Portal of the Global Community

This is the main index for information concerning activities of the Global Community
Links to previous Newsletters are shown here
Volume 8       Issue 1    January  2010
Politics and Justice without borders
Theme this month :

Back to Global Parliament
The planarchists
( see enlargement The Planarchists)
The Planarchists
Artwork by Germain Dufour
December 13, 2009

Table of Contents

This is the way     Message from the Spiritual Leader of the Global Community
Message from the Editor    GIM  Message from the Editor
Message from the President of Earth Government, the Federation of Global Governments    Message from the President of Earth Government
History of the Global Community organization, Earth Government and the Federation of Global Governments History of the Global Community Organization and Interim Earth Government Since its beginning in 1985, many accomplishments can be claimed by the Global Community: History of the Global Community organization and Earth Government
The Global Community days of celebration or remembering during the year
A reminder of her passing away. Virginie was a great global citizen, and we all owe her something that's forever. GIM  Message from the Editor
Life Day Celebration on May 26. Participate. Life Day Celebration May 26. Participate.
Participate now in Global Dialogue 2010, no fees  Participate now in Global Dialogue 2010
Global Dialogue 2010 Introduction Global Dialogue 2010 Introduction
Global Dialogue 2010 Program  Global Dialogue 2010 Program
Global Dialogue 2010 OVERVIEW of the process   Global Dialogue 2010 OVERVIEW of the process
Global Dialogue 2010 Call for Papers Global Dialogue 2010 Call for Papers

The worst kind of planarchists are NATO nations
by Germain Dufour
Spiritual Leader of the Global Community
Global Parliament
December 20, 2009

Table of contents

a)     Introduction
b)     USA wars
c)     US invaders vs freedom fighters of Afghanistan and Iraq
d)     The economic and military invasion of nations for energy and power
e)     Global Financial System and the Global Social-Economic Model (GSEM)
f)     Conclusion and recommendations

In this paper a far deeper understanding of who are the worst kind of planarchists on the planet and what the Global Community should do to remediate their destructive activities.

Our world is facing crises of freshwater, food, deforestation, ocean health, and destruction of the global life-support systems. We need leadership in the protection of all our natural resources, in peril because of what we do and what that does to our planet. We are facing a fresh water crisis. We are facing a food crisis. We are facing a crisis over deforestation. And we are facing crises in our oceans. While carbon emissions from fossil fuels pollute the air, land and our oceans, we are facing the climate change crisis. Now is the time to press for leadership.

We are facing social crises all over the world and a surge of violent protests from economic upheaval. The global economic crash has already caused plant closings, foreclosures, bank failures, bankruptcies, and caused many tens of millions to be unemployed across the planet. There is an increased civil unrest and ethnic strife everywhere.

Fighting poverty goes hand in hand with fighting climate change; you can't expect people to starve today to save tomorrow's planet.

We have shown in this paper that several events have contributed to the planetary state of emergency declared by the Global Community:

A)     widespread poverty and hunger in more than half the world population

B)     The global warming of the planet due to human activities

C)     Climate change

D)     Economic and military invasion of nations by the United States and NATO

E)     Absence of fair and democratic global governance at the United Nations and European Union

F)     Our global environment and global life-support systems are threatened by:

  • any of the above mentioned events
  • pollution worldwide
  • the U.S.A. military exploded war heads over the bottom of the Indian ocean, and that scenario created a tsunami wave in 2004.  Just a test, said the captain of the submarine that did it.
  • the U.S.A. military exploded war heads to melt the Polar Cap and glaciers. All nations capable of such an extreme action against humanity and all life on Earth must be disarmed and pay for the independent global investigation. The United States is the only nation that would profit from the melting of the North Pole and is capable of such an extreme action against humanity and all life. Blood resources. 

But all these crises are due to human activities, our ways of doing business and trade, and to our ways of consuming resources.

Planarchists are the 21st Century anarchists.

Planarchist means this large body of international organizations and groups of people engaged in the large scale destruction of the global life-support systems and of the ecosystems of the planet. They are strongly opposed to the establishment of Global Parliament.

Planarchists are the worst kind people as they hold power and use it without care for life. If there were political parties on the global level, those of the 'left', those of the 'right' and those in between, planarchists would be of the far 'right', professional thieves (economists, bankers, financiers, Wall Street workers, Christians of the political right, IMF organization, World Bank organization, White House and Congress officials, NATO, WTO, NAFTA, FTAA, war industry), professional pirates (not the 'teenager kind' we see today: Somali pirate appears in Kenyan Court). The kind of 'professional piracy' we see happening today is to do with the IMF, the World Bank, the USA White House, and the G8 nations.

Planarchists have no true religion, they dont believe in anything but money and the wealth of the planet for themselves, they have no care for the people they represent except those who work direcly or indirectly for the war industry and the corporate elite, they refuse to acknowledge the trends of the global crisis and its chaotic end and doing something humane to prevent it, and they refuse to accept the global concepts researched and developed by the Global Community for the protection of life on our planet. Because of their wrong way of doing things, our planet is in great danger of losing its most precious asset: life. They are true anarchists, the destructive kind, and they want humanity to follow on their destructive path.

And that is threatening the security of all life on our planet. And that makes the planarchists also terrorists of the worst kind. Terrorists to all life on our planet.

In this paper the most dangerous planarchists on the planet were identified as NATO nations. And as recommendations to the Global Community, more efficient and practical 21st Century institutions were researched and developed to allow survival of our species for the generations to come and take along with us as many as possible other life forms on the planet.

We seek more symbiotical relationships with people and organizations We seek more symbiotical relationships
Note concerning personal info sent to us by email Note concerning personal info sent to us by email
We have now streamlined the participation process in the Global Dialogue We have now streamlined the participation process in the Global Dialogue


GIM daily proclamations main website

Authors of research papers and articles on global issues for this month

AlterNet, Sharon Bloyd-Peshkin, Fidel Castro, Shamus Cooke, Guy CREQUIE, Joss Garman, Johann Hari, A. M. M. Maruf Hossain, Joseph Huff-Hannon, John James, Brooke Jarvis, Nehginpao Kipgen, Tara Lohan, Kihong Park, M. Hasibur Rahman, Jeremy Scahill, Keith Schneider

AlterNet, Copenhagen Talks End With Agreement, But No Binding Deal: So, How Screwed Are We?  Copenhagen Talks End With Agreement, But No Binding Deal: So, How Screwed Are We?
Sharon Bloyd-Peshkin, Our Lives Are Filled With Worthless Crap That's Destroying the Earth: Here's What You Can Do Our Lives Are Filled With Worthless Crap That's Destroying the Earth: Here's What You Can Do
Fidel Castro, The Truth Of What Happened At Copenhagen Summit  The Truth Of What Happened At Copenhagen Summit
Shamus Cooke, Why Copenhagen Failed  Why Copenhagen Failed
Joss Garman, Copenhagen - Historic Failure That Will Live In Infamy  Copenhagen - Historic Failure That Will Live In Infamy
Johann Hari, The Truths Copenhagen Ignored The Truths Copenhagen Ignored
A. M. M. Maruf Hossain , M. Hasibur Rahman , Kihong Park, A brief account of manifestations of climate change impacts affecting socio-economy in Bangladesh  A brief account of manifestations of climate change impacts affecting socio-economy in Bangladesh
Joseph Huff-Hannon, Activists Protest Natural Resources Defense Council for Collaborating With Polluters  Activists Protest Natural Resources Defense Council for  Collaborating With Polluters
John James, A Conference Without Compassion: A Guarantee Of Mutually Assured Suicide  A Conference Without Compassion: A Guarantee Of Mutually Assured Suicide
Brooke Jarvis, Weak Deal From Copenhagen  Weak Deal From Copenhagen
Nehginpao Kipgen, Burma must pave way for reconciliation  Burma must pave way for reconciliation
Tara Lohan, 8 Things We Love That Climate Change Will Force Us to Kiss Good-Bye  8 Things We Love That Climate Change Will Force Us  to Kiss Good-Bye
Jeremy Scahill, Stunning Statistics About the War in Afghanistan Every American Should Know  Stunning Statistics About the War in Afghanistan Every  American Should Know
Keith Schneider, Climate Deal Not Accepted By All, But Copenhagen Conference Makes It ‘Operational’ Climate Deal Not Accepted By All, But Copenhagen Conference Makes It Operational

Research papers and articles on global issues for this month
 Date sent  Theme or issue  Read
 December 21, 2009   LIBERTE - J 'ECRIS TON NOM
Ambassadeur de la Paix

Cercle Universel des Ambassadeurs de la Paix
Universal Ambassador Peace Circle
Global Community Peace Movement
Guy CREQUIE Global file
Our Global Community volunteers will help you

En ces fêtes de fin d'année, il est des détenus pour opinions politiques, philosophiques ou religieuses, qui sont emprisonnés car leurs convictions dérangent certains régimes de dictature ou de pensée unique. En ces fêtes de fin d'année, je leur ai réservé ce texte. Ceci, car ils sont souvent les oubliés des vœux médiatiques et étatiques.




In these festivals of end of the year, he is prisoners for political opinions, philosophical or religious, which are imprisoned because their convictions disturb certain modes of dictatorship or doctrinaire approach. In these festivals of end of the year, I reserved this text to them. This, because they are often forgotten media and official wishes.



Buenos días,

En estas fiestas de final de año, ha presos para opiniones políticas, filosóficas o religiosas, que se encarcela ya que sus convicciones molestan algunos regímenes de dictadura o único pensamiento. En estas fiestas de final de año, les reservé este texto. Y ello, ya que son los olvidados a menudo de los deseos de información y oficiales.




Votre vie semble achevée
Entre vos quatre murs

Vous ressentez l'injustice
L'iniquité de décisions arbitraires
Humiliantes et infondées

Ceux qui luttent
Sont souvent accablés
Pour leur cri de liberté
Mais la vérité est toujours
Celle de la beauté du cœur

La liberté, n'est pas affaire de pouvoir
De celles et de ceux qui le possède
la liberté, c'est l'intelligence de la nécessité
De l'humanisme en mouvement.

Au-delà des apparences
Même dans la peine et l'adversité
Vous êtes les vainqueurs
Car votre cause est celle du respect
De la dignité de la vie, des vies.

Copyright Guy CREQUIE
Poète, écrivain et chanteur pour la paix.


Your life seems completed
Between your four walls

You feel the injustice
The iniquity of arbitrary decisions
Humiliating and unfounded

Those which fight
Are often overpowered
For their cry of freedom
But the truth is always
That of the beauty of the heart

Freedom, is not business of being able
Those and those which has it
freedom, it is the intelligence of the need For humanism moving.

Beyond appearances
Even in the sorrow and the adversity
You are the winners
Because your cause is that of the respect
Dignity of the life, lives.

Copyright Guy CREQUIE
Poet, writer and singer for peace.


Su vida parece acabada
Entre sus cuatro paredes

Experimenta la injusticia
La iniquidad de decisiones arbitrarias
Humillando e infundadas

Los que luchan
A menudo se abruman
Para su grito de libertad
Pero la verdad es todavía
La de la belleza del corazón

La libertad, no es asunto poder
De las y de los que lo posee
la libertad, es la inteligencia de la necesidad del humanismo en movimiento.

Más allá de las apariciones
Incluso en el dolor y la adversidad
Es los vencedores
Ya que su causa es la del respeto
De la dignidad de la vida, de las vidas.

Copyright Guy CREQUIE
Poeta, escritor y cantante para la paz.
 December 21, 2009   Stunning Statistics About the War in Afghanistan Every American Should Know
Jeremy Scahill, Rebel Reports
published in AlterNet: The Mix is the Message
Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. actually has 189,000 personnel on the ground in Afghanistan right now -- and that number is quickly rising.

A hearing in Sen. Claire McCaskill’s Contract Oversight subcommittee on contracting in Afghanistan has highlighted some important statistics that provide a window into the extent to which the Obama administration has picked up the Bush-era war privatization baton and sprinted with it. Overall, contractors now comprise a whopping 69% of the Department of Defense’s total workforce, “the highest ratio of contractors to military personnel in US history.” That’s not in one war zone -- that’s the Pentagon in its entirety.

