Global Community Earth Government institutions and bodies
Global Community Earth Government (GCEG)
Newsletters
Newsletter     Volume 4       Issue 5    June  2006
Global Dialogue 2006 Global Dialogue 2006
Politics and Justice without borders
Actions for the good of all as per the Statement of rights, responsibilities, and accountabilities of the Global Community citizens

theme
Peak oil & gas is now
and tomorrow is the end of our civilized-self

Table of Contents
The Global Community and GCEG have a new webpage for Global Politics and Global Justice News at This is the main index for information concerning activities of the Global Community and Global Community Earth Government (GCEG)


President's message    
Message from the Global Minister of Family and Human Development    Message from our Global Minister of Family and Human Development

Letters Letters
    Letter to all Canadians concerning the war in Afghanistan Letter to all Canadians concerning the war in Afghanistan

    Letter from the Global Community and GCEG asking for the resignation of Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations (UN) Letter to all Canadians concerning the war in Afghanistan

Articles sent by Global Dialogue 2006 Participants

1.0    The Peak Oil Crisis, Powerdown or Collapse? by Tom Whipple The Peak Oil Crisis, Powerdown or Collapse?

2.0     Collapse from the inside - or powerdown? by Jan Lundberg Collapse from the inside - or powerdown?

3.0    CAP Demands Canadian Troops OUT OF AFGHANISTAN! by Catherine Whelan Costen CAP Demands Canadian Troops OUT OF AFGHANISTAN

4.0    Old-style corruption better? by Sunita Narain, Centre for Science and Environment Old-style corruption better?

5.0    World Problems and World Solutions, by Dr. Leo Rebello World Problems and World Solutions

6.0     JUSTICE-BASED MANAGEMENT AND THE JUST THIRD WAY, by Norman G. Kurland JUSTICE-BASED MANAGEMENT AND THE JUST THIRD WAY

7.0     PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR WORLD GOVERNMENT OF WORLD CITIZENS, by Norman G. Kurland PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR WORLD GOVERNMENT OF WORLD CITIZENS

8.0    Reweaving Trust and Cooperation in Sudan, by Rene Wadlow Reweaving Trust and Cooperation in Sudan

9.0    Darfur Peace Agreement is not Peace, by Rene Wadlow Darfur Peace Agreement is not Peace

10.0    Number of Mon refugees increasing daily in Malaysia, by KAOWAO NEWS GROUP Number of Mon refugees increasing daily in Malaysia

11.0    WTO's Final Verdict On GMOs, by ASHOK B. SHARMA WTO's Final Verdict On GMOs

12.0    RAINFOREST UPDATE: Indonesia's Rainforests and Orangutans: Hope Emerges Anew!? (19%), by Glen Barry RAINFOREST UPDATE: Indonesia's Rainforests and Orangutans: Hope Emerges Anew!? (19%)



Reports
by the Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC)

Protect photosynthesis: less CO2 , more Oxygen and better health for all of us.


Protection of the global life-support systems Protection of the global life-support systems

Climate change prelude Climate change prelude

Climate change: responsibility and accountability of cities Climate change: responsibility and accountability of cities



Global Politics and Global Justice News
The Global Community and GCEG have a new webpage for Global Politics and Global Justice News at This is the main index for information concerning activities of the Global Community and Global Community Earth Government (GCEG)

International politics are about nations self-interests and powerful lobbying groups, and that should not be happening at the United Nations International politics are about self-interests and powerful lobbying groups, and that should not be happening at the United Nations

World leaders just pretending to resolve global warming and its effects on the global climate have broken Global Law and are dangerous criminals World leaders just pretending to resolve global warming have broken Global Law and  are dangerous criminals

A recent investigation by the GCAC has found that Americans are by far the worst polluters on the planet Americans are by far the worst polluters on the planet

President Bush's World War III in the making President Bush World War III in the making

The United Nations (UN) has been a failure to humanity and all life. It is time to shut it down and replace it by the Global Community Earth Government (GCEG) The United Nations (UN) have been a failure to humanity and all life. It is time to shut it down and replace it by the Global Community Earth Government (GCEG)

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was designed to cover major crimes against humanity and all life on Earth The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was designed to cover major crimes against humanity and all life on Earth

 








Back to top of page





 

President's message

For reasons described in previous newsletters, press releases, and letters to the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and to the United Nations, and also for reasons described more specifically in May 2006 Newsletter as well as in June 2006 Newsletter, the Global Community and Global Community Earth Government (GCEG) have no other choice but asking Kofi Annan to resign as Secretary-General of the United Nations. It would be best for all of humanity and all life on Earth to do so.

One could investigate the history of the United Nations and that of democracies from all over the world and would find:
*     this "We the Peoples" expression or something close to its meaning , and
*     that in the whole the "Peoples" have been let down in major ways.

This investigation also shows that the Global Community organization and the GCEG are the only organizations so far that have kept in line with these obligations concerning "the Peoples". They are the only hope to humanity and all life on the planet.

GCEG was born out of this mess the U.N. organization and its related bodies (UNICEF, UNDP, UNEP, UNFPA, UNESCO, WHO and others) have created in the world. In many ways the U.N. organization has been a failure to humanity, and it is necessary to shut it down and replace it by GCEG. It has become clear that the U.N. has promoted a culture of waste, mismanagement, violence and corruption which cannot reform itself. Senior government officials at the U.N. make global decisions or the lack of them and yet they have no knowledge, experience, and understandings of global problems. They are driven by their nation self-interests and by lobbying from powerful governments and corporations. The U.N. organization is not about global politics. It is about self-interests and international politics.

The U.N. and all its related organizations have failed humanity, "the Peoples", and all life on Earth on many levels:
1.    the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be replaced by the Scale of Human and Earth Rights;
2.    corruption, mismanagement at the highest levels, and bad global governance;
3.    promotion of the military option, war;
4.    allowing the genocides of several peoples;
5.    the business of deceiving, making believe, controlling without a democratic mandate from the Global Community;
6.    the U.N. is operating using precepts dating back 2000 years and developed by the Roman Empire; those precepts best suit the invasion of nations and the destruction of the global life-support systems and the Earth environment;
7.    the absence of proper governance and justice at the U.N.;
8.    the use of trickery to deceive the world and subdue nations; and
9.    the UN does not operate on principles and is letting powerful lobbying groups and governments running the organization.

Bad global leadership from the part of the U.N.! Failure to help humanity! The U.N. organization is an accomplice of the war industry, and it is an accomplice of the oil & gas industry to make it easy for the industry to make our planet unsustainable and destroy the global life-support systems.

"We the Peoples" have been let down by the U.N. organization.

We believe that the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan should resign because of his lack of leadership.

We blame the U.N. for not having put hard sanctions against the USA for having unilaterally invaded Iraq and letting Americans plundering the oil & gas resources of the Iraquis. That in itself is a crime against humanity and all life on the planet. That goes against Global Sustainability and Global Peace. Through the manipulation of the world media, it now seems OK to prepare for the invasion of Iran. That also is a crime.

In our investigation we have established that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is non-valid. And by default so are the Charters of all nations. We have established that the Declaration was used by powerful interest groups, for greed, for creating a new nation, and for invading nations, including the Middle East nations economically and militarily.

It is a crime against humanity to promote the military option, war, as a solution to the world problems.

Today it is a crime against humanity to be ignorant by choice and this allow people from the industrialized nations to be uncaring consumers of Earth resources.

It is a crime against humanity to be educated and conscious 'non-speakers', 'watchers', not involved, not participating for the good of all, because he or she is afraid of losing his job or moving on to a job good to humanity.

"We the Peoples" have been let down by the U.N. organization and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was designed to cover major crimes against humanity and all life on Earth. Powerful lobbying groups and nations have used the Declaration to satisfy their own self-interests. They have committed major crimes against humanity and all life and got away with it. Today it is happening all over again. The invasion of the Middle East nations and the destruction of the global life-support systems by governments and corporations are aspects not even seen as crimes against humanity and all life on the planet. The Declaration is a pettyful, meaningless document especially designed to help those powerful lobbying groups and nations to commit crimes against humanity and all life on Earth. It has to be replaced by the Scale of Human and Earth Rights.

The world wants an organization dedicated to the welfare of all Peoples and to the protection of the Earth's environment and the global life support systems. Such an organization must not be governed by powerful lobbying groups.

We see entire nations making choices based on what is good for themselves, today self-interests, versus what is good for the next generations and all life on the planet. In other words, they make choices between international politics versus global politics. International politics are driven by national interests, self-interests, and powerful lobbying groups, while global politics are about the survival of all of us on the planet.

Global politics is about doing what is right for humanity and all life on the planet.

Global politics is about doing what is right for all of us now and in the future, and for all life on the planet. We base our understandings and actions on principles we all know are rights deep down. You cannot have a nation invading another nation for its resources? its water? its oil and gas? We have chaos without principles! We have conflicts and wars. There are ways of doing things that will give everyone a good survival chance. There are global equitable and sustainable solutions. War goes against global sustainability and global peace.

Global politics are meant to guide us on the right path. They are meant to bring humanity on a safe ground. They are about the survival of all of us of the planet. This is what people who work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules want from their political leaders. You don't expect politicians to be perfect. But you do want to know that your tax dollars - money you've worked for - are being spent properly and wisely.

The Earth Court of Justice has made clear that the new legislation now in the process of being enacted, the Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act, will be enforced by the GCEG. Global Law is now the law of the land on the planet. No one is excuse! Everyone is included! Those breaking Global Law will be prosecuted. For now, those committing crimes against humanity and all life on Earth will be arrested. There are Global Community Arrest Warrants against all world leaders not in line with the Kyoto agreement.

All world leaders just 'pretending' to resolve global warming and its effects on the global climate have broken Global Law and are dangerous criminals and will be prosecuted.

Our investigation has shown that the oil & gas reserves left in the world are the causes of what we see as the beginning of World War III. Soon the production of oil and gas will decline rapidly. The Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC) has analyzed the total production of oil and gas in the world and found the peak had already been attained and production should decline steadily over the coming 40 years. Humanity will have completely consumed the oil and gas reserves in the world between 50 and 100 years from now. This explain why there is so much rush for those resources by countries such America in Iraq, and India, Russia, China and Europe in Iran. What we have here are all the ingredients needed for World War III.

In two generations from now most civilizations on the planet will be facing terrible problems: the end of the oil and gas production, the end of our consumer driven society as no oil and gas means no plastic base products, which also implies no jobs and chaos everywhere in the wolrd. Poverty and diseases will be widespread. The environment will be completely out of control. Global warming will cause tremendous environmental and climate change problems. Nothing we could ever imagine will happen. Government will be corrupted. And the world will never get any better. Our so called 'modern civilizations' will collapse. Our own civilization is base on oil and gas, and on the products we get from the oil and gas, mainly plastics, and not on principles and values. It will be first to collapse. The end of the oil & gas reserves and, therefore, of plastics, will be the end of our 'civilized-self'.

Germain Dufour
President
Global Community Earth Government

http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GlobalConstitution/ Global Community Earth Government
globalcommunity@telus.net
GlobalConstitution@telus.net



Back to top of page



 
Message from the Global Minister of Family and Human Development

Subject: McGregor's new book is ready!
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 11:04:07 -0300
From: "Dr. Sue McGregor" sue@consultmcgregor.com
Global Minister of Family and Human Development Council of Global Ministers GCEG webpage

Hi everyone!! I am happy (can you tell!!!) to let you know that my book is now published.

I invite you to read it, and to consider adopting it for your courses, if that is relevant. Please share this message with others who might be interested.

The order forms are available at http://www.kon.org/news.html and at http://www.kon.org/pdf/mcgregor_brochure.pdf

I have attached a table of content.

The prices, below, include postage.

Transformative Practice: New Pathways to Leadership
US/Canada$47.95
International$55.00

I want to thank Dorothy Mitstifer for giving me a place to share my voice!!!

Sue L.T. McGregor PhD Professor
http://www.consultmcgregor.com
http://www.msvu.ca/pax/
Home economics is a focus on the home in order to improve humanity. (Marjorie East, 1979).

Kappa Omicron Nu www.kon.org
Publisher
Transformative Practice: New Pathways to Leadership
Table of Contents
http://www.kon.org/news.html
Preface
Shifting Paradigms
1. Understanding Paradigm Shifts
2. Understanding Postmodern Thinking
3. Transdisciplinary Inquiry
4. Sustaining the Life Energy of the Profession: Insights From the Holomovement Principle
Leadership
5. Transformative versus Transactional Leadership
6. Reflective Human Action (RHA) Leadership Theory
7. Leadership Responsibilities of Professionals (Dorothy Mitstifer)
8. Transformative Social Change Agents
9. Typology of Home Economics Styles for Self-Identity
Pedagogy
10. Transformative Practice Informed by Critical Science
11. Perspective Transformation and Reflective Inquiry
12. Critical Discourse Analysis
13. Authentic Educational Pedagogy
Professional Philosophical Growth
14. Intellectual Curiosity and Skeptical Thinking
15. Philosophical Well-being
16. Communities of Practice
17. Knowledge Management: Turning Personal Knowledge into Professional Knowledge
Globalization and Human Development
18. Understanding Globalization (Top down and bottom up)
19. Re-Conceptualizing Human and Social Development
20. Transforming Consumption (Deirdre Shaw)
Author - Sue L.T. McGregor PhD
http://www.consultmcgregor.com


Back to top of page










The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was designed to cover major crimes against humanity and all life on Earth

Article by Germain Dufour

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Ever wonder why proponents of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Charter of Human Rights of nations all over the world have never stood up against the invasion of Iraq?

Why the United Nations never put up hard sanctions against the USA for invading Iraq? Ever wonder about that?!

When you think about it the answer is very simple. Because from its beginning the Declaration was designed and promoted by Americans and their friends. After a long and painstaking lobbying by the USA and their friends, it was then ratified by the UN. One could go in more historical details to show how this has happened. The point here is that very powerful American (and friends) lobbying groups actually created the UN and subsequently had the Declaration ratified. There is nothing new here. That is how it happened back then.

One could say that the Declaration is a good thing, and it actually helps a lot of people in the world. And that is true! It does help in many situations. Back then it was about helping the Jews still alive after WWII. To help the Jews, the creation of the State of Israel was one of the very first actions made by the UN. The UN only needed the approval of the five permanent members. It did not matter that over one billion people never approved the creation of the State of Israel. They never had a chance to vote.

Now where are we going with this?

By creating the State of Israel, the United Nations have perpetuated the archaic concept of land ownership, a concept that is threatening security in the world and all life on Earth. The UN never had a human criteria for the creation of a new nation. Israel was created by the United Nations because the United Nations still operate following precepts that were brougth forward 2000 years ago by the Roman Empire. The high concrete wall that the people of Israel have built around themselves is truly a remarquable acceptance of those precepts. In many ways, the UN is responsible of the erection of this wall around the State of Israel. It is best for humanity and the increasing world population to see ourselves as people living together or far apart but in constant communication with each other. A global community has no boundaries except of those of the heart, mind and Soul. Many conflicts and wars will be avoided by seeing ourselves as people with a heart, a mind and a Soul (a global community), and as part of a global community with the same.

All along the people of Israel claimed that their human rights were not being respected, and they needed help. So the powerful US military lobbying groups requested that the UN participate in defending Israel. And ever since its ratification, we saw many different people using the Declaration to suit themselves. Not that it was not used properly but because it was there, and they could get help. And I suppose we could say the same thing about the Charters of Human Rights of most nations around the world.

We still dont know where we are going with this. Be patient!

I always thought there was something wrong about the Declaration and the Charters but I was never quite able to put my finger on what was wrong with them. They never felt right to me but was never sure why. Let us investigate further! Oh by the way! This discussion is part of Global Dialogue 2006. Feel free to get into the dialogue.

What do we know?

1.    The five permanent members (USA, France, UK, China and Russia) of the UN designed and ratified the Declaration.
2.    The Declaration was meant to help the minority groups, and individuals as well, in needs of help against human rights abuses.
3.    Human rights were defined in the Declaration.
4.    The State of Israel was said to have been created because Jews human rights had been violated during WWII.
5.    Over one billion Moslims and Arabs were never given the right to vote NO to the creation of Israel.
6.    A lot of these Moselms and Arabs had a lot to do with the defeat of the Hitler Germans during WWII.
7.    A large portion of the oil & gas from the Middle East was used to help propel the war ships and planes that defeated the Germans.
8.    So in effect that one billion Moslims and Arabs were friends of ours or allies.

How is it possible that the five permanent members voted for the creation of Israel when in fact the land of Israel was a part of land already belonging to that one billion Moslims and Arabs. The land had and, of course, still has a religious dimension, not just from a Jew perspective but also from other religions as well. So why voted to give it to a very specific religious group? Why was it given at all? Religious groups could have managed it without having created the State of Israel.

Everyone is afraid to face the problem because we all know something don't add up here. What piece of the puzzle is missing? What makes everyone so uptight when discussing the problem?

Self-interests! Simple as that! Self-interests from each one of those involved here. And everyone is involved, really! All life included!

Jews
Jews said that the land is theirs because God gave it to them, and they need a homeland.

Moslims and Arabs
Moslims and Arabs say the land was always theirs. Their rights were not considered by the five permanent members, and they should have had the right to vote NO. The process of creating a new nation was not defined anywhere. No principles were used. No Justice!

Palestinians
Palestinians say now they are refugees on their homeland.

Americans
Americans say they needed to create the State of Israel because they needed someone in the Middle East to stand for the USA. Why? Obviously to protect the supply of oil & gas shipments to the USA. It was also a military strategy. In exchange for defending the US interests in the Middle East, the US would help Israel with a continuous supply of money and with all the arms in the world, including nuclear. Plenty of money to make by selling arms to the Middle East nations. By taking over the Middle East economically and militarily, Americans would have a strong base to send Russia and China to kingdom come with nuclear war heads. So Israel was their Trojan Horse for the economic and military invasion of the Middle East and eventually the world. It seems to have worked out that way, so far. Today Israel is somewhat obsolete because Americans are in Iraq and will stay in Iraq for as long as there is money to make selling arms and oil & gas to have. But they said they were there to build a democracy. Well! Ya! That too! Have I missed something?! Gees! No, the idea of building democracy in the Middle East is for the good souls back home in America, you know those people back home who don't have a clue about what is going on, or pretend that they dont. Americans are in the Middle East for the long haul. The war industry in America needs to be in the Middle East, that is where the money is. The war industry in America gives jobs to about one third of the American population. So it is a matter of survival. And, by the way, you work for the war industry in any way at all, even voting for a White House foreign policy maker promoting war as a soltion to a problem, you are a soldier, just the same as the soldier pulling the trigger in the Middle East. So if war comes to America, you are not a 'civilian' but a soldier. In our estimate, that includes no less than one-third of the American population. During the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany, and Israel were the countries that sold arms to the people of the Middle East and to Afghanistan. They have shown no ethical and moral values in the activities of their trade. They have made trade a despicable act of dealing with one another between human beings and between nations. No laws! No regulations! No ethics! No moral responsibility and accountability! Everyone has the "freedom" of destroying the global life-support systems! Everyone has the "freedom" of human rights abuses! Now pollution, diseases, terrorism, poverty, social and economic injustice have no boundaries. Now, being in Iraq, Americans will have the opportunity to invade China. Invade China...!! Who said that?! Now, now! I did not say bombing China with thousand of nuclear war heads. That would be stupid! No, it will not happen that way. What have I said, money. Ya! Americans will get the Chinese people to work for them. Let the cow gives all its milk. How is that possible?? Very simple! And Americans have got very good at that. Get them to buy arms and make sure they kill each others in the process. Americans have mastered the arts of war from way back when. They have already made trillions of dollars in the Middle East. Everyone has been buying their arms. So China is the biggies. Lots of money to make. First, they will allow China to get their oil & gas from Iran. The chinese economy will be good because they have energy and the base products, oil & gas, from which they can make plastics. And with plastics they can manufacture all kinds of toys such as computers. Thousands of different products make use of plastics. Now the American have passed legislation to allow rich, powerful, American corporations to invest in China. Why?! Because of cheap labour! No environmental costs! Many reasons. The facts are that China now is working for American corporations. Now this is when the American war industry gets into the picture. They have to sell arms to the Chinese people. And how are they going to do that?! The war industry have had plenty of learning in the Middle East. They will make sure that a Chinese province or community is at war against another Chinese community. You know, there has to be a reason why people hate each other. So creating hate between the Chinese people will be a priority. Create a chaos! Remember the Iran-Iraq war... So easy! So well masterminded! If they hate one another then they will want to kill each other. This is when the American (and British) war industry sell their arms. So in effect, they all work for America. Yep! Cheap labour! And they all can go to kingdom come! And then America will bring up the flags of fighting for the establishment of democracy, freedoms, and 'whatnots'. Americans back home will love it! It is so pathetic that one would want to cry. People used to look up to America. But now Americans are just killers, criminals, invaders, predators, and arms dealers. It is not just about survival. It is about a civilization gone so bad that its people would do anything for money.

British
The British people have had their days (and centuries) in East India, China and the Middle East for a long time. They would rather let Americans to be in the Middle East protecting everyone supplies of oil & gas. Today, the British people would prefer planting primroses in their back garderns. Good for the soul! And again for the British, plenty of money to make by selling arms to the Middle East nations, and why not, to China. Heh! President Bush, said Blair, is a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful ally. President Bush is doing a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful job for humanity, democracy and freedoms. Gees! I just hope we can sell a hundred war planes to the Chinese, said Blair to himself. What a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful opportunity! Yep! Yep! Since we are in Iraq for the long haul we might as well make sure that our newly 'made-up' democratically elected Iraqi government buys our arms as well. Lots of them! We have to get ride of the terrorists. Democracy must succeed. We will also make a lot of money rebuilding Iraq. After the first bombing of Iraq, we had to kick out the German engineers, they were making all that money, and we were not. Ha! Everything is so, so, wonderful, wonderful and wonderful. Yep! Yep!

Russia, China and India
Of course, Russia, China and India don't like what is happening in the Middle East. They don't trust the US. China and India need the oil & gas very badly for their own economic growth and are not about to let the Americans invade Iran, or even bomb Iran. It is a matter of survival. Russia is actually making good money rebuilding Iran and don't want Americans coming along disturbing their taken, or even having to share it.

The United Nations
The United Nations stand by and do nothing. Why? Because the five permanent members are running the place. The US could invade Canada tomorrow for no reason at all and the UN would still stand by and do nothing. The UN is a non-existing entity. No life there whatsoever! Most member nations of the UN don't have a clue about what is going on. If and when they do they would rather close their eyes. Bullying is going on at the UN, and it comes from the five permanent members running the show at the expenses of the world. There is no democracy at the UN! No Justice! The UN raises up the flag of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whenever it suits its own image. Gosh! It is so ridiculous! Even the US claims human rights abuses in the Middle East, and they say it is the reason why they are invading the region. And the UN goes for it! It is the most ridiculous lie to the world Americans could have come up with. And the world swallowed it. Powerful lobbying groups and nations practically run the UN. Many good examples! Remember when China had to vote for or against the invasion of Afghanistan. Four of the five UN Permanent Members, the United States, Great Britain, France, and Russia, had already agreed to invade Afghanistan. They got China, the fifth Permanent Member of the UN, to vote YES to invade Afghanistan, in exchange of China getting its membership into the World Trade Organization (WTO). Now if that is not a powerful lobbying what is it?! God knows what else is going in the backgound we are not told... I suspect that what is happening in the Middle East and the involvement of nations such as America, China, Russia and India has been thought about a long time ago. GCEG does not allow powerful lobbying groups to govern the planet. It does not mean that there will not be any lobbying in GCEG. It means all lobbying groups, and many other NGOs, professionals, etc, will be a part of the House of Advisors. Lobbying was further restricted by the Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act.

