson: Sea Shepherd has never participated in any campaign against Greenpeace organized by the whaling industry. This is a viciously false and misleading statement. What we have been critical of Greenpeace for is accusing us of violence, accusing us of being terrorists, and claiming credit for things that Sea Shepherd has accomplished. We also criticise Greenpeace for collecting money on issues they do not campaign against.

Greenpeace: Our commitment to non-violence: why we don’t cooperate?

Paul Watson has made many public requests for Greenpeace to reveal the location of the whaling fleet or otherwise cooperate with Sea Shepherd in the Southern Ocean when the ships of both organizations have been there simultaneously.

Captain Paul Watson: We have always given Greenpeace the coordinates of the whaling fleets once we have found them. They have never returned the favour. It’s all academic now, because they no longer even send ships to intervene against whaling operations.

Greenpeace: We passionately want to stop whaling, and will do so peacefully. That’s why we won’t help Sea Shepherd. Greenpeace is committed to non-violence and we’ll never, ever, change that; not for anything. If we helped Sea Shepherd to find the whaling fleet we’d be responsible for anything they did having got that information, and history shows that they’ve used violence in the past, in the most dangerous seas on Earth. For us, non-violence is a non-negotiable, precious principle. Greenpeace will continue to act to defend the whales, but will never attack or endanger the whalers.

Captain Paul Watson: Sea Shepherd has never employed violence. We have never injured anyone ever. We have never committed or been conviccted of a felony ever. Dr. Martin Luthor King once saaid that violence cannot be committed against a non-sentient object. We have the support of the Dalai Lama. Greenpeace has worked with Earth First, a group that engages in sabotage of industrial equipment. Greenpeacers have committed and been convicted of felonies. Greenpeace has had crewmembers killed and injured. Sea Shepherd has not. Greenpeace defends the stealing of property from the mail. In fact, Greenpeace justifies its action and condemns ours, not on the basis of tactics, but on the basis of politics. By refusing to assist us on occasion, Greenpeace was responsible for the deaths of whales we could have saved, because whereas Greenpeace takes pictures, Sea Shepherd intervenes to protect lives.

Greenpeace: We differ with Paul Watson on what constitutes violence. He states that nobody has ever been harmed by a Sea Shepherd action. But the test of non-violence is the nature of your action, not whether harm results or not. There are many acts of violence — for example, holding a gun to someone’s head — which result in no harm. That doesn’t change their nature. We believe that throwing butryic acid at the whalers, dropping cables to foul their props, and threatening to ram them in the freezing waters of the Antarctic constitutes violence because of the potential consequences. The fact that the consequences have not been realized is irrelevant.

Captain Paul Watson: After three decades of operations, we have proven our expertise in getting results without causing injuries or committing felonies. The test of non-violence is consequences, and Sea Shepherd has exercised extreme caution to save lives without causing injury. We practise non-violence in the spirit of Hayagriva, the Buddhist idea of aggressive non-violence or the exercise of compassionate wrath. In others words, intimidation without injury for the purpose of achieving enlightenment. The Dalai Lama is a Sea Shepherd supporter, and I don’t think he would be supporting us if we were a violent organization as Greenpeace constantly accuses us of being. By the above logic, Greenpeace, I repeat, is also guilty of violence, because by constantly accusing Sea Shepherd of being violent, they are providing justification to the whalers to respond violently against us.

Greenpeace: In addition to being morally wrong, we believe the use of violence in protection of whales to be a tactical error. If there’s one way to harden Japanese public opinion and ensure whaling continues, it’s to use violent tactics against their fleet. It’s wrong because it puts human lives at risk, and it’s wrong because it makes the whalers stronger in Japan.

Captain Paul Watson: These modern Greenpeace bureaucrats are stating here that all the original Greenpeace co-founders who have served with Sea Shepherd are morally wrong. In other words, the men and women who created Greenpeace are being judged as morally wrong by upstarts who are being paid to work for Greenpeace today. None of these people were there to construct the foundation of the organization that now pays them their comfortable wages. I never worked for money for Greenpeace a day in my life. I was a volunteer, and my lifetime membership number is 007. I am the 8th founding member of Greenpeace, because Bob Hunter was 000 and Bobbi Hunter is 001. The bottom line is that Sea Shepherd is speaking the language the Japanese whalers understand economics. We have negated their proffits for seven years and that will end whaling – not the hanging of banners and the stealing of whale meat from the Japanese mail.

Greenpeace: We work with many other groups whose methods differ from ours, and we know the power of cooperation among groups with a common objective but diverse ways of working. For decades, we have had productive working relationships with the Worldwide Fund for Nature, Friends of the Earth, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Sierra Club, Environmental Investigative Agency, and a host of other groups dedicated to whale conservation. We would only be willing to cooperate with Sea Shepherd under the condition that it would not facilitate endangering human life.

Captain Paul Watson: They neglected to mention they have worked with Earth First, an organization that has undertaken industrial sabotage. Sea Shepherd has never endangered any person’s life. Greenpeace has had crewmembers killed and injured.

Greenpeace: To give one example, in 2005/2006, Sea Shepherd attempted to snarl the propeller of the Nisshin Maru with a rope and cable, as reported on their own website:

Two of our three zodiacs were equipped with devices we had made to foul their propeller; basically two buoys connected with steel cable and rope that we would place in front of their ship in hopes that the Maru would run it over, it would pass underneath their hull and into their propeller at the stern of their ship causing their ship to slow down dramatically or be stopped completely. The Maru was running at full speed away from the Farley. Both zodiacs deployed their devices repeatedly. None seemed to work against the goliath Nisshin Maru ship…

Running out of options and having lost both of our propeller fouling devices, all hope seemed lost of slowing the Maru…

Disabling a ship at sea in the Antarctic, regardless of how much one may object to its activities, is not only a callous act of disregard for human life — it’s courting an environmental disaster in one of the most fragile environments in the world.

Captain Paul Watson: We use intimidation because we know that prop foulers will not cause permanent damage to the ships, but it will slow them down enough to not be able to hunt whales. We are aware that the Japanese vessels have cutting blades on their props.

Greenpeace: Such tactics are not only dangerous to the whalers, they are dangerous to the cause of stopping Japanese whaling. Our political analysis is unequivocal: if Japanese whaling is to be stopped, it will be stopped by a domestic decision within the Japanese government to do so. That’s why we have invested heavily in a Greenpeace office in Japan and efforts to speak directly to the Japanese public — 70 percent of whom are unaware that whaling takes place in the Southern Ocean at all. A majority of those who are aware of the whaling program, oppose it. Support for whaling in Japan has been steadily falling for the last decade. Consumption of whale meat is in decline, the cost of the program to taxpayers is being questioned by the business community, and the political costs of the program have created opposition in the Foreign Affairs department in Japan. All of this progress could be undone by a nationalist backlash. By making it easy to paint anti-whaling forces as dangerous, piratical terrorists, Sea Shepherd could undermine the forces within Japan which could actually bring whaling to an end.
A few facts

Captain Paul Watson: Because of our dramatic campaigns in the Southern Ocean, the Japanese people are now very much aware of the activities of their illegal whaling fleet in the Southern Ocean. That is education, and we have an international television show to get our message across. Convincing the Japanese public to oppose whaling will not be guaranteed to change anything. The majority of Canadians are opposed to the annual commercial seal slaughter, yet the seal hunt continues to be subsidized by the Canadian government. Greenpeace has made very little progress with their public education programs, including programs where Greenpeacers publicly ate whale meat to demonstrate they were respectful of Japanese culture.

Greenpeace: We’ve got fairly thick skins here at Greenpeace. When you challenge powerful forces, you need to be ready to put up with accusations of ulterior motives and hidden agendas. What’s unfortunate is when we have to spend time countering friendly fire — attacks by an organization that shares the same goals as we do. We don’t mind robust disagreements, but we do object to falsehoods.

Captain Paul Watson: Sea Shepherd does not share the same goals with Greenpeace. We are dedicated to ending whaling. Greenpeace is not. Greenpeace supported the recent compromise that would have allowed legal whaling by Japan. Greenpeace does not support ending the commercial seal hunt in Canada or the dolphin slaughter in Japan or the killing of pilot whales in the Faeroe Islands. Greenpeace does not send ships to the Southern Ocean, yet they continue to raise money for their campaign which have been reduced to “saving” whales on a Southern Ocean whale defense video game.

Greenpeace: As the New Yorker article on Paul Watson noted, in his book "Earthforce!":

Watson advises readers to make up facts and figures when they need to, and to deliver them to reporters confidently, "as Ronald Reagan did."

Captain Paul Watson: This statement is taken out of context. I was explaining that modern media is manipulated by politicians and corporations to manipulate the truth and that, yes, Ronald Reagan made up facts to support his agenda, as do almost all politicians. This is classic McLuhanism and an understanding of modern media strategies. Greenpeace does it all the time, by the way, as do most other organizations, political parties, and corporations. What was once a lie is now merely called a spin, and Greenpeace has become the master of the spin. I may be guilty of this also, but I am an amateur compared to the Greenpeace media department.

Greenpeace: Paul Watson has claimed that Greenpeace goes to the Antarctic merely to film whales being killed, to wave banners and to bear witness to their deaths — but does nothing to save them.

This is untrue.

Greenpeace saves whales

Greenpeace has directly saved the lives of countless whales over more than three decades by maneuvering our boats between the harpoon and the whale. Many of us have risked our lives in those actions from Iceland to the Antarctic. But, while we consider it acceptable to risk our own lives for the whales, we don’t believe in risking anyone else’s.

Captain Paul Watson: They still use images of Bob Hunter and myself in zodiacs blocking harpoons from 1975 and 1976. They forget that the legacy that has enabled Greenpeace to become what it is today was laid down by myself and others who are no longer in Greenpeace. In fact there is not a single living founding member of Greenpeace active in Greenpeace today. We created the tactics they are bragging about. But they have not prevented the killing of any whales. The Japanese whalers slaughtered whales in front of Greenpeace as the Greenpeacers held banners and staged photo ops that I call ocean posing.

Greenpeace: In 2006, a harpoon was fired over one of our inflatables and the line fell on the boat, pulling one crew member into the freezing waters of the Antarctic. According to records kept by the whalers (we were too busy to keep records), we interfered with them 26 times in 2006. Shortly after sighting us, the whalers departed at high speed — their own records show they lost nine days of hunting due to interference with their operations. The whalers rammed our ships twice, hit one of our crew members with a metal pole, and used a high-powered water cannon against us. Despite this, they came in 82 whales short of their quota. In 2008, the whalers ran from us for 14 consecutive days, days that were lost to them for hunting. Since they need to catch an average of around 9-10 whales a day to make their self-appointed quota, this action alone saved the lives of over 100 whales.

Captain Paul Watson: It is my opinion that they came 82 whales short of their quota because Sea Shepherd was chasing them continuously. They were not running from Greenpeace, they were running from Sea Shepherd. And falling in the water is no big deal when you are wearing a drysuit or a wet suit under a survival suit. We fall in the water all the time, but we don’t make a drama out of it. The high powered water cannon is easily avoided, but Greenpeace runs straight into it for the dramatic photo opportunity it provides. Posturing and posing and making whale snuff flicks is what they do, and they do it well, but it has not saved a single whale. It may be noticed that in previous years when Sea Shepherd was not chasing the whaling fleet, they made no such claims of successful interventions. I find it interesting that they claim they were too busy to keep records. That is what a logbook is for, and the officer of the watch has the responsibility to keep those records.

Greenpeace: Greenpeace works to save whales around the world, all year round, and with a variety of tactics.

Along with the Worldwide Fund for Nature, we were the primary advocates that created public pressure for the moratorium on commercial whaling which was agreed in 1982. That single piece of work has saved the lives of tens of thousands of whales and ended the whaling programs of the Soviet Union, Brazil, Peru, Chile, and Spain.

We have undertaken political work to maintain support for the moratorium on commercial whaling and counter Japanese vote-buying schemes. There have been years in which the conservation majority in the International Whaling Commission has hung by a thread, in one case by a single vote. By lobbying conservation-minded countries to join the International Whaling Commission and successfully pressuring countries like Denmark to change their policies toward conservation, our millions of supporters and activists have worked quietly behind the scenes to save whales.