In Afghanistan, the Obama administration blows the Bush administration out of the privatized water. According to a memo [PDF] released by McCaskill’s staff, “From June 2009 to September 2009, there was a 40% increase in Defense Department contractors in Afghanistan. During the same period, the number of armed private security contractors working for the Defense Department in Afghanistan doubled, increasing from approximately 5,000 to more than 10,000.”

At present, there are 104,000 Department of Defense contractors in Afghanistan. According to a report this week from the Congressional Research Service, as a result of the coming surge of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, there may be up to 56,000 additional contractors deployed. But here is another group of contractors that often goes unmentioned: 3,600 State Department contractors and 14,000 USAID contractors. That means that the current total US force in Afghanistan is approximately 189,000 personnel (68,000 US troops and 121,000 contractors). And remember, that’s right now. And that, according to McCaskill, is a conservative estimate. A year from now, we will likely see more than 220,000 US-funded personnel on the ground in Afghanistan.

The US has spent more than $23 billion on contracts in Afghanistan since 2002. By next year, the number of contractors will have doubled since 2008 when taxpayers funded over $8 billion in Afghanistan-related contracts.

Despite the massive number of contracts and contractors in Afghanistan, oversight is utterly lacking. “The increase in Afghanistan contracts has not seen a corresponding increase in contract management and oversight,” according to McCaskill’s briefing paper. “In May 2009, DCMA [Defense Contract Management Agency] Director Charlie Williams told the Commission on Wartime Contracting that as many as 362 positions for Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) in Afghanistan were currently vacant.”

A former USAID official, Michael Walsh, the former director of USAID’s Office of Acquisition and Assistance and Chief Acquisition Officer, told the Commission that many USAID staff are “administering huge awards with limited knowledge of or experience with the rules and regulations.” According to one USAID official, the agency is “sending too much money, too fast with too few people looking over how it is spent.” As a result, the agency does not “know … where the money is going.”

The Obama administration is continuing the Bush-era policy of hiring contractors to oversee contractors. According to the McCaskill memo:

In Afghanistan, USAID is relying on contractors to provide oversight of its large reconstruction and development projects. According to information provided to the Subcommittee, International Relief and Development (IRD) was awarded a five-year contract in 2006 to oversee the $1.4 billion infrastructure contract awarded to a joint venture of the Louis Berger Group and Black and Veatch Special Projects. USAID has also awarded a contract Checci and Company to provide support for contracts in Afghanistan.

The private security industry and the US government have pointed to the Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker(SPOT) as evidence of greater government oversight of contractor activities. But McCaskill’s subcommittee found that system utterly lacking, stating: “The Subcommittee obtained current SPOT data showing that there are currently 1,123 State Department contractors and no USAID contractors working in Afghanistan.” Remember, there are officially 14,000 USAID contractors and the official monitoring and tracking system found none of these people and less than half of the State Department contractors.

As for waste and abuse, the subcommittee says that the Defense Contract Audit Agency identified more than $950 million in questioned and unsupported costs submitted by Defense Department contracts for work in Afghanistan. That’s 16% of the total contract dollars reviewed.
  Read Stunning Statistics About the War in Afghanistan Every American Should Know
 December 21, 2009
The youth is more interested than anyone else in the future.

Until very recently, the discussion revolved around the kind of society we would have. Today, the discussion centers on whether human society will survive.

These are not dramatic phrases. We must get used to the true facts. Hope is the last thing human beings can relinquish. With truthful arguments, men and women of all ages, especially young people, have waged an exemplary battle at the Summit and taught the world a great lesson.

It is important now that Cuba and the world come to know as much as possible of what happened in Copenhagen. The truth can be stronger than the influenced and often misinformed minds of those holding in their hands the destiny of the world.

If anything significant was achieved in the Danish capital, it was that the media coverage allowed the world public to watch the political chaos created there and the humiliating treatment accorded to Heads of States or Governments, ministers and thousands of representatives of social movements and institutions that in hope and expectation traveled to the Summit’s venue in Copenhagen. The brutal repression of peaceful protesters by the police was a reminder of the behavior of the Nazi assault troops that occupied neighboring Denmark on April 1940.

But no one could have thought that on December 18, 2009, the last day of the Summit, this would be suspended by the Danish government –a NATO ally associated with the carnage in Afghanistan-- to offer the conference’s plenary hall to President Obama for a meeting where only he and a selected group of guests, 16 in all, would have the exclusive right to speak.

Obama’s deceitful, demagogic and ambiguous remarks failed to involve a binding commitment and ignored the Kyoto Framework Convention. He then left the room shortly after listening to a few other speakers. Among those invited to take the floor were the highest industrialized nations, several emerging economies and some of the poorest countries in the world. The leaders and representatives of over 170 countries were only allowed to listen.

At the end of the speeches of the 16 chosen, Evo Morales, with the authority of his indigenous Aymara origin and his recent reelection with 65% of the vote as well as the support of two-thirds of the Bolivian House and Senate, requested the floor. The Danish president had no choice but to yield to the insistence of the other delegations. When Evo had concluded his wise and deep observations, the Danish had to give the floor to Hugo Chavez. Both speeches will be registered by history as examples of short and timely remarks. Then, with their mission duly accomplished they both left for their respective countries. But when Obama disappeared, he had yet to fulfill his task in the host country.

From the evening of the 17th and the early morning hours of the 18th, the Prime Minister of Denmark and senior representatives of the United States had been meeting with the Chairman of the European Commission and the leaders of 27 nations to introduce to them --on behalf of Obama-- a draft agreement in whose elaboration none of the other leaders of the rest of the world had taken part. It was an antidemocratic and practically clandestine initiative that disregarded the thousands of representatives of social movements, scientific and religious institutions and other participants in the Summit.

Through the night of the 18th and until 3:00 a.m. of the 19th, when many Heads of States had already departed, the representatives of the countries waited for the resumption of the sessions and the conclusion of the event. Throughout the 18th, Obama held meetings and press conferences, and the same did the European leaders. Then, they left.

Something unexpected happened then: at three in the morning of the 19th, the Prime Minister of Denmark convened a meeting to conclude the Summit. By then, the countries were represented by ministers, officials, ambassadors and technical staff.

However, an amazing battle was waged that morning by a group of representatives of Third World countries challenging the attempt by Obama and the wealthiest on the planet to introduce a document imposed by the United States as one agreed by consensus in the Summit.

The representative of Venezuela, Claudia Salerno, showed with impressive energy her right hand bleeding from strongly slamming on the table to claim her right to take the floor. Her tone of voice and the dignity of her arguments will never be forgotten.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba made a vigorous speech of approximately one thousand words from which I have chosen a few paragraphs to include in this Reflection:

“The document that you, Mister Chairman, repeatedly claimed that did not exist shows up now. […] we have seen drafts circulating surreptitiously and being discussed in secret meetings…”

“…I deeply resent the way you have led this conference.”

“…Cuba considers the text of this apocryphal draft extremely inadequate and inadmissible. The goal of 2 degrees centigrade is unacceptable and it would have incalculable catastrophic consequences…”

“The document that you are unfortunately introducing is not binding in any way with respect to the reduction of the greenhouse effect gas emissions.”

“I am aware of the previous drafts, which also through questionable and clandestine procedures, were negotiated by small groups of people…”

“The document you are introducing now fails to include the already meager and lacking key phrases contained in that draft…”

“…as far as Cuba is concerned, it is incompatible with the universally recognized scientific view sustaining that it is urgent and inescapable to ensure the reduction of at least 45% of the emissions by the year 2020, and of no less than 80% or 90% by 2050.”

“Any argument on the continuation of the negotiations to reach agreement in the future to cut down emissions must inevitably include the concept of the validity of the Kyoto Protocol […] Your paper, Mister Chairman, is a death certificate of the Kyoto Protocol and my delegation cannot accept it.”

“The Cuban delegation would like to emphasize the preeminence of the principle of ‘common by differentiated responsibilities,’ as the core of the future process of negotiations. Your paper does not include a word on that.”

“This draft declaration fails to mention concrete financial commitments and the transfers of technologies to developing countries, which are part of the obligations contracted by the developed countries under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change […] Mister Chairman, by imposing their interests through your document, the developed nations are avoiding any concrete commitment.”

“…What you, Mister Chairman, define as ‘a group of representative leaders’ is to me a gross violation of the principle of sovereign equality consecrated in the United Nations Charter…”

“Mr. Chairman, I formally request that this statement be included in the final report of the works of this regrettable and shameful 15th session of the Conference of the Parties.”

The representatives of the countries had been given only one hour to present their views. This led to complicated, shameful and embarrassing situations.

Then, a lengthy debate ensued where the delegations from the developed countries put a heavy pressure on the rest to make the conference adopt the abovementioned document as the final result of their deliberations.

A small number of countries firmly insisted on the grave omissions and ambiguities of the document promoted by the United States, particularly the absence of a commitment by the developed countries on the reduction of carbon emissions and on the financing that would allow the South countries to adopt alleviating and adjustment measures.

After a long and extremely tense discussion, the position of the ALBA countries and Sudan, as President of the G-77, prevailed that the document was unacceptable to the conference thus it could not be adopted.

In view of the absence of consensus, the Conference could only “take note” of the existence of that document representing the position of a group of about 25 countries.

After that decision was made, --at 10:30 in the morning Denmark’s time-- Bruno, together with other ALBA representatives, had a friendly discussion with the UN Secretary to whom they expressed their willingness to continue struggling alongside the United Nations to prevent the terrible consequences of climate change. Their mission completed, our Foreign Minister and Cuban Vicepresident Esteban Lazo departed to come back home and attend the National Assembly session. A few members of the delegation and the ambassador stayed in Copenhagen to take part in the final procedures.

This afternoon they reported the following:

“…both, those who were involved in the elaboration of the document, and those like the President of the United States who anticipated its adoption by the conference…as they could not disregard the decision to simply ‘take note’ of the alleged ‘Copenhagen Agreement,’ they tried to introduce a procedure allowing the other COP countries that had not been a part of the shady deal to adhere to it, and make it public, the intention being to pretend such an agreement was legal, something that could precondition the results of the negotiations that should carry on.”

“Such belated attempt was again firmly opposed by Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia. These countries warned that a document which had not been adopted by the Convention could not be considered legal and that there was not a COP document; therefore, no regulations could be established for its alleged adoption…”

“This is how the meeting in Copenhagen is coming to an end, without the adoption of the document surreptitiously worked out in the past few days under the clear ideological guidance of the US Administration…”

Tomorrow our attention will be focused on the National Assembly.

Lazo, Bruno and the other members of the delegation will be arriving at midnight today. On Monday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be able to explain in details and with the necessary accuracy the truth of what happened at the Summit.

Fidel Castro Ruz
December 19, 2009
  Read The Truth Of What Happened At Copenhagen Summit
 December 20, 2009
Burma must pave way for reconciliation
by Nehginpao Kipgen,
WITH the year 2009 closing to an end in a few days, both the Burmese (Myanmar) people and the international community are cautiously awaiting the proposed 2010 general election. Though the electoral laws are yet to be announced, the military junta sees the election as an opportunity to legitimise its rule. But still, there are umpteen major issues the country needs to resolve before any flourishing society can emerge.

Sooner or later, the Union of Burma will need some sort of reconciliation. An outside aid or intervention can help facilitate the democratisation process, but the real reform lies with the Burmese people themselves. Had there been a plan for military action by a powerful country such as the United States, it would have been the swiftest method to remove the recalcitrant military junta.

Successive military-led governments from the 1962 Revolutionary Council, to 1974 Burma Socialist Programme Party, to the 1988 State Law and Order Restoration Council, and to the 1997 State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) have governed this reclusive Southeast Asian nation by brutally suppressing the voice of the opposition groups.

The new constitution reserves 25 per cent seats in parliament for the military, which will be appointed by the commander-in-chief. In the event of a "state of emergency", the commander-in-chief will assume full legislative, executive and judicial powers. To amend the constitution, it will require the support of more than 75 per cent of the votes.

Without an amendment, the constitution is by and large a forgone conclusion that the military will continue to rule the country under the guise of democracy. Election is likely to be held across the nation in an attempt to impress the international community that the new leadership is elected by the people. In fact, there will be a transition from SPDC to a parliament controlled by the military.