All life on the planet
War is not sustainable. It never was. The military option, war, is against global sustainability and global peace in a big way. The worst environmental degradation happens in wars. Farm products in fields and livestock are abandoned, there is no more control on toxic wastes, and water, air, and land are polluted. People are displaced and feel no longer responsible for the quality of life in their communities. Historically, the industrialized nations have caused the most damage to the environment, with their careless technology and policies. Emissions from factories and vehicles have caused ozone depletion, acid rain, and dangerous greenhouse gases have forced the global warming of the planet and the climate to change dangerously, the worst threat to humanity and all life. Leaders of the wealthier nations must be willing to accept responsibility for past mistakes and to help pay the financial burden for environmental protection of the developing nations. This is the most damaging conflict of interests between the rich industrialized countries and those that are poor and struggling just for existence. GCEG helps wealthy and poorer nations reach a better understanding of each other's needs. All aspects are interrelated: global peace, global sustainability, human and Earth rights and the environment. The poor is more concerned with ending starvation, finding a proper shelter and employment, and helping their children to survive. Environmental issues become meaningless to the poor. In reality, all concerns are interrelated. As soon as the environment is destroyed beyond repair, human suffering is next. Ecology has no boundaries. All nations suffer the effects of air pollution, global warming, loss of biodiversity, soil erosion, acid rain, ozone depletion, silting of streams, and countless of other environmental problems. This was the reason for developing the Scale of Human and Earth Rights.

Now! We still dont know where we are going with this. Be a bit more patient!

So far, we have established that the Declaration is non-valid. And by default so are the Charters of all nations. We have established that the Declaration was used by powerful interest groups, for greed, for creating a new nation, and for invading nations, including the Middle East nations. Actually one could really come up with a lot of concrete examples to prove what we are saying here.

The Declaration is supposed to help a person be a better human being. And in doing so it would help humanity. The Declaration resides in the fact that it gives equal emphasis to cultural rights, economic and social rights, and civil and political rights.  But then how meaningful is the right to life or to participation in political life if the ecological base (the base of life) and the global life-support systems are seriously threatened:


*    wilderness is vastly disappearing; species of the fauna and flora becoming extinct
*    fisheries are out of control and will cease to be a part of our diet within a few decades
*    the global Oxygen supply in the air we breathe is dangerously affected by both the burning of petroleum products and deforestation; our ways of life affect the capacity for photosynthesis
*    losses of forest cover and of biological diversity
*    climate change affects everyone and everything
*    the ozone layer is dangerously damaged by man-made chemicals
*    global warming causes major local and global problems and forces the climate to change
*    our drinking (fresh) water is becoming more polluted and the increase in population requires much more fresh unpolluted water;our ways of life affect dangerously the water cycle
*    clean air no longer exists; air contains chemicals affecting life all over the planet
*    farmers do not generally engage on their own in investment in soil conservation and despite all other efforts the world is losing its best soils; global food production systems should be made to feed people as oppose to be competing for money
*    everyone wants to consume more products, and thus use more of our resources, and no one seems to know what to do with wastes; wastes of all kind including nuclear and release of radiation
*    wars destroy not only human lives and community infrastructures but also other lifeforms and the environment; wars feed the economies of war makers, weapons manufacturers, and predator nations in control of the last 100 hundred years left of oil supplies in the world
*    chemicals produced for human use and not found in nature and, eventually, reaching the environment with impacts on Earth's waters, soils, air, and ecology

I found evident that the ecological base is the essential prerequisite for the effectiveness and exercise of all rights recognized for human beings. The stewardship of the ecological base has to be given priority before the fulfilment of various economic and social wishes. Demands resulting from the socio-economic system of a particular country have to find their limits in the protection of the global ecosystem. Vital interests of future generations have to be considered as having priority before less vital interests of the present generation. Supply chains have to be designed in a way, that the goods can enter after usage or consumption into natural or industrial recycling processes. If serious damages to persons, animals, plants and the ecosystem cannot be excluded, an action or pattern of behaviour should be refrained from. A measure for supplying goods or services should choose a path which entails the least possible impact on the ecological and social system concerned. This way functioning proven systems will not be disturbed, and  unnecessary risks will not be taken. Supply strategies consuming less resources should have preference before those enhancing more resource consumption. When there is a need to find a solution to a problem or a concern,  a sound solution would be to choose a measure or conduct an action, if possible, which causes reversible damage as opposed to a measure or an action causing an irreversible loss.

In the Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it is said that:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

And again in the Constitution for the United States of America it says:
"We the People" of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

One could investigate the history of the United Nations and that of democracies from all over the world and would find:
*     this "We the Peoples" expression or something close to its meaning , and
*     that in the whole the "Peoples" have been let down in major ways.
On behalf of Earth Government, I will show in this article how this has happened, and how GCEG is the only hope to protect humanity and all life on Earth.

In the Preamble of the Global Constitution you will also read about the We the Peoples of the Global Community, the Human Family, the Global Community Earth Government (GCEG), that are reaffirming faith in the fundamental human and Earth rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and smalll. We the Peoples of the Global Community organization implies every individual on Earth, every community and every nation. Earth management and good global governance is now a priority and a duty of every responsible person on Earth. Membership in the Global Community organization is open to any person (group, NGO, state, businesses, city, Member Nation, or any global citizen) which accept the obligations contained in the Global Constitution and are able and willing to carry out these obligations.

This investigation also shows that the Global Community organization and the GCEG are the only organizations so far that have kept in line with these obligations concerning "the Peoples". They are the only hope to humanity and all life on the planet.

Because of the 'mess' and disorder find at the United Nations, and because of bad leadership, all Member Nations of the United Nations have been found to have let down "the Peoples" they represent.

GCEG was born out of this mess the U.N. organization and its related bodies (UNICEF, UNDP, UNEP, UNFPA, UNESCO, WHO and others) have created in the world. And I will explain in this Article in what ways the U.N. organization is a failure to humanity, and how critical it is necessary to shut it down and replace it by GCEG. It has become clear that the U.N. has promoted a culture of waste, mismanagement, violence and corruption which cannot reform itself. Senior government officials at the U.N. make global decisions or the lack of them and yet they have no knowledge, experience, and understandings of global problems. They are driven by their nation self-interests and by lobbying from powerful corporations. The U.N. organization is not about global politics. It is about self-interests and international politics.

The U.N. and all its related organizations have failed humanity and all life on Earth on many levels:
1.    the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be replaced by the Scale of Human and Earth Rights;
2.    corruption, mismanagement at the highest levels, and bad global governance;
3.    promotion of the military option, war;
4.    allowing the genocides of several peoples;
5.    the business of deceiving, making believe, controlling without a democratic mandate from the Global Community;
6.    the U.N. is operating using precepts dating back 2000 years and developed by the Roman Empire; those precepts best suit the invasion of nations and the destruction of the global life-support systems and the Earth environment;
7.    the absence of proper governance and justice at the U.N.; and
8.    the use of trickery to deceive the world and subdue nations.

Bad leadership from the part of the U.N.! Failure to help humanity! The U.N. organization is an accomplice of the war industry, and it is an accomplice of the oil & gas industry to make it easy for the industry to make our planet unsustainable and destroy the global life-support systems. The U.N. organization is a puppet of the USA! The U.N. organization is making the wrong use of our material, our expressions on Global Vision, Global Peace and Global Sustainability, with the intentions of taking over the identity of the Global Community organization.

"We the Peoples" have been let down by the U.N. organization.

GCEG is here to replace the U.N.

We have to rectify the failure of the U.N. organization of helping humanity. I have already begun the process of fixing the system by legislating and enforcing the Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act – a specific, detailed and credible plan to clean up bad global governance in the world. The U.N. is bad global governance.

Often we hear on the news about the U.N. humanitarian work in places being hit by a drought, a flood, a hurricane, a tornado, a forest fire, or by any climate related disaster. What we see on the news is a helping U.N. hand to those being hit by 'an unpredictable Nature' disaster. We see good humanitarian work from the part of the U.N., and it is very much appreciated. The world needs our help. Those living through the disaster are feeling the lost of everything they own, and the lost of relatives and friends, neighbors, and are desperately hurting. A feeling of complete lost and helplessness! A crying out for help! A hurt so deep it seems total and immense! A person in this situation can hardly think about himself or herself and what to do next. Because in this situation we dont think there is a 'next', or a 'tomorrow'. We just dont think anything beyond our immediate survival. And when a helping U.N. humanitarian hand comes along we just want to grab it and be thankful for the help. We sure dont see cause and effect. We sure dont see the global consequences of water, air and land pollution created by the industrialized world on the global life-support systems. We dont see the cause of this truly 'human-made disaster', and how human activities could have caused Nature, our global environment, to change so drastically. The global climate is changing rapidly, and it is cause by human activities. The same helpful U.N. hand has another hand hidden behind his or her back. That hidden hand has caused the problem, the disaster, and is not about to change the chain of events happening globally. That same hidden hand will go back home and drive a SUV vehicle knowing very well it is polluting the global environment and causing human-made disasters on a global scale. Our ways of life is being protected by government and its military. Our consumer driven society has caused the climate to change. For us helping another person in desperate needs of help is about filling a hole in ourselves, and it is not about helping desperate people. We are feeling guilty, and we want to see on the news that we are helping the world. We want to see a picture of us helping someone in needs. So we can sleep better, and not feeling so guilty after all. That is 'us'! The media industry is doing its job showing us the picture we wanted to see. Us helping them! That is the image we want to see. And then we go back polluting the planet as if nothing had happened. If we feel guilty on another level, we go to church and confess. Then we are really all right! God is with us! We confessed did we not!?

I have another news for us. We are not all right. The institutions that are protecting us and our ways of life are not all right. Our ways of life are not all right. And we are causing a global problem that is at the moment beyong repairs. Noone can fix it! How can I explain that. You had a beautiful toy, and now it is broken forever. And you broke it! You are guilty. The Earth Court of Justice Global Police will come to your home, arrest you, and through you in jail for the rest of your life. No! That would be too easy and too nice! A jail is a shelter and has food and drinking water, clean clothes. The millions of people we have affected wont even have anything at all. Nothing! And they will all die. Some after suffering a long and horrible death. All because we cannot keep ourselves from driving that SUV or the like. All because of our ways of life!

It is hard to change a way of life. Our mind will find a million excuses for not doing so. We have created a psychological immunity system around ourselves that prevent us from feeling guilty for any length of time. Most of us even feel good about what we are doing. Hey! We are helping the world.

The reality is that we are destroying the world, ourselves and the next generations included. The global life-support systems have been pushed to their limits, and we are starting to feel the pinch of the impacts of our ways of life. If the news media was to show us all the human-made disasters happening everyday everywhere we would not hear about anything else.

And things wont get any better. They will get much worst! The only hope is GCEG. GCEG will make things right for all of us and not just for a small segment of the world population. First, we have to shut down the U.N. organization. The U.N. organization is an institution that has failed humanity very badly. It does not work. The U.N. protects its own image by showing us a U.N. worker on the news helping a victim of a human-made disaster (but they called it a disaster made by Nature). The U.N. must be replaced by GCEG. Now! The U.N. organization is a failure to humanity, and it is critical and necessary to shut it down and replace it by GCEG. It has become clear that the U.N. has promoted a culture of violence, waste, mismanagement and corruption which cannot reform itself. GCEG is here to replace the U.N.

GCEG will bring proper changes to help humanity and all life on the planet. We will not be able to fix all the problems our ways of life have created but we will have a better chance of survival as a species.

Responsible and accountable government and global citizens is what humanity needs. Acountability in business and trade is an obligation. The Global Community deserves nothing less.

A very important GCEG legislation is the Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act which, after its approval by Global Parliament, will define rights, responsibility and accountability of all global citizens. Each and everyone of us will make decisions, deal with one another, and basically conduct our actions as per the Act. The final document will be brought forward for approval during the Tenth Global Meeting of the Global Community Earth Government, Fall 2006. People from all nations of the world, and all National Governments, are invited to amend the document proposed here today  (read Press Release Feb. 26, 2006 ECO Award).

With this article we want to distant ourselves from the fraudulent use of our material by the U.N. and its related bodies. We command them not to use any of the expressions shown on the Global Community website. They are trying to take over the identity our organization, the Global Community organization, by using our material in fraudulent ways. They are making the wrong use of our material, our expressions on Global Vision, Global Peace and Global Sustainability, with the intentions of taking over our identity as the Global Community organization.

We are here to replace the U.N. and not to give the U.N. what we own.

The Global Community and GCEG do not promote war as a solution to world problems. The U.N. does. That in itself is a major let down of "the Peoples".

Through the use of our Global Dialogues, we have researched, developed and promoted peaceful solutions to global problems. We have made our organization available to all governments and communities. We offer to mitigate conflicts through an arbitrary process. The Global Community is a non-profit organization doing humanitarian work througout the world. We also do research and development to find solutions helping communities and businesses live a global sustainable and equitable development. We dont ask for tax dollars, or donations from anyone. And we dont sell anything to make money. Global Community WebNet Ltd. has been the sole sponsor of the Global Community and of all its advocates ever since their formations.

It has become clear that the U.N. has promoted a culture of violence, waste, mismanagement and corruption which cannot reform itself. GCEG is here to replace the U.N.

Let us just look at the Global Vision website where Global Sustainability was promoted as the answer to all problems facing humanity and all life on the planet.

How can the U.N. even be promoting Global Sustainability when, at the same time, the Security Council of the U.N. is promoting the use of the military option, war, as a solution to problems many communities are facing in the world. Every one knows war is the greatest violation of human rights that one people can inflict on another. It brings deaths and injuries, starvation, diseases, millions of people losing their homes and livelihoods, and massive destruction of property. Children and teenagers are placed in internment camps, and several are often forced to serve as soldiers. War not only corrupts the morals of soldiers, it leads to a decline in the morality of the whole nation. A nonviolent settlement to a conflict would always be more advantageous. War is self-defeating because it cannot secure what it sets out to achieve, protection against attack. The hatred for the enemy whipped up by war and the desire for revenge among the losers leads to an accursed vicious circle from which there is no escape. War and militarism destroy civil liberties within a nation.

War is not sustainable. It never was. The military option, war, is against global sustainability and global peace in a big way. The worst environmental degradation happens in wars. Farm products in fields and livestock are abandoned, there is no more control on toxic wastes, and water, air, and land are polluted. People are displaced and feel no longer responsible for the quality of life in their communities. Historically, the industrialized nations have caused the most damage to the environment, with their careless technology and policies. Emissions from factories and vehicles have caused ozone depletion, acid rain, and dangerous greenhouse gases have forced the global warming of the planet and the climate to change dangerously, the worst threat to humanity and all life. Leaders of the wealthier nations must be willing to accept responsibility for past mistakes and to help pay the financial burden for environmental protection of the developing nations. This is the most damaging conflict of interests between the rich industrialized countries and those that are poor and struggling just for existence. GCEG helps wealthy and poorer nations reach a better understanding of each other's needs. All aspects are interrelated: global peace, global sustainability, human and Earth rights and the environment. The poor is more concerned with ending starvation, finding a proper shelter and employment, and helping their children to survive. Environmental issues become meaningless to the poor. In reality, all concerns are interrelated. As soon as the environment is destroyed beyond repair, human suffering is next. Ecology has no boundaries. All nations suffer the effects of air pollution, global warming, loss of biodiversity, soil erosion, acid rain, ozone depletion, silting of streams, and countless of other environmental problems. This was the reason for developing the Scale of Human and Earth Rights.

GCEG wants to provide a forum where international conflicts could be argued and resolved peacefully. Because of hatred and mistrust, disputing parties always find it difficult to express constructive ideas or proposals. A face-to-face meeting may not even be possible. GCEG offers to be a trusted third party that would carry ideas back and forth, put forward new proposals until both sides agree. When both parties feel they have gained more than they have lost from the process, the outcome is a win-win settlement for peace.

The U.N. should never be promoting war as a solution to world problems. That alone is against global sustainability. Sustainability means no war. War is the greatest act of destruction. There is no worst action than war.

The U.N. is promoting a culture of violence and war, and certainly that goes against Global Sustainability and Global Peace. That is the worst thing you could ever to humanity. It is totally opposite to the Global Vision that GCEG is promoting. And it is totally insane! The U.N. organization is following into the steps of the USA. The U.N. organization is a follower of the greatest of all evils: war and the war industry.

Now, a short while ago, the Government of Canada has followed into the same steps of this culture of violence that orginated from the USA and the U.N., and that was accomplished without asking Canadians permission, not even a public debate on the issue. In a way our democracy has been demoted, devalued to that of a dictatorship. And yet our government wants to teach to the people of Afghanistan the benefits of democracy. Another Busk-like lie to the world but this time by ricochet to the Canadian people.

GCEG has always expresses its support in helping a population forming a democratic government. Democracy requires the existence and application of three fundamental governing bodies:

1.     executive,
2.     legislative, and
3.     judiciary.

Take anyone of them out, and we no longer have a democracy. They are the minimum requirements for a democratically elected governing body. Afghanistan and Iraq dont have a proper running judiciary, and so that means they dont have a democracy. What they have is a military invading power running their nations and plundering their resources. And how can anyone stand by and watch it happen? Being a 'watcher' is just as guilty as pulling the trigger.

So how can anyone claim that they have created a democracy?

We are holding the U.N. responsible for this change in the Government of Canada position from that of a peace-keeping mission in the world to that of a war-like stand. What the U.N. organization has done is a crime against humanity and all life on Earth. It has broken Global Law.

During the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany, and Israel were the countries that sold arms to the people of the Middle East and to Afghanistan. They have shown no ethical and moral values in the activities of their trade. They have made trade a despicable act of dealing with one another between human beings and between nations. No laws! No regulations! No ethics! No moral responsibility and accountability! Everyone has the "freedom" of destroying the global life-support systems! Everyone has the "freedom" of human rights abuses! Now pollution, diseases, terrorism, poverty, social and economic injustice have no boundaries. And the UN just let it all happened!

GCEG requires that those six nations to provide massive financial aid to the amount of eight trillion US dollars to the countries of the Middle East and to Afghanistan to help them overcome the ravages of war they have brought to them by the selling of war product and equipment. The money has to come directly from the six nations listed here and not from stealing the oil and gas resources of the Middle East. The financial aid will be administered by GCEG. The first priority of GCEG will be to build sustainable communities in all of the Muslim nations of the Middle East, including Afghanistan.

Several times in the past GCEG has requested of the United Nations to restructure and reform its organization to be in touch with the problems humanity is facing in this millennium. They have never replied. Four of the five UN Permanent Members, the United States, Great Britain, France, and Russia, are those countries that, not only control the UN, but they are the same countries that have brought disgrace to humanity by their selfish, immoral, unethical, incoherent, inconsistent, dishonnest, erratic, and mostly aimed at making money behavior in the Middle East and towards Afghanistan. They have given to trade a bad name. Because of them free trade has become a danger to the extinction of life on Earth. They even got China, the fifth Permanent Member of the UN, to vote YES to invade Afghanistan (without that vote the UN could not have approved), in exchange of China got its membership into the World Trade Organization (WTO).

GCEG will do everything possible to give trade the proper guidance for humanity. Trade will become a global co-operation between all nations. The kind of behaviour that happened in the Middle East and in many other parts of the world will not be allowed again. That is GCEG’s commitment to the Global Community to make government and global citizens responsible and accountable. This commitment was defined in sections 11 to 14 of the Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act.

Governance of the Earth will make the rule of arbitrary power--economic (WTO, FTAA, EU), political (UN), or military (U.S.A. and NATO)-- subjected to the rule of Global Law within the global civil society, the human family. Justice is for everyone and is everywhere, a universal constant. Earth governance does not imply a lost of state sovereignty and territorial integrity. A nation government can exists within the framework of an effective Global Community Earth Government Global Community Earth Government protecting common global values and humanity heritage. Earth governance gives a new meaning to the notions of territoriality, and non-intervention in a state way of life, and it is about protecting the cultural heritage of a state. Diversity of cultural and ethnic groups is an important aspect of Earth governance. Earth governance is a balance between the rights of states with rights of people, and the interests of nations with the interests of the the Global Community, the human family, the global civil society. Earth governance is about the rights of states to self-determination in the global context of the Global Community rather than the traditional context of a world of separate states. Although GCEG ensures state governments that it will obey the principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs, it will also stand for the rights and interests of the people within individual states in which the security of people is extensively endangered. A global consensus to that effect will be agreed upon by all Member Nations.

The Global Community and GCEG were proud to see the U.N. organization making use of our expressions such as Global Vision, Global Sustainability, and Global Peace. We were first proud to see the U.N. using them. Who would not be? After all, the U.N. organization represents most nations of the world! But then this again is very deceiving as it is the Security Council of the U.N. that truly make the decisions. Although I feel proud that the U.N. make use of our global concepts, I also feel deceived by the U.N. organization because it promotes the military option, war, as a solution to world problems, which itself goes against the same global concepts we are promoting.

On one hand the U.N. organization promotes Global Sustainability and on the other it promotes war, and war causes the greatest damage to all life on the planet. Not just to humanity!

On one hand the U.N. organization promotes Global Peace, and on the other it voted for the military option, war, as a solution to problems in the world. Totally illogical! It is a fraud to deceive humanity. It is a crime against humanity and all life to promote war.

With its skill in deceiving people, the U.N. organization got very distinguished persons to support its mess. The U.N. organization used the Dalai Lama as the front face for Global Peace. Remarkable contradiction! PEACE and war in the same person. The Dalai Lama represents PEACE, you and the U.N. represents war. Either the U.N. organization has been subdued by the USA and its war industry or it was a bad organization from the beginning. Who started the U.N. organization? None other than the USA! The U.N. is a puppet of the USA, its war industry, which itself owns the media industry, and itself the major contributor to the propagation of a culture of violence in the world. The first thing they did was to create the State of Israel. Over one billion people never signed on to that but they were never allowed to vote no. Manipulation of the masses! That is what happened back in 1947! No process of any kind was used to create the State of Israel. No referendum! Never asked anyone if they agreed or not! Israel has been at war ever since its creation. And so has been the USA! Now they want the U.N. to follow their lead toward a total destruction of the Earth global life-support systems. They will have no rest until they have sucked up all the oil & gas that is left in the Middle East and anywhere else in the world. They use a lot of that oil & gas to fuel and oil their warships and war equipment everywhere in the world. And the U.N. organization goes along with that. You know the saying. You go along with the killers you become one of them.

Humanity is going through a phase of global consciousness. We see entire nations making choices based on what is good for themselves, today self-interests, versus what is good for the next generations and all life on the planet. In other words, they make choices between international politics and self-interests versus global politics.

International politics are driven by national interests, self-interests, while Global politics are about the survival of all of us of the planet. Global politics is about doing what is right for all of us now and in the future, and for all life on the planet. GCEG global citizens base their understandings and actions on principles they all know are rights deep down. There are ways of doing things that will give everyone a good survival chance. There are global equitable and sustainable solutions.

Global politics have never been handled for the view of what is best to humanity. If and when we did, we did something of no consequences. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and subsequently the Human Rights Charters of many nations, were good examples of failures to humanity. We developed rights and gave them equal importance. Nothing we can apply to any real situations. Nothing real! No where in Nature do we ever observe rights of equal importance. We, human beings, invented the Declaration and now much of our future is dependent on it.

What is truly real is the Scale of Human and Earth Rights. It is a scale of social values. Just think about a situation where a group of people are watching a basketball game. Suddenly someone observed a hole in the roof and a dangerous structural fault. The roof is likely to fall anytime soon. That someone gives the alarm. Now what is the most important thing to do right now? If you think like someone with a good common sense, the most important thing to do right now is of course to have everyone out of the building. But if you think like those who developed the Declaration, you would still be watching the game (making sure that all basketball players follow the rules of the game as they have the same rights) and you would be dying later on along with everyone else in the building. Not a good scenario!