Captain Paul Watson: I was a part of that pressure to create the moratorium as were many others. It was not a Greenpeace achievement, it was an anti-whaling movement achievement. Sea Shepherd helped Ecuador to join the IWC and delivered a vote for the whales. And Denmark changing their policies? – I think not. Denmark is a major advocate of whaling and thousands of pilot whales are killed each year in the Danish Faeroe Islands where Sea Shepherd has intervened four times and Greenpeace never has, because they said that their supporters in Denmark did not support interference with their culture. Apparently, interfering with everyone else’s culture is okay for the Danes.

What Greenpeace forgets is that there are very few persons who have been consistent activists for the whales from 1974 until the present like I have. That is 37 years of defending the whales in every sea on the planet, yet they dismiss my experience and my persistence as something negative. I am merely doing today what I did when I was with Greenpeace three decades ago. Greenpeace changed. I did not. There is no other original Greenpeace activist alive that continues to confront the whalers.

Greenpeace: Working in Japan to stop whaling

Greenpeace has had an office in Japan since 1989. As a result of hard, steady work over the years we have succeeded in making whaling a subject of domestic debate in Japan where none has existed before. We’ve brought Japanese celebrities, musicians, and artists to speak out against whaling, exposed taxpayer-sponsored promotional efforts by the Japanese government — by exposing waste and corruption in the bureaucracy that supports whaling, we’ve generated criticism of whaling in some of Japan’s largest newspapers, and articles in the business press asking whether Japan should end its whaling program.

Captain Paul Watson: Sea Shepherd has been active in Japan since 1981, beginning with our efforts to free dolphins from the nets of their killers. Our efforts have actually saved lives. Greenpeace efforts have not made a dent in Japanese policies on whaling. Japanese businessmen understand profit and loss and have little use for sentimental campaigns. They simply do not care about cruelty issues, nor do they seem very concerned about conservation issues. Sea Shepherd speaks the one language they understand – profit and loss – and we have them on the ropes financially with a loss of profits for five years running.

Greenpeace: On May 15, 2008, Greenpeace Japan used undercover investigators and the testimony of informers to expose that large amounts of prime cut whale meat were being smuggled from the whaling ship Nisshin Maru disguised as personal baggage, labeled "cardboard" or "salted stuff" and addressed to the private homes of crewmembers. Greenpeace activists Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki intercepted one box out of four sent to one address, discovered it contained whale meat valued at up to US$3,000, and took it to the Tokyo public prosecutor.

Captain Paul Watson: Whaling is illegal, so I am at a loss as to what can be gained by exposing corruption inside an illegal industry. The only people concerned about the theft of whale meat are the whalers. This is like the FBI investigating the Mafia for the benefit of the Godfather. Stealing whale meat from the mail in Japan has nothing to do with stopping illegal whaling by the Japanese whaling fleet in Antarctica.

Greenpeace: Their public press conference drew national attention in Japan, and a promise by the public prosecutor to "fully investigate" the charges.

Instead, Junichi and Toru were arrested for stealing the box of whale meat, and the scandal investigation was dropped by the Tokyo public prosecutor’s office the same day; it was clear that the two events were connected, just as it is clear that both were politically motivated. Although Junichi and Toru had provided full cooperation to the police, it took some five weeks to make the arrests, and when they did, more than 40 officers raided the Greenpeace Japan office, with the media tipped off by police beforehand. The Greenpeace activists learned of their imminent arrest from the TV news the same day the embezzlement case was dropped.

Captain Paul Watson: The charges could indeed have been politically motivated, but Greenpeace put themselves into the position of being charged for theft. It was not a smart tactic. Strategy requires preparation. On the positive side, the case did attract attention to the issue of illegal whaling.

Greenpeace: The two activists now face up to ten years imprisonment. We consider them political prisoners, and believe that powerful forces have instrumented a crackdown aimed at discrediting Greenpeace in Japanese society. This means we’ve hit a nerve. We intend to put all our efforts into turning the tables, and putting the whaling interests on trial in the court of public opinion in Japan. We see the reaction of whaling interests as conforming perfectly to the way the most successful Greenpeace campaigns play out: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you. Then you win."

Captain Paul Watson: This is amusing, because that is exactly what Greenpeace has done with Sea Shepherd. First they ignored us, then they laughed at us, and then they attacked us. I remember Greenpeace leader David McTaggart once telling The Age newspaper when asked abut Sea Shepherd, "Sea Shepherd, never heard of them," and then added, "they are irrelevant." Japan does not need a campaign to discredit Greenpeace in Japan. They were discredited many years ago. They tried to make a mountain out of a molehill by saying they had to focus all of their energies on defending their two directors. This was simply a convenient excuse for not sending down a ship and crew to Antarctica. They could certainly afford to do both. Now that the men are free, Greenpeace still has no intention of returning to the Southern Ocean with a ship although they continue to raise money for that purpose. The two Greenpeace activists received suspended sentences.

Greenpeace: Greenpeace has too much money?

Watson likes to paint a picture of Greenpeace as enjoying vast riches, but in fact Greenpeace accepts no money from governments or corporations, and our resources are minuscule compared to the task before us. We rely almost entirely on the donations of nearly 3 million people worldwide, and we spend those hard-earned donations in ways that win campaigns for the environment.

Captain Paul Watson: This is not true that they have not accepted corporate or government funding. I was the dissenting vote in 1976 when Greenpeace accepted a large donation from Ed Daly of Air America also known as the C.I.A. airways. The donation came with the condition that Greenpeace continue to harass the Soviet whaling fleet and to not pursue the Japanese whaling fleet. This was in fact the beginning of my disagreements with the Greenpeace Board of Directors. Greenpeace also accepted a very large donation in the mid-eighties from the Soviet Union to sponsor a peace concert in Moscow. I notice that Greenpeace states they rely "almost entirely" on the donations of their members. That implies other sources of funding.

Greenpeace: To put our budget in perspective, in 2007 Exxon-Mobil generated more revenue in less than six hours than Greenpeace raised worldwide from its supporters for the entire year. Our annual donations are less than the value of seven days of the global value of the illegal forest industry, or three days of the subsidies to the global fisheries industry. The nuclear industry spends more money in advertising than Greenpeace International’s entire operating budget.

Captain Paul Watson: This is an absurd comparison, but it illustrates just how much money Greenpeace does raise. Exxon-Mobil generates an incredible amount of money in six hours and the amount of money given in subsidies to global fisheries worldwide is about $75 billion dollars so three days of subsidies is about $600 million dollars which is about twice Greenpeace’s actual budget. I don’t begrudge Greenpeace this budget, I only wish they used the funds more effectively.

Greenpeace: The full breakdown of what we raise, what we spend, and what we spend it on is released every year in our Annual Report.

Most importantly, Greenpeace gets results. In the three decades since our founding, we have combined our unique brand of non-violent direct action with political lobbying, scientific research, and public mobilization to bring an end to nuclear weapons testing, stop the dumping of hazardous waste at sea, secure the moratorium on commercial whaling, and win dozens of other significant steps toward our ultimate goal of a green and peaceful future for our planet.

Captain Paul Watson: There is no argument from me that Greenpeace has taken credit for much of this. And the fact is there are well intentioned dedicated Greenpeace activists on the ground doing good work, inspired by the cause. But I would compare it to the Catholic Church. There are thousands of dedicated and sincere Catholic priests and nuns working to help the poor all over the world but they are not the Pope. The institution of the Catholic church is rich, corrupt and powerful but this does not make their followers culpable. Greenpeace today sells ecological dispensation in the same way that Pope Rodrigo Borgia once sold dispensation into heaven. Greenpeace has become the world’s largest feel-good organization. Join Greenpeace and become part of the solution without having to change your life-style. It’s a growing business. There is the illusion that Greenpeace gets results and in some cases they do, but in reality there is little bang for the buck. Greenpeace has become a compromising organization.

Greenpeace: In Conclusion

Paul Watson is welcome to express his opinions about Greenpeace — as a more progressive environmental organization, we have a wide spectrum of detractors, and we welcome fair criticism. But, we expect fair debate to be based in fact, not falsehoods.

Captain Paul Watson: I am more than willing to cooperate with Greenpeace as long as they use the large sums of money they collect to defend whales to actually defend whales. As a co-founder of Greenpeace, I have to say I am proud of the idea called Greenpeace that we launched in the early Seventies. We saw it then as a movement and not as the corporation that it has become today. When Greenpeace stops referring to us as violent, then we will stop openly referring to them as ineffective. When Greenpeace stops referring to us as eco-terrorists, we will no longer openly accuse them of turning the environment into a marketable resource. When Greenpeace uses the money it has collected to save the whales to actually save the whales, then we will stop accusing them of fraud. And finally, if Greenpeace had not posted this fiction they call fact, I would not be having to post a response.

http://www.sea-shepherd.com/news-and-media/editorial-110115-1.html

Secret Agreement in the Works Between ENGOs and Tar Sands Industry

Secret Agreement in the Works Between ENGOs and Tar Sands Industry

Will environmentalists continue to allow foundation funding to dictate to the movement?

by Dru Oja Jay

A slew of recent articles have pointed to the likelihood that some foundation-funded environmental groups and the tar sands extraction industry are getting ready to make peace and sign a deal. The precedent, these reports note, has been set with the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement and the Great Bear Rainforest Agreement. What the media coverage doesn’t mention is the actual character of these previous deals, and the unprecedented consolidation of funder influence in the hands of one man that is driving environmental groups toward such an agreement.

Things got started back in April, when a secret "fireside chat" was planned between oil industry executive and ENGO leaders including former Great Bear Rainforest Agreement negotiators Tzeporah Berman and Merran Smith, and representatives from Tides Canada, World Wildlife Fund, Pembina Institute and others. After word circulated about the "informal, beer in hand" discussions, the meeting was called off–temporarily.

The idea hit the corporate media in September 2010, with reports that Syncrude Chairman Marcel Coutu had solicited David Suzuki to broker an agreement between environmentalists and tar sands operators. Suzuki rebuffed him, saying that a dialogue was not possible while oil companies were funding lies about their environmental impact.

But the idea didn’t die–and neither did the lies. In October 2010, during a major ad campaign from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers that compared tar sands tailings to yogurt, the Edmonton Journal and Calgary Herald published a report by Sheila Pratt entitled "Is an oilsands [sic] truce possible?"

In this report, Pratt chronicles the Syncrude executive Marcel Coutu’s efforts to woo David Suzuki into brokering an agreement between environmentalists and tar sands operators. Pratt interviews Avrim Lazar, CEO of the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC), the group of logging companies that signed an accord the with Greenpeace, the David Suzuki Foundation, and several other Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (ENGOs). That was the "Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement" (CBFA).

(Pratt repeats the false claim that the agreement preserves 72 million hectares of forest. In fact, the CBFA maintains the current rate of logging, simply shifting a small portion (about the size of metro Toronto) to areas outside of the caribou range. Furthermore, it requires ENGOs to defend the logging companies that signed against criticism and help them market their products.)

Of all of Pratt’s interviewees, only Greenpeace’s Mike Hudema states the obvious: it not possible to green the tar sands.

On October 21, John Spears of the Toronto Star interviewed FPAC’s Avrim Lazar, who told Spears of the calls he was fielding from oil company executives curious about the logging companies’ experience finding common ground with environmental groups. Lazar said that an important precursor to an agreement is for both parties to recognize that tar sands operations have an environmental impact, but for environmentalists to "stop calling oil sands extraction ‘an abomination that has to be stopped’.

"Once you have those two, then you have something to talk about," Lazar was quoted as saying. "You can go to problem-solving mode… It doesn’t become easy, but it becomes possible."

Oil companies left no doubt about their interest in an agreement. What about their ENGO partners?

They waited until October 23rd to express interest. Ross McMillan, CEO of Tides Canada Foundation, wrote a letter to the Financial Post in response to a right wing attack on foundation funding for anti-tar sands work published on October 15.

"At Tides Canada we are working to bridge these two polarized camps," wrote McMillan, referring to environmentalists and oil companies. McMillan went on to cite Tides’ role in the 2001 Great Bear Rainforest Agreement, which dealt with a massive area of BC’s central coast. When that agreement was signed, ForestEthics negotiators emerged from secret negotiations with logging companies to announce that they had signed a deal for 20 per cent protection. That was less than half of what scientists said was the minimum area that would need to be preserved to avoid damaging biodiversity, and it violated protocol agreements they had signed with local ENGOs and First Nations. None of that mattered to the signatories, who proclaimed themselves victorious.

There are two key differences between agreements signed ten year ago, and those anticipated today.