Holding of general election is the fifth of the seven-step of the junta's roadmap toward a "disciplined" democracy. The remaining two steps will be convening of elected representatives and building a modern, developed, and democratic nation.

Though the nation is headed toward an election year, it is still unclear whether the main opposition party will participate, and or will be allowed to take part at all. Whichever way it may lead to, the absence of National League for Democracy (NLD) will become a huge issue. The Western nations will use it as a case to annul the election result. And if NLD participates, it will be tantamount to abandoning the 1990 election result..

Since the Obama administration's engagement policy began in September, there seemed to be a snail pace of rapprochement between the NLD and the junta. Though it may be too early to construe as the beginning of a successful reconciliation process, it still is a positive development for the country's democratisation process.

In the last few months, Aung San Suu Kyi had sent two letters to chairman of the SPDC; the first in September and the second one in November. In response to the first letter, Than Shwe granted Suu Kyi to meet with representatives of the United States, the European Union, and Australia primarily on the issue of sanctions.

Again in response to the second letter, Suu Kyi was allowed to meet with three senior members of her NLD party — 92 year-old party chairman, Aung Shwe, 88 year-old central executive committee (CEC) member Lun Tin, and the party's secretary U Lwin on December 16.

The second letter proposed a one-on-one meeting between Suu Kyi and Than Shwe to further discuss activities related to easing Western sanctions on Burma. As the junta's ultimate power stays in the hands of the military chief, any meeting between Than Shwe and Suu Kyi could be a significant step toward national reconciliation.

Washington was hopeful of the development. Ian Kelly, spokesman of the US state department, on December 16, said, "We continue to urge the Burmese government to engage Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition, ethnic leaders, and other stakeholders in a genuine dialogue to find a positive way ahead for the country."

The international community needs to engage Burma with the objective of establishing a peaceful democratic society that will benefit the entire nation regardless of creeds and ethnicity.

China and India, which compete for business deals and strategic influence, need to realise the severe consequences of decades of military dictatorship in Burma. Not much story need to be elaborated: the continued influx of hundreds of thousands of refugees into neighbouring countries and the rise of homelessness and poverty are just to name a few.

It is not military or economic collaboration with the junta that will solve the problems in Burma. The problems in Burma are ethno-political in nature. China and India military supplies to the Burmese government add to the woes and sufferings of the country's ethnic minorities.

The voice of members of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) needs to be heard loud and clear at least on human rights and release of political prisoners. Asean leadership can no longer blame Washington for not engaging Nay Pyi Taw. It is high time that Burma starts to pave the way for national reconciliation.

Nehginpao Kipgen is a researcher on the rise of political conflicts in modern Burma (1947-2004) and general secretary of the US-based Kuki International Forum (www.kukiforum.com). He has written numerous analytical articles on the politics of Burma and Asia for many leading international newspapers in Asia, Africa, and the United States of America.
  Read Burma must pave way for reconciliation
 December 2, 2009
A brief account of manifestations of climate change impacts affecting socio-economy in Bangladesh
by A. M. M. Maruf Hossain , M. Hasibur Rahman , Kihong Park,
Bangladesh is highly susceptible to increase in flood, moisture stress, and salinity intrusion in a changed climatic scenario. These changes will be accompanied by direct impacts on major productive systems. All major user sectors of water will be affected in spite of the country’s very high per capita water quanta availability. Managing the country’s hydrological cycle would perhaps be the most critical physical problem for the country. Because of frequent natural disasters the coastal population are more poverty struck than other parts of the country in stead of greater contribution in national economy by the coastal zones. As a whole the rice varieties Aus, Boro, and Aman, and wheat production are projected to be affected severely under different scenarios of agro-climatic change. Projected significant increase in monsoon rainfall will aggravate monsoon flooding inflicting losses to fish farmers. Surface water temperature change will badly affect shrimp industry. Cyclonic storm surge, prolonged flood, and droughts are making livestock sector more vulnerable. Pathogen-induced diseases such as cholera, malaria, and dengue are projected to strike badly. House and sanitation infra-structure of population living below poverty level get frequently affected by more frequent natural disasters. Transport of contaminants can aggravate food safety problem. Subsistence agriculture and food security of the poor has been being placed at high risk. All of these impacts will deteriorate overall socio-economy and will be disproportionate to the poor. Adaptation and coping strategies must be addressed with development initiatives, thus policy and integration innovation are greatly required for sustainable development.

Bangladesh is one of the worst victims of global climate change. As the country is physiographically situated on the downstream of GBM river basins and within the tropical belt as well as the largest river delta of the world, the manifestations of climate change impacts are too numerous to be counted. This land is virtually the ideal place for these impacts to be staged. On the other hand majority of population of the country are living below poverty level. The stresses from global climate change and their interaction with the socio-economic conditions of its people may act as great limitations to its efforts to development. The manifestations of climate change impacts affecting socio-economy in the country are briefly addressed in this paper.

Demonstrating linkages between climate change and development is essential for identification and implementation of wholesome approaches that will bring into more and more management aspects across different sectors in efficient ways. Policy and integration innovation thus holds great potential in addressing today’s multifaceted problems and complex development endeavors. Appropriate resource allocation and utilization greatly awaits such innovation. The common and ultimate goal of development as well as management of problems is sustainability. We want any of our achievement in development or managing problems to be lasting so that on top of that more advanced goals could be sought. This forms the very base of sustainability. As climate change is getting the shape of the biggest problem of our time and also turning Bangladesh into one of its worst victims, especially in socio-economic aspects, it must be taken conjoint with development goals. Our development aspirations and kind of problems will change or evolve through time, but this very approach remains exactly the same in any given set of considerations. The newly emerging discipline of sustainability science can give a comprehensive framework and promote policy and integration innovations for addressing socio-economic implications of climate change with promoting sustainable development.
  Read A brief account of manifestations of climate change impacts affecting socio-economy in Bangladesh
 December 20, 2009

The following was extracted from a report on the Copenhagen Summit by George Monbiot in The Guardian.

Any deal would do, as long as the negotiators could pretend they have achieved something. A clearer and less destructive treaty than the text that emerged would be a sheaf of blank paper, which every negotiating party solemnly sits down to sign.

The final Accord was the chaotic, disastrous denouement of a chaotic and disastrous summit. The event has been attended by historic levels of incompetence when the world's governments tried to decide how to carve up the atmosphere, and asserted their right to draw lines across the global commons.

This is a scramble for the atmosphere. Most of the rich and rapidly developing states have sought through these talks to seize as great a chunk of the atmosphere for themselves as they can, to grab bigger rights to pollute than their competitors. The process couldn't have been better designed to produce the wrong results.

A few rich individuals and great corporations have abrogated the right to do as they will with the air that we all breathe. They have usurped the commons!

In the Copenhagen Accord there are no deadlines, no assurances, and talk of keeping below 2C makes no link between science and the reality of continued pollution. Nothing at Copenhagen gets even near what is needed if a meaningful attempt is to be made to avert runaway climate change. The IPCC states that this Accord guarantees that global temperature will in reality reach over 3 degrees.

Even at 2 degrees the IPCC forecasts a 9m seal-level rise, and that could be in much less than the next 80 years. To get what this means I repeat what I wrote in the August FOOTPRINTS:

Lets assume that rising temperature follows a regular trajectory, and lets assume that there is a one-to-one correlation between temperature rise and its consequences. Such a regular trajectory is unlikely as the combination of growing C02-e, carbon and ice-melt feedbacks, solar cycles and stronger El Niño may join with extreme weather events and global tipping points to alter the trajectory of this process.

Though we don't understand many of the complexities, the simplicity of this calculation has a lot to recommend it.

With continued steady linear growth the earth will be heated to 1C by 2012, and to 2C by 2030.

Paleoclimatic evidence shows that for every 1C rise we should expect a minimum 4-metre rise in sea levels. We have just calculated that by 2030 the conditions will be in place to guarantee a minimal 8-metre sea level rise. With the usual inertial delays of thirty years or so built into the earth's system, and applying a regular trajectory for sea levels as we did with temperature, we could be looking at

A sea-level rise of 500mm within a decade and a full metre during the next (ie. before 2030).

During this time large areas of agricultural land will be gradually flooded, in Egypt , Bangladesh , northern China and the Philippines . Florida , Boston and London will be badly affected, as will Melbourne and much of our coastline. Food production will be lessened as the Himalayan glaciers melt, there will be a lot less to fish and land will be lost to drought and sea. In the same period global population will rise by one billion, most living in cities. We are fully aware of the refugee crisis that would follow such sea-level rise, and the likelihood that there would be war. This is a recipe for catastrophe if we dont prepare.

However we vary the parameters, this process shows we have run out of time and should prepare now for what cannot be prevented if we wish to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilisation developed and to which life on earth is adapted.

But Copenhagen has side-stepped that. George Monbiot again: We have now lost 17 precious years, possibly the only years in which climate breakdown could have been prevented. This has not happened by accident: it is the result of a systematic campaign of sabotage by certain states, driven and promoted by the energy industries. This idiocy has been aided and abetted by the nations we have characterised, until now, as the good guys: those that have made firm commitments, only to invalidate them with loopholes, false accounting and outsourcing. In all cases immediate self-interest has trumped the long-term welfare of humankind. Corporate profits and political expediency have proved more urgent than either the natural world or human civilisation.

Our political systems are incapable of discharging the main function of government: to protect us from each other. Goodbye Africa , goodbye south Asia ; goodbye glaciers and sea ice, coral reefs and rainforest. It was nice knowing you. Not that we really cared. The governments which moved so swiftly to save the banks have bickered and filibustered while the biosphere burns.

These governments raised many trillions to keep the stock exchanges open. They could do the same to buy the support of the great polluters, on any terms, to stop this crisis. They could, but wont. Governments could do it without recourse to any elected body. They (Obama, Rudd, Brown etc) just did it through the Federal Banks. Why not again?

Do the frogs have to wait until the water is boiling?

Bruno Sekoli of Lesotho , Chair of the Group of Least Developed Countries said on behalf of over a hundred countries "1.5 degrees is nonnegotiable - more than that means death to Africa . It will cause unmanageable consequences - it will leave millions of people suffering from hunger, diseases, floods and water shortages …. How can it be realistic to condemn half of humanity?"

I paraphrase Andrew Glikson: The atmosphere is tracking into critical levels. An examination of the geological record indicates that, with the exception of major volcanic and asteroid impact events that triggered mass extinctions of species, never has atmospheric CO2 risen at a rate as fast as at present: 2 parts per million/year, the earlier highest record being about 0.4 ppm/year about 55 million years ago.

Early humans survived a rise of +3C about 2.8 million years ago. Homo sapiens survived abrupt temperature rise of about +5C during the two last glacial terminations 130 thousand and 14–11 thousand years ago, in part through migration. The species will survive.

It is less clear how civilization itself can survive a rise of over 2C, for the lives of 7 billion people are totally dependent on

1) mountain snow-fed river systems for agriculture in deltas that are prone to sea level rise,

2) on extensive cultivation of marginal desert regions such as in Australia and Africa that will turn into desert,

3) on regular monsoons as in India and east Africa that will change course, and

4) on coastal centres and port cities that are needed for the transport of food, and will be drowned under the sea. Little of our wealth and learning will survive such changes.

According to James Hansen, at 2C “Science reveals that climate is close to tipping points. It is a dead certainty that continued high emissions will create a chaotic dynamic situation for young people, with deteriorating climate conditions out of their control."

  Read A Conference Without Compassion: A Guarantee Of Mutually Assured Suicide
 December 20, 2009
Though some are defending the agreement as a first step, climate activists and residents of the Global South say that the precedent set by the agreement is a dangerous one.

Even those who brokered it acknowledge that the deal on the table at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is too weak to stop catastrophic climate change.

The deal, brokered between the U.S., China, South Africa, India, and Brazil, has not yet been accepted by the 192 nations represented in Copenhagen, many of which have decried it.

The deal sets no definite target for greenhouse gas reductions. A goal of reducing global carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2050, present in earlier drafts, was removed. All references to keeping temperature increases below 1.5 degrees Celsius—a key demand of vulnerable countries, including African nations and small island states—were also dropped.