What if it is a deadly gas coming into the building? a fire? an earthquake? a flood? What if the building is the Earth, home to all life we know of. What about climate change?! Green gases causing it. Deadly gases! The Kyoto Protocol is giving the alarm! What is the most important thing to do? That is the purpose of the Scale of Human and Earth Rights. It tells you what are the most important rights to sustain humanity now and in the coming future. An analysis has shown that the Declaration of Human Rights and Charters of Nations all over the world dont even consider these important rights. They are not even included. All because those who developed the Declaration were living in a different world where we live, where human beings live on Earth. They lived in an imaginary space where everything is just as important as everything else.

We have to rectify their failures of helping humanity. We have to throw away the Declaration and Charters, and adopt the Scale. Simple as that! The Declaration is another initiative of the U.N. organization and is a complete failure to helping humanity and all life.

Again global politics is about doing what is right for all of us now and in the future, and for all life on the planet. We base our understandings and actions on principles we all know are rights deep down. You cannot have a nation invading another nation for its resources? its water? its oil and gas? We have chaos without principles! We have conflicts and wars. There are ways of doing things that will give everyone a good survival chance. There are global equitable and sustainable solutions. War goes against global sustainability and global peace.

Global politics are meant to guide us on the right path. They are meant to bring humanity on a safe ground. They are about the survival of all of us of the planet. This is what people who work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules want from their political leaders. You don't expect politicians to be perfect. But you do want to know that your tax dollars - money you've worked for - are being spent properly and wisely. The 'Peoples' have been let down.

How many time have we heard of corruption at the United Nations: remember the ' oil for food program', and now american corporations are making billions of dollars "rebuilding Iraq" or is it destroying Iraq to have the contracts of rebuilding it. There is so much corruption that it stinks to the Moon. Many other organizations are corrupted and have no intention of changing their ethics rules:
*     World Trade Organization (WTO),
*     Free Trade Agreement (FTA),
*     North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),
*     Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA),
*     World Bank,
*     International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the
*     European Union (EU).

Most dont even have ethics. If they do they dont follow them.

The problem is the system they have created. It has become clear that this culture of violence, waste, mismanagement and corruption cannot reform itself.

GCEG needs a President who leads by example. GCEG needs a President who will fix the system rather than defend its beneficiaries.

I did not get into global politics to get a title or position. I got into global politics to fight for the things I believe in. As President, I lead by example. I have already begun the process of fixing the system by legislating and enforcing the GCEG Responsibility and Accountability Act – a specific, detailed and credible plan to clean up bad global governance in the world. The U.N. is bad governance.

Accountable government is what humanity needs. The Global Community deserves nothing less. Seeing such a mess, GCEG had no other choice than to research and develop a proper system of governance for all of humanity, the Global Constitution, and to enforce Global Law.

GCEG had no other choice than to research and develop.

We blame the U.N. for not having put hard sanctions against the USA for having unilaterally invaded Iraq and letting Americans plundering the oil & gas resources of the Iraquis. That in itself is a crime against humanity and all life on the planet. That goes against Global Sustainability and Global Peace. Through the manipulation of the world media, it now seems OK to prepare for the invasion of Iran. That also is a crime.

It is a crime against humanity to promote the military option, war, as a solution to the world problems.

Today it is a crime against humanity to be ignorant by choice and this allow people from the industrialized nations to be uncaring consumers of Earth resources.

It is a crime against humanity to be educated and conscious 'non-speakers', 'watchers', not involved, not participating for the good of all, because he or she is afraid of losing his job or moving on to a job good to humanity.

"We the Peoples" have been let down by the U.N. organization and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was designed to cover major crimes against humanity and all life on Earth. Powerful lobbying groups and nations have used the Declaration to satisfy their own self-interests. They have committed major crimes against humanity and all life and got away with it. Today it is happening all over again. The invasion of the Middle East nations and the destruction of the global life-support systems by governments and corporations are aspects not even seen as crimes against humanity and all life on the planet. The Declaration is a pettyful meaningless document especially designed to help those powerful lobbying groups and nations to commit crimes against humanity and all life on Earth. It has to be replaced by the Scale of Human and Earth Rights.

.

Back to top of page


The United Nations (UN) has been a failure to humanity and all life. It is time to shut it down and replace it by the Global Community Earth Government (GCEG)

Article by Germain Dufour

We have shown in press releases and letters to the UN that the United Nations (UN) has been a failure to humanity and all life. It is time to shut it down and replace it by the Global Community Earth Government (GCEG).

The UN and all its related organizations have failed humanity and all life on Earth on many levels:

1.    the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be replaced by the Scale of Human and Earth Rights;
2.    corruption, mismanagement at the highest levels, and bad global governance;
3.    promotion of the military option, war;
4.    allowing the genocides of several peoples;
5.    the business of deceiving, making believe, controlling without a democratic mandate from the Global Community;
6.    the U.N. is operating using precepts dating back 2000 years and developed by the Roman Empire; those precepts best suit the invasion of nations and the destruction of the global life-support systems and the Earth environment;
7.    the absence of proper governance and justice at the U.N.; and
8.    the use of trickery to deceive the world and subdue nations.

Seeing such a mess, GCEG had no other choice than to research and develop the Global Constitution, and to enforce Global Law.

GCEG had no other choice than to research and develop a proper system of governance for all of humanity.

We blame the UN for not having put hard sanctions against the USA for having unilaterally invaded Iraq and letting Americans plundering the oil & gas resources of the Iraquis. That in itself is a crime against humanity and all life on the planet. That goes against Global Sustainability and Global Peace. Through the manipulation of the world media, it now seems OK to prepare for the invasion of Iran. That also is a crime.

It is a crime against humanity to promote the military option, war, as a solution to the world problems.

Today it is a crime against humanity to be ignorant by choice and this allow people from the industrialized nations to be uncaring consumers of Earth resources.

It is a crime against humanity to be educated and conscious 'non-speakers', 'watchers', not involved, not participating for the good of all, because he or she is afraid of losing his job or moving on to a job good to humanity.

Since its formation in 1947, the UN has shown bad leadership:

Failure to help humanity!
An accomplice of the war industry.
An accomplice of the oil & gas industry to make it easy for the industry to make our planet unsustainable and destroy the global life-support systems.
A puppet of the USA and of the five permanents members!
Letting powerful lobbying groups, military and non-military, influencing the UN ways of doing things in the world, its decisions, and its direction as an organization that was supposed to be helping "the Peoples".

The United Nations (UN) has been a failure to humanity and all life. It is time to shut it down and replace it by the Global Community Earth Government (GCEG).

Back to top of page



 
The Peak Oil Crisis, Powerdown or Collapse?

Article by Tom Whipple.

Last weekend, I attended a conference in Washington entitled "Petrocollapse." The organizers of the conference believe at some point the price of oil suddenly will rise so rapidly and will become so scarce that much of the world's current economic system will be unable to function. A corollary seems to be that beyond that unhappy day, governments as currently constituted won't be able to do much to help the situation.

One of the speakers at the conference pointed out that it really is impossible to know where civilization is going without cheap, abundant oil. There are so many people, governments, organizations, and economic phenomena involved in the current economic order, the results of their interaction during oil depletion is impossible to foretell. This, of course, is perfectly true. There is no way of knowing how our grandchildren are going to be living 50 years from now and what they are going to be doing, but it does seem a few general observations about the early years of peak oil can be made.

Those who think, or at least write, about the future of society from the perspective of knowing that peak oil is imminent, fall along a spectrum ranging from life-as-we-know-it-with-hydrogen-cars to most-have-died-off from oil wars, famine, and disease with the remainder living in scattered tribes on subsistence agriculture.

Narrowing this spectrum a bit, we first get to the "mitigators" who believe that if we can muddle through 20 or 30 years of economic depression, perhaps severe, we can gradually emerge with a new set of sustainable energy technologies. Clustered around the other end of the scale will be the "pessimists" who believe the oil/industrial age and all its wonders has over shot and that we will be in a deep, deep hole. They believe there are no foreseeable energy technologies that can replace oil sufficiently soon to prevent a significant economic and societal collapse. Nowhere will this collapse be harder and faster than in the United States , which uses five times the average world consumption per capita and, must import, nearly 70 percent of its consumption.

As usual, the truth is likely to fall somewhere in between.

It is relatively easy to foresee what is likely to happen in the early APO (after peak oil) years. Few will disagree that $5-10+ gasoline will result in a major reduction in personal automobile travel and explosive growth in mass transit, alternative vehicles and ride sharing. The substantial increase in the cost of transporting goods and raw materials will result in unprecedented price increases, high interest rates, and an economic downturn. As most of the economy won't resume recent rates of growth at any foreseeable time, the stock market won't be the same for a long, long time. The type of employment opportunities we have had for the last 50 or so years will change markedly. Far more of us are going to be doing some flavor of essential-to-support-life manual work and far fewer will be sitting around offices doing the things people do in offices.

Like it or not, people are going to turn to their governments at all levels to get them through the crisis whether it turns out well or ends in societal collapse. They are already demanding that something, anything, be done about $3 gas. Just think of what they will demand when we get to $5 or $10 gas, or restricted availability of gas.

There are no other institutions, other than government, with the authority and command of resources to keep civilizations of the complexity we have built during the oil age running. Only a few percent of us, in America, live on or anywhere near a farm anymore and what were once near universal agricultural skills are now possessed by very few. The true necessities of life — food, shelter, clothing, and medicine— come to us through highly complex supply chains— all of which run on oil. Simply getting the remaining oil flows to where they are needed most during the decades of oil depletion will be a major challenge.

While many governments appear to be bumbling badly at the minute, there is a lot of recent and ancient history showing governments have tended to rise to the occasion when presented with a very great challenge. America ’s responses to the Civil War, the Great Depression, World War II, and the challenge of the moon landings are shining examples of what a motivated government can accomplish. In Europe , Churchill's Britain , Stalin's Russia and even Hitler's Germany had spectacular accomplishments during the 1940's.

Although it is apples and oranges, it is difficult to imagine that worldwide oil depletion will be anything more difficult than the Russian government and people faced the day Hitler’s Wehrmacht stormed into their country bent on destroying or enslaving them all. In the lifetimes of many of us, governments and their people have met and overcome some very big challenges. Admittedly the rapid withering of the liquid fuel supply that powers so much of our essentials of life will be one of the major challenges of the 21 st Century, but I for one have trouble seeing the oil depletion phenomenon leading to a total societal collapse.

Jumping ahead 20 or 30 years is obviously much more speculative than opining in a general way about the remaining years of the current decade. As with everything else, these decades of transition away from the oil age could result in a really bad outcome, a relatively good outcome, or any of a million in betweens.

The really bad possible outcomes of the great peak oil transition range from nuclear wars to runaway biology or an over-the-tipping-point climate. The good outcome, of course, would be mankind’s mastery of an environmentally friendly, sustainable, inexpensive source of energy. And finally there would be innumerable in between outcomes, which would be some unknowable mixture of the good and the bad.

One thing is sure however, the peaking of world oil production is certain to launch a round of social and economic changes comparable to the advent of the industrial age.

Back to top of page





 

Collapse from the inside - or powerdown?

Article by Jan Lundberg

Culture Change Letter #129 - May 18, 2006

Although this column has analyzed repeatedly the implications of global Peak Oil as the main factor in the termination of a culture featuring waste and greed, we can just as easily see the crumbling from within that the heart of the system is undergoing:

Going under fiscally, ecologically, ethically and in other in social ways... Petrocollapse, population crash, no more driving to the shopping mall... A new world to open up right under our noses. Some of us remain optimistic about culture change.

Setting the industrialized world off toward unforgiving petrocollapse could be the politically volatile Middle East or other sources of oil-supply interruption (Venezuela, Iran or Russia), China’s bidding up the price of fast-dwindling oil, or haywire "natural" disasters. But these are external manifestations of our deeply flawed culture. This culture both spawned and sprang forth from Western Civilization, and is characterized by domination and exploitation that the Earth never witnessed before – certainly not on any scale resembling this historical period.

The collapse from within is taking place as you read this: dishonesty, fraud and denial seem to prevail among our rulers who increasingly govern without our consent. Most people in the U.S. eligible to vote did not vote for recent presidents. And who rules the presidents? The corruption of elected officials is not limited to newsy scandals, but in the normal way of doing business in legislatures: "campaign contributions" and "horse trading."

On a personal level, anyone who is part of the industrial society’s machinery is alienated from nature and isolated from people more than any other culture allows. Community has been replaced by consuming.

The culture that paves over the best farmland - constantly driving species extinct, so it can import food from other continents - cannot endure. Nor should it be sustained for the sake of "growth" or "jobs." A better world is possible.

Anyone can tell a sick economy and nation from a solvent one. It is only a matter of time until the game of deficits & debt is up.

The business of killing people, known as war and the arms trade, enforces on the larger scale the system of exploiting humans forced to work so that wealth can be derived from the ravaged Earth. War is rot from the inside, undeniably poisonous, and serves to create enemies and weaken a (social) structure’s integrity and longevity.

People get increasingly tired of the taxes and loss of benefits such as the Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus. Soon, people will rapidly get tired of expensive petroleum and permanent shortage, and will demand, as author Jim Kunstler regales us, their Cheese Doodles. That is, until they must plant some food in their former lawns.

One could satisfy oneself to an extreme degree in arriving at extensive knowledge of the system’s decay, mismanagement, and lunacy, such as by accessing reports on FromTheWilderness.com or even from mainstream sources of criticism such as truthout.org. But it doesn’t accomplish much if we get bogged down in blogs or even great books, when we have already passed the point where action and system-replacement – not just "regime change" – was urgently justified.

As the nation’s "free press" is bought by car advertisements we aren’t going to get the truth. The corporate media are compliant in "keeping a lid on it" (Culture Change Letter #99) as to the true state of both the economy and the ecosystem, although much information does get through for those who pay critical attention. But it’s as if all one has to do is wave the flag – no matter what atrocities, rip-offs, dysfunction and hypocrisy prevail as the U.S. leads the way in destroying the world – and a large segment of the population will resound with a bleat. Prior to the current administration’s worsening follies, the bleat would have been more of a salute. Next we’ll be seeing more the middle-finger salute.

If the above analysis has validity, and we can agree we are in an unprecedented time for our species’ survival due to climate change and the demise of the petroleum feast, then we should not mislead ourselves or mislead others. Misleading is justified by those trying to continue to make their bucks, understandably so. There is also a reasonable tendency to downplay the danger and to whitewash or greenwash the two-headed crisis of the environment and an economy that will collapse once the growth bubble bursts.

Lester Brown, founder of Worldwatch Institute, gave a speech in Washington at the Peak Oil and the Environment conference on May 8th which begged this question:

"As cars’ becoming cleaner would eliminate air pollution by less than 50%, given the whole ‘life cycle’ of the car, this is a partial conversion of the infrastructure; and, as wind-energy systems are also part of the oil infrastructure, and this is a partial conversion, and, as the agriculture and distribution systems are entirely dependent on petroleum, is not collapse the inescapable outcome that would be accompanied by your scenario of localized renewable energy?" (the question was submitted but not addressed.)

Brown is great on warning us of ecological collapse, but he has never been able face petrocollapse. He seems to really believe that wind energy will power the present size car-fleet, as if this makes for a sustainable economy. Not to pick on this very bright, exemplary man: there is little funding for those who openly anticipate petrocollapse and system-replacement, so it makes political and economic sense for one to rather support a popular technofix.

Yet, if a real tsunami is coming our way and can be seen in the distance, it is not a "maybe" that can blow over as we cling to our positions. Such positions range from moderate reform of energy usage to sweeping policy change. However, megacorporations do run the show today. Some officials and very well-off folks want, in effect, people to keep quiet and to trust the government to do its wondrous New Orleans-style magic. Radical change is resisted until the tsunami of nature’s or of social forces crash down and swamp the landscape.

There is room for many analyses and interpretations of our interesting times. But this does not mean that all disciplines are equal, e.g., oil analyst or lawyer, organic farmer or bureaucrat. Nor do our interesting times involving oil mean that just any opinion is equally valid; some things are known. Such as, civilizations tumble and empires do fall, and it’s mainly due to resource depletion. At our DC Petrocollapse Conference on May 6, 2006, one speaker unintentionally weakened a common vision of most of the speakers by asserting "No one knows what peak oil outcome will be like." This sounds reasonable on its face, but some things are inescapable: billions of us cannot continue to be fed for many days without endless petroleum. On the positive side, there’s the inescapable likelihood: that people will simply have to come together to utilize their local ecosystems on some kind of community level to guarantee survival. Ultimately, a sustainable culture is achieved universally, with all due diversity and difficulties, if the race is to endure and evolve.

Not wanting to see tumultuous change or "severe economic hardship" – as the U.S. Department of Energy has been advised will be the price of not preparing for peak oil (Hirsch, et al 2005 study) – prompts many of us to offer wishful speculation on the experience in store for an oil addicted population.

A gifted Peak Oil activist and chronicler (Peak Oil News daily) is Tom Whipple. His latest column in the Falls Church News-Press is "The Peak Oil Crisis - Powerdown or Collapse?" Although he accurately represented the negative aspect of our position as organizers of the conference, he made a case for an outcome flowing from Peak Oil other than collapse. I was surprised that he seemed to back away from agreeing with me that collapse was our common fate. His reasoning is that "the truth is likely to fall somewhere in between" and that the nation has overcome big challenges before (with the aid of cheap fossil fuels, however).

A tsunami is not automatically a half-tsunami just because there are different opinions. Some opinions are founded more closely on reality than others. And some are often prescriptions for a version of the status quo. One thing for sure, we will be finding out soon.

Our friend Mr. Whipple missed the message of culture change as the real process at hand and also as the answer to living in a future not as dreary as he says we foresee. Additionally, an analysis of the effect of permanent, terminal shortage that is peak oil requires us to anticipate the oil market’s role in exacerbating shortage. When people can’t get to work or get food – after we have pigged-out on petroleum as long as possible and failed to decrease population in a compassionate, orderly, gradual way – die-off and collapse must hit hard. Mr. Whipple holds out for "explosive growth in mass transit, alternative vehicles and ride sharing," which appears hopeful of minimum disruption. But we basically agree about Peak Oil, as he concludes: "One thing is sure however, the peaking of world oil production is certain to launch a round of social and economic changes comparable to the advent of the industrial age."

Powerdown was written by Richard Heinberg. He believes that there will be a collapse. ‘Nuff said. He spoke at our Petrocollapse Conference and news conference, although his book spells out options for a softer landing than hard collapse and wars – if we as society made the effort. There are preparations for a decent "Plan B" here and there. But aside from Post Carbon Institute’s growing relocalization network, the effort is not quite being made. In the diplomatic realm, a major hope lies in the international Oil Depletion Protocol, proposed by Dr. Colin Campbell, and spearheaded by Richard Heinberg

The Washington Post "kept a lid on" our Petrocollapse Conference even though it was national and in its back yard. We virtually spoon-fed the publicity info to three departments at the Post. The Washington Post, like so many other news organizations, carefully chooses your news. In avoiding the subject of peak oil, the newspaper appears to pretend that the American Empire will keep muddling along as if we are a united people blessed by eternal resources. Simultaneously, the Post’s brilliant acquisition of a cartoonist, Tom Toles, lets fly with zingers such as May 16th’s cartoon: He compares the capitalist’s non-comprehension of why workers don’t appreciate the economy to a meat packer’s non-comprehension of cattle not appreciating their place in the operation.

People may not rise up, as a casual reader may correctly believe as he or she may dismiss this essay or Tom Tole’s message. The point is that whether people rise up or not – and they tend to do it only when physically hungry enough – the system is set to implode from its own contradictions and excesses. Rather than rise up, people may stampede until their final supply of calories gives out. Petroleum addiction is the top item of vulnerability on any given day. As the band Chicago sang in 1969, "I know it’s hard for you to change your way of life… but if we don’t, my friend, there’s no life for you, no world for me."

* * * * *

References online:

Tom Whipple’s column in suburban Virginia newspaper: www.fcnp.com/610/peakoil.htm

Rundown of the Petrocollapse Conference and subsequent Peak Oil and the Environment conference: www.tompaine.com

The Oil Depletion Protocol: postcarbon.org/initiatives/oildepletion

From The Wilderness publications: www.Fromthewilderness.com

Truthout Truthout.org

Culture Change Letter #128 on peak oil conferences: culturechange.org

for May 6 DC Petrocollapse Conference and Oct. 5th NYC Petrocollapse Conference: petrocollapse.org

CULTURE CHANGE
USA
http://www.culturechange.org
http://www.petrocollapse.org
Email: info@culturechange.org

_______________________________________________ You are subscribed to the Culturechange mailing list http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/culturechange


Back to top of page










 

CAP Demands Canadian Troops OUT OF AFGHANISTAN!

Catherine Whelan Costen
CAP President & Communications Director
www.CanadianActionParty.ca Canadian Action Party/ Parti Action Canadienne website
cathpublish@wildroseinternet.ca Canadian Action Party/ Parti Action Canadienne email

'If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?'

Canadian Action Party calls for an end to the participation of Canadian Troops in Afghanistan. This mission was never debated in the House of Commons, leaving the people of Canada out of the democratic process. As the Canadian government has announced that they will introduce a motion into the House of Commons to extend the Canadian deployment to Afghanistan by two years, they have once again neglected to consult the Canadian people. This decision and the so called, ‘snap vote’ is expressly against the wishes of the majority of Canadians who are opposed to the mission.

Where is the debate? Where is the disclosure, discussion and free flow of information a democracy ought to employ? Where are the opposition leaders standing? Canadian Action Party,(unofficial opposition) leaves no question unanswered. We are with the people of Canada. We stand for peace! We endorse peace initiatives and peaceful resolutions. We abhor bullies! We embrace the democratic process.

According to the Canadian Peace Alliance, “ The Canadian Peace Alliance is concerned at the suddenness of this announcement. It is designed to confirm the ongoing Afghan mission before many Canadians have been able to fully assess the issues surrounding our role there. Many Canadians still believe that we are doing reconstruction work in Afghanistan. The facts in this case have been hidden. CIDA has pulled its reconstruction team out of Afghanistan and rebuilding is at a halt. It is also deliberately confusing to have the Prime Minister saying that we are there for reconstruction while generals admit that our role is to kill.” CAP is equally concerned with the drastic measures to further our involvement without a mandate from the people of Canada to do so. Canadians are being asked to support our troops, without fully understanding the truth behind our involvement. It goes without saying that we support our troops, but we do not support the mission. They are two entirely different points. We the people are expected to fund these wars, sacrifice our children and yet have no information, no input and no accountability from our elected government. This is an insult to Canadians!

Today’s government is sinking us deeper into this corporate military agenda, while at the same time whitewashing the sacrifice, by not even lowering the flags in Ottawa when our youth pay the ultimate price with their lives. The media is cooperating by not reporting the real news and not showing Canadians the body bags as they return to Canada. What utter disrespect for the families and the soldiers! How are the Canadian people suppose to be consulted or informed if media has become spokesperson for a political agenda instead of respecting our right to free press. According to Polaris Institute we have reduced our commitment to UN Peacekeeping. While we’ve increased our commitment, with troops and $4.146 Billion (since September 11,2001) on military operations in or related to Afghanistan. This is a complete disgrace to the people of Canada, as well as the people suffering in Darfur, that desperately need our Canadian commitment to peacekeeping. Facts surrounding the Afghanistan mission, the invasion of Iraq and the investigation of 911 are murky at best. Our own stability and place in the Global community is being threatened by our willingness to follow blindly into the blood baths waged in the name of ‘a war on terror’. Our ignorance may be bliss to some, but the price is far too great for others!

The people of Afghanistan want peace. The corporate military machine wants oil. All peace-seeking people the world over are being sacrificed by this global agenda. Clearly the occupation of Afghanistan is creating more violence. Bigger guns and more troops will not create peace. The only choice is to call for the troops to be removed.