First, deals have become even more transparently meaningless. Greenpeace and company literally declared that they had "saved the Boreal forest" by signing an agreement that actually makes no net change in the amount of logging. No CBFA signatory can say with a straight face that they have protected an area the size of Germany, though press releases on their site still make that claim. Even the Great Bear Rainforest Agreement completely preserved 20 per cent of the vast forest. Though some activists say that ENGOs subsequently turned a blind eye to clearcutting on Vancouver Island, negating even those gains.

Second, and most crucially, funders have consolidated control of funding for anti-tar sands campaigns to an unprecedented extent. Anyone who wants foundation funding (which most ENGOs rely on to a large extent) for their campaigns has to talk to Corporate Ethics founder Michael Marx. Marx and his coordinators set funding priorities through the "Tar Sands Coalition," a structure that, according to internal documents, is supposed to remain "invisible to the outside."

All of the money for the Tar Sands Coalition comes through Tides Canada Foundation. We know little about where it originates, though the bulk of it comes from US mega-foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts, which outed itself as the architect of the CBFA after giving tens of millions to environmental groups doing Boreal forest work. Other big donors include the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the David & Lucile Packard Foundation.

Together, they have given at least $4.3 million to tar sands campaigns since 2000. Together, they hold vast power to decide the fate of those campaigns.

Control over the vast majority of ENGO funding for tar sands work is firmly in the hands of Michael Marx, on behalf of foundations with a taste for collaborative agreements. Journalists seem willing to print claims about "saving the Boreal forest" or "protecting an area the size of Germany" without seeing any actual agreement.

Our future hinges on the tar sands. Will any level of environmental destruction, loss of human life, or climate change be considered an acceptable cost to continue consumption of fossil fuels? Or is there a limit to the amount of destruction we will accept?

If a secret agreement is allowed to go forward, then those who cannot accept ever-escalating destruction will have to fight other ENGOs in addition to fighting the oil companies. Will the Tar Sands Greenwashing Accord continue as planned?

For more about ENGOs and the collaborative model, read the 2009 report Offsetting Resistance: The effects of foundation funding from the Great Bear Rainforest to the Athabasca River, by Macdonald Stainsby and Dru Oja Jay.

http://montreal.mediacoop.ca/story/secret-agreement-works-between-engos-and-tar-sands-industry/5089

EnviroActivists Continue to Push 350.org for Meaningful Campaigns

From: Lorna Salzman <lsalzman1@verizon.net>

Date: July 17, 2010 5:35:52 PM EDT

To: phil@350.org

Subject: we don’t know where 350.org stands on energy

Dear Phil at 350.org:

If you look at my Open Letter to Bill McKibben in the May 3rd issue of The Nation, you will see my concerns about 350.org and its leadership.

How can you or Bill purport to build a citizen’s grassroots movement of any kind unless you actually TAKE POSITIONS ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION? Or unless you come up with alternatives? Or unless you tell citizens what you want them to do?

You haven’t done any of this. You just repeat over and over the need for tough serious legislation to get us back down to 350 ppm. But you don’t tell congress what you want them to do to accomplish this. You don’t tell citizens what needs to be done, or NOT done.

350.org’s intentions aren’t clear at all. You lead the horse to water and then there isn’t any water there.

I don’t understand where McKibben is coming from or what he expects to accomplish. All his statements are vague, unfocused, general, at a time when we need a strong clear statement. It isn’t clear whether you actually support the legislation in congress, oppose it, or have an alternative.

Why haven’t you prepared your own energy legislation? If you had done this a couple of years ago, you would have had plenty of time to rally the public around it, to tell them to what to do, to provide an alternative voice and platform for the public and the media.

Today it is too late to do this. If you want to regain any credibility, the best thing you could do would be to support Rising Tide and ClimateSOS and come out fighting in opposition to this phony legislation that will actually make it HARDER to get anywhere near 350.org. But you probably know this already, or should know it.

So why don’t you get off the dime and slug it out with the phonies in Congress? Show some muscle? Show some principle? Show that you know what is going on in DC and that it won’t work? How can you NOT come out and oppose ANY legislation that does not contain specific policies and actions that you know will make a difference?

A carbon tax? Shutting down coal plants…which Jim Hansen says must be our first order of business? Ending all fossil fuel subsidies and tax breaks? A bill with mandatory energy efficiency standards and measures? Surely you know these must be done.

Yet Bill just mumbles that old cliche about “putting a price on carbon”. Is that all he can say? Hey, there IS a price on carbon already. It’s about $3 a ton….and we need a price of $100 a ton or more. Even the existing proposal for cap and trade puts a top limit on the price of carbon.And you have nothing to say about this? WHY?

I dont’ get it. What do you have to lose? Your job? No. Your reputation? That can only improve. What is the paralysis that has gripped McKibben and 350.org? You tell us there is a crisis but your response is commensurate with a cup of spilled milk. Flab and gab.

I don’t agree with Romm on cap and trade but he will wipe the floor with McKibben in the debate. And rightly so. We have all been conned. 350.org is nothing more than a virtual blog. A failure.

Sincerely,
Lorna Salzman

Suicidal Tendencies or Addiction? Earth Day Hijacked by Climate Wealth Opportunists

Earth Day Hijacked by Climate Wealth Opportunists

April 21st, 2010 will Mark the fall of the Mainstream Environmental ‘Movement’

For many in the climate justice movement, the growing trend of cozy alliances between many of the mainstream ENGOs with multinational corporate partners has been a toxic recipe; the price of which may be nothing less than complete ecological devastation. The result of these unscrupulous relationships is undeserved legitimacy for transnational corporations, as compromised NGOs run hand in hand with CEOs and executives in a race to the lowest common denominator. The common denominator is money and the finish line is paved in gold – but at what cost? Species extinction is happening at a scale of epic proportions, droughts and storms are happening at unparalleled magnitude; irreversible climate change catastrophe now stares at us in the face. The most inconvenient truth of all – that today – we now stand on the cusp of epic collapse of civilization. Has Earth Day become nothing more than a day of greenwash opportunism and will it mark the fall of the mainstream environmental movement.

Creating Climate Wealth Summit

Invitation from the ‘Earth Day Network’:

“Please join Earth Day Network and the Carbon War Room on April 21, 2010 from 6:00 p.m.-10:00p.m. at the Ronald Reagan Building for a celebration on the eve of the 40th anniversary of Earth Day! Join Sir Richard Branson, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and celebrities. Join attendees from the Creating Climate Wealth Summit, our keynote speakers Richard Branson and Lisa Jackson, and enjoy a night conversing with other professionals that are making a difference in the climate change market! Held at the beautiful Ronald Reagan Building in downtown Washington, D.C., this night will not only bring together those that are making a difference in the climate marketplace, but it will provide superb dining, excellent entertainment and a night of networking not to be missed! Seats are limited and will sell out; tickets will only be available in advance. Purchase before March 31, 2010 and receive a 10% discount! Ticket prices: $450 – Full Ticket, $295 – Non-profit and Academic, Please contact us regarding government rates. Leadership Celebration Dinner Guests include Richard Branson; Founder and Chairman, Virgin Group Denis Hayes Honorary Chair, Earth Day Network Organizer, Earth Day 1970 Lisa Perez Jackson Administrator, EPA.”

Executive board members of the ‘Carbon War Room’ include CEO of Virgin Unite and former CEO of Richard Branson’s Virgin Mobile (partner of original Havas tcktcktck campaign), and George Polk; currently leading a new $1 billion initiative by George Soros to invest private equity in climate change business models.

Richard Branson is ubiquitous. His corporations Virgin and Virgin Atlantic are partners in ‘The Climate Group’ (comprised of corporations and government) and he has worked with tcktcktck in the past. In 2007, HSBC announced that The Climate Group, along with WWF, Earthwatch, and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, would be a partner in the HSBCClimate Partnership, and donated US$100 million to the group – the largest-ever single corporate donation. As of December 2008, The Climate Group coalition includes more than 50 of the world’s largest corporations and sub-national governments, as well as several partner organizations. The Climate Group also works on other initiatives, one being that of the ‘Voluntary Carbon Standard’, a new global standard for voluntary offset projects.

‘Sir’ Richard Branson is presently working with the New Royal Society initiative on ‘solar radiation management’ with “the right stakeholders” to “create a strategic roadmap for governance and regulation” in the geoengineering “battle area.” As well, Branson is fervently developing “tourism ventures into space”. You can book your place in space on Richards “sexiest spaceship ever” at your earliest convenience, because, according to Richard, “Everybody should have the chance to experience space travel one day”. Branson also has massive investments in biofuel research including palm and soy – both of which have had devastating consequences.

Turning food and Displacement into Corporate Profits

Amsterdam, 17 March 2010 – “A roadmap for introducing biofuel blends into commercial jet fuel, to be discussed today at the World Biofuels Conference in Amsterdam, will lead to faster deforestation and climate change and spells disaster for Indigenous peoples, other forest-dependent communities and small farmers …”

Read the rest of the post here.Learn more about devastation and displacement resulting from biofuels here.

Peter Diamandis, strategic advisor from the “Climate Response Fund” is also interested in space tourism. Diamandis is an international leader in the commercial space arena, having founded a commercial space company developing private, FAA-certified parabolic flight utilizing a Boeing 727-200 aircraft. He is the Chairman & co-founder of the Rocket Racing League (www.rocketracingleague.com). Diamandis is a Managing Director and Co-Founder of Space Adventures (www.spaceadventures.com), the company which brokered the launches of four private citizens to the International Space Station.

CNN, March 23rd, 2010:

“Virgin Galactic has envisioned one flight a week, with six tourists aboard. Each will pay $200,000 for the ride and train for at least three days before going. About 80,000 people have placed their names on the waiting list for seats.”

Expanding the market for aviation, and creating a market for space travel in a climate crisis, while people die, and are displaced, is nothing less than psychopathic behavior. Could any of the 80,000 blinded narcissists on the waiting list be one of the 100 top paid CEOs still raking it in, in Canada? The total average compensation for Canada’s 100 highest paid CEOs was approx. 7.5 million dollars in 2008—a stark contrast from the total average Canadian income of $42,305. They pocketed what takes Canadians earning an average income an entire year to make by 1:06 pm January 4—the first working day of the year.

[Click here to read more and download the full report. Click here to use our CEO pay calculator to find out how quickly a top CEO will earn your salary.]

Now compare the above ‘Climate Wealth’ invitation with excerpts from this letter from Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, to the United Nations representatives; September 27th, 2007:

“Sister and brother Presidents and Heads of States of the United Nations: The world is suffering from a fever due to climate change, and the disease is the capitalist development model. Whilst over 10,000 years the variation in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels on the planet was approximately 10%, during the last 200 years of industrial development, carbon emissions have increased by 30%. Since 1860, Europe and North America have contributed 70% of the emissions of CO2. 2005 was the hottest year in the last one thousand years on this planet. …

Faced with this situation, we – the indigenous peoples and humble and honest inhabitants of this planet – believe that the time has come to put a stop to this, in order to rediscover our roots, with respect for Mother Earth; with the Pachamama as we call it in the Andes. Today, the indigenous peoples of Latin America and the world have been called upon by history to convert ourselves into the vanguard of the struggle to defend nature and life. …

In my own country I suffer, with my head held high, this permanent sabotage because we are ending privileges so that everyone can “Live Well” and not better than our counterparts.”

Read the letter from Evo Morales in its entirety here.

Watch Evo Morales speak of the inequality of climate change here.

The Rich get Richer and the poor die of hunger and thirst

“The propagandist’s purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human” – Aldous Huxley

It seems the wealthy and their partners have become completely blind to the reality of the climate change crisis. There is fiction and non fiction – the wealthy and their partners live in a narcissistic world of deception created by themselves. They fail to acknowledge the current reality – instead, they cling to false solutions in a fantasy world. They do so at the expense of survival of all species on earth. Is the wealth such elites accumulate by profiting from the climate crisis, which they created in the first place, to be given to the poorest of the poor; the disenfranchised men, women and children, who die of hunger and thirst?

Objects in mirror are closer than they appear

The corporate climate groups sprouting up left right and centre are not about saving civilization from devastation, these corporately inundated climate groups are about protecting the capitalist system itself and protecting corporate profits at all costs. Just like governments are not in Iraq and Afghanistan to ‘liberate the people’ … corporations are not creating alliances with NGOs to ‘save humanity’. When they pretend otherwise – they both deluding themselves and the public. Corporations never fail to exploit crisis, such as ecosystem collapse, to further vested corporate economic interests. The United Nations has reported that in 2008 the world’s largest corporations caused 2.2 trillion dollars worth of environmental damage. If these corporations were not able to externalize these costs by way of destroying and poisoning the natural environment, one-third of their profits would be lost. Almost twenty years after Rio, emissions have reached an all time high. As corporate profits have soared – so have carbon emissions. Since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Earth Summit) in 1992, the world has witnessed a staggering increase in CO2 emissions of over 40%. The global community must acknowledge that the capitalist system cannot ensure our survival – it can only ensure our certain demise.