It calls for (but does not commit rich nations to) $30 billion over the next two years, followed by $100 billion per year after 2020, to assist poor nations with the costs of adaptation and mitigation.

Though some are defending the agreement as a first step, many others, particularly residents of the Global South and climate activists, say that the precedent set by the agreement is a dangerous one.

Early reactions

President Obama, during a press conference in Copenhagen:

Now, this progress did not come easily, and we know that this progress alone is not enough. Going forward, we’re going to have to build on the momentum that we’ve established here in Copenhagen to ensure that international action to significantly reduce emissions is sustained and sufficient over time. We’ve come a long way, but we have much further to go.

To continue moving forward we must draw on the effort that allowed us to succeed here today—engagement among nations that represent a baseline of mutual interest and mutual respect. Climate change threatens us all; therefore, we must bridge old divides and build new partnerships to meet this great challenge of our time. That’s what we’ve begun to do here today...

With respect to the emissions targets that are going to be set, we know that they will not be by themselves sufficient to get to where we need to get by 2050. So that’s why I say that this is going to be a first step. And there are going to be those who are going to—who are going to look at the national commitments, tally them up and say, you know, the science dictates that even more needs to be done. The challenge here was that for a lot of countries, particularly those emerging countries that are still in different stages of development, this is going to be the first time in which even voluntarily they offered up mitigation targets. And I think that it was important to essentially get that shift in orientation moving, that’s what I think will end up being most significant about this accord.

From the perspective of the United States, I’ve set forth goals that are reflected in legislation that came out of the House that are being discussed on a bipartisan basis in the Senate. And although we will not be legally bound by anything that took place here today, we will I think have reaffirmed our commitment to meet those targets. And we’re going to meet those targets, as I said before, not simply because the science demands it, but also because I think it offers us enormous economic opportunity down the road.

Pablo Solon, Bolivia's ambassador to the U.N.:

This is completely unacceptable. How can it be that 25 to 30 nations cook up an agreement that excludes the majority of more than 190 nations. We have been negotiating for months on one of the gravest crises of our age, and yet our voice counts for nothing? If this is how world agreements will now be agreed, then it makes a nonsense of the U.N. and multilateralism.

The agreement talks of setting targets that limit warming to 2 degrees. The leaders of the rich countries should come to Bolivia to see what global warming is already doing to our country. We have droughts, disappearing glaciers and water shortages. Imagine this scaled up three times. We cannot accept an agreement that condemns half of humanity.

Lumumba Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the G77 group of 130 developing countries:

This deal will definitely result in massive devastation in Africa and small island states. It has the lowest level of ambition you can imagine. It's nothing short of climate change skepticism in action.

It locks countries into a cycle of poverty for ever. Obama has eliminated any difference between him and Bush.

Kumi Naidoo, leader of Greenpeace International and TckTckTck:

Not fair, not ambitious and not legally binding. The job of world leaders is not done. Today they failed to avert catastrophic climate change...

We have seen a year of crises, but today it is clear that the biggest one facing humanity is a leadership crisis.

During the year a number developing countries showed a willingness to accept their share of the burden to avert climate chaos. But in the end, the blame for failure mostly lies with the rich industrialized world, countries which have the largest historic responsibility for causing the problem. In particular, the US failed to take any real leadership and dragged the talks down.

Climate science says we have only a few years left to halt the rise in emissions before making the kind of rapid reductions that would give us the best chance of avoiding dangerous climate change. We cannot change that science, so instead we will have to change the politics—and we may well have to change the politicians.

This is not over, people everywhere demanded a real deal before the Summit began and they are still demanding it. We can still save hundreds of millions of people from the devastation of a warming world, but it has just become a whole lot harder.

Civil society, the bulk of which was locked out of the final days of this Climate Summit, now needs to redouble its efforts. Each and every one of us must hold our leaders to account. We must take the struggle to avert climate catastrophe into every level of politics, local, regional, national and international. We also need to take it into the board room and onto the high streets. We can either work for a fundamental change in our society or we can suffer the consequences of one.

Bill Mckibben, founder of 350.org

[President Obama] blew up the United Nations. The idea that there’s a world community that means something has disappeared tonight. The clear point is, you poor nations can spout off all you want on questions like human rights or the role of women or fighting polio or handling refugees. But when you get too close to the center of things that count—the fossil fuel that's at the center of our economy—you can forget about it. We’re not interested. You’re a bother, and when you sink beneath the waves we don’t want to hear much about it... What exactly is the point of the U.N. now?

He [also] formed a league of super-polluters, and would-be super-polluters. China, the U.S., and India don’t want anyone controlling their use of coal in any meaningful way. It is a coalition of foxes who will together govern the henhouse. It is no accident that the targets are weak to nonexistent.

Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity:

We all know what we must do to solve global warming, but even the architects of this deal acknowledge that it does not take those necessary steps. Merely acknowledging the weaknesses of the deal, as President Obama has done, does not excuse its failings. If this is the best we can do, it is not nearly good enough. We stand at the precipice of climatic tipping points beyond which a climate crash will be out of our control. We cannot make truly meaningful and historic steps with the United States pledging to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by only 3 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. The science demands far more.

The people of the United States voted for President Obama based on his promise of change and hope. But the only change today’s agreement brings is a greater risk of dangerous climate change. And the only hope that flows from Copenhagen stems not from the president’s hollow pronouncements but from the birth of a diverse global movement demanding real solutions and climate justice — demands made with a collective voice growing loud enough that in short order politicians will no longer be able to ignore it.
  Read Weak Deal From Copenhagen
 December 20, 2009
The most progressive US president in a generation comes to the most important international meeting since the Second World War and delivers a speech so devoid of substance that he might as well have made it on speaker-phone from a beach in Hawaii. His aides argue in private that he had no choice, such is the opposition on Capitol Hill to any action that could challenge the dominance of fossil fuels in American life. And so the nation that put a man on the Moon can't summon the collective will to protect men and women back here on Earth from the consequences of an economic model and lifestyle choice that has taken on the mantle of a religion.

Then a Chinese premier who is in the process of converting his Communist nation to that new faith (high-carbon consumer capitalism) takes such umbrage at Barack Obama's speech that he refuses to meet – sulking in his hotel room, as if this were a teenager's house party instead of a final effort to stave off the breakdown of our biosphere.

Late in the evening, the two men meet and cobble together a collection of paragraphs that they call a "deal", although in reality it has all the meaning and authority of a bus ticket, not that it stops them signing it with great solemnity.

Obama's team then briefs the travelling White House press pack – most of whom, it seems, understand about as much about global-climate politics as our own lobby hacks know about baseball. Before we know it, The New York Times and CNN are declaring the birth of a "meaningful" accord.

Meanwhile, a friend on an African delegation emails to say that he and many fellow members of the G77 bloc of developing countries are streaming into the corridors after a long discussion about the perilous state of the talks, only to see Obama on the television announcing that the world has a deal.

It's the first they've heard about it, and a few minutes later, as they examine the text, they realise very quickly that it effectively condemns their continent to a century of devastating temperature rises.

By now, the European leaders – who know this thing is a farce but have to present it to their publics as progress – have their aides phoning the directors of civil society organisations spinning that the talks have been a success.

A success? This deal crosses so many of the red lines laid out by Europe before this summit started that there are scarlet skid marks across the Bella Centre, and one honest European diplomat tells us this is a "shitty, shitty deal". Quite so.

This "deal" is beyond bad. It contains no legally binding targets and no indication of when or how they will come about. There is not even a declaration that the world will aim to keep global temperature rises below C. Instead, leaders merely recognise the science behind that vital threshold, as if that were enough to prevent us crossing it.

The only part of this deal that anyone sane came close to welcoming was the $100bn global climate fund, but it's now apparent that even this is largely made up of existing budgets, with no indication of how new money will be raised and distributed so that poorer countries can go green and adapt to climate change.

I know our politicians feel they have to smile and claim success; they feel that's the only way to keep this train on the tracks. But we've passed that point – we need to go back to first principles now. We have to admit to ourselves the scale of the problem and recognise that at its core this carbon crisis is, in fact, a political crisis.

Until politicians recognise that, they're kidding themselves, and, more than that, they're kidding us too.

Not all of our politicians deserve the opprobrium of a dismayed world. Our own Ed Miliband fought hard, on no sleep, for a better outcome; while Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva offered to financially assist other developing countries to cope with climate change, and put a relatively bold carbon target on the table. But the EU didn't move on its own commitment (one so weak we'd actually have to work hard not to meet it), while the United States offered nothing and China stood firm.

Before the talks began, I was of the opinion that we would know Copenhagen was a success only when plans for new coal-fired power stations across the developed world were dropped. If the giant utilities saw in the outcome of Copenhagen an unmistakable sign that governments were now determined to act, and that coal plants this century would be too expensive to run under the regime agreed at this meeting, then this summit would have succeeded.

Instead, as details of the agreement emerged last night, we received reports of Japanese opposition MPs popping champagne corks as they savoured the possible collapse of their new government's carbon targets.

It's not just that we didn't get to where we needed to be, we've actually ceded huge amounts of ground. There is nothing in this deal – nothing – that would persuade an energy utility that the era of dirty coal is over. And the implications for humanity of that simple fact are profound.

I know we Greens are partial to hyperbole. We use language as a bludgeon to direct attention to the crisis we are facing, and you will hear much more of it in the coming days and weeks. But, really, it is no exaggeration to describe the outcome of Copenhagen as a historic failure that will live in infamy.

In a single day, in a single space, a spectacle was played out in front of a disbelieving audience of people who have read and understood the stark warnings of humanity's greatest scientific minds. And what they witnessed was nothing less than the very worst instincts of our species articulated by the most powerful men who ever lived.

Joss Garman is a Greenpeace activist and co-founder of Plane Stupid
  Read Copenhagen - Historic Failure That Will Live In Infamy
 December 19, 2009
To anybody interested in the future of the earth’s climate, the conclusion of the Copenhagen conference represents either colossal disappointment or profound rage. The financial pledges— if honored— that rich nations made to poor nations will do nothing to combat global warming. The few climate related agreements that were made were of zero substance, especially when compared to what the situation demanded.

The sorrowful outcome, however, could have been predicted in the conference’s first week, based on two seemingly unrelated events: The conference showcased the largest police action in Denmark’s history (including mass arrests of “troublemakers”); while also producing the largest ever boom in limousine rentals. Both happenings helped reveal the true nature of the conference, spelling doom for climate progress.

Contrary to the hopes of billions of people, the talks were a purely elite affair. Many of the thousands of delegates sent to the conference were not looking to save the planet, as advertised, but were looking out for the national interest of their native governments. Most of these countries are dominated by the “special interests” of giant corporations.

Big business in the rich nations used the conference as a cynical maneuver to maintain their economic dominance over the “emerging business” in the developing countries. This fact was at first obscured by technical language, until the now-famous “Danish Text” was leaked to the press in the first week of the conference.

This document was a conference proposal written by the U.S. and England, though submitted by Denmark. The Danish Text proposes that developed nations — the U.S., Europe, Japan, etc. — be allowed to pollute twice the amount of developing countries — China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc. — for the next fifty years.

If enacted, the corporations of the developing nations would be forced to function under an incredible economic handicap. Their governments would have, of course, rejected such nonsense, giving the U.S. delegates the needed excuse to blame China for the failed talks (the U.S. media has done this with absolute disregard for facts).

The Danish Text also proposed to move future climate talks out of the realm of the too-democratic UN into the U.S./Europe dominated World Bank. Obama has thus surpassed his predecessor in the realm of global arrogance.

However, the U.S. torpedoed the talks long before they ever began, forcing the international media to campaign in favor of “lower expectations.” The New York Times explains:

“… when Mr. Obama and other world leaders met last month, they were forced to abandon the goal of reaching a binding accord at Copenhagen because the American political system is not ready to agree to a treaty that would force the United States, over time, to accept profound changes in its energy, transport and manufacturing [corporate] sectors.” (December 13, 2009).

Instead of building upon the foundation of the already-insufficient Kyoto Protocol, the Obama administration demanded a whole new structure, something that would take years to achieve. The Kyoto framework was abandoned because it included legally binding agreements, and was based on multi-lateral, agreed-upon reductions of greenhouse gasses (however insufficient). Instead, Obama proposed that “…each country set its own rules and to decide unilaterally how to meet its target.” (The Guardian, September 15, 2009).