CAP echoes the sentiments expressed within this quote, “We now have to deal, in the United States, with the unholy reign of G.W.Bush supported by the oil and money and armaments interests. They have created a degree of instability in the world between NorthWest and SouthEast that is worse than the cold war. The ubiquitous "War on Terror" - which resulted from the 9/11 disaster - which resulted from U.S. interference in Arabian/Muslim affairs - has led to the U.S. Patriot Act I and II, torture of prisoners and suppression of Habeus Corpus and Civil Rights.

The Chretien Government did have the balls to refuse to overtly join the "Coalition of the Willing" but it caved on the negotiation for a North American Union.

I don’t know if this surrender to U.S. policies was due to being bought, or to a hope of protecting the Canadian economy from repercussions if we disobeyed, or an expectation of reaping some of the spoils from the putative U.S. domination of the world, or from outright threats and bullying. But it was being done under the table without any analysis by the media and now Mr. Harper can't wait to complete the "deep integration" promised for 2010.” Derek Skinner, 81 year old Canadian Patriot

Although the above quote was in relation to why Mr. Skinner is refusing to submit to the Lockheed Martin hardware/software-Canadian Census, it reflects many Canadians’ views on what has happened to our country. (See the full article on CAP website) CAP fully supports our troops, as they have sworn an oath to give up their freedoms, so that we might have ours. Ours are also on the line, as noted above and in more detail on CAP’s website. These young men and women will follow orders and go where they are sent. That is as it should be, however it is our role, both civilians and politicians to fully debate, discuss and ensure that wherever they are sent, it is under Canadian command. Our military should be a reflection of our values as a peace-seeking country. A sovereign nation does not take its marching orders from a foreign power! We are calling for all Canadians to demand Canada’s troops out of Afghanistan now and refuse any extension of this mission! We must ask ourselves, ‘do we have a democracy in Canada’? If so then let us employ it. If not then we must ask ourselves, ‘why not and do we want a democracy’? An authentic democracy requires the involvement of the people and cannot exist unless the people take responsibility for it. The world is in turmoil, the media is not investigating, nor reporting the full extent of Canada’s involvement nor of the threat posed to us through ‘deep integration’. Last month the Toronto Star had an interesting article by Michael Byers, I quote, “Bi-National Planning Group… Their professed goal is to improve co-operation between the Canadian and U.S. militaries, the better to defend both countries. Yet a close reading of their final report released last month, reveals that their actual intent ¬ or at least the intent of the politicians who set their mandate ¬ is far from benign. They seek nothing less than the complete integration of Canada's military, security and foreign policy into the decision-making and operating systems of the U.S.” Reference: The writing is on the wall. Canadians must speak now before we lose our voice! Every elected MP must be accountable to Canadians on this issue. The lives of our youth are on the line and for their sake, we must decide if the price of their blood is worth it! Once their life is lost and they lay in the cold hard ground, your voice and mine will not give them or their families any consolation. Join us and speak now! Most Canadians believe war could end tomorrow if there was the political will do to so – but instead we stand idly by while old men with big egos, beat their chests and young men and women are used as pawns to satisfy this insatiable lust for power!

Contact info:
Catherine Whelan Costen, Canadian Action Party, President
Email: cathpublish@wildroseinternet.ca
E-mail: conniefogal@telus.net




Back to top of page










 

International politics are about nations self-interests and powerful lobbying groups, and that should not be happening at the United Nations

Article by Germain Dufour

In our May 1st press release, We the Peoples are us we have promoted our definition and meaning of 'global politics'. Global politics now exist because what is happening at the United Nations (U.N.) is totally unacceptable. Very powerful military groups and other types of powerful lobbying groups basically 'run' the U.N. Those with the money run the UN. That in itself is an acknowledgment of defeat of the part of an organization such as the U.N. that is supposed to be representing and protecting "the Peoples" rights; universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; and the principles of democracy and the rule of law. We see none of that! We see chaos. We see international politics, governments worried only about their own self-interests, bullying from nations with the most powerful military, and we see an unsustainable future ahead. It has become clear that the U.N. has promoted a culture of violence, waste, mismanagement and corruption which cannot reform itself. Lobbying groups would never allow a thorough reform of the U.N. organizational structure and of its ways of doing things in the world.

The world wants an organization dedicated to the welfare of all Peoples and to the protection of the Earth's environment and the global life support systems. Such an organization must not be governed by powerful lobbying groups.

We see entire nations making choices based on what is good for themselves, today self-interests, versus what is good for the next generations and all life on the planet. In other words, they make choices between international politics versus global politics. International politics are driven by national interests, self-interests, and powerful lobbying groups, while global politics are about the survival of all of us on the planet.

Global politics is about doing what is right for humanity and all life on the planet.

Global politics is about doing what is right for all of us now and in the future, and for all life on the planet. We base our understandings and actions on principles we all know are rights deep down. You cannot have a nation invading another nation for its resources? its water? its oil and gas? We have chaos without principles! We have conflicts and wars. There are ways of doing things that will give everyone a good survival chance. There are global equitable and sustainable solutions. War goes against global sustainability and global peace.

Global politics are meant to guide us on the right path. They are meant to bring humanity on a safe ground. They are about the survival of all of us of the planet. This is what people who work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules want from their political leaders. You don't expect politicians to be perfect. But you do want to know that your tax dollars - money you've worked for - are being spent properly and wisely.

The U.N. and all its related organizations have failed humanity and all life on Earth on many levels:

1.    the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be replaced by the Scale of Human and Earth Rights;
2.    corruption, mismanagement at the highest levels, and bad global governance;
3.    promotion of the military option, war;
4.    allowing the genocides of several peoples;
5.    the business of deceiving, making believe, controlling without a democratic mandate from the Global Community;
6.    the U.N. is operating using precepts dating back 2000 years and developed by the Roman Empire; those precepts best suit the invasion of nations and the destruction of the global life-support systems and the Earth environment;
7.    the absence of proper governance and justice at the U.N.; and
8.    the use of trickery to deceive the world and subdue nations.

Seeing such a mess, GCEG had no other choice than to research and develop the Global Constitution, and to enforce Global Law.

GCEG had no other choice than to research and develop a proper system of governance for all of humanity.

We want to shut down the UN. We have now replaced it by the GCEG.

Back to top of page










 

Old-style corruption better?

A journalist from the International Herald Tribune asked my opinion about what he called "modern forms of lobbying" that US multinationals operating in India engaged in. He was investigating how these companies were bringing their skills of influencing policy - from 'planting' stories in the media, to 'engaging' academics and scientists to counter debates, to 'lobbying' legislators - to India.

My reply was simple: firstly, cash transactions are still part of the game but more covert. Secondly, given a choice between the new and the old, I would prefer old-fashioned, Indian-style corruption. This is because direct financial dealings, however distasteful, cannot be hidden for long. But this US-refined influence game will erode our public institutions, subvert public decision-making and fatally undermine democracy.

It is important to learn and analyse how democracy is 'worked' in the US. Robert F Kennedy Jr. explains some of this in his writings on the Bush administration. Kennedy, a politician and lawyer, is the son of the charismatic Democrat senator, who was assassinated.

What he reveals is chilling. We know in American electoral politics, industry and other interest groups make donations to candidates. These donations are seemingly not corrupt, because they are given openly (not Indian-style cash under the table). Unfortunately, the truth lies elsewhere. Kennedy describes, in detail, the corporate takeover of the US and how this undermines issues of public health and policy.

The process is deliberate. The corporate world knows that policy is personnel. So, the first step in dismantling public policy formulation is to ensure 'their' people are put in charge. This has been done in institution after institution, with devastating impacts. For instance, when a mining industry person is given charge of public land policy or a coal industry person is put in place to decide energy policy, you cannot expect unbiased outcomes.

Another step is to recruit scientists, who Kennedy calls 'biostitutes - prostitutes to serve industrial interests. He describes in detail how this was done again and again in cases concerning public health. For instance, in deciding how much arsenic should be acceptable in drinking water, how much mercury Americans should ingest through fish, how to regulate effluents from pig-farms, industrial-style, which release a toxic mix of chemicals. In this case, Kennedy documents how a government scientist found an antibiotic resistant strain of bacteria near pig farms, which was making people sick. He was gagged, his studies buried and his public appearances cancelled. This, Kennedy says, was done because of lobbying by the National Pork Producers Council.

In the fight for a voice, all tricks are used. One such case concerns a bill introduced in the US Senate in late 2001, which would require chemical plants to reduce their inventories of highly toxic and dangerous substances. The first assault came with industry associations lobbying senators against the proposed law. Money poured in - the chemical industry donated over us $38 million to Republicans and spent another us $30 million on lobbying. To 'soften' public servants, money was paid to benefit funds; suddenly there was a spate of articles and editorials condemning the legislation as subversive. Right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and Competitive Enterprise Institute produced briefs justifying the opposition. The bill was killed.

The most devastating fact is that this 'corporate cronyism' can take root because democratic institutions have been seriously compromised. Kennedy finds that even his party members - Democrats - need to play the game, because they need corporate money for elections. He also finds that the media has been systematically taken over and its role as a public informer been compromised. This has been done through pincer-like actions. Firstly, the law that regulated media as a public trust - mandating it to publicise different points of view - was abolished. Till the 1960s, under the Fairness Doctrine, advertisers of gas-guzzling automobiles, for instance, had to provide rebuttal time for public-interest advocates to debate the impact of wasteful fuel use. But in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan, supported by the media, changed this. Secondly, media has been consolidated, is often owned by industry: its business is expensive so that money rules. Stories on corporate shenanigans are buried or journalists fired, finds Kennedy.

The fact is that India is currently standing on a precipice. Our institutions of governance - particularly our political institutions - have been so weakened that we are ready for the same 'corporate takeover'. If you don't believe me, visit the official homepage of the Indian Planning Commission, click on the report of the innocuously termed Indo-US CEO forum. Its members included the most respected from India - from Ratan Tata to Nandan Nilekani. Read the report and its action agenda for the Indian government on everything - agriculture, food processing, intellectual property rights, real estate, education. No surprises there, you will say. After all, all industry - Indian or foreign - has a wish list.

But wishes are commands when lobbies, not government, rule. For instance, the report directs that Indian government must "eliminate policies like the discriminatory special excise duty on carbonated drinks". In the same budget, the duty was reduced. The group included the head of soft drink major, US multinational Pepsico. No surprises there.

Read Kennedy. Get angry. Don't allow this takeover of India. This is not a US makeover we can afford.

To comment, write to: editor@downtoearth.org.in

Read this editorial online
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/cover_nl.asp?mode=2

Back to top of page










 

World Problems and World Solutions

Article by by Dr. Leo Rebello

World problems are problems which transcend national boundaries and require that solutions be worked out and implemented on a global or supra-national basis by a world legislature, in collaboration with national governments. Let us list some of our world problems because once we identify them we can also find solutions by applying our minds to these problems.

1.. Nuclear weapons, spread of nuclear capability, threat of nuclear war, and of nuclear winter which could result from the explosion of only 20 to 30 bombs.

2.. Other weapons of mass death and destruction and countries like USA and UK trying to take these weapons into space in order to establish their supremacy to the detriment of others.

3.. How to safely dismantle nuclear weapons and obsolete nuclear power plants, because half-lives of some radioactive elements are thousands of years.

4.. Trillions of dollars spent annually on war preparations, dominating civilian priorities, wasting money and resources, and subverting the world’s scientific talents, instead of sharing the knowledge and resources.

5.. Imminent collapse of global financial infrastructure because of third world debt and distorted growth or deliberate sabotage of sustainable development.

6.. Rapid increase of carbon dioxide in the astmosphere from death of phytoplankton in the oceans due to ozone holes, burning fossil fuels, massive deforestation, and de-mineralization of soils, may result in cataclysmic climatic changes.

7.. The universal haze, transnational air pollution, water pollution, acid rain and snow, and disasters like Tsunamis, Katrina, unprecedented floods in Mumbai (Bombay) - it is predicted that Mumbai may sink shortly and floods were the warning sign.

8.. Mal-distribution of world food supply, resulting in widespread malnutrition, amounting to widespread mental malfunction, endangering the human civilisation itself. In Western countries people get sick and die prematurely due to over-eating, in third world countries they die due to malnutrition.

9.. Worldwide use of harmful pesticides which enter into food chain messing up with our lives and making pests more virulent. Genetically modified food is another danger with untold future ramifications.

10. Disposal of great quantities of toxic wastes on the earth, in the water and in the air.

11. Rapidity of technological changes resulting in unemployment, social and community instabilities, unforeseen adverse ecological impacts; displacement of natural raw materials by synthetics, resulting in disruption of livelihoods of people.

12. Regulation of Multi National Corporations (MNCs) which destroy governments, their economies and play havoc with people’s lives by dumping marketing strategy, price wars and creating unnecessary demands and supply of spurious goods, corruption, etc.

13. How to prevent technological mistakes or accidents (e.g. nuclear power, offshore oil well drilling) and ensure selective and safe technology for betterment of life.

14. Restrictive trade practices, inflated tariffs, trade barriers, biopiracies, vast disparities in wage levels, inequitable access to resources and markets, movement of industries to exploit people and facilities or to avoid restrictions, indiscriminate globalisation benefiting few to the detriment of the multitude.

15. Deliberate spread of diseases like AIDS, SARS, Bird Flu, Cancers through PSYOPS, lethal vaccinations, as an ethnic cleansing or population control programme, as per the blueprint entitled "The Useless Eaters".

16. Communalism, Casteism, Corruption, Criminalisation of Politics; ethnic, religious, racial and political intolerance and human rights violations on large scale inspite of civilised norms and protocols in place.

17. Half the countries of the world are still not free. The remaining so-called democratic countries also do not adhere to democratic norms. Example, USA using veto indiscriminately, attacking Iraq for plunder in spite of world opinion against it and continuing its illegal occupation of another country, destroying their historical, cultural, civilisational basis etc. by imposing its decadent culture and selfish agenda on others.

18.. Terrorism engineered by a few countries to keep its arms and drug industries going. May it also be noted that barring US and its allies Israel and UK, the other so-called terrorists are only pawns in the hands of these mercenaries.

19. Difficulties for leaders of national governments to conceive of the kind of global political structure which are required to solve world problems peacefully. For example, preventing Turkey from joining European Union because it is a predominantly Muslim country. Likewise, SAARC countries not uniting as in European Union, and wasting major funds on military expansion by keeping non-issues like Kashmir burning and destroying that heaven on earth.

20. Language barriers, world communication blocks, America trying to capture and control free Internet medium after capturing print and electronic media; America using UNO as its personal fiefdom and the Private Ltd. Company called World Bank trying to destroy the world economy by mercenary loan structures and influencing or interfering in budget making exercises of various nations.

21. Misuse of North and South Pole Regions, Moon and Mars, and space for sinister purposes and world dominion by a couple of crooked countries.

22. General lack of well-informed and well-motivated people with humane and global outlook to cope adequately with inter-related problems of living peacefully on Earth.

As I said, Global Problems need Global Solutions. This can be done
(a) by democratising the existing institutions like UNO;
(b) by removing the Veto power given to five founding countries;
(c) introducing one nation, one vote idea;
(d) allowing even non-democratic countries into UN fold so that they too can grow;
(e) no sanctions, no invasions of any country; no wars;
(f) no misuse of UN organs like WHO (which has today become "WHOre" of pharma mafia) or CODEX, for sinister games.


If democratising UN is not possible, then replace it with a world government. Let us call it United States of the World, with one international language (English or Esperanto), one religion (Humanism based on Love and Understanding), one race (Human race) equal distribution of natural resources, no arms, no armies, no space exploration, no narcotic and psychotropic substances, etc.

Let me throw some ideas.

(a) Recognise that religions are decadent cults. They divide people rather than unite. Therefore, do not fight in the name of religion.

(b) Animals in the jungle live in peace. Birds in the sky live in peace. Fishes in the ocean live in peace. We too should learn to live in peace.

(c) All human beings have the same fears, aspirations, same blood, and same needs. Therefore, do not discriminate on the basis of religion, caste, colour, creed, country, poor or rich, male or female.

(d) Teach your children not to use drugs, dogmas, and dangerous weapons. Teach them to say NO to joining the military or NO to invading other countries. If necessary, as parents you should challenge the laws of your country and recall the corrupt politicians.

(e) Refuse to inoculate or vaccinate your children. That is the first rape you commit on their bodies and make their bodies and minds weak.

(f) Recognise that faith, love, peace, safety, good health, equality, justice and fair play are the sine qua non of our very existence. Money, riches, living in ghettoes, national boundaries, force, arms, drugs, dogmas are all there to enslave and subjugate you. Discard them.

(g) Learn to live with dignity with your heads held high, in unity and solidarity and work for safety and peace till you achieve it, or else there will be the peace of the graveyard because of the machinations of a few.


Om Shanti, Shanti Om !!!


Back to top of page










 

World leaders just pretending to resolve global warming and its effects on the global climate have broken Global Law and are dangerous criminals
Article by Germain Dufour

The Earth Court of Justice has made clear that the new legislation now in the process of being enacted, the Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act, will be enforced by the GCEG. Global Law is now the law of the land on the planet. No one is excuse! Everyone is included! Those breaking Global Law will be prosecuted. For now, those committing crimes against humanity and all life on Earth will be arrested. There are Global Community Arrest Warrants against all world leaders not in line with the Kyoto agreement.

Prosecuting criminals on the basis of universal jurisdiction regardless of a territorial or nationality nexus required a solid commitment of political will from national governments and the Global Community.

President Bush has been summoned to appear in front of the Earth Court of Justice as defined in Chapter 14.3.6, B.4, of the Global Constitution, for the following reasons:

a)     not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and thus endandering all life on Earth; Americans are the worst and deadliest polluters on the planet; on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights, that is a crime of the worst kind agaisnt humanity and all life on Earth;
b)     invading the Middle East and Afghanistan; actions such as those of nation predators go against all human and Earth rights; and
c)     supplying children of the world with small arms, and supplying anyone or any nation with small arms, war product and war equipment

The Global Community is asking him to surrender himself to the Court.

John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia, was also summoned to appear in front of the Earth Court of Justice as defined in Chapter 14.3.6, B.4, of the Global Constitution, for the following reasons:

not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and thus endandering all life on Earth; on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights, that is a crime of the worst kind agaisnt humanity and all life on Earth;

Global Community Earth Government is asking him to surrender himself to the Court. The same reasons apply here as explained to President George W. Bush.

The Global Community will continue to implement a total embargo on all U.S. and Australian consumer products, goods and services including mass destruction chemicals, nuclear war heads, weapons, war products and war equipment. The war industry throughout the world must be put to a complete halt and shelved forever from humanity. The Global Community is asking all peoples never again to buy U.S. and Australian products.

All world leaders just pretending to resolve global warming and its effects on the global climate have broken Global Law and are dangerous criminals and will be prosecuted.

Back to top of page










 

President Bush World War III in the making

Article by Germain Dufour

In this article we will show that the oil & gas reserves left in the world are the causes of what we see as the beginning of World War III.

People are concerned about the future because the basic raw materials for plastic are petroleum and/or natural gas, and production of these resources is already peaking and declining.

The concern about "running out of oil" arises from misunderstanding the significance of a petroleum industry measure called the Reserves/Production ratio (R/P). This monitors the production and exploration interactions. The R/P is based on the concept of "proved" reserves of fossil fuels. Proved reserves are those quantities of fossil fuels that geological and engineering information indicate with reasonable certainty can be recovered in the future from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions. The Reserves/Production ratio is the proved reserves quantity divided by the production in the last year, and the result will be the length of time that those remaining proved reserves would last if production were to continue at the current level. It is important to note the economic and technology component of the definitions, as the price of oil increases ( or new technology becomes available ), marginal fields become "proved reserves". Note that investment in exploration is also linked to the R/P ratio, and the world crude oil R/P ratio typically moves between 20-40 years, however specific national incentives to discover oil can extend that range upward.

 Crude oil  Proved reserves  R/P ratio
 Middle East  89.4 billion tonnes  93.4 years
 USA  3.8  9.8
 USA - 1995 USGS data  10.9  33.0
 Total world  137.3  43.0
     
 Coal  Proven reserves  R/P ratio
 USA  240.56 billion tonnes  247 years
 Total world  1,043.864  235 years
     
 Natural gas  Proven reserves  R/P ratio
 USA  4.6 trillion cubic meters  8.6 years
 USA - 1995 USGS data  9.1  17.0
 Total world  141.0  66.4


Crude oil is a limited resource. It is estimated that there is a total of 2390 billion barels of crude oil on Earth. Estimates of undiscovered reserves range from 275 to 1469 billion barels.

About 77% of crude oil has already been discovered, and 30% of it has been used so far. From 1859-1968, 200 billion barels of oil have been used, and since then oil production has stabilized to 30 billion barels per year. It is estimated that oil reserves will become scarce by 2050s. Most of oil is concentrated in the Near East - around 41%. North America, Russia, and Antartic are also rich in crude oil.

As part of a scenario without oil and gas or not much of those resources for our use the world will have to sustain itself and do things in a more natural or austere way. Such as, no plastic hoses replaceable for watering gardens. If this were not a serious enough challenge, it turns out that plastics are full of poisons that kill living things including people. Think of it as a permanent, toxic oil spill. The dangers of plastics have been ignored and suppressed for decades, but the recent news on the extent that plastics are killing sea animals and birds will finally raise the human health issue through the environmental focus.

About 125 billion kilograms of raw plastic pellets are produced annually worldwide and turned into a tremendous variety of products, from cars and computers to packaging and pens (see our short list of plastic products ). People think of oil mainly as the strategic fuel for their cars, and some Americans justify a foreign policy that kills for oil. If they knew how dependent they were on massive amounts of plastic from oil and natural gas for other basic modern products, the war cry could be louder.

Soon the production of oil and gas will decline rapidly. The Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC) has analyzed the total production of oil and gas in the world and found the peak had already been attained and production should decline steadily over the coming 40 years. Protection of the global life-support systems Climate change prelude Climate change: responsibility and accountability of cities Humanity will have completely consumed the oil and gas reserves in the world between 50 and 100 years from now. This explain why there is so much rush for those resources by countries such America in Iraq, and India, Russia, China and Europe in Iran. Actually they are all over the Middle East but everyone seems to have chosen a specific territory to invade or exploit: America in Iraq, the others in Iran. What we have here are all the ingredients needed for World War III. Let me invade this nation says America, and I will invade the other ones say Russia and China. They will be there until all the oil and gas reserves have been sucked up from the ground. If one of them is not happy then we will have a war. They have all agreed that Iraquis and Iranians are casualities of war.

In two generations from now most civilizations on the planet will be facing terrible problems: the end of the oil and gas production, the end of our consumer driven society as no oil and gas means no plastic base products, which also implies no jobs and chaos everywhere in the wolrd. We will literally be invaded by Americans. Poverty and diseases will be widespread. The environment will be completely out of control. Global warming will cause tremendous environmental and climate change problems. Nothing we could ever imagine will happen. Gangs in Canada will be controlling cities much like warlords in Afghanistan. Not even the military could stop them from committing crimes. Government will be corrupted. Somewhat like the situation we see in Iraq today but 100 times worst. And the world will never get any better. I will show here that our so called 'modern civilizations' will collapse. Our own civilization is base on oil and gas, and on the products we get from the oil and gas, mainly plastics, and not on principles and values.

People from all over the world will be burning all their trees to just heat their homes. Forests will disappear completely from the Earth surface. No more Oxygen can be produced without our green forests so eventually we will be lacking Oxygen in the air we breathe. Most life on the planet will be affected by the lack of Oxygen. Our species will certainly disappear. Why is this happening? Why are we in the Middle East and Afghanistan fighting for the leftover oil and gas, which we will burn one way or the other, and which will also burn the Oxygen of the air in the process. And you know what comes next! Having World War III in fighting for the oil and gas will only cut our survival as a species by a decade or two.