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” – Aldous Huxley

The Staggering Inequality of Climate Change

Globally, the wealthiest 8% emit 50% of all emissions

And most of this is for a display of opulence and over consumption. Professor Stephen Pacala of Princeton University calculated the emissions per person based on 6.5 billion people. What he found is startling. He found that the 3 billion poorest people emit essentially nothing. Simply stated, the development of the desperately poor is not in conflict with solving the climate crisis. Ironically, the reluctance of developing countries to drastically cut carbon is often used as an excuse by developed nations to do nothing. For example, Zimbabwe emits 0.93 tonnes of carbon per person, while the United States emit 19.66 tonnes of carbon per person. Canada emits 17.86 tonnes of carbon per person. India produces 1.17 tonnes of carbon per person while China produces 3.7 tonnes of carbon per person. Bottom line – a person in Canada or the U.S. produces approx. 20 times the carbon than an average person in a vulnerable, developing country such as Zimbabwe.

The wealthiest 15% emit 75% of all emissions

Furthermore, Pacala’s data shows that the wealthiest 15% are responsible for ¾ of global emissions.

“In contrast, the rich are really spectacular emitters. …the top 500 million people [7.5% of humanity] emit half the greenhouse emissions. These people are really rich by global standards. Every single one of them earns more than the average American and they also occur in all the countries of the world. There are Chinese and Americans and Europeans and Japanese and Indians all in this group.”

The remaining 85% of humanity emit only 25% of all emissions

Pacala’s data shows the globally wealthy could solve the crisis. Most importantly, it also shows there is absolutely no other way. Humanity must cut fossil fuel emissions massively and the only people who can cut global fossil fuel use to the extent needed are the wealthiest 15%. Furthermore, most of the cuts will need to be made by the wealthiest 7½%, because they are using almost all of it. The globally wealthy must make the major reductions. Below is the Nov. 09 Global Carbon Project carbon budget. In the graph it shows that the carbon emissions budget for the Unites States and Australia budget (& I will assume Canada) until 2050 will be used up by 2019.

Humanity will not longer survive within the Capitalist System

Ecology and economy are interdependent. Both words have a common root: the Greek word “oikos” which means home. A whole earth economy is an economy based not on the wealth of a few but the welfare of the many – not living better than others – but “living well”. A whole earth economy recognizes the earth has ecological limits and that if these limits are not respected there will be serious, irreversible consequences. The warning from Rio in 1992 continues to be ignored;

“Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystem on which we depend for our well being (Preamble, Agenda 21, UNCED, 1992)”

If the global community continues to fail to heed the admonitions of the past, it is the rights not only of present, but also future generations who will suffer. The time has long since passed for tolerating the gross negligence of those who satisfy their insatiable wants at the expense of the fundamental needs and inalienable rights of others.

Ethics verses exploitation. It’s that simple. Choose a side.

A Kiss of Death to Faux ‘Green’ Capitalism and Those that Defend It

The only way climate catastrophe can be prevented is if the global community confronts those who impede action.  Once confronted, such compromised organizations , individuals and governments who continue to place their own self interests above that of humanity, will come to be seen as not just self serving, but highly unethical and criminally negligent.  They must be shunned by society.  Opulence and over consumptive lifestyles must become not a source of status, but a source of shame. The licenses and charters of corporations that perpetuate this negligence must be revoked.

Divesting in the bad and investing the good

All products that are destructive to human health and the ecosystem must be phased out and then prohibited. Rather than spending money on the food and the products that perpetuate ill health, exploit people, cause death and destroy the natural environment, the global community must invest in and subsidize what is necessary for humans and what is beneficial for the ecosystem.

Suicidal Tendencies; Refusing to Face Reality at One’s Own Peril

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Einstein

The absolute apathy of the mainstream ‘environmental movement’ has never been more clearly demonstrated than in the invitation for the ‘climate wealth summit’.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) model is one of the best we have at this time, keeping in mind it omits Arctic carbon feedbacks (like all the models), so in reality, the future looks much more terrifying. The MIT median projection for the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2095 is a jaw-dropping 866 ppm.

About 4.5 million years ago, during the early Pliocene period, temperatures on Earth were some 3 to 4 degrees C (5.4 to 7.2 degrees F.) higher in the tropics, and perhaps 10 degrees C (18 degrees F.) warmer near the poles. Palm trees grew in Antarctica and alligators inhabited swamps above the Arctic Circle. We are now firmly on this path.

While the wealthy and their partners cover their ears to the cries of the most vulnerable and disenfranchised, who plead for no more than a right to simply stay alive, the wealthy and their partners, blind to the suffering of others, instead create new markets for wealth profits. The wealthy thus make a mockery of those who are already suffering from the dire effects of climate change. The actions of the wealthy elite could be compared to eating Christmas dinner in front of a person starving to death in a refugee camp.

Climate Wealth Summit Undermines Essence and Intent of Earth Day

In 1969 John McConnell, felt it necessary to propose a holiday in which we celebrate the Earth’s life and beauty. Along with a celebration of the Earth, he also intended Earth Day to alert earthlings about the need for preserving and renewing the threatened ecological balances upon which all life on Earth depends. McConnell said, “Let every individual and institution now think and act as a responsible trustee of Earth, seeking choices in ecology, economics and ethics that will provide a sustainable future, eliminate pollution, poverty and violence, awaken the wonder of life and foster peaceful progress in the human adventure.” Today would he not roll in his grave at the thought of a ‘creating climate wealth summit’ – in essence – profiting from the collapse of civilization. Their ‘climate wealth’ solutions could be compared to the Ku Klux Klan working with the ‘Martin Luther King, Jr. foundation to ensure rights and justice for those suffering from racism.

“One of the truest tests of integrity is its blunt refusal to be compromised.”­ Chinua Achebe| Nigerian Writer

The global community must choose

The world has a choice to make: humanity over corporate profits or corporate profits over humanity. The global community can choose profits resulting from the actions of compromised and self-serving people, institutions and governments; or, the global community can choose humanity through altruism and ethical solutions. In global solidarity, citizens must defend our dying Mother earth. We must create a new world; a world of meaning, sharing, beauty, culture, love and respect in a race towards a zero carbon where all children and all life will flourish.

Ethical grassroots organizations and progressive governments are now left with the daunting task of saving the planet from complete collapse and total catastrophic, irreversible climate change. The global community must lend support to the organizations and the governments that have the courage to lead.

The world has a choice to make.

We choose life.

Cory Morningstar, Canadians for Action on Climate Change | Joan Russow PhD Global Compliance Research

Visit the ‘TIME TO BE BOLD’ declaration as we move towards the ‘World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth’ in Bolivia, April 19th – 22nd.Earth Day Hijacked by Climate Wealth Opportunists

April 21st, 2010 will Mark the fall of the Mainstream Environmental ‘Movement’

For many in the climate justice movement, the growing trend of cozy alliances between many of the mainstream ENGOs with multinational corporate partners has been a toxic recipe; the price of which may be nothing less than complete ecological devastation. The result of these unscrupulous relationships is undeserved legitimacy for transnational corporations, as compromised NGOs run hand in hand with CEOs and executives in a race to the lowest common denominator. The common denominator is money and the finish line is paved in gold – but at what cost? Species extinction is happening at a scale of epic proportions, droughts and storms are happening at unparalleled magnitude; irreversible climate change catastrophe now stares at us in the face. The most inconvenient truth of all – that today – we now stand on the cusp of epic collapse of civilization. Has Earth Day become nothing more than a day of greenwash opportunism and will it mark the fall of the mainstream environmental movement.

Creating Climate Wealth Summit

Invitation from the ‘Earth Day Network’:

“Please join Earth Day Network and the Carbon War Room on April 21, 2010 from 6:00 p.m.-10:00p.m. at the Ronald Reagan Building for a celebration on the eve of the 40th anniversary of Earth Day! Join Sir Richard Branson, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and celebrities. Join attendees from the Creating Climate Wealth Summit, our keynote speakers Richard Branson and Lisa Jackson, and enjoy a night conversing with other professionals that are making a difference in the climate change market! Held at the beautiful Ronald Reagan Building in downtown Washington, D.C., this night will not only bring together those that are making a difference in the climate marketplace, but it will provide superb dining, excellent entertainment and a night of networking not to be missed! Seats are limited and will sell out; tickets will only be available in advance. Purchase before March 31, 2010 and receive a 10% discount! Ticket prices: $450 – Full Ticket, $295 – Non-profit and Academic, Please contact us regarding government rates. Leadership Celebration Dinner Guests include Richard Branson; Founder and Chairman, Virgin Group Denis Hayes Honorary Chair, Earth Day Network Organizer, Earth Day 1970 Lisa Perez Jackson Administrator, EPA.”

Executive board members of the ‘Carbon War Room’ include CEO of Virgin Unite and former CEO of Richard Branson’s Virgin Mobile (partner of original Havas tcktcktck campaign), and George Polk; currently leading a new $1 billion initiative by George Soros to invest private equity in climate change business models.

Richard Branson is ubiquitous. His corporations Virgin and Virgin Atlantic are partners in ‘The Climate Group’ (comprised of corporations and government) and he has worked with tcktcktck in the past. In 2007, HSBC announced that The Climate Group, along with WWF, Earthwatch, and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, would be a partner in the HSBCClimate Partnership, and donated US$100 million to the group – the largest-ever single corporate donation. As of December 2008, The Climate Group coalition includes more than 50 of the world’s largest corporations and sub-national governments, as well as several partner organizations. The Climate Group also works on other initiatives, one being that of the ‘Voluntary Carbon Standard’, a new global standard for voluntary offset projects.

‘Sir’ Richard Branson is presently working with the New Royal Society initiative on ‘solar radiation management’ with “the right stakeholders” to “create a strategic roadmap for governance and regulation” in the geoengineering “battle area.” As well, Branson is fervently developing “tourism ventures into space”. You can book your place in space on Richards “sexiest spaceship ever” at your earliest convenience, because, according to Richard, “Everybody should have the chance to experience space travel one day”. Branson also has massive investments in biofuel research including palm and soy – both of which have had devastating consequences.

Turning food and Displacement into Corporate Profits

 

 

 

Amsterdam, 17 March 2010 – “A roadmap for introducing biofuel blends into commercial jet fuel, to be discussed today at the World Biofuels Conference in Amsterdam, will lead to faster deforestation and climate change and spells disaster for Indigenous peoples, other forest-dependent communities and small farmers …”

Read the rest of the post here.Learn more about devastation and displacement resulting from biofuels here.

Peter Diamandis, strategic advisor from the “Climate Response Fund” is also interested in space tourism. Diamandis is an international leader in the commercial space arena, having founded a commercial space company developing private, FAA-certified parabolic flight utilizing a Boeing 727-200 aircraft. He is the Chairman & co-founder of the Rocket Racing League (www.rocketracingleague.com). Diamandis is a Managing Director and Co-Founder of Space Adventures (www.spaceadventures.com), the company which brokered the launches of four private citizens to the International Space Station.

CNN, March 23rd, 2010:

“Virgin Galactic has envisioned one flight a week, with six tourists aboard. Each will pay $200,000 for the ride and train for at least three days before going. About 80,000 people have placed their names on the waiting list for seats.”

Expanding the market for aviation, and creating a market for space travel in a climate crisis, while people die, and are displaced, is nothing less than psychopathic behavior. Could any of the 80,000 blinded narcissists on the waiting list be one of the 100 top paid CEOs still raking it in, in Canada? The total average compensation for Canada’s 100 highest paid CEOs was approx. 7.5 million dollars in 2008—a stark contrast from the total average Canadian income of $42,305. They pocketed what takes Canadians earning an average income an entire year to make by 1:06 pm January 4—the first working day of the year.

[Click here to read more and download the full report. Click here to use our CEO pay calculator to find out how quickly a top CEO will earn your salary.]