This way, there is zero accountability, zero oversight, and therefore, zero climate progress. Any country may make any number of symbolic “pledges” to combat global warming, while actually doing very little to follow through — much like billions of dollars rich countries pledged to Africa that have yet to leave western bank accounts.

Obama’s maneuvering to ruin Copenhagen was correctly assessed by Canadian writer Naomi Klein, who said that Obama, like Bush, is “using multi-lateralism to destroy multi-lateralism.” This means that Obama is participating in international organizations like the UN Copenhagen conference, with no intention of reaching agreements. Once the U.S. blames its overseas rivals for the failure to “cooperate,” a more independent path can be struck.

This is reminiscent of Bush’s path to invading Iraq: he used the UN Security Council to pass resolutions against Iraq, which helped him weaken Iraq while strengthening U.S. public opinion. But when the Security Council wouldn’t agree to an invasion, Bush assembled a pathetic “coalition of the willing” to attack, completely abandoning the UN (Obama appears to be following an identical approach with Iran). U.S. corporations wanted to dominate Iraq’s huge oil reserves and other treasures, to the detriment of the corporations within Europe, Russia, and China.

Another example of Obama’s fake multi-lateralism is the World Trade Organization (WTO). The U.S. is again being blamed for blocking a multi-lateral agreement in this corporate-controlled organization — some U.S. corporations want market protection from rival corporations of other countries.

The international WTO continues to be unofficially abandoned in favor of regional (unilateral) trade blocs like NAFTA, CAFTA, the EU, etc., increasing international tensions, which, if one looks below the surface, are conflicts between giant corporations based in rival nations, battling for control of international markets, raw materials, and cheap labor.

The failure of the WTO, the UN, and now Copenhagen are all examples of an increasingly conflict-ridden world, based on the emerging economies challenging the rule of the old powers. This dynamic clearly resembles the situation prior to WWI, when the big powers — England and the U.S. — felt threatened by the rise of Germany and Japan, and used a strategy of “containment” to stunt their growth. The end result was war.

This time, however, China, India, Brazil, and Russia are the emerging threats, and the issue of climate change is being used as yet another tactic to “contain” their growth.

With such a dynamic unfolding, there can be no future multi-lateral agreements expected, minus the “symbolic” type that Copenhagen produced. The unbridgeable national conflicts are not the result of bad policy from naïve leaders, but an inherent future of a market economy [capitalism].

Giant corporations in different countries are constantly growing and competing with each other for a very limited global marketplace, always attempting to monopolize markets, raw-materials, and labor by any means necessary. This vicious competition pushes all other social issues into the background — human needs are subordinate to blindly chasing profits.

Such an irrationally competitive system cannot be smoothed over with good intentions and on-paper cooperation. Deeper, conflicting corporate interests between nations are the motor force pushing countries further apart the more cooperation is needed.

But soon the fake cooperation Obama stresses will be too much for the U.S. corporate-elite to bear. Many of them are bored with the international community, especially when the U.S. is the sole military super-power in the world. Soon Obama’s “failed attempts” to cooperate internationally will evolve into a more independent, Bush-like approach.

The largely ignored UN is likely to be further pushed aside so that brute force can continue to dictate US international policy, an agenda already begun by the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Obama’s expanding war in Pakistan, and the “looming threat” that supposedly Iran is.

As long as governmental policy is dictated by the corporations — represented in the U.S. by the two party system — multi-lateralism and cooperation are doomed. Thus, the battle to save the environment and end war must include a fight against these corporations, who wield a political/economic vise grip over society. Only by publicly controlling these billionaire-owned mega-enterprises can the peaceful and cooperative impulses of the earth’s people find their full expression.

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be reached at shamuscook@yahoo.com
  Read Why Copenhagen Failed
 December 19, 2009
So that's it. The world's worst polluters – the people who are drastically altering the climate – gathered here in Copenhagen to announce they were going to carry on cooking, in defiance of all the scientific warnings.

They didn't seal the deal; they sealed the coffin for the world's low-lying islands, its glaciers, its North Pole, and millions of lives.

Those of us who watched this conference with open eyes aren't surprised. Every day, practical, intelligent solutions that would cut our emissions of warming gases have been offered by scientists, developing countries and protesters – and they have been systematically vetoed by the governments of North America and Europe.

It's worth recounting a few of the ideas that were summarily dismissed – because when the world finally resolves to find a real solution, we will have to revive them.

Discarded Idea One: The International Environmental Court. Any cuts that leaders claim they would like as a result of Copenhagen will be purely voluntary. If a government decides not to follow them, nothing will happen, except a mild blush, and disastrous warming. Canada signed up to cut its emissions at Kyoto, and then increased them by 26 per cent – and there were no consequences. Copenhagen could unleash a hundred Canadas.

The brave, articulate Bolivian delegates – who have seen their glaciers melt at a terrifying pace – objected. They said if countries are serious about reducing emissions, their cuts need to be policed by an International Environmental Court that has the power to punish people. This is hardly impractical. When our leaders and their corporate lobbies really care about an issue – say, on trade – they pool their sovereignty this way in a second. The World Trade Organisation fines and sanctions nations severely if (say) they don't follow strict copyright laws. Is a safe climate less important than a trademark?

Discarded Idea Two: Leave the fossil fuels in the ground. At meetings here, an extraordinary piece of hypocrisy has been pointed out by the new international chair of Friends of the Earth, Nnimmo Bassey, and the environmental writer George Monbiot. The governments of the world say they want drastically to cut their use of fossil fuels, yet at the same time they are enthusiastically digging up any fossil fuels they can find, and hunting for more. They are holding a fire extinguisher in one hand and a flame-thrower in the other.

Only one of these instincts can prevail. A study published earlier this year in the journal Nature showed that we can use only – at an absolute maximum – 60 per cent of all the oil, coal and gas we have already discovered if we are going to stay the right side of catastrophic runaway warming. So the first step in any rational climate deal would be an immediate moratorium on searching for more fossil fuels, and fair plans for how to decide which of the existing stock we will leave unused. As Bassey put it: "Keep the coal in the hole. Keep the oil in the soil. Keep the tar sand in the land." This option wasn't even discussed by our leaders.

Discarded Idea Three: Climate debt. The rich world has been responsible for 70 per cent of the warming gases in the atmosphere – yet 70 per cent of the effects are being felt in the developing world. Holland can build vast dykes to prevent its land flooding; Bangladesh can only drown. There is a cruel inverse relationship between cause and effect: the polluter doesn't pay.

So we have racked up a climate debt. We broke it; they paid. At this summit, for the first time, the poor countries rose in disgust. Their chief negotiator pointed out that the compensation offered "won't even pay for the coffins". The cliché that environmentalism is a rich person's ideology just gasped its final CO2-rich breath. As Naomi Klein put it: "At this summit, the pole of environmentalism has moved south."

When we are dividing up who has the right to emit the few remaining warming gases that the atmosphere can absorb, we need to realise that we are badly overdrawn. We have used up our share of warming gases, and then some. Yet the US and EU have dismissed the idea of climate debt out of hand. How can we get a lasting deal that every country agrees to if we ignore this basic principle of justice? Why should the poorest restrain themselves when the rich refuse to?

A deal based on these real ideas would actually cool the atmosphere. The alternatives championed at Copenhagen by the rich world – carbon offsetting, carbon trading, carbon capture – won't. They are a global placebo. The critics who say the real solutions are "unrealistic" don't seem to realise that their alternative is more implausible still: civilisation continuing merrily on a planet whose natural processes are rapidly breaking down.

Throughout the negotiations here, the world's low-lying island states have clung to the real ideas as a life raft, because they are the only way to save their countries from a swelling sea. It has been extraordinary to watch their representatives – quiet, sombre people with sad eyes – as they were forced to plead for their own existence. They tried persuasion and hard science and lyrical hymns of love for their lands, and all were ignored.

These discarded ideas – and dozens more like them – show once again that man-made global warming can be stopped. The intellectual blueprints exist just as surely as the technological blueprints. There would be sacrifices, yes – but they are considerably less than the sacrifices made by our grandparents in their greatest fight.

We will have to pay higher taxes and fly less to make the leap to a renewably powered world – but we will still be able to live an abundant life where we are warm and free and well fed. The only real losers will be the fossil fuel corporations and the petro-dictatorships.

But our politicians have not chosen this sane path. No: they have chosen inertia and low taxes and oil money today over survival tomorrow. The true face of our current system – and of Copenhagen – can be seen in the life-saving ideas it has so casually tossed into the bin.
  Read The Truths Copenhagen Ignored
 December 19, 2009
Click here to read the full text of the accord [pdf]

COPENHAGEN—Seven countries, led by the tiny Pacific island nation of Tuvalu, this morning declined to accept the Copenhagen Accord that was reached late last night. But in a procedural move designed to put the agreement into effect, the conference decided to “take note” of the accord instead of formally approving it.

NGO experts explained that the decision by the other nations who are parties to the conference to “take note” enables the accord to become what the United States and other supporting nations call “operational,” even though it has not gained formal United Nations approval.

Negotiators continued to work today to clean up last details, but the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference appeared as though it would conclude later today. In a sense the accord is tantamount to a global prenup, with the full marriage agreement still to come.

The final stages of the Copenhagen climate conference have produced a range of responses, though none were expressions of celebration. Ban ki-Moon, the secretary-general of the United Nations, called the accord reached last night “hopeful” and urged the 193 nations that gathered here to transform its basic provisions into a legally binding treaty. “It’s just a beginning. It will take more than this to tackle climate change. It is a step in the right direction,” he said.

The U.N. secretary-general said he would press world leaders to complete a legally binding treaty next year. The Copenhagen Accord was negotiated by President Obama, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, and the leaders of Brazll, India, and South Africa. It attracted support from the European Union and most other world leaders. The accord encompassed all of the significant measures that most nations said were needed to respond to climate change, but with steps that many climate scientists and diplomats consider insufficient to keep global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius, a level thought by many world leaders to be manageable.

The Copenhagen Accord contains these provisions that President Obama called a start to global action to solve climate change:

1. A commitment by developed nations to invest $30 billion over the next three years to help developing nations adapt to climate change and pursue clean energy development.

2. A provisional commitment by developed nations to develop a long-term $100 billion global fund by 2020 to assist developing nations in responding to climate change and become part of the clean energy economic transition.

3. A goal to pursue emissions reductions that are sufficient to keep the rise in global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius.

4. Pledges by nations to commit to concrete emissions reductions, though the specific levels of reduction were not set.

5. A general goal to subject participating countries to international review of their progress under the accord.

6. Diplomatic space for the United States and China to work together to solve climate change. A commitment to complete an assessment of the effectiveness of the accord in reducing emissions by the end of 2015.

The events leading up to making the accord operational followed a long night of controversy in which Tuvalu, Sudan, Venezuela, Cuba, and three other nations opposed its provisions, arguing that it did not go nearly far enough to solve the climate crisis. The smaller nations also objected to the process that produced the accord, in which the United States, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa negotiated with 20 other nations. President Obama, who arrived early on Friday morning, put the full measure of his influence and prestige behind the work to reach the accord.

Critics of the accord called it completely inadequate to respond to the dire threat posed by climate change. Cuban delegates said that the United States and its new president were “behaving like an emperor” and claimed that the draft was a “gross violation of the principle of sovereign equality.”

At 10:30 p.m. Obama held a news conference and appeared visibly spent. “Today we’ve made a meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough here in Copenhagen,” he said. “For the first time in history, all major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to take action to confront the threat of climate change.”

The president added: “Because of the actions we’re taking, we came here to Copenhagen with an ambitious target to reduce our emissions. We agreed to join an international effort to provide financing to help developing countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, adapt to climate change. And we reaffirmed the necessity of listing our national actions and commitments in a transparent way. These three components — transparency, mitigation, and finance — form the basis of the common approach that the United States and our partners embraced here in Copenhagen. Throughout the day we worked with many countries to establish a new consensus around these three points, a consensus that will serve as a foundation for global action to confront the threat of climate change for years to come.”