Other than America, who else wants the oil and gas of the Middle East?

India, Russia, Europe Union nations, and China! They want the oil and gas of the Middle East very badly. How else could they become the biggest growing economies of the world? Without the oil and gas they have no energy and no plastic base products. That means they cannot manufacture anything. Nothing! More than half of the world population out of a job. Starving and dying! No medicinal products because you need a plastic container to hold them. Hospitals have no plastic tubes to feed you with whatever fluids your body needs. All civilizations on the planet would come to a halt without the oil and gas. Yet it is the oil and gas that is creating global warming and forcing the climate to change around the globe. This of course shows that our own civilization is base on oil and gas, and on the base products we can get from the oil and gas, manly plastics. Our civilization is, therefore, not based on principles and values as it would fall completely without oil and gas. The end of the oil & gas reserves and, therefore, of plastics, will be the end of our 'civilized-self'.

As far as India, Russia, Europe, and China are concerned, there is an absolute need to obtain the oil and gas of the Middle East to survive. No other ways! So now that we have understood the problem so far, what are Americans truly doing in the Middle East? Are they in the Middle East because of their dislike of Saddam Hussain? Not likely! Saddam Hussain was never important, just an excuse for the invasion. But then they never had a reason to invade Vietnam. So what is different today? The Al Qua'ida 'terrorists' threatening their way of life? We know the 'terrorist' and suicide bombers are often civilians who have got so disgusted of being invaded, their homes destroyed, and their relatives killed, that the only way to fight back was by being suicide bombers. They are soldiers in their own way defending their country from the invaders and thieves who just want to steal their resources.

So obviously Americans are in the Middle East to steal the oil and gas. Their thinking is simple: better us having the oil and gas then them, 'them' being the Iragis, or any Muslims or Arabs for that matters. But the people from the Middle East are not so stupid. They know India, Russia, European nations and China are willing to pay for their resources. So now what situation do we have here? We have Americans who want to steal the oil and gas and treat the people of the Middle East like dirt, "non human beings', and we have the people from India, Russia, European nations and China willing to pay the price and to agree that the people from the Middle East have human rights. They are 'persons' just like we are.

What we have here are the ingredients needed for World War III.

Simple as that! Nothing less!

The current war and occupation of Iraq were undertaken in disregard of the most fundamental principles of Global Law and with obvious contempt for truth, posterity, and the morality which should guide all human actions. The result has been the occupation and colonization of Iraq and the destruction of its economy and increased violence and insecurity for the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population. The world cannot sit by passively and watch the continued deterioration of the future of our planet and of its global communities.

President Bush has been elected for a second term as President of the worst polluters on the planet, and of a predator nation. During his campaign he has used religion, his religion, and its membership or supporters, to elect him. Ever since 9/11 the Global Community has fought his policies at home and abroad, and how his daily lies have changed the American people to follow his lead. The use of the military has been abused to the detriment of human and Earth rights.

Military intervention in the affairs of other nations is wrong.

We, Global Citizens, therefore affirm the following conclusions and recommendations:

1.     That the US and its coalition partners immediately cease all violations of the civil, political and human rights of the people of Iraq;

2.     That the military occupation of Iraq be immediately ended;

3.     That all parties guilty of war crimes against the Iraqi people be brought to justice under Global Law; the Earth Court of Justice will prosecute the offenders;

4.     That reparations be paid by all responsible parties to the people of Iraq for the damages caused by both the war and the occupation; the amount to be paid should be no less than 8 trillion US dollars coming from the governments involved, and not from the resources of Iraq;

5.     That we work to strengthen the mobilization of the global antiwar movement;

6.     That the occupation of Palestine, Afghanistan and all other colonized areas is illegal and should be brought to an end immediately;

7.     That the military be used for the protection of the global-life support systems.

8.     That tax money not be used on the military, instead, tax money be used to prepare for the future: research and development on new ways to replace oil and gas, and plastics; alternative energy technologies be used now; the development of new technologies and conservation strategies is essential both to reduce pollution and to make the most of the Earth's resources.

9.     That our commitment to the Kyoto Protocol be made a real commitment, with real tangible, meaningful actions. Status quo is not an option! It was never an option. Those who dont do anything about the global warming of the planet are criminals. Those who dont help protecting the global life-support systems are criminals of the worst kind, they are 'terrorists' threatening all life on the planet.



Back to top of page










 

A recent investigation by the GCAC has found that Americans are by far the worst polluters on the planet

Article by Germain Dufour

What is climate change?

It refers to changes in the Earth’s climate as a whole.
It refers to changes in the average temperature, precipitation and wind patterns that a given region is experiencing. A standard climate model takes into account factors such as:

1.     The variation in the radiation balance of the Earth;
2.     Greenhouse gas concentrations;
3.     The hydrological cycle of precipitation;
4.     The melting of glaciers and the Greenland ice cap;
5.     Deforestation;
6.     Land use conversion;
7.     The ice and snow fields;
8.     Contamination of the atmosphere;
9.     Absorption of heat by the oceans;
10.     Changes in the ecosystems of the Earth and in biodiversity;
11.     Urban growth;
12.     Volcanic activities; and
13.     Photosynthesis in terrestrial and ocean systems.

The warming of the atmosphere over recent decades has been uneven. It is greater over mid-latitudes (40 - 70 degrees N). Antarctica has warmed at more than twice the global rate in the last 50 years, causing several of its ice shelves to disintegrate.
What has caused the climate to change?

1.     Natural factors such as the solar radiation variability and volcanic activities.
2.     Human activities such as deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions.

Over time these factors affected the Earth’s climate in different ways. This is best represented by the global warming time scale.

In this paper we are concerned about today, our future, and what we should do to adapt to changes caused by the Earth’s climate changing rapidly with time.

The concentrations of several greenhouse gases have increased over time due to human activities, such as:

*     burning of fossil fuels and deforestation leading to higher carbon dioxide concentrations,
*     cattle farming and pipeline losses leading to higher methane concentrations,
*     the use of CFCs in refrigeration and fire suppression systems.

The Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC) has shown that these greenhouse gas emissions worldwide are the cause of the global warming of the planet, and the global average temperature change.

The GCAC has shown that as the CO2 concentrations increase so does the global average temperature.

There are plenty of physical observations of the change in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. The melting of glaciers, warming of the permafrost, and native observations over time have been well known and discussed.

Greenhouse gases are responsible for changes in global climate.

When we drive our cars, and light, heat, and cool our homes, we generate greenhouse gases. And we also burn the Oxygen of the air.

Drivers affect three global life-support systems by:


*     creating the global warming of the planet
*     changing the global climate, and
*     burning the Oxygen of the atmosphere

Global warming refers to a period of increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. It is generally used to refer to the increase currently occurring, and to imply "as a result of human activity". The more neutral term climate change is used for periods of increase or decrease, or indeed change in non-temperature variables, with no particular implication of human cause. The Earth's climate system is inherently unstable and global warming can precipitate sudden climate shifts as have been discovered to have occurred within the Earth's recent past. Because climate change will likely continue in the coming decades, denying the likelihood or downplaying the relevance of past abrupt events could be costly.

The GCAC has shown that average surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8 °C over the period 1990 to 2100, and the sea level is projected to rise by 0.1 to 0.9 metres over the same period.

Global warming can trigger a sudden change (a shut down, basically) in an ocean current that warms Northern latitudes. If that happened, we'd have sudden and dramatic cooling, as this ocean "conveyor belt" that warms Northern Europe stopped. This change has happened in the past in response to dramatic climate changes. There are records of as much as 10°C temperature swings in just a few years in regions affected by this ocean current. This shut down is apparently caused by pulses of fresh water coming into the N Atlantic from melting glaciers and ice caps, and from the increased precipitation associated with the previous warming. Whether this kind of abrupt change may be on the horizon is hotly debated at present. Nevertheless, phenomena such this serve to remind us that the global climate system is probably full of surprises!

Causes of global warming are:

1.     The trapping of heat by greenhouse gases (greenhouse effect)
2.     Variation in the output of the sun (solar variation)
3.     Reflectivity of the earth's surface (see deforestation)

Some of these causes are human in origin, such as deforestation. Others are natural, such as solar variation. The greenhouse effect includes both human causes, such as the burning of fossil fuel, and natural causes, such as volcanic emissions.

Greenhouse gases are transparent to certain wavelengths of the sun's radiant energy, allowing them to penetrate deep into the atmosphere or all the way to the Earth's surface, where they are re-emitted as longer wavelength radiation, mostly in the infrared region.

Greenhouse gases and clouds prevent some of this radiation from escaping, trapping the heat near the Earth's surface where it warms the lower atmosphere. Alteration of this natural barrier of atmospheric gases can raise or lower the mean global temperature of the Earth.

Based on the position of Earth relative to the sun and characteristics of Earth's surface, the average temperature of Earth's surface should be -18°C. However, the mean temperature is closer to +15°C.

Thus without an atmosphere capable of trapping and re-radiating energy, the earth's surface would be below freezing (about - 18°C) rather than the current +15°C (59°F). Thus, Earth is warmed largely from trapping and re-radiation of heat -- infrared radiation -- by gases and particles in the atmosphere. This trapping and re-radiation of heat by gases in the atmosphere is called the "greenhouse effect."

Therefore, Earth's temperature is not simply a function of our distance from the sun, but also of gases in our atmosphere.

There is evidence that concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are related to global temperatures. Evidence is from a variety of sources and reflects relationships between gas concentrations and temperatures over a wide range of time scales. Whenever there is an increase in CO2 concentrations there is also an increase in the temperature of the air and in global precipitation.

Since monitoring began in the 50s, fossil fuels burning was found to be the major contributor of the increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and, therefore, of the increase in air temperature causing global warming of the planet. Concentrations have increased approximately 21% since 1958. The average rate of increase since 1958 has been about 0.4%/year, which is an absolute increase of about 1.5 parts per million by volume (ppmv). In year 2005, the predicted value will be 402 ppmv. CO2 persists for a long time in the atmosphere and has a residence time in the order of decades to a century.

The use of fossil fuels in transportation, industry, heating and power generation throughout the world has increased steadily over the past 40 years. This has resulted in increases in greenhouse gas emissions, shown here as carbon dioxide levels (the bars on the chart).

What is the inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas Emissions and sinks?

The Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks is a catalogue of anthropogenic, or human-generated, greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Carbon dioxide can also be sequestered (i.e., stored) in “sinks” that result from forestry and other land-use practices. Excluding all naturally occurring greenhouse gas emissions and sinks, the Inventory provides a detailed record of all emissions and sinks directly attributable to human activities. It does not address naturally occurring emissions or sinks.

Per capita, the US is still, by far, the largest polluter on the planet. In year 2005, the US was emitting 8.130 trillion kilogram of CO2 per year. Worldwide the total emissions will be 30.0 trillion kilograms of CO2. That is the US will be emitting 8.130 / 30.0 x 100% = 27.1 % of the total CO2 emissions. Now that the US is manufacturing cars in China we will see a larger increase of pollution due to the US technology being sold abroad.

New way of doing business and trade
Competition wil only be good when corporations, the business world, and every global citizen, have accepted the new way of doing business and trade, and obtained the Certified Corporate Global Community Citizenship.

Over its long past history trade has never evolved to require from the trading partners to become legally and morally responsible and accountable for their products from beginning to end. At the end the product becomes a waste and it needs to be properly dispose of. Now trade must be given a new impetus to be in line with the global concepts of the Global Community. You manufacture, produce, mine, farm or create a product, you become legally and morally responsible and accountable of your product from beginning to end (to the point where it actually becomes a waste; you are also responsible for the proper disposable of the waste). This product may be anything and everything from oil & gas, weapons, war products, to genetically engineered food products. All consumer products. All medicinal products! All pharmaceutical products!

The new way of doing business and trade implies that the US owns the technology and therefore are responsible and accountable of its use abroad, and that includes the pollution aspects.

The worst polluters on the planet
NationYear 2000
total fuel combustion
(trillion kg)
Year 2000
total fuel combustion
(Tg CO2 Eq)
Year 2000
metric ton CO2
per person per year
United States
5.645957
5645.957
22.8
Canada
0.516513
516.513
23.5
Russia
17.0
Germany
0.831759
831.759
14.0
Japan
1.159683
1159.683
10.0
China
3.4


The worst polluters on the planet in year 2005
NationYear 2005
metric ton CO2
per person per year
Year 2005
population
Year 2005
total fuel combustion
(Tg CO2 Eq)
Year 2005
total fuel combustion
(trillion kg)
United States
27.1
300,000,000
8130.0
8.1300
Canada
25.2
32,000,000
806.4
0.8064
Russia
17.0
141,553,000
2406.4
2.4064
Germany
15.0
82,560,000
1238.4
1.2384
Japan
13.0
127,914,000
1662.9
1.6629
China
3.5
1,322,173,000
4627.6
4.6276
Total
2,006,3000,000
18871.7
18.8717
Total worldwide
30.0
33% of the world population contributes to 63% of CO2 pollution


Applying this new way of doing business would make the US responsible and accountable of the CO2 pollution created by the car manufacturers in China (and in all othe nations) that use US technology and 'know how'. Carbon emissions coming from a car built in China using US technology and 'know how' are to be added to the US carbon emissions. We estimate that the emissions due to these new cars will create 0.20 trillion kg of CO2 to the atmosphere.

In year 2005
China alone:
4.6276 - 0.20 = 4.4276 trillion kg of CO2 per year
United States:
8.130 + 0.20 = 8.330 trillion kg of CO2 per year

The new way of doing business within the Global Community makes the US by far the worst polluters on the planet.

This makes a lot of sense! You raise a chicken on your land. You want to make sure that by the time your export your chicken to another country it has no disease and is not going to make people sick or kill them. Same idea with exporting technology and 'know how' such as the manufacturing of US cars in China and the pollution that goes along with it destroying the global life-support systems. It is your product and you are responsible and accountable of it. That is the new way of doing business and trade within the Global Community.

Sample of calculations

Per capita greenhouse gas emissions due to total fossil fuel combustion in the US in year 2005:
8130.0 TgCO2Eq = Gg of gas x GWP x Tg / 1000Gg = Gg of gas x 1 x Tg / 1000Gg

Gg of gas = 8130 TgCO2Eq x 1000Gg/Tg = 8130 x 103 Gg CO2 =
= 8130 x 103 Gg CO2 x 109 gm/Gg =
= 8130 x 1012 gm CO2 x 1 kg/1000 gm =
= 8.130 x 1012 kg CO2 = 8.130 trillion kg of CO2 =
= 8.130 x 1012 kg CO2 x 1 metric ton / 1000 kg =
= 8.130 x 109 metric ton CO2

Per capita CO2 emissions in the US in year 2005:
8.130 x 109 metric ton CO2 / 300,000,000 = 27.1 metric tons CO2 per person per year

Units

1 kg = 2.205 pounds = 10-3 metric tons
i inch cube = 0.016387 liter = 16.387cm3
1 pound = 0.45359 kg
1 short ton = 2000 pounds = 0.9072 metric tons
1 m3 = 103 liters = 35.3145 ft3
1 liter = 10-3 m3
1 ft3 = 0.02832 3 = 1728 inch3
1 US gallon = 3.785412 liters
1 barrel (bbl) = 0.159 m3 = 42 US gallons = 158.99 liters
1 meter = 3.28 ft = 39.37 inches
1 acre = 43560 ft2 = 0.4047 hectares = 4047 m2
1 tera (T) = 1012
1 gega (G) = 109
1 mega (M) = 106
1 peta (P) = 1015
1 Gg = 1 Gigagrams = 109 grams = 1 billion grams = 106 kg = 1000 metric tons
1 Tg = 1 Teragrams = 1000 Gg
1 QBTUs = one quadrillion Btus = 1015 Btus = one Quad Btus
Tg CO2Eq = Teragrams of CO2 equiuvalent
1 TJ = 1 Terajoule = 1012 joules = 1 trillion joules = 2.388 x 1011 calories =
= 23.58 metric tons of crude oil equivalent =
= 947.8 million Btus =
= 277,800 kilowatt-hours
motor gasoline
1 metric ton = 8.53 barrels = 1,356.16 liters

We could calculate the effect of the invasion of Iraq by Americans.

Iraqi oil production can be as much as 3.7 million barrels/day or 1.35 billion barrels/year. The US has taken away this oil from the Iraqi people to feed its own economy back home and the war industry (approximately 50 million Americans live off the war industry).

1.35 billion barrels x 123 kg/barrel = 0.246 trillion kg CO2 / year

Counting 4 years of invasion yield 0.984 trillion kg CO2 / year to be added to the US total of CO2 greenhouse gas emissions:

8.130 trillion CO2 emissions + 0.984 trillion = 9.114 trillion CO2 emissions in year 2005

This shows that the act of plundering Iraq of its resources include its gas emissions as well. Makes a lot of sense!

Iraq contains 115 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves along with 100 billion barrels in probable reserves. That will add quite a large amount of CO2 emissions due to the America alone. We should also add the carbon emissions and greenhouse effect that will be created by the burning of the Iraqi natural gas. Iraq contains 110 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of proven natural gas reserves, along with roughly 150 Tcf in probable reserves. Iraq can possibly peak to a production of 700 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year. Now if anyone has any doubt about why Americans have invaded Iraq...

We could also calculate the amount of CO2 emissions due to gasoline alone and the heat produced during the emissions; this heat also increases the temperature of air around the world and adds to the warming of the planet along with the 'greenhouse effect'.

In year 2005 there was 30 billion barrels of oil produced around the world.

1 barrel of oil = 42 US gallons of oil = 42 gal x 3.785412 liters/gal =
= 158.9873 liters = 0.1589873 m3
1 barrel of Arabian Light crude oil = 0.136 short ton = 0.123 metric ton =
= 123 kg = 0.158987 m3 = 158.99 liters
1 kg = 1/123 x 0.158987 m3 x 103 liter/m3 = 1.2926 liters
30 billion x 123 kg = 3.690 trillion kg of oil / year

The typical weight of gasoline at 72 degrees F is around 6.25 lb/gal.
30 billion barrels of oil x 42 gal/barrel x 6.25 lb/gal x 0.45359 kg/lb =
= 3.572 trillion kg of gasoline burned every year.
For normal heptane C7H16 with a molecular weight = 100.204

C7H16 + 11 O2     ---------     7CO2 + 8H2O

thus 1.000 kg of C7H16 requires 3.513 kg of O2 = 15.179 kg of air.

Calculation of the total weight of O2 used to burn all the crude oil in the world if it was converted to gasoline.

3.572 trillion kg x 3.513 kg of O2 = 12.5 trillion kg of O2 burned / year.

Expressing this result in liters:

12.5 trillion kg x 1.293 liter/kg = 16.16 trillion liters of O2 burned / year
16.16 trillion liters x 10-3 m3 /liter = 0.01616 trillion m3O2 burned / year
Heat given up by gasoline:
3.572 trillion kg of gasoline x 43 megajoule/kg =
153.6 trillion megajoules per year = 153.6 x 1012 x 106 joules/year
= 153.6 x 106 Tj/year = 153.6 x 106 x 947.8 million Btus
= 153.6 x 947.8 x 1012 Btus = 145,582 x 1012 Btus
= 145,582 TeraBtus = 145.582 PetaBtus = 145.582 PBtus
= 153.6 x 106 x 277,800 kilowatt-hours = 42.67 Tera kilowatt-hours

These are different ways to express the heat released to the atmosphere by the combustion of gasoline alone. Thus the heating of our atmosphere is not a fake of our imagination. Other calculations such as the greenhouse effect due to CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas keeping the infrared radiation from escaping into space can be found on the website of the Global Community.

Now there are many other ways we have discovered to choke the air we breathe. Automobile exhausts, coal-burning power plant, factory smokestacks, and other waste vents of the industrial age now pump seven billion metric tons of CO2 greenhouse gases into the Earth’s atmosphere each year from fossil fuel combustion. Combustion of fossil fuels destroys the O2 of our air. For each 100 atoms of fossil-fuel carbon burned, about 140 molecules of O2 are consumed. Other factors put our Oxygen supply at risk.

Losses of biomass through deforestation and the cutting down of tropical forests put our supply of oxygen (O2 ) gas at risk. The Earth's forests did not use to play a dominant role in maintaining O2 reserves because they consume just as much of this gas as they produce. Today forests are being destroy at an astronomical rate. No O2 is created after a forest is put down, and more CO2 is produced in the process. In the tropics, ants, termites, bacteria, and fungi eat nearly the entire photosynthetic O2 product. Only a tiny fraction of the organic matter they produce accumulates in swamps and soils or is carried down the rivers for burial on the sea floor. The O2 content of our atmosphere is slowly declining. The content of the atmosphere decreased at an average annual rate of 2 parts per million. The atmosphere contains 210,000 parts per million.

In the Earth's Atmosphere, the volume % of O2 in dry air is 20.98, in order words the abundance percent by volume is 20.98%, or again the abundance parts per million by volume is 209,800. The weight % of O2 at surface level is 23.139%. We are concerned here with the troposphere. We can calculate the volume of the troposphere. The equatorial diameter of the Earth is 12,756.3 km, the radius is therefore 6378.15 km. The troposphere is the atmospheric layer closest to the planet and contains the largest percentage of the mass of the total atmosphere. It is characterized by the density of its air and an average temperature decrease with height. The troposphere starts at the Earth's surface extending at most 16 km high. The troposphere is this part of the atmosphere that is the most dense and which contains approximately 80% of the total air mass. As you climb higher in this layer, the temperature drops from about 17 to -52 degrees Celsius. The air pressure at the top of the troposphere is only 10% of that at sea level (0.1 atmospheres). The density of air at sea level is about 1.2 kilograms per cubic meter. This density decreases at higher altitudes at approximately the same rate that pressure decreases (but not quite as fast). The total mass of the atmosphere is about 5.1 × 1018 kg, a tiny fraction of the earth's total mass.

Volume of the Earth. 4 x ¶(6378.15)3 /3 = 10.8687 x 1020 m3
Radius from the centre of the Earth to the top of the troposphere:
= 6378.15 + 16 = 6394.15 km
Volume to the top of the troposphere.
4 x ¶(6394.15)3 /3 = 10.9506 x 1020 m3
Volume of the troposphere.
[10.9506 - 10.8687 ] x1020 m3 = 8.14 x 1018 m3 Total mass of the troposphere.
Assuming the density of the air is constant throughout the volume (the density is not constant as it decreases rapidly with height; it is 1.225 kg/m3 on the Earth’s surface and 0.1654 kg/m3 at the top of the troposphere, 16 km):

[1.225 kg/m3 ] x 8.14 x 1018 m3 = 9.97 x1018 kg of air in the atmosphere
[0.1654 kg/m3 ] x 8.14 x 1018 m3 = 1.346 x1018 kg
Take an average: [9.97 - 1.346 ] x1018 kg / 2 = 4.31 x1018 kg of air.
The mass of the O2 is found knowing that the weight % of O2 at surface level is 23.139% (but there again this value can hardly be used for the entire volume as the weight % changes with height).

[4.31 x1018 kg] x 23.139/100 = 1.0 x1018 kg O2
Mass of O2 in the troposphere = 1.0 x1018 kg

Now it was obtained above here that there are 12.5 trillion kg of O2 burned / year. Assuming that the combustion of gasoline could go on forever, the number of years before we run out of O2 can be calculated.

[1.0 x1018 kg] / 12.5 x 1012 kg/year = 80,000 years

If the combustion rate of 5 billion gallons of gasoline per year was to go on forever, it would take 80,000 years before we run out of O2. Of course, this value should be corrected to include all other forms where O2 is lost or burned.