Now compare the above ‘Climate Wealth’ invitation with excerpts from this letter from Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, to the United Nations representatives; September 27th, 2007:

“Sister and brother Presidents and Heads of States of the United Nations: The world is suffering from a fever due to climate change, and the disease is the capitalist development model. Whilst over 10,000 years the variation in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels on the planet was approximately 10%, during the last 200 years of industrial development, carbon emissions have increased by 30%. Since 1860, Europe and North America have contributed 70% of the emissions of CO2. 2005 was the hottest year in the last one thousand years on this planet. …

Faced with this situation, we – the indigenous peoples and humble and honest inhabitants of this planet – believe that the time has come to put a stop to this, in order to rediscover our roots, with respect for Mother Earth; with the Pachamama as we call it in the Andes. Today, the indigenous peoples of Latin America and the world have been called upon by history to convert ourselves into the vanguard of the struggle to defend nature and life. …

In my own country I suffer, with my head held high, this permanent sabotage because we are ending privileges so that everyone can “Live Well” and not better than our counterparts.”

Read the letter from Evo Morales in its entirety here.

Watch Evo Morales speak of the inequality of climate change here.

The Rich get Richer and the poor die of hunger and thirst

“The propagandist’s purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human” – Aldous Huxley

It seems the wealthy and their partners have become completely blind to the reality of the climate change crisis. There is fiction and non fiction – the wealthy and their partners live in a narcissistic world of deception created by themselves. They fail to acknowledge the current reality – instead, they cling to false solutions in a fantasy world. They do so at the expense of survival of all species on earth. Is the wealth such elites accumulate by profiting from the climate crisis, which they created in the first place, to be given to the poorest of the poor; the disenfranchised men, women and children, who die of hunger and thirst?

Objects in mirror are closer than they appear

The corporate climate groups sprouting up left right and centre are not about saving civilization from devastation, these corporately inundated climate groups are about protecting the capitalist system itself and protecting corporate profits at all costs. Just like governments are not in Iraq and Afghanistan to ‘liberate the people’ … corporations are not creating alliances with NGOs to ‘save humanity’. When they pretend otherwise – they both deluding themselves and the public. Corporations never fail to exploit crisis, such as ecosystem collapse, to further vested corporate economic interests. The United Nations has reported that in 2008 the world’s largest corporations caused 2.2 trillion dollars worth of environmental damage. If these corporations were not able to externalize these costs by way of destroying and poisoning the natural environment, one-third of their profits would be lost. Almost twenty years after Rio, emissions have reached an all time high. As corporate profits have soared – so have carbon emissions. Since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Earth Summit) in 1992, the world has witnessed a staggering increase in CO2 emissions of over 40%. The global community must acknowledge that the capitalist system cannot ensure our survival – it can only ensure our certain demise.

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” – Aldous Huxley

The Staggering Inequality of Climate Change

Globally, the wealthiest 8% emit 50% of all emissions

And most of this is for a display of opulence and over consumption. Professor Stephen Pacala of Princeton University calculated the emissions per person based on 6.5 billion people. What he found is startling. He found that the 3 billion poorest people emit essentially nothing. Simply stated, the development of the desperately poor is not in conflict with solving the climate crisis. Ironically, the reluctance of developing countries to drastically cut carbon is often used as an excuse by developed nations to do nothing. For example, Zimbabwe emits 0.93 tonnes of carbon per person, while the United States emit 19.66 tonnes of carbon per person. Canada emits 17.86 tonnes of carbon per person. India produces 1.17 tonnes of carbon per person while China produces 3.7 tonnes of carbon per person. Bottom line – a person in Canada or the U.S. produces approx. 20 times the carbon than an average person in a vulnerable, developing country such as Zimbabwe.

The wealthiest 15% emit 75% of all emissions

Furthermore, Pacala’s data shows that the wealthiest 15% are responsible for ¾ of global emissions.

“In contrast, the rich are really spectacular emitters. …the top 500 million people [7.5% of humanity] emit half the greenhouse emissions. These people are really rich by global standards. Every single one of them earns more than the average American and they also occur in all the countries of the world. There are Chinese and Americans and Europeans and Japanese and Indians all in this group.”

The remaining 85% of humanity emit only 25% of all emissions

Pacala’s data shows the globally wealthy could solve the crisis. Most importantly, it also shows there is absolutely no other way. Humanity must cut fossil fuel emissions massively and the only people who can cut global fossil fuel use to the extent needed are the wealthiest 15%. Furthermore, most of the cuts will need to be made by the wealthiest 7½%, because they are using almost all of it. The globally wealthy must make the major reductions. Below is the Nov. 09 Global Carbon Project carbon budget. In the graph it shows that the carbon emissions budget for the Unites States and Australia budget (& I will assume Canada) until 2050 will be used up by 2019.

Humanity will not longer survive within the Capitalist System

Ecology and economy are interdependent. Both words have a common root: the Greek word “oikos” which means home. A whole earth economy is an economy based not on the wealth of a few but the welfare of the many – not living better than others – but “living well”. A whole earth economy recognizes the earth has ecological limits and that if these limits are not respected there will be serious, irreversible consequences. The warning from Rio in 1992 continues to be ignored;

“Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystem on which we depend for our well being (Preamble, Agenda 21, UNCED, 1992)”

If the global community continues to fail to heed the admonitions of the past, it is the rights not only of present, but also future generations who will suffer. The time has long since passed for tolerating the gross negligence of those who satisfy their insatiable wants at the expense of the fundamental needs and inalienable rights of others.

Ethics versus exploitation. It’s that simple. Choose a side.

A Kiss of Death to Faux ‘Green’ Capitalism and Those that Defend It

The only way climate catastrophe can be prevented is if the global community confronts those who impede action.  Once confronted, such compromised organizations , individuals and governments who continue to place their own self interests above that of humanity, will come to be seen as not just self serving, but highly unethical and criminally negligent.  They must be shunned by society.  Opulence and over consumptive lifestyles must become not a source of status, but a source of shame. The licenses and charters of corporations that perpetuate this negligence must be revoked.

Divesting in the bad and investing the good

All products that are destructive to human health and the ecosystem must be phased out and then prohibited. Rather than spending money on the food and the products that perpetuate ill health, exploit people, cause death and destroy the natural environment, the global community must invest in and subsidize what is necessary for humans and what is beneficial for the ecosystem.

Suicidal Tendencies; Refusing to Face Reality at One’s Own Peril

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Einstein

The absolute apathy of the mainstream ‘environmental movement’ has never been more clearly demonstrated than in the invitation for the ‘climate wealth summit’.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) model is one of the best we have at this time, keeping in mind it omits Arctic carbon feedbacks (like all the models), so in reality, the future looks much more terrifying. The MIT median projection for the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2095 is a jaw-dropping 866 ppm.

About 4.5 million years ago, during the early Pliocene period, temperatures on Earth were some 3 to 4 degrees C (5.4 to 7.2 degrees F.) higher in the tropics, and perhaps 10 degrees C (18 degrees F.) warmer near the poles. Palm trees grew in Antarctica and alligators inhabited swamps above the Arctic Circle. We are now firmly on this path.

While the wealthy and their partners cover their ears to the cries of the most vulnerable and disenfranchised, who plead for no more than a right to simply stay alive, the wealthy and their partners, blind to the suffering of others, instead create new markets for wealth profits. The wealthy thus make a mockery of those who are already suffering from the dire effects of climate change. The actions of the wealthy elite could be compared to eating Christmas dinner in front of a person starving to death in a refugee camp.

Climate Wealth Summit Undermines Essence and Intent of Earth Day

In 1969 John McConnell, felt it necessary to propose a holiday in which we celebrate the Earth’s life and beauty. Along with a celebration of the Earth, he also intended Earth Day to alert earthlings about the need for preserving and renewing the threatened ecological balances upon which all life on Earth depends. McConnell said, “Let every individual and institution now think and act as a responsible trustee of Earth, seeking choices in ecology, economics and ethics that will provide a sustainable future, eliminate pollution, poverty and violence, awaken the wonder of life and foster peaceful progress in the human adventure.” Today would he not roll in his grave at the thought of a ‘creating climate wealth summit’ – in essence – profiting from the collapse of civilization. Their ‘climate wealth’ solutions could be compared to the Ku Klux Klan working with the ‘Martin Luther King, Jr. foundation to ensure rights and justice for those suffering from racism.

“One of the truest tests of integrity is its blunt refusal to be compromised.”­ Chinua Achebe| Nigerian Writer

The global community must choose

The world has a choice to make: humanity over corporate profits or corporate profits over humanity. The global community can choose profits resulting from the actions of compromised and self-serving people, institutions and governments; or, the global community can choose humanity through altruism and ethical solutions. In global solidarity, citizens must defend our dying Mother earth. We must create a new world; a world of meaning, sharing, beauty, culture, love and respect in a race towards a zero carbon where all children and all life will flourish.

Ethical grassroots organizations and progressive governments are now left with the daunting task of saving the planet from complete collapse and total catastrophic, irreversible climate change. The global community must lend support to the organizations and the governments that have the courage to lead.

The world has a choice to make.

We choose life.

Cory Morningstar, Canadians for Action on Climate Change | Joan Russow PhD Global Compliance Research

Visit the ‘TIME TO BE BOLD’ declaration as we move towards the ‘World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth’ in Bolivia, April 19th – 22nd.Earth Day Hijacked by Climate Wealth Opportunists

April 21st, 2010 will Mark the fall of the Mainstream Environmental ‘Movement’

For many in the climate justice movement, the growing trend of cozy alliances between many of the mainstream ENGOs with multinational corporate partners has been a toxic recipe; the price of which may be nothing less than complete ecological devastation. The result of these unscrupulous relationships is undeserved legitimacy for transnational corporations, as compromised NGOs run hand in hand with CEOs and executives in a race to the lowest common denominator. The common denominator is money and the finish line is paved in gold – but at what cost? Species extinction is happening at a scale of epic proportions, droughts and storms are happening at unparalleled magnitude; irreversible climate change catastrophe now stares at us in the face. The most inconvenient truth of all – that today – we now stand on the cusp of epic collapse of civilization. Has Earth Day become nothing more than a day of greenwash opportunism and will it mark the fall of the mainstream environmental movement.

Creating Climate Wealth Summit

Invitation from the ‘Earth Day Network’:

“Please join Earth Day Network and the Carbon War Room on April 21, 2010 from 6:00 p.m.-10:00p.m. at the Ronald Reagan Building for a celebration on the eve of the 40th anniversary of Earth Day! Join Sir Richard Branson, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and celebrities. Join attendees from the Creating Climate Wealth Summit, our keynote speakers Richard Branson and Lisa Jackson, and enjoy a night conversing with other professionals that are making a difference in the climate change market! Held at the beautiful Ronald Reagan Building in downtown Washington, D.C., this night will not only bring together those that are making a difference in the climate marketplace, but it will provide superb dining, excellent entertainment and a night of networking not to be missed! Seats are limited and will sell out; tickets will only be available in advance. Purchase before March 31, 2010 and receive a 10% discount! Ticket prices: $450 – Full Ticket, $295 – Non-profit and Academic, Please contact us regarding government rates. Leadership Celebration Dinner Guests include Richard Branson; Founder and Chairman, Virgin Group Denis Hayes Honorary Chair, Earth Day Network Organizer, Earth Day 1970 Lisa Perez Jackson Administrator, EPA.”

Executive board members of the ‘Carbon War Room’ include CEO of Virgin Unite and former CEO of Richard Branson’s Virgin Mobile (partner of original Havas tcktcktck campaign), and George Polk; currently leading a new $1 billion initiative by George Soros to invest private equity in climate change business models.

Richard Branson is ubiquitous. His corporations Virgin and Virgin Atlantic are partners in ‘The Climate Group’ (comprised of corporations and government) and he has worked with tcktcktck in the past. In 2007, HSBC announced that The Climate Group, along with WWF, Earthwatch, and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, would be a partner in the HSBCClimate Partnership, and donated US$100 million to the group – the largest-ever single corporate donation. As of December 2008, The Climate Group coalition includes more than 50 of the world’s largest corporations and sub-national governments, as well as several partner organizations. The Climate Group also works on other initiatives, one being that of the ‘Voluntary Carbon Standard’, a new global standard for voluntary offset projects.

‘Sir’ Richard Branson is presently working with the New Royal Society initiative on ‘solar radiation management’ with “the right stakeholders” to “create a strategic roadmap for governance and regulation” in the geoengineering “battle area.” As well, Branson is fervently developing “tourism ventures into space”. You can book your place in space on Richards “sexiest spaceship ever” at your earliest convenience, because, according to Richard, “Everybody should have the chance to experience space travel one day”. Branson also has massive investments in biofuel research including palm and soy – both of which have had devastating consequences.