  Read Climate Deal Not Accepted By All, But Copenhagen Conference Makes It ‘Operational’
 December 19, 2009   Copenhagen Talks End With Agreement, But No Binding Deal: So, How Screwed Are We?
by AlterNet published in AlterNet: The Mix is the Message
'The governments which moved so swiftly to save the banks have bickered and filibustered while the biosphere burns.'

Last night a tentative agreement was reached between major parties at the COP15 climate change talks in Copenhagen, but will need to be approved by the 193 nations at the gathering. Initial word is that the "Copenhagen Accord" falls short of the already low expectations set for the talks. The full text can be read here.

The New York Times reported:

Leaders here concluded a climate change deal on Friday that the Obama administration called "meaningful" but that falls short of even the modest expectations for the summit meeting ... the agreement appeared to leave many of the participants unhappy.

Even an Obama administration official conceded, "It is not sufficient to combat the threat of climate change, but it's an important first step."

Environmental writer and activist Bill McKibben of 350.org voiced his disapproval. Writing for Grist, McKibben summarized what Obama accomplished:

He blew up the United Nations. The idea that there's a world community that means something has disappeared tonight. The clear point is, you poor nations can spout off all you want on questions like human rights or the role of women or fighting polio or handling refugees. But when you get too close to the center of things that count--the fossil fuel that's at the center of our economy--you can forget about it. We're not interested. You're a bother, and when you sink beneath the waves we don't want to hear much about it. The dearest hope of the American right for fifty years was essentially realized because in the end coal is at the center of America's economy. We already did this with war and peace, and now we've done it with global warming. What exactly is the point of the U.N. now?

He formed a league of super-polluters, and would-be super-polluters. China, the U.S., and India don't want anyone controlling their use of coal in any meaningful way. It is a coalition of foxes who will together govern the henhouse. It is no accident that the targets are weak to nonexistent. We don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves with targets, he said. Indeed. And now imagine what this agreement will look like with the next Republican president.

He demonstrated the kind of firmness and resolve that Americans like to see. It will play well politically at home and that will be the worst part of the deal. Having spurned Europe and the poor countries of the world, he will reap domestic political benefit. George Bush couldn't have done this--the reaction would have been too great. Obama has taken the mandate that progressives worked their hearts out to give him, and used it to gut the ideas that progressives have held most dear. The ice caps won't be the only things we lose with this deal.

McKibben's sentiment was echoed by Britain's leading climate writer, George Monbiot, who wrote:

Even before this new farce began it was starting to look as if it might be too late to prevent two or more degrees of global warming. The nation states, pursuing their own interests, have each been passing the parcel of responsibility since they decided to take action in 1992.

We have now lost 17 precious years; possibly the only years in which climate breakdown could have been prevented. This has not happened by accident: it is the result of a systematic campaign of sabotage by certain states, which has been driven and promoted by the energy industries. This idiocy has been aided and abetted by the nations characterized, until now, as the good guys: those which have made firm commitments, only to invalidate them with loopholes, false accounting and outsourcing. In all cases immediate self-interest has trumped the long-term welfare of humankind. Corporate profits and political expediency have proved to be more urgent concerns than either the natural world or human civilization. Our political systems are incapable of discharging the main function of government: to protect us from each other.

Goodbye Africa, goodbye south Asia; goodbye glaciers and sea ice, coral reefs and rainforest; it was nice knowing you, not that we really cared. The governments which moved so swiftly to save the banks have bickered and filibustered while the biosphere burns.

The next meeting of parties is scheduled for November 2010 in Mexico City, but it's unclear if a binding agreement will be put in place then. Friday's agreement set a goal of 2015.

  Read Copenhagen Talks End With Agreement, But No Binding Deal: So, How Screwed Are We?
 December 18, 2009   8 Things We Love That Climate Change Will Force Us to Kiss Good-Bye
Tara Lohan
published in AlterNet: The Mix is the Message
We face losing everything from 50,000 species a year to the world's best wines. How to put it all in perspective?

If we don't work quickly to curb the effects of climate change we may lose the bird-eating fanged frog. Most of us may not miss that one, but there is an enormous list of species and places we may never see again unless we reverse this crazy climate change ride we've put the earth on. The Natural Resources Defense Council reported that, "The first comprehensive assessment of the extinction risk from global warming found that more than 1 million species could be obliterated by 2050 if the current trajectory continues."

The numbers are virtually impossible to comprehend, especially when you consider that not just individual species, but entire habitats, cities, and cultures may be lost. How to put it all in perspective? Below are eight major features of our planet and our lives whose potential disappearance may inspire action.

1. World's Best Wines

So far the polar bear has become the poster child for climate change, but we may have more luck galvanizing people into action if they know the future of some of world's best wine is at stake. A report from Greenpeace showed that the climatically sensitive process of wine production in France is being disrupted by changing temperatures. "The average annual temperature has significantly increased, leading to major shifts in the wine production calendar," the group reports. "The harvesting season is occurring much earlier than normal and higher temperatures are proving detrimental to the vines. Wines end up having higher sugar levels and alcohol content while retaining less acids -- which means they are unbalanced with an overripe flavor and heavier texture."

Great wines are the result of a combination of climate and terroir, and both are at risk. Apparently this news is spurring food and wine groups in France to demand action in Copenhagen. Greenpeace reported that a coalition of renowned chefs and sommeliers have said that if French wines are to survive, they need "an ambitious deal by developed nations to reduce carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2020."

And it's not just French wine. The National Academy of Sciences predicted that climate change could mean the end for California's tasty vinos, too. Hey, if the threat of millions of climate refugees and mass extinction doesn't get people going, maybe alcohol will.

2. 50,000 Rainforest Species a Year

Scientists estimate that we lose 50,000 species a year to deforestation in the world's rainforests. And to make matters worse, the already horrendous environmental effects of deforestation are being amplified by climate change. This is playing out most notably in the Amazon.

"The fear is that there will be a kind of a feedback where trees are cut down, and it gets warmer and drier" in the forest and harder for the trees and other vegetation to grow back, Bob Henson, author of The Rough Guide to Climate Change, told CNN.

Without the Amazon, we lose what scientists call the "lungs" of our planet -- the area where 20 percent of the world's oxygen is produced. Not to mention the thousands of fruits, plants, herbs, medicines and other edibles that come from the region.

Now scientists are saying that one third of the Amazon's trees could be wiped out by modest temperatures rises. "The research, by some of Britain's leading experts on climate change, shows that even severe cuts in deforestation and carbon emissions will fail to save the emblematic South American jungle, the destruction of which has become a powerful symbol of human impact on the planet," the Guardian reported. "Up to 85% of the forest could be lost if spiraling greenhouse gas emissions are not brought under control, the experts said. But even under the most optimistic climate change scenarios, the destruction of large parts of the forest is 'irreversible.'"

3. New Orleans

There's a long list of cities in danger of being swamped by rising sea levels, including major population centers like London, New York, Calcutta and Shanghai. But New Orleans, which already sits below sea level, is especially vulnerable. And we all know how good our nation's record is of helping New Orleans deal with catastrophe and its aftermath.

"Scientists say New Orleans and the barrier islands to the south will be severely affected by climate change by the end of this century, with sea level rise and growing intensity of hurricanes. Much of the land mass of the barrier island chain sheltering New Orleans was lost in the 2005 storm," the Guardian reported. "But the extent of the land that will be lost is far greater than earlier forecasts suggest," said Dr. Michael Blum and Professor Harry Roberts.

The two performed a study which found that huge amounts of soil need to be dumped into the Mississippi River Delta, otherwise 5,212 square miles of land in the area could be lost to the ocean and tidal marsh by 2100. "All that remains of New Orleans would probably be the French Quarter and the airport," the Christian Science Monitor reported about the study. "Lake Pontchartrain would lie beneath a vast bay. Along its southernmost reaches, the Mississippi River would remain a river only by virtue of the levees raised to contain it."

4. Pacific Salmon

Salmon on the Pacific coast have had a rough time, thanks to dams, pollution, introduction of nonnative species and other bad decisions by us humans. Now, climate change is causing rising temperatures, which are affecting this cold-water loving species, and decreased precipitation is causing reduced river flows, further threatening salmon. Throw in some ocean acidification and it's a recipe for disaster for salmon populations and those who depend on them. And there are lots who do.

Salmon are a crucial part of the food chain for 150 species, including humans. The fish is a staple in many Native American communities and an economic mainstay for tens of thousand of fishermen in coastal towns.

"Global warming is expected to hit the already warm and dry western U.S. very hard," said Glen Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, most of whose members depend on salmon harvests for a large part of their livelihoods. "The science shows that these changes have already begun, and are already affecting our region's valuable salmon runs. Averting this looming disaster should be one of our nation's highest priorities."

5. The Maldives and Tuvalu

While rising seas may threaten one of the United States' most beautiful and culturally rich cities, it's also getting dangerously close to wiping out entire countries, including the island nations of the Maldives in the Indian Ocean and Tuvalu in the Pacific. The Maldives are composed of over 1,000 coral islands and support a huge diversity of marine life, including commercial tuna fisheries. The gorgeous Polynesian country of Tuvalu is one of the smallest in the world and is already looking for other nations to take in its citizens as climate refugees.

The Maldives' first democratically elected president, Mohamed Nasheed, spoke at COP15 earlier this week, calling for immediate action to restrain CO2 levels and return them to 350 parts per million, as scientists have recommended:

We are here to save our planet from the silent, patient and invisible enemy that is climate change ... There are those who tell us that solving climate change is impossible. There are those who tell us taking radical action is too difficult. There are those who tell us to give up hope.

Well, I am here to tell you that we refuse to give up hope. We refuse to be quiet. We refuse to believe that a better world isn't possible.

I have three words to say to the doubters and deniers. Three words with which to win this battle. Just three words are all I need. You may already have heard them. Three - Five - Oh. Three - Five - Oh.

6. Glaciers

Glacier National Park is going to have the same draw without the glaciers. When the park was created in 1910 it had 150 glaciers. Today it has only 30, and they're getting smaller.

And it's not the only iconic spot on the verge of losing its icy coat -- both Mount Everest and Mount Kilimanjaro are threatened, too. "It is clear that global warming is emerging as one, if not the, biggest threat to mountain areas," says Roger Payne of the International Mountaineering and Climbing Federation.

As for Kilimanjaro, National Geographic reports, "The ice fields Ernest Hemingway once described as 'wide as all the world, great, high, and unbelievably white in the sun' have lost 82 percent of their ice since 1912--the year their full extent was first measured. If current climatic conditions persist, the legendary glaciers, icing the peaks of Africa's highest summit for nearly 12,000 years, could be gone entirely by 2020."

This is bad news for animals that have adapted to live in these ecosystems and for the businesses that are supported by tourism and climbers. But melting glaciers also mean immediate flooding, following by drought. This is bad news for billions.

Agence France Presse reported this week that melting glaciers in the Himalayas will affect 1.3 billion Asians living downstream in Pakistan, India, China, Nepal and Bhutan. "Temperatures in the region have increased by between 0.15 and 0.6 degrees Celsius (0.27 and 1.08 degrees Fahrenheit) each decade for the last 30 years, dramatically accelerating the rate at which glaciers are shrinking," the news outlet reported. "'Scientists predict that most glaciers will be gone in 40 years as a result of climate change,' said Prashant Singh, leader of environmental group WWF's Climate for Life campaign."

7. Coral Reefs

Carbon dioxide emissions are causing the world's oceans to become more acidic, which is a threat to creatures that have "chalky" skeletons (including corals). In order to form their skeletons, they need the water to be saturated with calcium carbonate, but as acidification goes up, saturation goes down. According to Science Daily this poses a risk to one-third of ocean life and the basis of the ocean food chain.

If temperatures rise by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, we are likely to lose 97 percent of our coral reefs. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) recently filed a petition to have 83 species of coral listed under the Endangered Species Act.

SolveClimate reports that, "Since acidification happens at a rate parallel to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide -- oceans absorb about one-third of CO2 -- it's picking up pace. According to CBD oceans director Miyoko Sakashita, coral reefs are likely to be the first major ecosystems widely damaged by the effects of more acidic oceans."