These calculations are obviously not right as they do not take into account several factors that change with height. More importantly, these calculations do not reflect the impact of the combustion CO2 on the atmosphere and impact on the climate. Certainly the losses of biomass through deforestation and the cutting down of tropical forests should be included. A rough estimate is more in the range of one thousand years at the most. Even one thousand years is wrong as life on Earth will hardly survive the kind of climate change humanity has already started with the burning of O2 and deforestation. It is wrong because the burning of fossil fuels(same thing as saying the burning of O2 to produce CO2) is creating a global warming of the planet which in turn forces the climate to change. The climate change has already started and is likely to be tough on us and all life from now on.

In any way the total estimated resources of oil, coal, and natural gas will run out in less than a hundred years. We will run out of fossil fuels in about 60 years down the road. The following figure expresses the abundance of Oxygen in the air over time.

A bad situation occurs when several cities close to one another have no forests West of them to photosynthesize the Oxygen people need. The air will not have the time to replenish itself quickly enough and air mixing will not be happening fast enough. People gradually become ill and die of a lack of Oxygen.

Despite its small concentration, CO2 is a very important component of Earth's atmosphere, because it traps infrared radiation and enhances the greenhouse effect of water vapor, thus keeping the Earth from cooling down. The initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity; this was necessary for a warm and stable climate conducive to life. Volcanic activity now releases about 145-255 million tons of carbon dioxide each year. Volcanic releases are about 1% the amount which is released by human activities. Atmospheric CO2 has increased about 30 percent since the early 1800s, with an estimated increase of 17 percent since 1958 (burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased man-made CO2 , deforestation the second major cause).

Global warming findings predict that increased amounts of CO2 tend to increase the greenhouse effect and thus cause a man-made global warming. The widespread opinion that there is currently a warming phase and that the increased carbon dioxide amounts are a major contributor to it has led to widespread support for international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol which aim to regulate the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Various scenarios of future emissions due to human activities predict that increased atmospheric concentrations equivalent to a doubling of CO2 by 2100 is unavoidable, and a tripling or greater by that time is a distinct possibility.

The magnitude of the natural greenhouse effect can be determined by observations of the atmosphere's radiation balance and surface temperatures, and is currently estimated to warm the planetary surface by about 33°C. Both the atmospheric concentrations and current anthropogenic emissions of other greenhouse gases are orders of magnitude smaller than that of carbon dioxide. However, per unit of emission, these gases have a much larger climatic effect than carbon dioxide. Each kg of CFCs and fully fluorinated compound emitted today, for example, can have an accumulated global warming potential (GWP) over the next century many thousands times greater than that of a kg of CO2. To-date, global increases in concentrations of methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, CFCs and other minor gases have added about 70% to the climatic effects of CO2 increases alone. Continued emissions of these gases in the future will significantly advance the timing of climate forcing equivalent to a doubling of CO2, perhaps before 2050.

In addition to CO2, there are other trace greenhouse gases that are causing the greenhouse effect. These other greenhouses gases (not including CO2 and water vapour) contribute collectively about the same amount of warming as does CO2! Recently, the concentration of many of them has been increasing as rapidly or more rapidly than that of CO2 (which has been increasing at about 0.4%/yr).

Methane (CH4) is another very important greenhouse gas. While it is present in lower concentrations in the atmosphere than CO2(about 1.7 ppmv vs about 402 ppmv for CO2), it is very effective at causing warming because it absorbs radiation of a different wavelength than CO2.

Mole for mole, methane is about 25 - 30 times more effective at causing warming than is CO2. Methane currently contributes about 1/4 the warming effect that CO2 does. About 80% of atmospheric methane has originated from biological sources.

Methane is produced by:

*     rice paddies
*     anaerobic bacterial fermentation where oxygen is scarce, as in swamps and landfills (smelly)
*     intestinal tracts of cattle and termites
*     bacterial action following the melting of permafrost
*     extraction and use of fossil fuels

The largest single source is wetlands; followed by mining, processing and use of coal; extraction and use of oil and natural gas; "enteric fermentation" (mainly cattle); and rice paddies.

Increases in methane are also related to production and use of fossil fuels. About 20% of total global methane emissions are related to fossil fuel production and use. It leaks from oil and gas exploration, recovery, and distribution (about 90% of natural gas is CH4), and it is also released in coal mining. Methane is formed as plant material turns into coal, and some of it is retained in the coal and nearby rock and then released when the coal is mined.

Methane has direct warming effects on its own, and it also contributes to the production of CO2, ozone, and water vapor in the atmosphere, which contribute about as much warming as the methane itself. Methane has approximately a 12 year atmospheric residence time, which is shorter than that of CO2 (which is about 100 years) or halocarbons, which are also about 100 years.

Halocarbons (chlorofluorocarbons and HCFC's) are also trace greenhouse gases. Many are involved in more than one environmental problem (for example, tropospheric ozone causes problems in its own right and also contributes to excess warming; CFC's deplete stratospheric ozone and also contribute to warming). Climate change models must take all greenhouse gases into account. The only source of these compounds is anthropogenic, as they are not naturally occurring. They are synthetic chemicals. They are halogenated carbon compounds, such as CFC11 (CFC13 or Freon) They all contain carbon and halogens, such as Cl (chlorine), F (fluorine), or Br (bromine), and, in the case of the HCFC's, they also contain H (hydrogen). They are (or were until recently, in some cases) used in refrigeration, aerosols, for puffing foams, as solvents for cleaning in the electronics industry, and in automobile air conditioners.

An HCFC known as R-22 has been the refrigerant of choice for residential heat pump and air-conditioning systems for more than four decades. Unfortunately for the environment, releases of R-22 that result from system leaks contribute to ozone depletion. In addition, the manufacture of R-22 results in a by-product that contributes significantly to global warming.

Under the terms of the Montreal Protocol, participants agreed to meet certain obligations by specific dates that will affect the residential heat pump and air-conditioning industry:

January 1, 2004:
In accordance with the terms of the Montreal Protocol, the amount of all HCFCs that can be produced nationwide must be reduced by 35% by 2004. In order to achieve this goal, participants such as the U.S. are ceasing production of HCFC-141b, the most ozone-damagingof this class of chemicals, on January 1, 2003. This production ban will greatly reduce nationwide use of HCFCs as a group, making it likely that the 2004 deadline will have a minimal effect on R-22 supplies.

January 1, 2010:
After 2010, chemical manufacturers may still produce R-22 to service existing equipment, but not for use in new equipment. As a result, heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) system manufacturers will only be able to use pre-existing supplies of R-22 to produce new air conditioners and heat pumps. These existing supplies would include R-22 recovered from existing equipment and recycled.

January 1, 2020:
Use of existing refrigerant, including refrigerant that has been recovered and recycled, will be allowed beyond 2020 to service existing systems, but chemical manufacturers will no longer be able to produce R-22 to service existing air conditioners and heat pumps.

Of course it is impossible for any government to enforce the above schedule of events. A lot more R-22 will be produced by people who have no sense of reality and no understanding of the problem they are causing. If they did understand and keep making R-22, they are very bad people and should be taken to the Earth Court of Justice. Unfortunately for them, their crime is against the global life-support systems and, therefore, is considered to be the worst crime on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights. They will face the worst punishment.

In addition to their effects on stratospheric ozone, these are important greenhouse gases. They are tremendously effective at producing warming because, even though they are present in low concentrations in the atmosphere, they absorb heat radiation of different wavelength than CO2. Mole for mole, Halocarbons are 12,000 - 15,000 times more effective at causing global warming than is CO2. Their concentrations in the atmosphere have been monitored since the late 1970's and they increased steadily and rapidly over most of that time at rates of 3-5% per year. Both production and emissions fell precipitously from 1989 on, as result of international treaties intended to halt destruction of stratospheric ozone, and now their concentrations in the atmosphere are actually beginning to decline as well. Because these compounds are very long-lived (atmospheric residence times on the order of 75 - 120 years), the decline in atmospheric concentrations lagged greatly behind the decline in emissions.

Replacements for CFC's (largely hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC's) and hydrofluorocarbons – (HFC's)) are also greenhouse gases, but are expected to make a relatively small contribution to the global warming potential contributed by other greenhouse gases. Current models predict that warming due to all halocarbons (CHC's , halons, and their replacements) will be at most 4-10% of the total expected greenhouse warming by 2100.

Despite its small concentration, CO2 is a very important component of Earth's atmosphere, because it traps infrared radiation and enhances the greenhouse effect of water vapor, thus keeping the Earth from cooling down. The initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity; this was necessary for a warm and stable climate conducive to life. Volcanic activity now releases about 145-255 million tons of carbon dioxide each year. Volcanic releases are about 1% the amount which is released by human activities. Atmospheric CO2 has increased about 30 percent since the early 1800s, with an estimated increase of 17 percent since 1958 (burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased man-made CO2 , deforestation the second major cause).

Global warming findings predict that increased amounts of CO2 tend to increase the greenhouse effect and thus cause a man-made global warming. The widespread opinion that there is currently a warming phase and that the increased carbon dioxide amounts are a major contributor to it has led to widespread support for international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol which aim to regulate the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Various scenarios of future emissions due to human activities predict that increased atmospheric concentrations equivalent to a doubling of CO2 by 2100 is unavoidable, and a tripling or greater by that time is a distinct possibility.

The magnitude of the natural greenhouse effect can be determined by observations of the atmosphere's radiation balance and surface temperatures. Both the atmospheric concentrations and current anthropogenic emissions of other greenhouse gases are orders of magnitude smaller than that of carbon dioxide. However, per unit of emission, these gases have a much larger climatic effect than carbon dioxide. Each kg of CFCs and fully fluorinated compound emitted today, for example, can have an accumulated global warming potential (GWP) over the next century many thousands times greater than that of a kg of CO2. Global increases in concentrations of methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, CFCs and other minor gases have added about 70% to the climatic effects of CO2 increases alone. Continued emissions of these gases in the future will significantly advance the timing of climate forcing equivalent to a doubling of CO2, perhaps before 2050.

Oceans add considerable inertia to the climate system, slowing it down, and hence increase the time it takes the system to respond to change. Responsive change in ocean circulation patterns, such as the thermohaline circulation system that controls the behaviour of the Atlantic Gulf Stream, can also significantly modify the primary changes in atmospheric circulation.

Greenland ice cores and ocean sediments confirm that such modifications can have dramatic effects on regional climates, effects that may occur within the space of decades, and can last for centuries. Hence oceans add an additional major element of irreversibility, on human time scales, to global climate change. The Earth's oceans dissolve a major amount of carbon dioxide. The resulting carbonate anions bind to cations present in sea water such as Ca2+ and Mg2+ to form deposits of limestone and dolomite. Most carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually undergoes this fate.

Oceans represent a major sink for carbon. Oceans take CO2 up through chemical and biological means. Chemically, ocean waters absorb CO2 by the formation of carbonic acid:

CO2 + H2O     =========    H2CO3

The double-headed arrow on this equation indicates that this is an equilibrium reaction. Hence, as CO2 in the atmosphere increases, more is taken up by the oceans, "pushing" the reaction towards formation of H2CO3 (carbonic acid). Cold water holds more CO2 in solution than warm water. This cold, CO2-rich water is then pumped down by vertical mixing to lower depths.

Oceans also take up CO2 biologically, largely through photosynthesis of plankton and other algae. This "fixed" carbon is eventually removed from the water by biochemical processes (for example, the algae are eaten by shell fish, which die and sink to the ocean floor, eventually forming carbonates and entering the long term geochemical cycle.

Oceans hold 50-60 time more carbon in various forms than does the atmosphere, which holds it mostly as CO2. The ratio is about 50 molecules of CO2 in the ocean for every one in the atmosphere. Some parts of the ocean are major sinks; such as the North Atlantic during the spring plankton bloom (population explosion). On the other hand, some areas of the oceans are net sources, such as the equatorial Pacific. On balance, however, oceans are net sinks for carbon.

Temperature increases may have caused CO2 concentrations to increase. This is because of effects of temperature increases on biological processes and changes in ocean circulation (or vice versa).

The oceans are currently taking up more carbon than they are releasing, but we don't know how rapidly they can take it up in response to increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration. There is much uncertainty in estimates of what fraction of extra CO2 emissions the oceans are really taking up.

Oceans were estimated to be taking up about half of the excess CO2 put into the atmosphere by human activities.

That is:

14.4 trillion kg of CO2/year input to the atmosphere from ALC + fossil fuel burning, and

8.6 trillion kg of CO2/year as net ocean net uptake
(ALC = anthropogenic land conversion)

In year 2005, fossil fuel burning and land conversion contributed to CO2 emissions and the oceans were estimated to be taking up about 38% of the human-influenced flux into the atmosphere.

Estimates put the net input to the atmosphere at 30 trillion kg of CO2 (from ALC and fossil fuel burning). Of that, about half (14.4 trillion kg) are estimated to stay in the atmosphere, with a net influx into the oceans of 8.6 trillion kg. (Net influx means ocean uptake in excess of its giving off of CO2 back to the atmosphere).

Notice anything wrong here? 30 trillion kg into the atmosphere and only a total of 23 trillion kg accounted for! The remaining 7 trillion kg represents the "missing carbon mystery!" If 40-50% of the carbon emissions stay in the atmosphere and 15-30 % go into the oceans, what happens to the remaining 20 - 35%?


There are several ways the oceans can take CO2. Mixing and the biological pump are two of them. For now let us focus on how CO2 is taken by the terrestrial system. through the biological carbon cycle.

Historically, CO2 taken up in the biological carbon cycle was approximately equal to the CO2 released. The global production of carbon fixed by plants was then equal to the global ecosystem respiration that comprised respiration by plants plus respiration by all other living things on land. On a global basis, there was no net flux of carbon to or from the atmosphere, and there was not net change in carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems (globally). Unfortunately, human activities have recently been converting forested landscapes to grazed, cultivated, or urban landscapes.

The biological carbon cycle on Earth was then balanced.

No net gain or loss of CO2, and the biomass of the Earth was constant.

However, during the carboniferous era, a net increase in biomass (carbon storage). Much of the biomass became our fossil fuels.

Today there is a net loss of biomass through:

a)     deforestation and land use conversion
b)     worldwide burning of fossil fuels

Photosynthesis, is the process by which green plants and certain other organisms use the energy of light to convert carbon dioxide and water into the simple sugar glucose. In so doing, photosynthesis provides the basic energy source for virtually all organisms. An extremely important byproduct of photosynthesis is Oxygen, on which most organisms depend.

Photosynthesis occurs in green plants, seaweeds, algae, and certain bacteria. These organisms are veritable sugar factories, producing millions of new glucose molecules per second. Plants use much of this glucose, a carbohydrate, as an energy source to build leaves, flowers, fruits, and seeds. They also convert glucose to cellulose, the structural material used in their cell walls. Most plants produce more glucose than they use, however, and they store it in the form of starch and other carbohydrates in roots, stems, and leaves. The plants can then draw on these reserves for extra energy or building materials.

Virtually all life on earth, directly or indirectly, depends on photosynthesis as a source of food, energy, and Oxygen, making it one of the most important biochemical processes known. It is a part of the global life-support systems and is a right that needs protecting at all costs. The right and responsibility that human beings have in protecting photosynthesis has the highest importance on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights.

Forests contribute to absorbing carbon dioxide and act as CO2 sinks. Conversely, deforestation largely in tropical countries is a source of CO2 to the atmosphere. CO2 releases from deforestation are about 1/6 of sources from fossil fuel combustion. Not all the CO2 is absorbed by the atmosphere; part of the CO2 is absorbed by oceans, and part by forests through the process of photosynthesis.

Water vapour and clouds are some the most important atmospheric constituents of climatic significance that cause about two-thirds of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect. Changes in the concentrations of water vapour has major influences on the radiative fluxes of both incoming sunlight and outgoing heat radiation. Such changes are largely controlled by the response of the hydrological cycle to other forces upon the thermal properties of the climate system, and hence are not primary causes for change. Indeed, the most significant atmospheric components that can be changed by both natural and human influences external to the climate system are other greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide and methane, and aerosols.

Many studies have been made on the change of the Earth’s climate. The above discussion has been useful in understanding the fundamentals of the models of climate change. Now is time to look at results obtained so far.

There are important findings obtained from research done so far:

*     a doubling of CO2 will affect the average surface temperatures to be between 2.0 and 5.5°C;

*     the rate of average global warming due to increasing greenhouse concentrations is in the range of 0.5 to 1.0°C per decade;

*     both the oceans and land surfaces will warm up, land areas warm more than oceans; greatest warming being in high northern latitudes in winter;

*     in winter, higher latitudes will see more precipitation and soil moisture;

*     in response to melting land ice and increasing ocean temperatures, global sea levels are expected to rise about 3 to 10 cm/decade;

*     terrestrial and ocean ecosystems will experience increasing stress; many species will not be able to adapt fast enough to change done by global warming; changes in ocean temperatures and circulation patterns will alter fish habitats, causing collapse of some species and migration of others;

*     land use conversion (deforestation and others) and increased forest fires in stressed ecosystems and the gradual decay of Arctic permafrost will cause large increases in greenhouse gas emissions from natural ecosystems; these factors will accelerate further the global warming;

*     changes in global precipitation will cause droughts and increased aridity in some agricultural regions, wetter conditions and increased flooding in others; distribution of global food supply will be affected and developing nations will find more difficult to produce or obtain food;

*     as ocean surfaces warm up, frequency and severity of extreme regional weather systems will be more frequent and cause intense rainfall, droughts and heat spells, severe storms, including hurricanes, especially in mid-latitude regions; and

*     climate sensitive diseases will follow the warming.

A consequence of a warmer climate is a rise in global mean sea-level. Several countries will be more susceptible to inundations. We will see hundreds of millions of environmental refugees searching for land.The mid-latitude wheat belts of the planet will dry; forest fires will wipe out most of the forests; world food markets will have to adjust to help a starving population. Tourism and wildlife in the tropics will be seriously affected by a temperature that is just too hot.Tropical diseases will cause epidemics. Sub-Arctic communities will disappear because of the melting of the permafrost.

Major changes in evaporation and precipitation patterns will not adjust quickly enough to supply the population with water it needs to survive; agriculture will become a dying industry either because of too much water or not enough of it. In addition to an increase in ambient temperatures, the other possible consequences of global warming include a speeding of the global water cycle. It is predicted that faster evaporation caused by higher temperatures would lead to drying of soils, exacerbating drought in some areas while increasing precipitation and flooding in others.

Warmer temperatures could melt polar ice caps, leading to what some predict as a rise in sea levels of between 20 to 100 centimeters this century. Sea levels could rise by an average of 5 cm per decade. This, in turn, would endanger coastal populations and island nations and cause the degradation of coastal ecosystems. Low-lying and coastal areas face the risks associated with rising sea levels. Increasing temperatures will cause oceans to expand and will melt glaciers and ice cover over land - increasing the volume of water in the world’s oceans.

If these predictions prove true, human health will be affected directly as warmer temperatures increase the chances of heat waves, exacerbate air quality problems and lead to an increase in both allergic disorders and warm weather diseases. Agriculture, forests, natural ecosystems and vegetation patterns would also be adversely affected by both increases in temperatures and changes in the water cycle.

Human activities have recently been converting forested landscapes to grazed, cultivated, or urban landscapes. The impacts of such activities have been to:

(1)     Remove a large sink for atmospheric carbon (because forests take up and store larger amounts of carbon than do other terrestrial ecosystems). Tropical and temperate rainforests have been subjected to heavy logging during the 20th century, and the area covered by rainforest around the world is shrinking rapidly. Estimates range from 1 1/2 acres to 2 acres of rainforest disappear each second. Rainforests used to cover 14% of the Earth's surface. This percentage is now down to 6% and it is estimated that the remaining rainforests could disappear within 40 years at this present rate of logging. Further estimates suggest that large numbers of species are being driven extinct, possibly 50,000 species a year due to the removal of their habitat. The largest rainforests can be found today in the Amazon basin (the Amazon Rainforest), the inner parts of Democratic Republic of Congo and on Borneo.

(2)     Add a large source for atmospheric carbon (when the trees decay or are burned, releasing carbon). About 80% of the wood removed during tropical deforestation is destroyed (burned or decayed) or used as fuel wood, so the carbon stored in it is released rapidly as CO2, as opposed to the delayed slow release that occurs when used for lumber.

A mature forest stores a large amount of carbon. When cut, it is often replaced by an ecosystem that stores less carbon, resulting from this land conversion. It was estimated that the net input of CO2 to the atmosphere from ALC (ALC = anthropogenic land conversion) was about 1/4 as much as from fossil fuel burning (1.3 billion metric tons of carbon per year compared to 5 billion metric tons of carbon per year from fossil fuel combustion). Most of this increased flux now comes from tropical Africa and Asia, but until about 1920, North America actually provided the largest ALC flux to the atmosphere.

There is much uncertainty concerning the magnitude of fluxes associated with tropical deforestation, and whether it does in fact represent a net flux. The current range of estimates for fluxes from tropical deforestation is from 1.1 - 3.6 billion metric tons of C/year, which would be between 20-65% as much as from fossil fuel emissions. Quite a huge spread in estimates! Most estimates agree that between 1/5 -1/3 of the increased flux of CO2 to the atmosphere results from deforestation.

Deforestation is the removal of trees, often as a result of human activities. It is often cited as one of the major causes of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Trees remove carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere during the process of photosynthesis. Both the rotting and burning of wood releases this stored carbon carbon dioxide back in to the atmosphere.

A rainforest is a biome, a forested area where the annual rainfall is high. Some mention 1000 mm of rain each year as a limit of what is a rainforest, but that definition is far from complete. Rainforests are primarily found in tropical climates, although there are a few examples of rainforests in temperate regions as well. As well as prodigious rainfall, many rainforests are characterized by a high number of resident species, and a great biodiversity. It is also estimated that rainforests provide up to 40% of the oxygen currently found in the atmosphere.

Forests store large amounts of CO2, buffering the CO2 in the atmosphere. The carbon retained in the Amazon basin is equivalent to at least 20% of the entire atmospheric CO2. Destruction of the forests would release about four fifths of the CO2 to the atmosphere. Half of the CO2 would dissolve in the oceans but the other half would be added to the 16% increase already observed this century, accelerating world temperature increases. Another impact of tropical rainforest destruction would be to reduce the natural production of nitrous oxide (NO). Tropical forests and their soils produce up to one half of the world's NO which helps to destroy stratospheric ozone. Any increase in stratospheric ozone would warm the stratosphere but lower global surface temperatures.

Dense tropical forests also have a great effect on the hydrological cycle through evapotranspiration and the reduction of surface runoff. With dense foliage, about a third of the rain falling on the forest never reached the ground, being re-evaporated off the leaves.

Locally, deforestation results in:

a decrease in:
# evapotranspiration, # atmospheric humidity, # local rainfall, # effective soil depth, # water table height, # surface roughness (and so atmospheric turbulence and heat transfer)

an increase in:
#seasonality of rainfall, # soil erosion, # soil temperatures, # surface albedo

Global warming and agriculture

The weather conditions - temperature, radiation and water - determine the carrying capacity of the biosphere to produce enough food for the human population and domesticated animals. Any short-term fluctuations of the climate can have dramatic effects on the agricultural productivity. Thus, the climate has a direct incidence on food supply.

Demographic studies indicate that world population growth is expected to slow markedly in the next century, increasing 10 billion people by 2050. Hence, in the coming years, unless population size is stabilized, agriculture will have to face an increasing challenge in feeding the growing population of the world. World population will also have to face the perspective of global climate changes.

Assessment of the impacts of global climatic changes on agriculture might help to properly anticipate and adapt farming to limit potential food shortage. Agricultural shifts are likely.

Several types of changing parameters can have an impact on agriculture:

*     a direct effect is the composition of the earth atmosphere: CO2 and Ozone.