Turning food and Displacement into Corporate Profits

Amsterdam, 17 March 2010 – “A roadmap for introducing biofuel blends into commercial jet fuel, to be discussed today at the World Biofuels Conference in Amsterdam, will lead to faster deforestation and climate change and spells disaster for Indigenous peoples, other forest-dependent communities and small farmers …”

Read the rest of the post here.Learn more about devastation and displacement resulting from biofuels here.

Peter Diamandis, strategic advisor from the “Climate Response Fund” is also interested in space tourism. Diamandis is an international leader in the commercial space arena, having founded a commercial space company developing private, FAA-certified parabolic flight utilizing a Boeing 727-200 aircraft. He is the Chairman & co-founder of the Rocket Racing League (www.rocketracingleague.com). Diamandis is a Managing Director and Co-Founder of Space Adventures (www.spaceadventures.com), the company which brokered the launches of four private citizens to the International Space Station.

CNN, March 23rd, 2010:

“Virgin Galactic has envisioned one flight a week, with six tourists aboard. Each will pay $200,000 for the ride and train for at least three days before going. About 80,000 people have placed their names on the waiting list for seats.”

Expanding the market for aviation, and creating a market for space travel in a climate crisis, while people die, and are displaced, is nothing less than psychopathic behavior. Could any of the 80,000 blinded narcissists on the waiting list be one of the 100 top paid CEOs still raking it in, in Canada? The total average compensation for Canada’s 100 highest paid CEOs was approx. 7.5 million dollars in 2008—a stark contrast from the total average Canadian income of $42,305. They pocketed what takes Canadians earning an average income an entire year to make by 1:06 pm January 4—the first working day of the year.

[Click here to read more and download the full report. Click here to use our CEO pay calculator to find out how quickly a top CEO will earn your salary.]

Now compare the above ‘Climate Wealth’ invitation with excerpts from this letter from Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, to the United Nations representatives; September 27th, 2007:

“Sister and brother Presidents and Heads of States of the United Nations: The world is suffering from a fever due to climate change, and the disease is the capitalist development model. Whilst over 10,000 years the variation in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels on the planet was approximately 10%, during the last 200 years of industrial development, carbon emissions have increased by 30%. Since 1860, Europe and North America have contributed 70% of the emissions of CO2. 2005 was the hottest year in the last one thousand years on this planet. …

Faced with this situation, we – the indigenous peoples and humble and honest inhabitants of this planet – believe that the time has come to put a stop to this, in order to rediscover our roots, with respect for Mother Earth; with the Pachamama as we call it in the Andes. Today, the indigenous peoples of Latin America and the world have been called upon by history to convert ourselves into the vanguard of the struggle to defend nature and life. …

In my own country I suffer, with my head held high, this permanent sabotage because we are ending privileges so that everyone can “Live Well” and not better than our counterparts.”

Read the letter from Evo Morales in its entirety here.

Watch Evo Morales speak of the inequality of climate change here.

The Rich get Richer and the poor die of hunger and thirst

“The propagandist’s purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human” – Aldous Huxley

It seems the wealthy and their partners have become completely blind to the reality of the climate change crisis. There is fiction and non fiction – the wealthy and their partners live in a narcissistic world of deception created by themselves. They fail to acknowledge the current reality – instead, they cling to false solutions in a fantasy world. They do so at the expense of survival of all species on earth. Is the wealth such elites accumulate by profiting from the climate crisis, which they created in the first place, to be given to the poorest of the poor; the disenfranchised men, women and children, who die of hunger and thirst?

Objects in mirror are closer than they appear

The corporate climate groups sprouting up left right and centre are not about saving civilization from devastation, these corporately inundated climate groups are about protecting the capitalist system itself and protecting corporate profits at all costs. Just like governments are not in Iraq and Afghanistan to ‘liberate the people’ … corporations are not creating alliances with NGOs to ‘save humanity’. When they pretend otherwise – they both deluding themselves and the public. Corporations never fail to exploit crisis, such as ecosystem collapse, to further vested corporate economic interests. The United Nations has reported that in 2008 the world’s largest corporations caused 2.2 trillion dollars worth of environmental damage. If these corporations were not able to externalize these costs by way of destroying and poisoning the natural environment, one-third of their profits would be lost. Almost twenty years after Rio, emissions have reached an all time high. As corporate profits have soared – so have carbon emissions. Since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Earth Summit) in 1992, the world has witnessed a staggering increase in CO2 emissions of over 40%. The global community must acknowledge that the capitalist system cannot ensure our survival – it can only ensure our certain demise.

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” – Aldous Huxley

The Staggering Inequality of Climate Change

Globally, the wealthiest 8% emit 50% of all emissions

And most of this is for a display of opulence and over consumption. Professor Stephen Pacala of Princeton University calculated the emissions per person based on 6.5 billion people. What he found is startling. He found that the 3 billion poorest people emit essentially nothing. Simply stated, the development of the desperately poor is not in conflict with solving the climate crisis. Ironically, the reluctance of developing countries to drastically cut carbon is often used as an excuse by developed nations to do nothing. For example, Zimbabwe emits 0.93 tonnes of carbon per person, while the United States emit 19.66 tonnes of carbon per person. Canada emits 17.86 tonnes of carbon per person. India produces 1.17 tonnes of carbon per person while China produces 3.7 tonnes of carbon per person. Bottom line – a person in Canada or the U.S. produces approx. 20 times the carbon than an average person in a vulnerable, developing country such as Zimbabwe.

The wealthiest 15% emit 75% of all emissions

Furthermore, Pacala’s data shows that the wealthiest 15% are responsible for ¾ of global emissions.

“In contrast, the rich are really spectacular emitters. …the top 500 million people [7.5% of humanity] emit half the greenhouse emissions. These people are really rich by global standards. Every single one of them earns more than the average American and they also occur in all the countries of the world. There are Chinese and Americans and Europeans and Japanese and Indians all in this group.”

The remaining 85% of humanity emit only 25% of all emissions

Pacala’s data shows the globally wealthy could solve the crisis. Most importantly, it also shows there is absolutely no other way. Humanity must cut fossil fuel emissions massively and the only people who can cut global fossil fuel use to the extent needed are the wealthiest 15%. Furthermore, most of the cuts will need to be made by the wealthiest 7½%, because they are using almost all of it. The globally wealthy must make the major reductions. Below is the Nov. 09 Global Carbon Project carbon budget. In the graph it shows that the carbon emissions budget for the Unites States and Australia budget (& I will assume Canada) until 2050 will be used up by 2019.

Humanity will not longer survive within the Capitalist System

Ecology and economy are interdependent. Both words have a common root: the Greek word “oikos” which means home. A whole earth economy is an economy based not on the wealth of a few but the welfare of the many – not living better than others – but “living well”. A whole earth economy recognizes the earth has ecological limits and that if these limits are not respected there will be serious, irreversible consequences. The warning from Rio in 1992 continues to be ignored;

“Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystem on which we depend for our well being (Preamble, Agenda 21, UNCED, 1992)”

If the global community continues to fail to heed the admonitions of the past, it is the rights not only of present, but also future generations who will suffer. The time has long since passed for tolerating the gross negligence of those who satisfy their insatiable wants at the expense of the fundamental needs and inalienable rights of others.

Ethics verses exploitation. It’s that simple. Choose a side.

A Kiss of Death to Faux ‘Green’ Capitalism and Those that Defend It

The only way climate catastrophe can be prevented is if the global community confronts those who impede action.  Once confronted, such compromised organizations , individuals and governments who continue to place their own self interests above that of humanity, will come to be seen as not just self serving, but highly unethical and criminally negligent.  They must be shunned by society.  Opulence and over consumptive lifestyles must become not a source of status, but a source of shame. The licenses and charters of corporations that perpetuate this negligence must be revoked.

Divesting in the bad and investing the good

All products that are destructive to human health and the ecosystem must be phased out and then prohibited. Rather than spending money on the food and the products that perpetuate ill health, exploit people, cause death and destroy the natural environment, the global community must invest in and subsidize what is necessary for humans and what is beneficial for the ecosystem.

Suicidal Tendencies; Refusing to Face Reality at One’s Own Peril

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Einstein

The absolute apathy of the mainstream ‘environmental movement’ has never been more clearly demonstrated than in the invitation for the ‘climate wealth summit’.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) model is one of the best we have at this time, keeping in mind it omits Arctic carbon feedbacks (like all the models), so in reality, the future looks much more terrifying. The MIT median projection for the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2095 is a jaw-dropping 866 ppm.

About 4.5 million years ago, during the early Pliocene period, temperatures on Earth were some 3 to 4 degrees C (5.4 to 7.2 degrees F.) higher in the tropics, and perhaps 10 degrees C (18 degrees F.) warmer near the poles. Palm trees grew in Antarctica and alligators inhabited swamps above the Arctic Circle. We are now firmly on this path.

While the wealthy and their partners cover their ears to the cries of the most vulnerable and disenfranchised, who plead for no more than a right to simply stay alive, the wealthy and their partners, blind to the suffering of others, instead create new markets for wealth profits. The wealthy thus make a mockery of those who are already suffering from the dire effects of climate change. The actions of the wealthy elite could be compared to eating Christmas dinner in front of a person starving to death in a refugee camp.

Climate Wealth Summit Undermines Essence and Intent of Earth Day

In 1969 John McConnell, felt it necessary to propose a holiday in which we celebrate the Earth’s life and beauty. Along with a celebration of the Earth, he also intended Earth Day to alert earthlings about the need for preserving and renewing the threatened ecological balances upon which all life on Earth depends. McConnell said, “Let every individual and institution now think and act as a responsible trustee of Earth, seeking choices in ecology, economics and ethics that will provide a sustainable future, eliminate pollution, poverty and violence, awaken the wonder of life and foster peaceful progress in the human adventure.” Today would he not roll in his grave at the thought of a ‘creating climate wealth summit’ – in essence – profiting from the collapse of civilization. Their ‘climate wealth’ solutions could be compared to the Ku Klux Klan working with the ‘Martin Luther King, Jr. foundation to ensure rights and justice for those suffering from racism.

“One of the truest tests of integrity is its blunt refusal to be compromised.”­ Chinua Achebe| Nigerian Writer

The global community must choose

The world has a choice to make: humanity over corporate profits or corporate profits over humanity. The global community can choose profits resulting from the actions of compromised and self-serving people, institutions and governments; or, the global community can choose humanity through altruism and ethical solutions. In global solidarity, citizens must defend our dying Mother earth. We must create a new world; a world of meaning, sharing, beauty, culture, love and respect in a race towards a zero carbon where all children and all life will flourish.

Ethical grassroots organizations and progressive governments are now left with the daunting task of saving the planet from complete collapse and total catastrophic, irreversible climate change. The global community must lend support to the organizations and the governments that have the courage to lead.

The world has a choice to make.

We choose life.

Cory Morningstar, Canadians for Action on Climate Change | Joan Russow PhD Global Compliance Research

Visit the ‘TIME TO BE BOLD’ declaration as we move towards the ‘World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth’ in Bolivia, April 19th – 22nd.

Controversial deal between US-based conservation NGOs and polluting industry slammed

Last week, an organisation called Avoided Deforestation Partners launched what they blandly describe as “an agreement on policies aimed at protecting the world’s tropical forests”. Under this agreement, “companies would be eligible to receive credit for reducing climate pollution by financing conservation of tropical forests”. It is a loophole allowing industry to write a cheque and continue to pollute. This is another nightmare vision of REDD, similar to that recently proposed by the Australian government. Another similarity with Australia is the support received from what is at first glance a surprising source: big international conservation NGOs.

REDD-Monitor received the following anonymous contribution about the agreement. We reproduce it in full in the hope of generating further discussion about this liaison between conservation NGOs and polluting industry.
The following organisations signed the agreement: American Electric Power, Conservation International, Duke Energy, Environmental Defense Fund, El Paso Corporation, National Wildlife Federation, Marriott International, Mercy Corps, Natural Resources Defense Council, PG&E Corporation, Sierra Club, Starbucks Coffee Company, The Nature Conservancy, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Walt Disney Company, Wildlife Conservation Society, and the Woods Hole Research Center.

The agreement is available here.

When, in years to come, the history is written of how humanity came to lose the battle against climate change, May 20th 2009 will go down as the day that the tide decisively turned against planetary survival. For this was the day that those with the influence and power who could have taken a stand of moral principle, and who could have demanded the kind of action needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the US, decided not to. Instead, they offered some of the biggest, filthiest planetary polluters an ‘easy out’, by lobbying the US Congress jointly with them, that US carbon emissions should be offset against oversees credits for ‘avoided deforestation’.