Some of the world's most famous coral reefs include Australia's Great Barrier Reef, which is the world's largest; the Belize Barrier Reef; the New Caledonia Barrier Reef in the South Pacific; the Red Sea Coral Reef; and the Andros, Bahamas Barrier Reef. The reefs are home to an incredible array of biological diversity, next only to rainforests, and also provide vast economic boosts. "Globally, the welfare of 500 million people is closely linked to the goods and services provided by coral reef biodiversity," Science Daily reports.

They are also home to some of the most beautiful sights on Earth.

8. Really Big Bears

Most environmentalists know that "charismatic megafauna" are the ones that capture the hearts of the public and the media. This has catapulted the polar bear to the forefront of our attention, making it the first mammal to be listed as threatened because of climate change. The loss of summer ice in the Arctic has meant shrinking hunting grounds for the bear. They've had to travel farther to find food, decreasing their fat storage, increasing their stress, and causing some to drown as they swim to reach distant ice floes. By 2050, two-thirds of polar bear sub-populations will be gone.

But polar bears aren't the only bears at risk. Changing temperatures are now causing grizzlies to den later in the fall. As a result they're overlapping with hunting season, which is bad news for the bear. But that's not all. Climate change is also affecting their food sources. "Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) seeds are a food resource for grizzly bears in some areas, including Yellowstone. Global warming has led to an increase in whitebark pine blister rust as well as an increase in competing species such as Douglas fir in higher elevations," the Endangered Species Coalition reports. "As whitebark pine and other natural grizzly food resources decline due to global warming, grizzlies may shift from remote high elevation areas to lower elevation human-populated areas, looking for alternative foods. Here, they often encounter humans and our garbage, food and livestock. This causes bears to become conditioned to humans; these human-conditioned bears are often removed or killed by wildlife managers due to safety concerns."

And the List Goes On

There are thousands of other species teetering on the brink of collapse and as many incredible places that will lost, if we don't take action to curb our greenhouse gas emissions and begin mitigation strategies. Later today, we will be able to see what the world's political leaders have agreed to and if it will be enough. As we try to untangle the outcome of the COP15 climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, let's try to keep this list in mind, even though it's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what's at stake. When we're talking about preserving ecological diversity, amazing creatures, human lives, and some of the most beautiful places on Earth we need solutions that transcend politics and economics as usual.
  Read 8 Things We Love That Climate Change Will Force Us to Kiss Good-Bye
 November 28, 2009   Our Lives Are Filled With Worthless Crap That's Destroying the Earth: Here's What You Can Do
Sharon Bloyd-Peshkin, In These Times
published in AlterNet: The Mix is the Message
The way to lower the quantity of energy required to make and distribute short-lived consumer goods is to make them durable, repairable and upgradable.

As the middle-class daughter of a refugee mother and a Depression-era father, I grew up straddling two worlds. My parents could afford much more than they were willing to buy. Most things that broke could be and were repaired. My German grandmother’s aphorisms lingered in the air: “Waste not, want not,” “A penny saved is a penny earned,” “A stitch in time saves nine.”

By the time my own children were born, America was flooded with cheap and cheaply made goods. So while my parents continued working at the sturdy antique desks they inherited from my grandparents and sleeping beneath a hand-crocheted bedspread, my children and their friends became the first and last owners of a seemingly endless supply of plastic toys and particle-board furniture.

I was part of the transitional generation. Building blocks were still made of wood. Comforters were still filled with down. I recall the meticulously machined pencil sharpeners with “made in West Germany” stamped on their sides that lasted until I lost them. Even the cheap items—the ones “made in Japan”—tended to hold up pretty well.

Now nearly everything is produced in China and made to be discarded. According to a 2008 report by the Economic Policy Institute, the United States imported $320 billion in Chinese goods in 2007. In that year alone, this country imported $26.3 billion in apparel and accessories, $108.5 billion in computers and electronic products, and $15.3 billion in furniture and fixtures from China.

The manufacture, distribution and disposal of an ever-growing mountain of short-lived consumer goods has taken an enormous environmental toll. Annie Leonard’s website “The Story of Stuff,” which has garnered more than 7 million views in less than two years, has helped spread awareness of that cost far beyond the usual environmentalist circles.

We can’t, however, only blame the quantity and quality of Chinese goods for the environmental and other consequences of this transoceanic factory-to-waste stream. For that we can blame the two horsemen of the modern consumer apocalypse: functional obsolescence and fashion obsolescence.

Functional, or planned obsolescence is the purposeful decision by designers and manufacturers to ensure things don’t last, so that consumers must buy new ones. Fashion obsolescence is the related decision to offer new features and aesthetic changes to entice consumers to discard their old items in favor of updated and supposedly better ones.

Ironically, product obsolescence was once seen as the remedy for what ailed our country. Lizabeth Cohen, chair of the History Department at Harvard University and author of A Consumers’ Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America (Vintage, 2003), traces the origins of mass consumption to the period immediately before and after World War II, when a demand-driven economy was seen as the key to our nation’s recovery and prosperity.

“In the 1940s and ’50s, there was a much closer connection between consumer demand and factories and jobs,” Cohen says. “That was a completed circle more than it is today. When people were buying things, they were buying things that were made by American workers.”

The only way to guarantee continued demand was to ensure that people would keep replacing the things they owned. The literature on planned obsolescence makes frequent reference to statements by industry analysts and strategists of that era. “Our enormously productive economy … demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction, in consumption,” retailing analyst Victor Lebow said in 1948. “We need things consumed, burned up, worn out, replaced and discarded at an ever increasing rate.”

This applied to male as well as female consumers, and to styling lines on cars as well as hemlines on skirts. Allied Stores Corporation’s Chairman B. Earl Puckett, speaking to fashion industry leaders in 1950, said, “Basic utility cannot be the foundation of a prosperous apparel industry. We must accelerate obsolescence.” And General Motors’ design chief Harley Earl said in 1955, “The creation of a desire on the part of millions of car buyers each year to trade in last year’s car on a new one is highly important to the automobile industry.”

Business people and politicians weren’t the only ones pushing this idea, Cohen says. “Labor really bought into this package. Purchasing power was the answer to how people would be employed and have a better life. Consumers would fuel the powers of factories that would provide jobs that would put money in peoples’ pockets.”

Since then, Cohen argues, we’ve conflated our concepts of ourselves as good consumers and as good citizens. The idea of consumption as our country’s economic engine continues to this day. Indeed, after the attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush implored Americans to go shopping. And frugal as I am and as green as I try to be, during the recent economic downturn I’ve found myself feeling that every major purchase I make is a perverse kind of civic duty. The notion of the citizen-as-consumer clearly runs deep.

But things have changed since the 1940s and ’50s. “When people were making goods that lasted [back then], they were benefiting from the explosion of global capitalism and the expanding of markets,” Cohen says. “Now that we have this global recession, it’s problematic. Where do these companies go if they are going to build goods that last? How do they profit if they don’t sell new goods? I don’t know the answer to this, but it’s a problem that policy makers, economic planners, labor unions—everybody has to think about.”

A Radically Obvious Idea

Although the greening of the American consumer has fostered some deceptive greenwashing campaigns seeking to capitalize on our good intentions, it has also made it possible for us to make better ecological and economic choices.

A host of clever websites now enables consumers to calculate their own ecological footprints and offer advice on how to reduce the toll. These include:

•MyFootprint.org, where you can find out how many Earths would be necessary if everybody on the planet shared your lifestyle;

•H20Conserve.org, where you can tally your water footprint;

•Wattzon.com, where you can calculate the energy required to sustain your lifestyle.

Some of these calculations become conceptually complex as they try to measure the energy required for the extraction and transportation of raw materials, and the manufacturing, distribution and ultimate disposal of products. It can all get abstract quite quickly, but there’s a far simpler message embedded in all that complexity: Buy stuff that lasts.

Saul Griffith, a 2007 MacArthur Fellow, serial inventor and co-founder of WattzOn, refers to this as “heirloom design”—a term he introduced during a talk at the February 2009 Greener Gadgets conference in New York. The best way to lower the quantity of energy required to manufacture and distribute consumer goods, he argues, is to make those products not only durable, but repairable and upgradable.

Griffith shares this radically obvious idea with Tim Cooper, head of the Centre for Sustainable Consumption at Sheffield Hallam University in Sheffield, England, and editor of the forthcoming book, Longer Lasting Solutions (Gower, June 2010). The Centre, which Cooper founded in 1996, conducts research into consumers’ behavior as well as the environmental effects of the choices they make.

Cooper argues for “product life extension”—making things more durable, using them properly, and ensuring they are maintained, repaired, upgraded, and reused. A key obstacle, he says, is the perception (supported by public policies) that higher levels of consumption yield greater happiness. After all, an increase in the GNP is considered healthy for the economy and can only be achieved if consumers increase their spending.

Cooper calls for “slow consumption,” the consumer purchasing equivalent of the Slow Food movement (which seeks to build consumer awareness and appreciation of food and its connection to community and the environment). “The issue to address is what kind of economy is going to be sustainable in its wider sense — economically, environmentally and socially,” he says. “The current economy is not sustainable. The sheer throughput of energy and materials cannot be continued.”

If products were more durable, Cooper argues, some jobs lost due to the decrease in consumption would be offset by the addition of more highly skilled maintenance and repair jobs. And whereas the lost jobs might be overseas, the repair jobs would be local. “We need to look at new business models that move away from manufacturing and selling more and more products,” he says. Such models might include “products that last longer but have associated services attached to them, so that the supplier guarantees to maintain, repair and upgrade the products for a certain period.”

This might be a hard sell for consumers, however. Cooper cites the results of a survey in which British homeowners were asked what they considered the disadvantages of longer-lasting appliances. Twenty-three percent stated concerns about price, while 30 percent said they feared these products would become “out of date.” He found that consumers were often disinclined to have products repaired because of the high cost of labor compared with the low cost of replacement, thanks to the quantity of consumer goods manufactured in countries with low wages and lax environmental regulations.

When I mentioned this conundrum to one of my ecologically conscious friends, she sheepishly admitted she had just discarded her old DVD player because the repair estimate was higher than the cost of a new one. “The present economic system does give an advantage to the current economy,” Cooper says, “and for the consumer, replacement is often the cheaper option.” That would have to change.

Close Encounters of the Durable Kind

Most of us have had an heirloom design or product life extension epiphany at one point or another.
Years ago, along with an untold number of other caffeine addicts, I succumbed to the then-ubiquitous ads for Gevalia coffee. Buy a couple pounds of beans and get a free drip coffeemaker. That became the first of a steady stream of plastic automatic drip coffee machines of various makes that took up residence on our countertop, none of which lived to see their second birthdays. Each time one broke, my husband and I found that the features available to us had multiplied. We could buy coffeemakers with built-in bean grinders, brew strength controls and programmable timers. We had been cornered by a combination of functional obsolescence and fashion obsolescence.

Then we discovered what any self-respecting Italian coffee drinker knew all along: A $30 cast aluminum stovetop espresso maker lasts forever. Replace the rubber gasket every couple of years, and you’ll stay happily caffeinated for life. We bought a used ’70s model on eBay several years ago and have been using it every day ever since.

Not everything older is better, of course. Visit your local thrift store, and you’ll be confronted by an exhibit of the unnecessary and the obsolete. Did anybody ever need a bread machine, an ice cream maker or an Atari game console?

And yet, thrift stores are also the repositories of time-tested items. The garments sold there are Darwinian success stories. They’ve survived the wrath of washers and dryers and still have significant life left in them. The dishes may be mismatched, but they are dishwasher and hand-washer safe. And I’m convinced that this is where the world’s missing teaspoons come to rest. If heirloom design has a line of boutiques, this is it.

Heirloom design has its adherents in the design and manufacturing worlds, too.

Patagonia, based in Ventura, Calif., was founded by avid mountain climbers who began selling clothing to support their barely profitable climbing-hardware business. From the start, the company was grounded in concern for the environment, and was an early adopter of several socially and environmentally responsible corporate policies, from donating a percentage of profits to environmental groups to offering employees on-site daycare.

Patagonia products are designed to last, and when they don’t hold up, the company stands behind them. Its “ironclad guarantee” states: “If one of our products does not perform to your satisfaction, return it to the store you bought it from or to Patagonia for a repair, replacement or refund.”