*     some indirect effects are climate parameters resulting from climate change: temperature, insolation, rainfall, humidity

*     other indirect effects are the side effects due to the climatic changes:
increase of the sea level, changes in ocean currents, tornadoes, hurricanes, thunderstorms...

The assessment of these effects is different whether one considers annuals crops (cereals, leguminous) or herbaceous perennial cultures (fodder, meadows) or other cultures such as vine or fruit trees... The effects are also different depending on the latitude: in temperate countries, effects are found less negative or even rather beneficial, while in tropical and desertic countries they tend to be adverse. Finally, effects depend on altitude, mid and high altitude places rather benefiting from a warmer temperature. Climate change induced by increasing greenhouse gases is likely to affect crops differently from region to region.

Climate change is likely to increase agricultural land surface near the poles by reduction of frozen lands. Sea levels are expected to get up to one meter higher by 2100, though this projection is disputed. Rise in sea level should result in agricultural land loss in particular in South East Asia. Erosion, submergence of shorelines, salinity of water table, could mainly affect agriculture through inundation of low-lying lands.

Agriculture could be affected by any decrease in stratospheric ozone, which could increase biologically dangerous ultraviolet radiation. In the long run, the climatic change could affect agriculture in several ways:

*     productivity, in terms of quantity and quality;

*     agricultural practices, through changes of water use (irrigation), agricultural inputs (herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers);

*     environmental level, in particular in relation of frequency and intensity of soil drainage (leading to nitrogen leaching), soil erosion, reduction of crop diversity; and

*     rural space, through the loss of previously cultivated lands, land speculation, land renunciation, hydraulic amenities.

They are large uncertainties to uncover, particularly the lack of information on the local scale, the uncertainties on magnitude of climate change, the effects of technological changes on productivity, global food demands, and the numerous possibilities of adaptation.

Most agronomists believe that agricultural production will be mostly affected by the severity and pace of climate change, not so much by gradual trends in climate. If change is gradual, there will be enough time for biota adjustment. Rapid climate change, however, could harm agriculture in many countries, especially those that are already suffering from rather poor soil and climate conditions. The adoption of efficient new techniques (varieties, planting date, irrigation...) is far from obvious. Some believe developed nations are too well-adapted to nowadays climate. As for developing nations, there may be social or technical constraints that could prevent them from achieving sustainable production.

However, the more favourable effects on yield depend to a large extent on realization of the potentially benefiting effects of CO2 on crop growth and increase of efficiency in water use. Decrease in potential yields is likely to be caused by shortening of the growing period, decrease in water availability and poor vernalization.

Water is a major limiting factor in the growth and production of crops worldwide. In spite of better water efficiency use, higher summer temperature and lower summer rainfall is likely to have adverse impact. The intensification of the hydrological global cycle will have consequences such as more frequent drought in northern sub-tropical areas or desertification extension in arid areas. Soil degradation is more likely to occur, and soil fertility would probably be modified.

A soil constant is its carbon/nitrogen ratio. A doubling of carbon is likely to imply a higher storage of nitrogen in soils, thus providing higher fertilizing elements for plants, hence better yields. The average needs for nitrogen could decrease, and give the opportunity of changing the fertilisation strategies. The increase in precipitations would probably result in greater risks of erosion, according to the intensity of the rain. The possible evolution of the soil organic matter is a very debated point though: while the increase in the temperature would induce a greater mineralisation (hence lessen the soil organic matter content), the atmospheric CO2 concentration would tend to increase it.

Global climate change potential impact on pests, diseases and weeds

A very important point to consider is that weeds would undergo the same acceleration of cycle than cultivated crops, and would also benefit of carbonaceous fertilization. Most weeds being C3 plants, they are likely to compete even more than now against crops such as corn. However some results make it possible to think that weedkillers could gain in effectiveness with the temperature increase.

The increase in rainfall is likely to lead to an increase of atmospheric humidity and maybe to the duration of moisturing. Combined with higher temperatures, these could favor the development of fungal diseases.

Climate change has the potential to have serious effects on our health.

Regional differences in warming patterns, precipitation and extreme weather events mean that the health effects of climate change will vary according to where we live. Young children, the elderly, those in poor health, or those living in poor quality housing will be most vulnerable to stresses related to weather extremes.

More intense heat waves may cause an increase in heat-related illnesses (heat stroke and dehydration); respiratory and cardiovascular illness, physical and mental stress; and the spread of infections.

During the next 50 years, heat-related deaths will increase, particularly in large cities, unless adequate measures are taken to protect vulnerable individuals and to reduce the urban heat island effect. This effect occurs when natural vegetation is replaced by surfaces that absorb heat, such as building roofs and walls, and pavements. For example, many cities all over the world have already begun to protect vulnerable people during heat waves, and to take measures to reduce heat buildups within the city.

Air Quality

Warmer temperatures and prolonged heat waves will bring an increase in air pollution, particularly in urban and industrialized areas. Ground-level ozone, a primary ingredient of smog, results when sunlight and heat interact with pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. These pollutants are released by the burning of fossil fuels. As temperatures go up, we will have more smoggy days.

Asthma and other respiratory problems are already on the rise; warmer temperatures with increased humidity and air pollution will cause more problems. Children are especially vulnerable to air pollution because of their smaller size, the fact that their lungs are still developing, and because they spend more time being active outdoors than adults. Hotter, more humid weather could pose special health risks for children who already suffer from asthma. Changes in wind and weather patterns can also change the amount of fungi and moulds in the air, affecting people with allergies.

Infectious diseases

Warmer temperatures could increase the range of some parasites and disease transmitted by birds, insects and ticks, bringing new infectious diseases to communities they would not otherwise reach. The recent extremely rapid and unexpected spread of West Nile virus across the US and Canada can in part be attributed to a warmer climate. Climate change might also favour the northward spread of mosquitoes capable of transmitting dengue fever, yellow fever, and malaria.

A warmer climate may bring about changes to habitats that will allow rodents to move into new areas. Some rodents can transmit illnesses, such as hantavirus, to humans through their feces or urine.

Extreme climate events will affect the quality and quantity of our water. Lower flows of water in lakes and rivers caused by heat waves and droughts can lead to poor water quality and to an increase in waterborne diseases. Surface water is also often contaminated during heavy storms and floods by storm sewer overflows, and agricultural & urban runoffs.

Hot weather can cause microorganisms to grow and cause outbreaks at recreational beaches and in shellfish. It also increases the chances of food poisoning outbreaks.

Northern Peoples

The livelihood of many Aboriginal and northern residents comes from the land, water and natural resources, and will be compromised as ecosystems and wildlife are affected by climate change over time. In the north, melting permafrost could put buildings, pipelines, roads and other infrastructure at risk. Winter roads to remote Aboriginal communities may no longer be available or available only for shorter periods, thereby increasing the cost of supplying these communities.

Northern Peoples are already observing impacts from climate change on their communities. There have been changes in sea ice cover affecting their hunting and fishing seasons, changes in temperature causing dehydration and heat stress, and changes in wildlife causing food-borne contamination and altering their traditional ways of life.

We can best store excess carbon by:

*     land use changes from agriculture to forest ecosystems; this change could remove CO2 from the atmosphere at rates of 2000 to 20,000 kg of CO2 per hectare per year for periods of 50 years;

*     soil conservation practices can help build up carbon reservoirs in forest and agricultural soils; and

*     extracting CO2 from stacks and dispose of it in liquid form in underground reservoirs or deep oceans.

Climate models suggest that the global climate will continue to change during the 21st century. This will have ongoing impacts on ecosystems and communities. While the impacts of climate change will vary, it is clear that they will be significant for all provinces and territories. Whether it is impacts on agriculture, rainfall, water quality and quantity, or wildlife, people can expect to feel the effects of climate change wherever they live. Some of these effects may even be present already.

Plants and animals

Warmer temperatures and changes in moisture levels affect plant and animal life. If these changes occur too quickly, many species may not have time to adjust.

Forests

In summer, warmer temperatures may promote increased evaporation, and loss of soil moisture. Grasslands may replace forest in areas that become too dry for trees. Higher temperatures and drier summer conditions may increase the frequency of forest fires. Forest disease and pest infestations may also increase as warmer summers place additional stress on trees, and warmer winters increase pest survival. Our forests are at risk from pests and drought. A warmer climate allows pests and diseases to migrate north.

These same forests become drier and more likely to catch fire. The mountain pine beetle — an important pest — may expand its range.

Fisheries

A warmer climate may pose problems for salmon as they migrate upriver to spawn. Salmon are sensitive to temperature; warmer water can deplete their energy reserves, and make them more vulnerable to stress, infection, and disease. Salmon migration patterns and success in spawning are likely to change.

If summer river temperatures continue to rise, fewer fish may make it successfully upriver to their spawning grounds, and some salmon populations may be at risk.

The air we breathe

A number of cities that lie within valleys that trap polluted air, airborne pollutants worsen asthma, impair lung function and can even cause death. If summers become warmer, bad air days and their related health costs will likely increase. If winters become warmer, and residents use less wood fuel for heating, air quality may improve.

Seas

Sea levels rose along most of the Pacific coast during the 20th century. Higher sea levels increase the risk of flooding in low-lying coastal areas. They may inundate wetlands, beaches, dunes, and other sensitive coastal ecosystems, and threaten Aboriginal heritage sites. They may also create drainage problems and overwhelm municipal sewage systems. Low lying agricultural lands may become too saline for cultivation. Waterfront homes, wharves, roads and port facilities may be at risk during severe storms. Sea levels are expected to rise up to 50 cm on the north Yukon coast by 2050, mainly due to warmer ocean temperatures. This could cause increased sedimentation, coastal flooding and permanent inundation of some natural ecosystems, and could place low-lying homes, docks and port facilities at risk. Sea level may rise by up to 88 centimetres along parts of the Pacific coast.

Crops

Impacts on agriculture will be seen in the response of crops, livestock, soils, weeds and insects to the warmer conditions. An estimated three- to five-week extension of the frost-free season will be of some benefit to commercial agriculture – however, it is also expected that dry soil conditions will intensify and may result in reduced yields.

Wells

The quality and quantity of drinking water might decrease as water sources are threatened by drought.

Harsh weather

Harsh weather conditions – such as droughts, winter storms, floods, heat waves and tornadoes – will be more frequent and more severe across the world.

Fisheries

Our fisheries are also at risk, as climate change affects both the populations and ranges of species sensitive to changes in water temperature, and have impacts on habitat. The Pacific marine fishery is likely to see lower sustainable salmon harvests in the south, but higher and more consistent harvests in the north. The Atlantic marine fishery is likely to suffer negative impacts resulting from complex and unpredictable changes in the water currents that shape the offshore habitats.

Lakes, rivers and glaciers

Water levels in lakes are expected to decline, potentially affecting the quality of our drinking water, our use of the lakes for transportation, recreation and fishing, and our ability to generate hydroelectric power. In addition, storm sewers and sanitary systems in some areas may not may in good working conditions and allow access to pollution.

Glaciers will keep retreating during the 21th century. Lakes and rivers now become free of ice earlier in the spring, and rivers are discharging more water earlier in the year. These trends point to lower summer flows in some streams and rivers, and less water for agriculture, hydroelectric power generation, industry and communities.

This may pose significant problems in drier regions where water is already in short supply. Be able to deal with increased precipitation, rising sea levels or storms. Some rivers may dry up during the summer and early fall. Rivers may discharges more of their total annual flow earlier in the year.

Other changes that may result from climate change include:

*     In winter, increased winter precipitation, permafrost degradation and glacier retreat due to warmer temperatures may lead to landslides in unstable mountainous regions, and put fish and wildlife habitat, roads and other man-made structures at risk. Increased precipitation will put greater stress on water and sewage systems, while glacier reduction could affect the flow of rivers and streams that depend on glacier water, with potential negative impacts on tourism, hydroelectric generation, fish habitat and lifestyles. The melting of the permafrost will bring about a large and dangerous increase in greengase emissions and, therefore, a significant increase in the global warming of the planet.

*     Spring flood damage could be more severe and existing flood protection works may no longer be adequate.

*     Summer droughts will mean decreased stream flow in those areas, putting fish survival at risk, and reducing water supplies in the dry summer season when irrigation and domestic water use is greatest.

*     Many small glaciers will disappear.

*     Average annual precipitation may increase by 10 to 20 percent.

*     Average annual temperature may increase by 1şC to 4şC.

*     More heat energy is available for plant and insect growth.

*     Water in rivers will be warmer in summer.


There are two fundamental types of response to the risks of climate change:

1.     reducing the rate and magnitudes of change through mitigating the causes, and

2.     reducing the harmful consequences through anticipatory adaptation.

Mitigating the causes of global warming implies limiting the rates and magnitudes of increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, either by reducing emissions or by increasing sinks for atmospheric CO2. We know that stabilizing emissions of greenhouse gases will not stabilize concentrations. While slowing the rate of increase in atmospheric concentrations, such actions will still likely lead to a doubled CO2-type environment within this century. Considering the residence time of various greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, a reduction of 10% in methane emissions would be required to stabilize methane concentrations, reductions in excess of 50% would be required to stabilize CO2 and N2O emissions, and virtual elimination of emissions would be needed to stabilize concentrations of very long-lived gases such as fully fluorinated compounds.

Scientists will also need to become more involved in assessing the viability of response options aimed at storing excess carbon in terrestrial or ocean systems. Land use changes from agricultural to forest ecosystems can help to remove carbon from the atmosphere at rates of 2 to 20 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year for periods of 50 years or more, until a new ecosystem equilibrium is reached. Similarly, soil conservation practices can help build up carbon reservoirs in forest and agricultural soils.

Proposals to extract CO2 from smoke stacks and dispose of it in liquid form in underground reservoirs or deep oceans also need careful evaluation in terms of long-term feedbacks, effectiveness and environmental acceptability. However, much remains to be learned about the biological and physical processes by which terrestrial and ocean systems can act as sinks and permanent reservoirs for carbon.

The Global Community has created a global ministry to help humanity be prepared to fight the harmful consequences of a global warming through anticipatory adaptation. The global ministries on climate change and emergencies have now been developed and are operating.

The global ministries have developed:

1.     policy response to the consequences of the global warming, and

2.     strategies to adapt to the consequences of the unavoidable climate change.

It is a priority for businesses to apply for one ECO, your Certified Corporate Global Community Citizenship (CCGCC), a unique way to show the world your ways of doing business are best for the Global Community. You can obtain the citizenship after accepting the Criteria of the Global Community Citizenship and following an assessment of your business. The process shown here is now standardized to all applicants. You are then asked to operate your business as per the values of the citizenship.

As a business, a government, an NGO, or a group of well-intentioned persons, you have to make economic decisions into your operations and products, and you may:

a)     be corporate shareholders in good standing
b)     be a socially responsible investor
c)     have taken the challenge of a more integrated approach to corporate responsibility by placing environmental and community-based objectives and measures onto the decision-making table alongside with the strategic business planning and operational factors that impact your bottom-line results
d)     provide not only competitive return to your shareholders but you also operate your business in light of environmental and social contributions, and you have understood the interdependence between financial performance, environmental performance and commitment to the community
e)     have taken a full life-cycle approach to integrate and balance environmental and economic decisions for major projects
f)     have an active Environmental, Health and Safety Committee and integrated codes of conduct, policies, standards and operating procedures to reflect your corporate responsibility management
g)     have scored high on categories such as:

*     environmental performance
*     product safety
*     business practices
*     commitment to the community
*     employee relations and diversity
*     corporate governance
*     share performance
*     global corporate responsibility
*     health, safety and security
*     audits and inspections
*     emergency preparedness
*     corporate global ethical values
*     standards of honesty, integrity and ethical behaviour
*     in line with the Scale of Human and Earth Rights and the Charter of Earth Community

h) support a balance and responsible approach that promotes action on the issue of climate change as well as all other issues related to the global life-support systems:
*     global warming
*     Ozone layer
*     wastes of all kind including nuclear and release of radiation
*     climate change
*     species of the fauna and flora becoming extinct
*     losses of forest cover and of biological diversity
*     the capacity for photosynthesis
*     the water cycle
*     food production systems
*     genetic resources
*     chemicals produced for human use and not found in nature and, eventually, reaching the environment with impacts on Earth's waters, soils, air, and ecology

Now is time to reach a higher level of protection to life on Earth. We all need this for the survival of our species. We can help you integrate and balance global life-support systems protection, global community participation, and economic decisions into your operations and products.

Acceptance of the Scale of Human and Earth Rights. To determine rights requires an understanding of needs and responsibilities and their importance. The Scale of Human and Earth Rights, the Global Constitution and Global Law were researched and developed by the GCEG to guide us in continuing this process. The Scale shows social values in order of importance and so will help us understand the rights and responsibilities of global communities.

Scale of Human and Earth Rights

*     Ecological rights and the protection of the global life-support systems

*     Primordial human rights

*     The ecological rights, the protection of the global life-support systems and the primordial human rights of future generations

*     Community rights, rights of direct democracy, and the right that the greatest number of people has by virtue of its number (50% plus one) and after voting representatives democratically

*     Economic rights (business and consumer rights, and their responsibilities and accountabilities) and social rights (civil and political rights)

*     Cultural rights and religious rights

The Global Community can contribute in evaluating options and strategies for adapting to climate change as it occurs, and in identifying human activities that are even now maladapted to climate. For example, identification of tree species that can grow well under current as well as projected future climates will help develop reforestation programs that are less vulnerable to both climate variability and change. Genetically improved species can be developed to replace the weakess species. Assessment of the role of agricultural subsidies and disaster relief programs in actually encouraging farmers to cultivate lands which are highly susceptible to droughts or floods can improve the adaptability of the agricultural sector. Alternatively, developing socio-economic activities that can thrive under anticipated climate changes can help realize some of the benefits of climate change. Collectively, such actions will help reduce human vulnerability to climate change, and hence raise the threshold at which such change becomes dangerous.

We need to improve on our ability to:

*     predict future anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. While demographic, technological and economic factors are in many respects inherently speculative, better observations and understanding of the processes by which human activities directly or indirectly contribute to emissions are clearly required. These in particular include emissions from deforestation and agricultural activities.
*     obtain more data on the effect of human emissions on atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Not only do we need to reduce the uncertainties about past and current sinks for emitted greenhouse gases, but we need to better understand and quantify the long term feedbacks such as CO2 fertilization and physical and biological response to climate change if we expect to improve our confidence in projections of future concentrations.
*     measure direct and indirect effects of radiative forcing of greenhouse gases and aerosols.
*     measure climate sensitivity to changes in radiative forcing.
*     measure the response to climate change of biological and physical processes with the terrestrial and ocean systems.
*     obtain an early detection of the signal of human interference with the climate system against the change caused by natural forces or internal system noise is important in fostering timely and responsible coping actions.
*     develop actions to limit emissions of greenhouse gases and prepare to adapt to climate change.
*     live with the facts that climate change is unavoidable, atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are already signficantly higher than pre-industrial levels, and that aggressive efforts to reduce their anthropogenic emission sources would only slow down the growth in their concentrations, not stop it. Therefore, policy response to this issue must also include strategies to adapt to the consequences of unavoidable climate change.

There are important results obtain from research done so far:

*     the model equilibrium responses of average surface temperatures to a doubling of CO2 consistently lies between 1.5 and 4.5°C, and clearly exclude zero change;
*     the rate of average global warming due to increasing greenhouse concentrations anticipated over the century is in the range of 0.2 to 0.5°C per decade. Inclusion of effects of increases in aerosols may reduce this by 0.1°C/decade;
*     land areas warm more than oceans, and high northern latitudes more than equatorial regions. Greatest warming is in high northern latitudes in winter.
*     precipitation and soil moisture increases in high latitudes in winter. Most models also project dryer summer soil conditions in interior continental regions of northern mid-latitudes;
*     global sea levels are expected to rise about 2 to 8 cm/decade for the next several centuries, in response to melting land ice and increasing ocean temperatures. Such rises threaten many island states and low lying coastal areas around the world with inundation. For example, a one-meter sea level rise would displace millions of people in countries such as Bangladesh, and would affect 15% of agricultural lands in Egypt.
*     margins of many terrestrial ecosystems will experience increasing stress as ambient regional climates become mismatched with those required for healthy growth of species within. While most species can migrate in response to slow climate change, paleo studies suggest than rates of change in excess of 0.1°C/decade are almost certainly too rapid to avoid disruption. Species in mountainous terrain also have absolute limits in vertical migration potential, with high elevation species threatened with extinction as climate warming eliminates their climatic ecozones. Increased vulnerability to insect and disease infestation adds to such stresses.

There are approaches to limit and regulate the pollution emissions of industrial activities. These are standards, taxes and pollution permits. The choice among these alternatives depends on the administrative structure of a nation.

In an urban community site, air usually contains materials such as nitric oxide, sulfur oxide, carbon monoxide, aldehydes, dust and many others.

A city would have a department measuring indicators and indices in order to:

a)     Provide a daily report to the public

b)     Define air pollution in terms of the amount of pollution created by polluters

c)     Define air quality in all parts of the city

d)     Measure progress toward air quality goals

e)     Propose abatement steps

f)     Alarm the public in case of danger

g)     Provide data to researchers

h)     Provide information for compliance

i)     Make intelligent decisions with regard to priorities of programs toward environmental improvement

GCEG makes the following recommendations to alleviate the effects of climate change in the world:

*     Introduction of appropriate sustainable agricultural system with balanced use of chemical fertilizers incorporated organic minerals and green manure's.

*     Phase wise replacement of chemical fertilizer by organic fertilizer. Similarly biodegradable insecticide should be replace by the non-biodegradable insecticides.

*     The entrepreneur should take proper mitigation measures of industrial pollution by set-up of industrial waste treatment plant.

*     Control of insect, pests through biological, natural process, alternatives of using harmful insecticides or fungicides is important to introduce.

*     Promotion of research activities in the field of industrial waste utilization and waste recovery process.

*     Re-utilization of agricultural residues through bio-conservation to industrial products.

*     Need proper implementation of Environmental Policy, Environment Conservation Act’s and Legislation.

*     Enhancement of the capacity of NGOs, Govt. agencies to successfully implement poverty alleviation program including non-formal education on environmental pollution awareness.

*     Immediate and honest actions by the USA, Russia, Japan and Canada, and all countries in resolving the problems creating the greenhouse gases. The ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and the implementation of measurable positive actions to resolve the problems of global warming.

*     The support of the GCEG Climate Change Ministry.

*     The support of the GCEG Global Environment Ministry.

*     The support of the GCNA Emergency, Rescue, and Relief Centre GCNA Emergency, Rescue, and Relief Centre.

GCEG has made recommendations in the following areas to reduce GHG emissions.

Government leadership – set aggressive GHG reduction targets for provincial facilities and vehicle fleets, enforce standards for major building projects;

Urban land use – use tax shifting to discourage sprawl and favour more compact, transit-oriented communities; develop a policy to promote shared energy systems; and work with municipalities to provide incentives and tools for encouraging GHG reduction targets in official community plans and regional strategies by 2007;

Transportation – implement increased funding of transit and strategic road improvements, California-style vehicle emission standards for cars, higher emission standards for light to heavy duty trucks, and incentives to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles and lower GHG fuels;

Buildings – establish phased-in energy performance standards, with a revolving fund for energy efficiency upgrades, provincial tax relief for the purchase of sustain-able products and equipment, and other supporting policies;

Electricity – adopt a GHG emission standard and offset requirement for thermal power generation that is coordinated with the federal government and builds on the province’s current energy efficiency and clean energy objectives;

Natural gas – develop an efficient and harmonized regulatory, fiscal, and land access framework to facilitate expansion of natural gas production consistent with sustainability; and tax or other incentives to reduce fugitive emissions and to promote acid gas reinjection into depleted reservoirs for disposing of CO2 emissions;

Fuel cells – prepare a strategic plan to grow world leading fuel cell cluster; make a long-term provincial commitment to the hydrogen economy; and ensure active government participation in private and public sector fuel cell demonstrations;

Forest products – establish incentives to encourage energy from biomass; targets and support for afforestation and reforestation projects; and policies to prevent deforestation (all consistent with international carbon accounting protocols); and

Aluminum (and other sectors) – negotiate voluntary binding agreements for GHG emission reduction with the aluminum smelting and other industry sectors that are harmonized with federal initiatives.