Surprisingly, it was not the professional lobbyists, union leaders or government officials who demonstrated the loss of their moral compasses on May 20th. It was the big international conservation organisations who, we have all been led to believe, are supposedly looking after the planet’s wild places. In a statement issued alongside fossil fuel-burning power giants such as American Electric Power, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the conservationists – including The Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defence Fund, Conservation International and Wildlife Conservation Society – called for unlimited access for ‘avoided deforestation’ carbon credits in the American Clean Energy and Security Act (also known as the Waxman/Markey bill)- thereby potentially allowing major polluters not to make significant reductions in their own emissions for many years to come. In this, they were largely reaffirming what was already included in this desperately weak piece of draft legislation.

The interests of the big US international conservation NGOs (let’s call them BINGOS) and large corporations have been converging for some years. The BINGOs have realised that the fat profits of mining, utility and financial services companies are a ready source of income for their fast expanding empires. The corporations have realised that the compliant BINGOs are potentially their best green public relations’ agencies, if paid the right amounts of money. The BINGO’s spiralling budgets have grown ever more dependent on hand-outs from the private sector, and the Boards of all the main US conservation groups are now stuffed with corporate executives.

In fairness, the statement does recognise that the rights of indigenous peoples need to be respected in REDD programmes. However, the day before the BINGO-polluter love-note was announced, the chief scientist of one of the BINGO signatories – Peter Kareiva, of the Nature Conservancy – confirmed what many indigenous people and environmentalists already knew: that “the traditional protected areas strategy has all too often trampled on people’s rights”. Kareiva also said that “The key question is to what extent have we – and by “we,” I mean the big conservation NGOs such as The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International and WWF – mended our ways so that we no longer disrespect the rights of indigenous people in pursuit of our missions.” The fact that Kareiva still has to ask the question is telling in itself, in that the BINGOs have been told for many years that their anti-people approach is unacceptable and probably ultimately ineffective. TNC’s chief scientist rightly concluded that the entire protected areas strategy “warrants a critical re-examination”.

Kareiva also asked the question “Should the conservation movement be proud of the 108,000 protected areas around the world it has thus far helped establish?” Many indigenous people know the answer to that question, and it is why they remain deeply concerned and sceptical about grand international plans by conservation organisations to ‘protect’ their forests in order to supposedly prevent climate change.

Do the math, and it’s not hard to see why the BINGOs have finally sold their souls to the devil. Around 150 million hectares of tropical forests is in protected areas worldwide, much of it under the control or management of international conservation groups. Each hectare of forest contains around 100-200 tons of carbon, and each ton of carbon could be worth around $10 at the moment (and potentially much more in the future). The BINGOs know that they have a big stake in an asset potentially worth $150 billion and upwards.

But there would have to be a buyer for this asset to actually be worth anything. Step in the big fossil fuel-burning power utilities, which, like most US businesses, have been cosseted and protected from global environmental realities by eight years of the Bush administration. If there is an easy way to avoid changing their business model, of avoiding the installation of more efficient technology, or of losing market segment to renewable energy producers, they will surely take it. Avoided deforestation offsets on a grand scale – brokered by their chums in the conservation groups – would be just the ticket.

But as US environmental groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of Earth have pointed out, this is a sure route to climatic ruin. The terms of the Waxman/Markey bill as it stands – and as demanded by the BINGO-polluter axis – would allow the polluters to carry on polluting and will “lock in a new generation of dirty coal-fired power plants.”

These groups – organisations that, unlike the BINGOS, have not allowed themselves to grow bloated and complacent feasting at the teats of mammon – point out that “the American Clean Energy and Security Act sets targets for reducing pollution that are far weaker than science says is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change. They are further undermined by massive loopholes that could allow the most polluting industries to avoid real emission reductions until 2027.” That is, they can largely be offset against ‘carbon credits’ bought from overseas projects, such as for putative ‘avoided deforestation’ schemes.

How has this potentially catastrophic turn of events come about? The decision-making process for the Waxman/Markey bill which will perpetuate the US’s addiction to fossil fuels was, we are told by the environmental groups “co-opted by oil and coal lobbyists”. Were the environmentalists slightly less polite, they might have added “and their trough-snouting apologists in the conservation BINGOs”.

And as we all know, where the US leads, the rest of the world tends to follow. If the Waxman/Markey bill becomes law, it is likely to set a precedent that negotiators at the Copenhagen climate summit in December will look to for inspiration.

So the May 20th statement is not just an act of egregious short-sighted greed and duplicity by the supposed conservationists; it is little more than an act of global environmental treachery. One of the coordinators of the joint statement, Jeff Horowitz of ‘Avoided Deforestation Partners’, describing the statement as a ‘landmark’, said “When environmentalists and major corporate leaders can agree, real change has come”. He is right, real change has indeed come, and it is a landmark: it marks the point that the conservation BINGOs finally abandoned any last pretence to be acting in the interests of the planet.

The gravy train may well be headed the way of the BINGOs, but the cost could be dangerous climate change that will eventually wipe out many wildlife habitats, including tropical forests. But when the good ship Mother Earth does start sinking, at least we’ll now know who should be the first to be thrown overboard.

http://www.redd-monitor.org/2009/05/28/controversial-deal-between-us-based-conservation-ngos-and-polluting-industry-slammed/

“100 Billion for Everyone Who Signs” [McKibben’s Divestment Tour – Brought to You by Wall Street [Part XVII of an Investigative Report]

June 27, 2017

By Cory Morningstar

Part seventeen of an investigative series

 

The B Team

The B Team was incubated by Virgin Unite, the foundation arm of Richard Branson’s Virgin Group, which had previously incubated such organizations the Elders and the Carbon War Room. In October, 2012, Branson and Jochen Zeitz (ex-CEO of Puma) announced the formation of The B Team. It has since grown to include 23 “leaders” ^[1] including Kathy Calvin, President and CEO of the United Nations Foundation, Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever, Andrew Liveris, chairman and CEO of Dow Chemical, Mary Robinson, Secretary of The Elders and President of the Mary Robinson Foundation for Climate Justice, Ratan Tata, Chairman Emeritus of the Tata Group, Christiana Figueres, former Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2010-2016, and several others of elite status. ^{[Source] [Full List]}

Mary Robinson (a staunch believer in carbon markets) and Mo Ibrahim^[3] were two of those involved in the inception of The B Team. Ibrahim is the British Sudanese entrepreneur who excels in the undermining of Africa and her leadership, “for no other reason than to force African leaders to submit to Western economic and political ideology”. [“Today, Mo Ibrahim tells us that in 2012 and 2013, there was no African leader that qualified for the Mo Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership. Mo Ibrahim, who has made billions of the back, blood and sweat of Africans, joins the predatory fray, in taking cheap pot shots at Africa’s leadership, in a transparent ploy to present himself as more caring for Africa and its people than those who sacrificed their lives and limbs for the liberation of Africa.” [Source] [The B Team Story: video] Mary Robinson is also a Member of the Advisory Board at Generation Investment.

Former US President Bill Clinton, Christine Lagarde IMF Managing Director, and Mo Ibrahim Founder and Chairman, Mo Ibrahim Foundation attend the Clinton Global Initiative on September 24, 2013 in New York. AFP PHOTO/Mehdi Taamallah

U.S. President Barack Obama presents the Medal of Freedom to former Irish President Mary Robinson during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington, August 12, 2009. REUTERS/Jason Reed

The elite associations in The B Team continue to proliferate. In 2015, Marc Benioff, Founder, Chairman and CEO of Salesforce.com and Breakthrough Energy Coalition founding member, Sharan Burrow, General Sectretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, Bob Collymore, CEO of Safaricom and David Crane, ex-CEO of NRG Energy joined as B Team Leaders. In July of 2016, Oliver Bäte, CEO of Allianz Group, Andrew Liveris, Chairman and CEO of Dow Chemical Company and Arif Naqvi, Founder and Group CEO of Abraaj Group (private equity) also joined the B Team. In 2017, Christiana Figueres, former Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC 2010-2016 joined The B Team.

Nature's been invisible in business decisions for too long #NatCapProtocol makes it visible https://t.co/3UIlyiyazy pic.twitter.com/Xo8IpkN4zU

— Unilever (@Unilever) July 13, 2016

The “B Team Experts” include the aforementioned John Elkington, Heather Grady, Senior Fellow, Global Philanthropy for Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors; Alexander Grashow, Clinton Global Initiative, Jeremy Heimans, co-founder of both Avaaz and Purpose, Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres (350 divestment partner), Hunter Lovins, President, Natural Capitalism Solutions, David Jones, co-founder of One Young World, former CEO of Havas Worldwide and creator of the TckTckTck campaign for Global Campaign for Climate Action (co-founded by Avaaz, 350.org, Greenpeace along with 17 other NGOs).

This group and its alliances represent many of the key NGOs tasked with creating/achieving a buy-in from the populace (targeted as consumers) for new markets that will continue to drive growth under the false pretense of a “new economy”. The NGOs are strategically positioned within this hierarchy. For example, Avaaz and 350 are the trusted front groups while their alliances and key leaders/staff are closely affiliated with the corporate world and it’s map for the future. In reality they are all part and parcel of the same circle. A circle of power and elitism that both protects and expands current power structures while continually reabsorbing any/all movements of resistance. They keep their alliances at arm’s length in order to retain the illusion of being representative of civil society. NGOs such as 350.org and Avaaz while being the most powerful NGOs in the world, are actually on the lower rung of the hierarchy. They function in discreet servitude to NGOs such as Ceres and The Clinton Global Initiative that exist at the top of the hierarchy.

Desmond Tutu for We Mean Business partnered with The B Team (redirected to Purpose)

The B Team funders include: The Tiffany & Co. Foundation, Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Kering (luxury goods), Unilever, Virgin Unite. Guilherme Leal (co-founder of Natura), Strive Masiyiwa (founder and chairman of Econet) and Joann McPike (Founder of Think Global School). Past supporters include Derek Handley (founding CEO of The B Team) and One Young World. The B Team is part of the Omidyar Network which contributed USD $980,946.00 to The B Team in 2016.

Image courtesy of The B Team

The B Team twitter account is a mix of elite/ appointed “leaders”, green tech, foundation financed super powers, finance, social media experts, finance, etc. Initial “follows” include: The Rockefeller Foundation, The Economist, Jeremy Heimans (Avaaz, Purpose, The B Team), Carbon War Room, John Elkington, B Corporation, Bill Gates, General Electric Ecomagination, World Resources Institute, Gates Foundation, Purpose, Facebook, Ceres, Steve Forbes, Oprah Winfrey, Bloomberg, Trucost, Bill McKibben, Melinda Gates, Pierre Omidyar , Green Biz, David Jones (former Havas CEO, One Young World co-founder), Jeremy Leggett (Carbon Tracker) and the Omidyar Network to name just a few.

Above: Jeremy Heimans Avaaz/Purpose co-founder, The B Team

Behavioural change is a key component of the “new economy”. Recall that the term “green economy” was deemed dead in 2014 by Avaaz and Purpose Inc. co-founder Jeremy Heimans. Heiman’s for-profit public relations firm, Purpose, Inc. consults for institutions such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the ACLU (founder of MoveOn and Avaaz) Google, Unilever, General Electric and Conservation International. A shill for trafficking “prosumers” and “millennials” to the highest bidder, these organizations also have their hands dipped in many seemingly “humanitarian” endeavors.

Heimans (with his Avaaz co-founders) bears much responsibility in building acquiescence for the deaths of hundreds of thousands Syrian and Libyan citizens.  Purpose (in tandem with Avaaz) has been instrumental in its building acquiescence for war on Syria via it’s many demonization campaigns that serve empire, including the White Helmets [see extensive research by independent researcher Vanessa Beeley]. To demonstrate the interlocking mechanisms between the NPIC and the humanitarian  industrial complex, consider the close affiliation of Richard Branson (The B Team co-founder) with the International Crisis Group. Then consider Heiman’s role as a Branson B Team “expert”. Thus, it should be of no surprise to identify that The B Teams headquarters utilized on all B Team correspondence, is actually the headquarters of Purpose.

We Mean Business

“We Mean Business”  launched in September 2014 in advance of the People’s Climate March

On September 15, 2014, one week prior to the People’s Climate March in New York, Inside Climate News published the article Only $1 Trillion: Annual Investment Goal Puts Climate Solutions Within Reach. From the article:

“Leading up to the UN Climate Summit next week in New York, business groups and investors who manage trillions of dollars published reports and held meetings to call for action. Last week, investment groups publicized the creation of We Mean Business, an umbrella organization of investors urging world leaders to agree on a plan for fighting climate change.”