Back to top of page










 

Reweaving Trust and Cooperation in Sudan

Rene Wadlow Posted on: 5/8/2006
wadlowz@aol.com
www.transnational-perspectives.org

The years of the North-South civil war in Sudan (1983-2005) and the continuing violence in the western provinces of Darfur (2003 and continuing) have left deep scars on the people of the country. Many people have died (the estimates are of over two million); many more have been uprooted as refugees to other countries and within Sudan itself. The agricultural infrastructure —often fragile in the bet of times — has been deeply damaged. The social infrastructure of schools and medical facilities, underdeveloped even without fighting, is in need of construction.

People have also been hurt at a deep level of their personalities. Children have been inducted as child soldiers and girls as “camp followers” for sexual purposes. The rape of women has been systematic, intentional, and has been used as a weapon of war and terror. Families have been broken by war, and there are many young widows at a time when clanic structures of solidarity have been weakened or people forced to live in parts of the country new to them.

Building trust and creative forms of cooperation is a prime task — more difficult than building a school or improving a road. Traditional forms of cooperation and traditional methods of settling local disputes have proven inadequate in face of massive violence. There needs to be created long-term institutionalized mechanisms for the peaceful resolution of disputes over such common resources as water, trees for firewood, land use.

There have always been tensions among groups over such common resources, especially between pastoralists and agriculturalists over water, grazing lands, and different seasonal patterns of residence. The texture of social trust is likely to be more difficult to reweave than hoses and wells. Reconciliation and cooperation among enemies will be difficult but is necessary.

This reconciliation may be more difficult in Darfur than on a North-South basis because in Darfur groups which have been fighting each other will continue to live side by side while most of the people from the South who have been displaced to the North will return to live in the South.

Thus, planning for post-conflict reconstruction and ecologically-sound development needs to be started now drawing upon ideas and insights of a wide circles of those concerned with the ecology of dry areas such as Darfur and the social coexistence of pastoral and agricultural groups. Such peaceful social coexistence requires a program of ecologically-sound development based on mutually-beneficial economic and social relations as well as improved mechanisms for inter-tribal dispute settlement.

Post-conflict rebuilding is crucial because it is an important prerequisite for the prevention of future conflicts. Such rebuilding requires a special development approach with rapid and flexible action. An emphasis needs to be placed on mending relations and restoring trust and cooperation among people. This can be done, in part, by showing quick economic benefits from cooperation. The task of rebuilding must aim to exclude none.

These post-conflict efforts in Darfur require three steps to be carried out as soon a possible:

1) There is a need to bring together the existing research results dealing with relations between pastoralists and agriculturalists in Darfur and the wider Sahel ecological zone.

2) A special emphasis should be placed on the study of dispute settlement among pastoralists and agriculturalists to see which of these techniques are still valid and if new methods need to be developed.

3) In the light of existing research, it may be useful to have a training program for local mediators who could play a role in avoiding conflicts and in the peaceful settlement of conflicts which do arise.

Rene Wadlow is the editor of the online journal of world politics -www.transnational-perspectives.org- and the representative to the United Nations, Geneva, of the Association of World Citizens. Formerly, he was professor and Director of Research of the Graduate Institute of Development Studies, University of Geneva.

Copyright peacejournalism.com


Back to top of page




 

Darfur Peace Agreement is not Peace

The 5 May 2006 peace agreement on Darfur signed in Abuja, Nigeria between part of the largest of the insurgencies and the representatives of the Government of Sudan was welcomed by many as a step toward real peace in the troubled area of western Sudan, the size of France. However, it is much too early for peaceworkers to give up close attention to the violence and destruction in the area. In fact, some consider the peace agreement as a smoke screen behind which violence, destruction, displacement of people and rape of women will continue as before.

In a 19 May 2006 statement to the UN Security Council, Jan Egeland, Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator highlighted the continuing massive displacement, constant violence and attacks against civilians and the few humanitarian organizations struggling to provide relief to more and more displaced people. He went on to state that “In Darfur and Eastern Chad, humanitarian relief constitutes a lifeline for close to four million people. Attacking relief workers or impending their work means attacking that lifeline. If relief workers have to pull out, hundreds of thousands of lives are put to risk.” There are already some 700,000 people who are beyond the reach of the UN and NGO aid workers, just at the time that the “hunger season” – that period when even in normal times food stores have been largely used up and the new crops are not yet harvested – is coming.

There are three key issues which make the peace agreement fragile even if honestly signed:

First: The very uneven application of the “Comprehensive Peace Agreement” bringing the North-South Civil War (1983-2005) to an end leads observers to wonder about the good faith of the Sudan Government. Oil revenue from the oil fields which are on the edge of the north-south division was an important incentive to reach an agreement. Continuing north-south armed violence could have damaged the oil installations or cut the pipelines. Oil revenue provides the bulk of the foreign earnings of the Sudan. There is no similar economic incentive to reach agreement in Darfur . Funds for development in Darfur can only come from revenue of the central government which is more willing to share in theory than in practice.

Second: The insurgencies in Darfur are divided along tribal and ethnic lines – a reflection of the complexity of the ethnic, social and economic tensions of the area. There is no strong leadership such as that provided by the late John Garang for the south in the North-South conflict. The insurgencies in Darfur were brought together by a common feeling that Darfur had been neglected in terms of political posts and economic development. Many in Darfur felt that only violence could gain governmental attention. Peaceful, intellectual means had been tried by the publication in May 2000 of “The Black Book: Imbalance of Power and Wealth in Sudan”. While the book was widely read, it produced no new initiatives at sharing power or wealth.

The insurgencies of Darfur began in 2003 around two poles —the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement. The Sudan Liberation Army was largely structured on an ethnic base: the Fur which are the largest ethnic group of the area ( Darfur means the home of the Fur) and the Zaghawa and Masalit. Basically, the SLA is a Fur-Zaghawa alliance. The Fur are agriculturalists while the Zaghawa are armed nomadic herdsmen, some of whom had served in the Sudanese army. Moreover, President Idriss Deby, President of Chad is a Zaghazwa and could be helpful to his tribal brothers in Sudan. The more ideological Justice and Equality Movement is more multi-tribal drawing its strength from people who were first in favour the Islamic policy of the central Sudanese government — the National Islamic Front. When they saw that the Islamic central government was going to take no development measures for Darfur, they turned against the government while conserving an Islamic ideology.

Now the Fur-Zaghawa alliance in the SLA is coming apart. The leader who signed the peace agreement with the Government of Sudan, Minni Arcua Minnawi is a Zaghawa while the Fur leader Abdul Wahid al Nur did not sign. The two SLA factions are now fighting each other as well as attacking villages. The Justice and Equality Movement also did not sign.

The Darfur conflict is also spreading into Chad with both the Government of Sudan and the insurgencies looking for allies and influence in Chad which has just started oil production. There is a real danger that Chad collapses into civil war, chaos and banditry.

Third: The third issue is the role of peacekeeping forces in an area where there is no peace. Currently, there are some 7,000 African Union troops in Darfur, poorly led, under-equipped and with a mandate of observers who can not engage the combatants nor stop the bloodshed. It has been proposed that the African Union troops be integrated into a larger UN peacekeeping force as yet to be created. The UN Security Council on 16 May 2006 passed resolution 1679 which authorized a UN peacekeeping assessment mission. There have already been suggestions that the UN would need a force of at least 20,000 troops with adequate transportation, observation equipment and a broader mandate to protect populations.

Liberia, which is slightly less than one-quarter the size of Darfur and has a population half of Darfur’s six million, has a UN peacekeeping force of 15,000 troops in a situation that is now largely stable.

The Sudanese government has been reluctant to admit UN-led troops and now, as a measure of compromise, is willing to talk about “re-hating” the African Union troops — replacing their AU Green hats with UN blue but with no change in mandate.

The situation in Darfur is critical. We must look beyond the peace agreement to the reality on the ground.

Rene Wadlow is the editor of the online journal of world politics –www.transnational-perspectives.org – and the representative to the United Nations, Geneva, of the Association of World Citizens. Formerly, he was professor and Director of Research of the Graduate Institute of Development Studies, University of Geneva.

Copyright peaceournalism.com

Back to top of page




 

Number of Mon refugees increasing daily in Malaysia

The influx of Mon asylum seekers in Malaysia has increased since the closure of UNHCR office in Bangkok, according to Mon Refugee Centre.

Several Mons are looking for help in applying for refugee status at the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) office in Kualur Lumpur but their chances of securing the status is minimal given Malaysia’s restrictive protection environment regarding refugees, says a social worker from the Mon Refugee Center, Nai Lawee Chan.

However, Mon refugees with the help of local NGOs formed the Mon Refugee Centre, a small office to coordinate with the newly established protection network underway in Malaysia, which is to address and recognize the problem of incoming refugees, while the center is unable to secure refugee status they are able to provide advice and assistance in looking for work and medical care, as well as providing shelter, food, and clothing.

In terms of seeking protection, many Mon asylum seekers claim that the UNHCR officials have only accepted a few refugees who have medical notes from local doctors which entitles them for a further interview toward either securing temporary resident or refugee status.

A Mon youth Ong Chem Tala, who fled Burma by boat fearing arrest of local militia in An Khae, Thanbyu Zayat in Mon State, was recently recognized as a refugee after a long waiting process. Malaysian police arrested him after he held a protest in front of the Burmese Embassy and the UNHCR officials conducted an interview with him in prison.

Nai Arkar Mon, a social worker and a former member of the New Mon State Party who now stays at the MRC office added that several thousand villagers, mostly from southern Mon State, have fled their homeland to escape massive repression by the Burmese military by land and sea. Many of them chose Malaysia for a better life instead of Thailand but they are stuck there due to the still insecure situation of refugee protection.

“It is unfortunate that our Buddhist communities don’t help each other, while other Muslim and Christian groups are working tirelessly at lobbying for the non-Buddhist refugees,” says Soiha Raejae who fled from his village in northern Ye after the local authorities looked to him as a scapegoat in the murder of a village headman, Nai Mae.

Since human rights violations continue in Mon State, many have fled to Malaysia as illegal immigrants. Many work and live under miserable conditions, they have no contact with any officials and know nothing about the UNHCR. They have no idea how to apply for refugee status and they are not informed by advocacy groups like the Red Cross or Refugee International,” said, Nai Minnyan, a Mon community leader from Gorge Town, Penang.

Some Mons in Kuala Lumpur having been granted refugee status have left for third countries, yet many thousands remain hiding in Malaysia and live a hand to mouth existence sneaking out to work as illegal migrant labourers to buy food and clothing.

The UNHCR in Malaysia granted Rohingyas from Burma refugee status granting them temporary status in 2004, thus allowing freedom of movement around the country. Chin Refugee Committee (CRC) reported, there are about 12,000 Chin living in Malaysia, of which more than 9,000 are registered with the CRC. More than 2,500 Chin have applied for registration as asylum seekers with the UNHCR and have been provided with documentation that identifies them to Malaysian authorities.

Refugees International recommends that the UNHCR continue its work protecting and assisting refugees in Malaysia and is speeding up the registration process for refugees and asylum seekers, especially in outlying areas where refugees are mostly unregistered.

The Mons for centuries have had a long tradition of trade with Malaysia and have traveled back and forth between the two countries. Several thousand Mons are hiding or working in Malaysia after being forced out of their homeland due to human rights abuse and the dismal employment prospects in Burma.

**************************************************

KAOWAO NEWS GROUP
Email: kaowao@hotmail.com, kaowao_news@yahoo.ca


ABOUT US
Kaowao Newsgroup is committed to social justice, peace, and democracy in Burma. We hope to be able to provide more of an in-depth analysis that will help to promote lasting peace and change within Burma.
Editors, reporters, writers, and overseas volunteers are dedicated members of the Mon activist community based in Thailand.
Our motto is working together for lasting peace and change

Back to top of page




 

WTO's Final Verdict On GMOs

In This NEWS Bulletin
********************************

1. WTO plays God over GMOs - FARM FRONT Column
2. Science & Tech ministry to introduce e-governance for transparency - Will BIOTECH Approvals be transparent ?
----------------------------
FARM FRONT Column

WTO plays God over transgenics

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=127073
Posted online: Monday, May 15, 2006 at 0000 hours IST

The WTO dispute settlement body’s (DSB) final verdict on Europe’s de facto moratorium on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and food comes at a time when India is busy finalising its labeling norms on GMOs.

The nature of the verdict suggests that it has more of political implications, rather than scientific, on countries enforcing norms and regulations on GMOs. The panel had given its interim verdict in February this year. The verdict was conveyed to the concerned parties, and was not made public. Similar is the case with the final verdict which was, however,leaked out to the media last week.

According to reports, the panel has made few cosmetic changes over the 1,000 odd pages of its interim verdict. The global trade body not acting transparent on such a vital issue of health and environmental concerns raises doubts about its credibility and competence.

On May 13, 2003 the US, alongwith Canada, Argentina and Egypt, filed a complaint in the WTO against the EU’s de facto moratorium on GMOs. A three member panel was set up on March 4, 2004, with Christian Haeberli in the chair and Mohan Kumar from India and Akio Shimizo of Japan as members to adjudicate the dispute. The DSB of the WTO took about 3 year to give its verdict. Usually the DSB takes six months to give its interim verdict, and another six months to give its final verdict.

Why did the DSB take such a long time to deliver its verdict? Was it busy deliberating on scientific aspects of health and environment safety? The answer is ‘No’.

The DSB knows that it is not competent to deliberate on these issues. It only said that the EU moratorium then in vogue led to “undue delay” in 24 out of 27 contested GM crop approval process. The EU had lifted its moratorium on May 19, 2004 by approving Bt 11 maize, without any clear mandate from the member states.

As the European moratorium is no longer in force, the ruling of the DSB has little relevance and is of historical value. But what is more worrying is that the DSB, basing its verdict on the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) norms, said the bans imposed on GM crops by member states are not justified.

The SPS norms used in global trade are not adequate enough to address the health and environmental concerns relating to GM crops. The global standards body, Codex Alimentarius Commission, is yet to come out with a clear stance on the safety of GM food. In such a situation, it would have been better for the DSB to ask and allow member countries to put in place relevant scientific and regulatory processes to ensure safety of GM crops and food.

The DSB had the option to take a decision on the basis of the relevant provisions of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. It did not do so, even though these are globally ratified and enforced treaties.

The Cartegena Protocol clearly says, “Lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient knowledge regarding the extent of the potential adverse effects of a living modified organism on conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in the Party of import, taking also into account risks to human health, shall not prevent that Party from taking a decision, as appropriate, with regard to the import of the living modified organisms in question.....to avoid or minimise such potential adverse effects.”

Whatever, the European Commission may say, the member states are going ahead with imposing ban on GM crops, acting on public concerns and scientific evidence.

The DSB verdict is open to appeal. Therefore the verdict at this stage cannot have its impact on stringent regulatory process, which member countries might like to impose. It is true athat the US may use its arm-twisting tactics on many developing countries to slacken their regulatory process, as it is interested in saving its biotech industry from a whopping loss of $300 million a year. It did use such tactics when Egypt withdrew from the GMO disputes and when Sri Lanka was about to adopt a moratorium on GMOs. ---------------------------------------------

Science & Tech Ministry for e-governance says Sibal (Will there be transparency in Biotech approvals?)

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=126916
ASHOK B SHARMA
ECONOMY BUREAU
Posted online: Saturday, May 13, 2006 at 0000 hours IST

NEW DELHI, MAY 12: The science and technology ministry is planning to impart total transparency in all project management procedures by March 2007. This would be done through e-governance.

Briefing mediapersons on Friday, science and technology minister, Kapil Sibal said, “We want to keep in pace with the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The aim is to usher in higher level of transparency in all areas including project management and procurement”.

He said that the concept of RTI was new, with normal mindset being not to give information. He said, henceforth, the norms will be in place to provide information to those seeking it except in certain sensitive cases where information could be withheld. In cases of such exceptions, the officer concerned would need to consult the legal department.

The ministry would appoint law officers in all its departments, he said.

Under the new policy, there would be online submissions of project proposals. It would also enable peer review comments through e-mail and electronic circulation of project proposal to task force members, he said.

All of these measures would drastically cut down the transaction of papers, said Mr Sibal.

The plan also included a switch over to e-procurement with the procurement price being available on the website and adoption of a digital attendance recording system using biometrics technology.


Back to top of page




 

RAINFOREST UPDATE: Indonesia's Rainforests and Orangutans: Hope Emerges Anew!? (19%)

m: Glen Barry
GlenBarry@EcologicalInternet.org

RAINFOREST CONSERVATION NEWS TODAY
Indonesia's Rainforests and Orangutans: Hope Emerges Anew!?
***********************************************
Forests.org a project of Ecological Internet, Inc.

http://www.rainforestportal.org/ -- Rainforest Portal
http://forests.org/ -- Forest Conservation Portal

May 12, 2006
OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY by Dr. Glen Barry, Rainforest Portal

The Indonesian government has announced that only 180,000 (of 1.8 million) hectares of the much criticized mega-plantation project along the Indonesia-Malaysia border on the island of Borneo are suitable to be converted into oil palm plantations. Recall the "Heart of Borneo" rainforests are some of the last prime habitat for the world's dwindling viable populations of wild orangutans. What makes these statements even more encouraging than previously reported opposition to the project within the Indonesian government is the fact that announcement was made by the Agriculture Minister, who has consistently been one of the most vocal proponents of the project.

Together we have worked hard to battle the forces of biological homogenization. Just when you may have given up, good news can unexpectedly emerge from the unlikeliest sources. If not already chastened by earlier claims that we had achieved a victory on the matter, and my subsequent loss of faith, I would be crowing right now. The very points made by Ecological Internet's email action network (YOU!) have been acknowledged. Clearly our campaign has had an impact and massively shifted the terms of debate towards protecting the Heart of Borneo and its rainforests and orangutans.

Besides putting an end to this project's last bits and inevitable attempts to resurrect the notion of destroying millions of year old ancient forests to make cooking oil, there remain dozens of egregious threats to Indonesia's rainforests including Chinese Olympic logging http://www.rainforestportal.org/alerts/send.asp?id=olympic_timber and vastly oversized pulp mills. The second article below indicates the global pulp market is crashing because of overcapacity and lack of forests to pulp. And we must not lose site of the importance of stopping destruction, protecting and restoring Indonesia's rainforest fragments found elsewhere.
But largely because of our network, time has been bought for the Heart of Borneo, and for that we should give thanks to Gaia. When the world wakes up to looming ecological collapse, and begins the age of widespread ecological restoration in earnest, there will be more genetic and ecological materials from which to draw. I have learned my lesson - though shall not despair when defending the Earth from seemingly insurmountable evil (or at least bounce back at the next scrap of good news ;-)

While I have you attention, it would really help our campaign efforts and stress levels to reach our funding goal and put the fund-raiser behind us. Please, please celebrate yet another positive rainforest development we achieved together by donating to Ecological Internet at http://www.rainforestportal.org/donate/ g.b.

Comments to:
http://www.rainforestportal.org/issues/2006/05/indonesias_rainforests_and_ora_1.asp
*******************************

RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:

ITEM #1
Title: Govt seeks new land for border project
Source: Copyright 2006, Jakarta Post
Date: May 8, 2006
Byline: Tb. Arie Rukmantara, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The government will go ahead with a much-criticized mega- plantation project along the Indonesia-Malaysia border on Borneo Island, but only small parts of the designated area can feasibly be used, says a minister.

"We have evaluated the proposal. We found that only 180,000 (of 1.8 million) hectares are suitable to be converted into oil palm plantations," Agriculture Minister Anton Apriyantono told The Jakarta Post.

Environmental groups have opposed the plan, saying the forest- to-oil-palm project would further denude the remaining pristine Borneo forests that cover much of the border area. The groups say this could cause billions of dollars' worth of damage to the area's biodiversity, ecology and economy.

Forestry Minister Malem Sambat Kaban and State Minister of Environment Rachmat Witoelar have also objected to the plan, saying the project could encroach on conservation sites along the border.

Anton said Friday the unexpected result of the feasibility study did not mean the government would drop the project.

The government would still carry on with the project in the 180,000-hectare area and other feasible areas, he said.

"We will look for other available land outside conservation sites, outside the Heart of Borneo, which must not be disturbed for any reason," the agriculture minister said, referring to a 22-million hectare joint conservation project by Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei aimed at saving the island's remaining natural forests.

Heart of Borneo national coordinator Bambang Supriyanto welcomed the government's decision, saying it would save three national parks and two natural reserves located in the border area.

"But, I ask the government to announce the decision to regional administrations across the country, so as to prevent them from issuing permits to convert forests into plantations along the border," he said.
Environmental activists suggested that the government instead use three million hectares of neglected land across Kalimantan that have been abandoned by plantation companies after extensive logging.

Environmental group Greenomics said if the government did not convert forests, the mega-project would be a good idea that could benefit the people of Kalimantan.

"As long as the 180,000 hectares are on forested land, we will continue to oppose the project," said Greenomics director Elfian Effendy.

Sawit (Palm) Watch coordinator Rudy Lumuru said the root problem was not just the project's environmental impact, but the failure of the country's oil palm plantation industry to increase the prosperity of local people.
He said oil palm plantations often clash with local residents over land-ownership disputes and dissatisfactory community development programs.

"Before deciding to go on with the project, I urge the government to create better regulations concerning the oil palm industry, so they will use sustainable management that benefits local people," Rudy said.
ITEM #2
Title: Global pulp mill industry on verge of collapse: report
Source: Copyright 2006, Agence France-Presse
Date: May 11, 2006

The rapidly expanding world pulp mill industry could be poised for collapse due to a failure by financial institutions to research how wood can be found to feed new mills, a report says.

The report by the Indonesian-based Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) says that false assumptions about the origins and cost of wood used in emerging-market mills has led investors to channel billions of dollars into financially risky and environmentally destructive ventures.

The report, funded by the European Commission and the United Kingdom's Department for International Development, analysed 67 pulp mill projects.
A lack of due diligence may lead to "a new wave of ill-advised projects, setting up investors, forest-dependent communities and the environment for a precipitous fall," a statement accompanying the report warned.
More than $US40 billion has been poured into pulp mill projects over the last decade, with another $US54 billion expected to be invested by 2015, the report said.
It said much of the investment was in Brazil, China, Indonesia, Uruguay and the Baltic States, with low wood costs the major factor driving expansion.

"Financial institutions have shown a surprising lack of interest in understanding how the pulp companies requesting loans are going to get all this cheap wood," David Kaimowitz, director general of CIFOR, said in the statement.

"In reality, some of these mills have vastly overestimated what's legally available from timber plantations. So the only way they can meet production targets is through unsustainable logging of natural forests or by shipping in wood from distant sources at a much higher cost."

The CIFOR report said that when the required wood cannot be sourced from plantation forests, illegal logging and the clearing of natural forests occurs instead.
It also said financial institutions often conduct only minimal due diligence to assess the sources of wood for pulp projects and frequently rely on data provided by the pulp producers themselves.

"The study concludes that pulp mill projects often carry significantly higher degrees of financial risk than investors realise," the statement said.


Back to top of page




Contact us Contact us with comments, questions, sponsorship requests and media queries.

Send email to gdufour@globalcommunitywebnet.com with questions or comments about this web site.

Copyright © 2006 Global Community WebNet Ltd.