“$100 Billion for Everyone Who Signs”

Apple CEO Tim Cook at launch of We Mean Business at Climate Week NYC 2014

“Representatives from roughly 130 governments are converging on New York city today to sign the Paris Agreement that was reached in December, and the We Mean Business Coalition says that implementing that agreement will unleash more than $13 trillion in new investment – or $100 billion for everyone who signs. That’s just one reason this year’s Earth Day is completely different from all those that came before.” — April 22, 2016, 13 Trillion Reasons This Earth Day Is Different From All Others – Ecosystem Marketplace

From the Climate Group (incubated by Rockefeller as in-house project that later evolved into a free-standing institution) website:

“The Climate Group is a proud partner of We Mean Business – a coalition of organizations working with thousands of the world’s most influential businesses and investors.”

The founding partners of We Mean Business are Business for Social Responsibility (full membership and associate members list), CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project), Ceres, The B Team, The Climate Group, The Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group (CLG) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).

We Mean Business Network partners are Asset Owner Disclosure Project (AODP), CEBDS (Brazilian Business Council on Sustainable Development), Climate Leadership Council (CLC), WWF Climate Savers, EPC, Japan-CLP, National Business Initiative, Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI).

We Mean Business working partnerships were formed with the organizations Carbon Tracker, Carbon War Room, Climate & Clean Air Coalition, Climate Markets & Investments Association, E3G, Forum for the Future, Global Alliance for Energy Productivity, International Emissions Trading Association, Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC/Ceres), Rocky Mountain Institute (now partnered with the Carbon War Room), The Business Council for Sustainable Energy, The New Climate Economy, The Shift Project, United Nations Global Compact, World Bank Group and World Resources Institute.

Ceres, a founding member of We Mean Business is a key partner of the 350.org divestment campaign which was created in consultation with the organizations “friends on Wall Street“. Ceres, 350.org, The B Team, Avaaz, The Climate Group, We Mean Business and CDP partnered under the “Earth to Paris” coalition for COP21. (“Earth To Paris”, a coalition of partners helping to drive awareness about the connection between people and planet as well as the need for strong climate action, announced it will host “Earth To Paris—Le Hub” a two-day, high-impact, live-streamed summit on 7 and 8 December in Paris during COP21 — the United Nations climate conference to deliver a new universal climate change agreement.”) [Source]

The following montage of video clips is evidence of the underlying solution proposed by the leaders of the NPIC:

The ideologies espoused by “We Mean Business” are transparent in the following 1:40 minute interview with Avaaz & Purpose co-founder Jeremy Heimans by We Mean Business.

 

 

“We’ve been talking in a broader way about the future of consumer activism, of organizing people not as citizens but as consumers.” — Jeremy Heimans, Purpose, 2011

 

The fact that the 2014 Peoples Climate March was designed and orchestrated as a mass mobilization social engineering experiment financed by the oligarchs to “change everything” (expand capital markets and insulate/strengthen existing power structures) is captured i the next 01:40 minute video titled We Mean Business Momentum:

 

 

“And hundreds of thousands of people marched in New York City and all across the world. The momentum became contagious.” – We Mean Business

 

Additionally, the dystopian focus on perpetual growth via consumption as the solution to climate change is clear in the following We Mean Business video (3:40). Also note the reference to “Natural Capital” which is code for the global privatization of nature via payments for ecosystems services (PES) which is currently being implemented into policies behind closed doors:

 

https://vimeo.com/106813873

 

“It won’t be about sacrifice. It will be about a new era of clean abundance.” — Steve Howard, Ikea

 

 

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary, UNFCCC at launch of ‘We Mean Business’ at the Climate Week NYC 2014

 

The 2016 article From Stable to Star – The Making of North American Climate Heroes  concluded that “The nurtured youth of today’s clearing houses for 21st century environmentalism, which is merely a guise for full-blown anthropocentrism, are the well-intentioned albeit naïve foot soldiers for today’s most powerful oligarchs.” This is again demonstrated by We Mean Business with the participation and promotion of Ikea by groomed 350.org board member and protégé Jessie Tolkan. (Again, as demonstrated throughout this series, 350.org is always kept at arm’s length from those NGOs in the background doing the heavy lifting for the expansion of capitalism while they are in full view cautiously keeping the patina of grassroots mobilization intact):

“Jessy Tolkan, Executive Director of Here Now, said: “With IKEA Foundation’s crucial support, we’re delighted to be launching a rich programme of campaigns that will mobilise millions to help build the world our children deserve to grow up in.” — Ikea Foundation, Climate Change: How We’re Part of the Solution, April 22, 2016

Ikea cites Here Now, as a We Mean Business counterpart:

“We Mean Business is working with thousands of the world’s leading businesses and investors to move towards a low carbon economy. Its counterpart, Here Now, creates campaigns to inspire citizens around the world to support climate change solutions.” — Ikea Foundation, Climate Change: How We’re Part of the Solution, April 22, 2016

In April 22, 2016, as heads of states met in New York to sign the Paris Agreement, the IKEA Foundation announced its new partnership with We Mean Business and Here Now, gifting EUR 9.6 million going to We Mean Business and EUR 3 million to Here Now (Purpose).

Tolkan is the Head of Labs & Executive Director of Here Now, a project of Purpose. [Further reading on Purpose: Under One Bad Sky and SYRIA: AVAAZ, PURPOSE & THE ART OF SELLING HATE FOR EMPIRE] Her foray into the NPIC has been extensive. [4]

In part thirteen of the divestment series [The Increasing Vogue for Capitalist-Friendly Climate Discourse], the report  touched upon the imperative of grooming cherry picked “celebrity leaders” to further serve capital. Akin to her 350.org counterparts Naomi Klein and May Boeve, Tolkan is no exception having been featured in Time, Glamour, and Vanity Fair Magazine. In 2006, Tolkan was named one of the “REAL HOT 100 Women in America”, for her work/influence with young voters. In 2008, Rolling Stone Magazine named her one of the 100 agents of change in America.

Demonstrating her steadfast loyalty to the Democratic Party (and by default the capitalist economic system) Tolkan spearheaded POWER VOTE in 2008, “a campaign to mobilize 1,000,000 young voters around climate and energy issues in more than 30 states across the country.” [Source]

“In addition to working on Capitol Hill, she has been to the White House four times since President Barack Obama took office, most recently for a meeting on energy and climate change last month. Her advocacy also has brought her in close contact with prominent figures such as Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, former Vice President Al Gore and NASA scientist James Hansen.” — Journal Sentinel, May 16, 2009

 

“[Tolkan] fuels her 12- to 14-hour work days with Diet Coke. She shuttles from the coalition’s row house-turned-office in the trendy Dupont Circle neighborhood to meetings across the city with other environmentalists, congressional aides and potential donors. During especially busy spells, she has lived out of the office, which she has decorated with personal touches, including an autographed photo of Obama that her staffers got for her as a get-well present when she was going through serious health problems.” — Journal Sentinel, May 16, 2009

The enablers. We Mean Business Twitter status, October 5, 2015

Throughout this series, the interlocking directorate that comprises the NPIC has been shown to be nothing less than formidable.  But perhaps nowhere is this evidenced as in the case of the rather new organization, We Mean Business. From Ceres, to Purpose (Avaaz), to Ikea (a client of Purpose) to Here Now (a project of Purpose), to Carbon Tracker, to The B Team (redirected to Purpose), to the United Nations (divestment partner) to those who have rose up in these very institutions (Jeremy Heimans, Mindy Lubber, Jessie Tolkan, etc. etc.) – the matrix becomes more and more blurred.

 

Next up: Part 18

 

End Notes:

[1]It has since grown to include 23 elites including Kathy Calvin (President and CEO of the United Nations Foundation), Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland (Deputy Chair of The Elders), Arianna Huffington, Chair, President, and Editor in Chief of the Huffington Post Media Group, Mo Ibrahim, Founder of Celtel, Guilherme Leal, Founder and Co-Chairman of Natura, Strive Masiyiwa, Founder and Chairman of Econet Wireless, Blake Mycoskie, Founder and Chief Shoe Giver of Toms Shoes, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Coordinating Minister of the Economy and Minister of Finance of Nigeria, François-Henri Pinault, CEO and Chairman of Kering, Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever, Mary Robinson, Secretary of The Elders and President of the Mary Robinson Foundation for Climate Justice, Ratan Tata, Chairman Emeritus of the Tata Group, Zhang Yue, Chairman and Founder of Broad Group China, Professor Muhammad Yunus, Chairman of Yunus Centre, Jochen Zeitz, Founder of The Zeitz Foundation, Co-Founder and Co-Chair of The B Team. [Source] [2] MERCHANTS OF DOUBT is presented by Sony Pictures Classics, in association with Participant Media (a global entertainment company founded in 2004 by Jeff Skoll) [777] and Omidyar Network, a film by Kenner, produced by Kenner and Melissa Robledo, executive produced by Jeff Skoll and Diane Weyermann of Participant Media, and Pierre Omidyar of Omidyar Network, and co-produced by Brian Pearle, Taki Oldham, Dylan Nelson and Youtchi von Lintel.”

[3] “Mo Ibrahim was soon to be a board member of the ONE Campaign and is currently chair of the advisory board for an investment firm focused on Africa called Satya Capital; its small portfolio includes Namakwa Diamonds, a mining group whose board members notably include a former executive vice president of the notorious Barrick Gold. In 2004, Ibrahim founded the Mo Ibrahim Foundation “to recognize achievement in African leadership and stimulate debate on good governance across sub-Saharan Africa and the world.” In this context, “good governance” means implementation of neoliberal reforms.” [Source] [4]

• Executive director for the Energy Action Coalition, “a coalition of 50 leading youth organizations throughout the U.S. and Canada (which she joined in 2006)
• The United States Student Association,
• Young Democrats of America
• Grassroots Campaigns, Inc. [Further reading: From Stable to Star – The Making of North American “Climate Heroes”]
• Political Director for Green For All (founded by Van Jones who also serves on the U.S. org advisory council)
• 1Sky steering committee
• Global Director of Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Development for two multi-national automakers for two muliti-national automakers (Renault and Nissan).
• Citizen Engagement Laboratory’s Co-Executive Director
• Senior Fellowship with the New Organizing Institute consulting on progressive infrastructure building, the 2012 youth vote, and next steps for the climate & energy sector.
• The Working Families Party (consultant)
• Progressive Change Campaign Committee (consultant)
• GetEqual (consultant)
• HeadCount Board of Directors
• 1Sky steering committee, consultant
• org Board of Directors, consultant
• Groundswell (consultant)
• Wellstone Action (consultant)
• The Culture Group
• Global Witness Board of Directors
• Citizen Engagement Laboratory’s Co-Executive Director
• Instrumental in planning/executing POWER SHIFT 2007, “a conference that brought together more than 6000 youth representing all 50 states, and culminated with the largest single lobby day on capitol hill focused on global warming.”
• Instrumental in planning/executing – POWER SHIFT 2009, “a conference of more than 12,000 youth representing all 50 states which culminated in the single largest lobby day on Capitol Hill focused on global warming.” (POWER SHIFT has since spread to more than 25 countries, and the first Global Power Shift (now under the direction of 350.org) has since convened in Europe – led by 350.org)
• State director for the New Voters Project (2004). Tolkan helped to register more than 130,000 young voters and produced one of the highest youth turnout rates in the country.
• [Sources: org Russia and 350.org US, Purpose, Social Venture Network, World Bank, Journal Sentinel ]

 

 

[Cory Morningstar is an independent investigative journalist, writer and environmental activist, focusing on global ecological collapse and political analysis of the non-profit industrial complex. She resides in Canada. Her recent writings can be found on Wrong Kind of Green, The Art of Annihilation and Counterpunch. Her writing has also been published by Bolivia Rising and Cambio, the official newspaper of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. You can support her independent journalism via Patreon.]

Edited with Forrest Palmer, Wrong Kind of Green Collective.

 

COP21: Society of the Spectacle

Center for World Indigenous Studies

December 12, 2015

by Jay Taber

 

We Mean Business, the latest roll-out by the financial elite, is unpacked at Wrong Kind of Green. Joining the Wall Street creations Avaaz, Ceres, Purpose and 350, the goal of We Mean Business is turning citizens into mere consumers. The successful mass mobilization through social engineering — deployed by Wall Street-financed pied pipers like Naomi Klein — indicates they may have already won.