Sixteen years ago, my older brother gave me a Patagonia fleece jacket his children had outgrown. He purchased it around 1987 for his oldest daughter, who wore it until she outgrew it and handed it down to her younger sister. When she outgrew it, my daughter wore it, and then my son. At some point, the zipper broke, so I sent it to Patagonia, which repaired it at no cost. The jacket never wore out. That’s heirloom design.

The alternative to durability and repair is remanufacturing. After more than two decades in the modular carpet business, Ray Anderson, founder and chair of Interface Inc. of Lagrange, Ga., heard a talk by environmentalist Paul Hawken and was inspired to green up his company. In addition to other ecological efforts on the materials and production sides, in 1995 the company introduced an “evergreen lease” arrangement, essentially turning carpet into a service instead of a product. By taking responsibility for retrieving and remanufacturing carpet no longer wanted by its customers, Interface was able to keep used carpet out of the waste stream and reduce the need for new materials.

Unfortunately, the leasing concept proved complicated and expensive. The company eventually gave up on it but continued to aggressively pursue discarded carpet—both its own and that of other companies—so that the materials could be reclaimed and remanufactured. Andrew King, a visiting fellow in mechanical engineering at the University of Bristol and consultant with the Centre for Remanufacturing and Reuse, notes that remanufacturing is preferable to recycling because it preserves most of a product’s embodied energy while bringing it back to its original quality. And it creates jobs.

Here’s the kicker: By emphasizing product durability, service and remanufacturing, both of these companies have earned extra dividends in the form of corporate image and customer loyalty.

In Search of Solutions

The question, then, is what would it take to overcome our dependence on cheap goods? Even though obsolescence is no longer a boon for this country’s manufacturers, cheap products are essential for consumers who can barely afford to put food on the table. If a durable coffeemaker costs twice as much as a breakable one but lasts four times as long, it’s still less attractive to someone who doesn’t have the additional cash up front.

Policy would have to play a key role in reversing this unfortunate check-out counter calculation. Legislation on extended producer responsibility (EPR), requiring manufacturers to account for the full life-cycle of their products from extraction to disposal, could affect consumer culture by making disposable items more expensive and reviving an interest in repair.

Such legislation is complicated, however, by the ongoing pressure to protect industrial production. “Legislation tends to get watered and watered until it gets to be almost a hindrance to these breakthrough changes because in order for Big Business to buy into it, it has to become easy for them,” King says. EPR legislation would only be effective if it created a financial incentive for industry to produce more durable goods and for consumers to favor them.

Consumers are certainly influenced by price, but Cooper holds out hope that they also can be persuaded by having more of a connection to the objects they purchase—something referred to as “emotionally durable design.” If that sounds too touchy-feely for a coffee machine, consider the difference between a pair of shoes custom-made for you by your local cobbler and an off-the-rack pair from the shoe store. Which would you be more likely to clean, resole and repair?

Part of the solution might also be having more products available without the burden of ownership. Tool rentals, car-sharing and even laundromats diminish the number of products that need to be manufactured and place a premium on durability and longevity. (This can even be done informally. We’ve shared a lawnmower with one of our neighbors for years.) “We should have much more attachment to certain products but for others we should see that they are services,” King says.

Cooper warns, however, that rental can backfire in some areas, such as electronics. “The danger of the rental model with technology is that as advances are made, people who rent them might upgrade even more quickly than they would at the moment,” he says. But even electronics could have a smaller ecological footprint if they could be updated through the use of modular design instead of being casually discarded. “The trick will be to understand what does and what doesn’t change,” King says.

King sees consumers playing a large role in putting pressure on industry to make the necessary changes. “The real issue is creating the demand,” he says. “I work with a large number of large multinationals. When they assign their designers to the challenge—design this for two lives—they rise to the challenge. They just start to think in a different way.”

Ultimately, environmental and economic sustainability won’t be possible until we become less dependent on consumer spending, which currently comprises 70 percent of the U.S. economy. We can’t just keep churning out, buying and disposing of stuff.

“We can diversify the range of goods that are underpinning our economy and providing us with jobs and some prosperity,” Cohen says. “It doesn’t just have to be commodities for the individual consumer. That would be the best hope.”

  Read Our Lives Are Filled With Worthless Crap That's Destroying the Earth: Here's What You Can Do
 December 1, 2009   Activists Protest Natural Resources Defense Council for Collaborating With Polluters
Joseph Huff-Hannon,, Huffington Post.
published in AlterNet: The Mix is the Message
The protestors say that the environmental advocacy group has aligned itself with corporate interests whose goals for reducing emissions are far too limited.

November 30, 2009 - A phalanx of NYPD officers on foot and aboard several police vans surrounded the marchers as they walked up Sixth Avenue in the cold rain on Monday, at times pushing people off of the street and back on to the sidewalk. A group of roughly 30 climate activists, joined by award-winning NASA scientist and outspoken climate change expert, James Hansen, chanted as they went: "The earth, the earth, the earth is on fire. We don't need no cap and trade, the market is a liar."

Was it a satellite Goldman Sachs trading office that brought the greens out to the barricades? The Manhattan offices of a large and influential oil or gas company? The downtown penthouse of a Big Coal mogul? Nope. The soggy climate activists were camped out in front of the headquarters of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), one of the largest environmental advocacy groups in the country.

The activists accuse the NRDC of collaborating with polluters through its involvement with the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, or U.S. CAP, which is billed on its website as "an alliance of major businesses and leading climate and environmental groups that have come together to call on the federal government to enact legislation requiring significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions." Members of the group include such corporate heavyweights as The Dow Chemical Company, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, General Electric, Shell, Alcoa, BP America and Caterpillar. Other environmental groups involved in the group include Environmental Defense, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and World Resources Institute.

U.S. CAP played a pivotal lobbying role in drafting the massive Waxman-Markey climate bill in the House which, while calling for modest emission reductions, will also create an exponentially lucrative carbon trading market. And many of the largest financial institutions that have been deemed "too big to fail" (Goldman Sachs, Bank of America) are expected to cash in on what some activists have begun to call a new system of "climate profiteering."

Outside of the nondescript office building on 20th Street where the crowd eventually assembled, the NYPD set up a row of metal barricades around the entrance in an effort to keep the protesters away from the front entrance. For every three members of the crowd, there was roughly one police officer, with a total of three police vans and three small interceptor vehicles parked in a line out front.

"You have to be a little flattered by that," said Monica Hunken, a protest organizer who spoke to the crowd on a soapbox on the sidewalk. "They even brought out their pen, it's pretty heavy-handed." That contrasted with the police activity at the launch point for the march -- the Bank of America branch on 17th St and 5th Avenue -- where the group spoke out about the bank's investments in mountaintop removal and oil and gas prospecting. No such safety precautions were in evidence at that site.

The demonstration in Manhattan was one of over a dozen organized by the Mobilization for Climate Justice and organizers of BeyondTalk.net, a website that rallies individuals to commit civil disobedience in the name of climate change action. At least one member of the New York contingent did just that, when he attempted to lock himself to the front doors of the building.

"Stopping coal starts with the NRDC," yelled out Robert Jereski, co-founder of New York Climate Action Group, as he was handcuffed and hustled in to a paddy wagon parked up the street. Jereski was eventually charged with "obstruction of governmental administration" and disorderly conduct.

"I stand here at the NRDC building with a heavy heart. I never thought that in 2009 I'd be standing here decrying their stance on climate," said Charles Komanoff, co-director of the Carbon Tax Center. "What NRDC is championing as a big step forward is actually a baby step forward. NRDC is on the wrong side, cutting deals with their pals in business and finance."

"Come back NRDC," yelled out a voice in the crowd. Overall the lament was in line with much of the sentiment of the demonstration, as many participants described their action as an expression of tough love rather than outright opposition. They say that the NRDC has aligned itself with a broader coalition of corporate interests whose goals and benchmarks for reducing carbon emissions are drastically below what is necessary according to prevailing climate science.

"We appreciate the work that the protesters are doing," said Jenny Powers, National Media Director for NRDC, in response. "Overall I think we're very supportive of any opportunity to bring more attention to this issue. We definitely view it as all of us as being united in the same goal. We're on the same track, we just deploy different strategies."

Although nobody from NRDC stepped outside to discuss the issues with those at the barricades, Powers did say that Dr. Hansen and Mr. Komanoff were invited via email to a meeting with NRDC Executive Director Peter Lehner.

After the demonstration petered out, I spoke with NASA climate scientist Dr. James Hansen about the meager turnout and the prospects for major policy change going forward.

Hansen, when not publishing and speaking at academic Fora, is no stranger to disobedient protests. This June he was arrested with 30 others during a protest against mountaintop removal mining in West Virginia.

"It's an indication of where we are, it's a really screwy situation," said Hansen, wearing a white Gilligan-style hat to ward off the rain. "But despite the small numbers, it's becoming more widely recognized that cap and trade just won't work. Country by country doesn't work. The president should ask the national academy of Scientists to give him a report. Instead he's getting a 2000 page bill written largely by polluters. We have governments acknowledge that we have a planet in peril, but they're not doing anything."

As for the unusual tableau of a group of environmental activists demonstrating outside the offices of an organization peopled by environmental activists, Rocco Ferrer, had an interesting take on the dynamic. "It's like NRDC used to be Lou Reed," said Ferrer, a young environmental activist and fashion consultant who participated in the demonstration. "But now they're more like the Jonas Brothers."
  Read Activists Protest Natural Resources Defense Council for Collaborating With Polluters

Back to top of page


Message from the Editor

The Editor of the Global Information Media is now accepting articles, letters, reports, research papers, discussions and global dialogues, and messages for publication. This Media is a way to communicate workable sound solutions to problems arising in the world. Let us share our problems and workable sound solutions. Sharing information is a necessity to all life and humanity's survival. Our world is changing fast before our eyes, and we must react quickly and hard to protect all life on Earth. No hesitation! Right now and no waiting! Life on the planet is our first priority. We must protect it at all costs. We, global citizens, fight to protect life on Earth for this generation and the next ones. We are the defenders of the environment and the global life-support systems. We know who the beasts are, and how they destroy the living on our planet. We have rallied together all over the world to protect our home, Earth. But this time we are not alone. We know it all! We know how everything works. And we will do whatever it takes to protect life on Earth. "We the Peoples", the Global Community, are the Earth revolutionaries, and we will protect life on Earth at all costs.

This is the main index for the Global Information Media (GIM) concerning activities of the Global Community.

GIM was organized with more than sixty sections. Each section allows everyone to participate in the Global Dialogue. You pick an issue, and you participate. All sections may contain any of the following information: abstracts, research papers, notes, outlines, videos and other works of art, posters, articles, letters, press releases, reports, and newsletters. They may also contain discussions, global dialogues, brain-storming exercises on issues, or just email messages from interested participants and groups.

We are delighted to receive new articles for future Newsletters from our readers. It is imperative that, if you give us permission to re-print, all or in part, you include all copyright verification of permission of quote. We do not have a copyright research expert to do this work.

Just so you all know we don't pay anyone, and we don't pay expenses. We do volunteer work for humanity. We expect volunteers to be responsible and accountable of all their actions. We do soft activism work. The Global Constitution shows us how to operate our organization. We follow Global Law as shown in the Global Constitution. All those who do volunteer work for us must become familliar with it and become 'global citizens'. We want our volunteers to be completely loyal to the Global Community and to the values and principles we promote.

The Editor.

Back to top of page


Message from the Spiritual Leader of the Global Community

The world is in a state of perpetual turmoil. We are worlds within worlds orbiting in and through each other’s space. Our interactions with one another can be planned and executed in a caring, considerate manner so that all may exist and not destroy the other.

A good place to start this day would be to see the people living in far away places as we see our neighbors. Neighbors are people we should see as people very much like ourselves. Love your neighbors as yourself. Many scientists have shown that our genetic make-up as human beings are not that much different than that of many other life-forms. The reality is that we as people are not that much different from one another. Our education and upbringings are different and created cultural and religious differences. Conflicts originate often because of these cultural and religious differences.

My teaching for the day is to make the effort to understand what make us different from one another and find a way to appreciate those differences. We also have to make the effort of understanding other life-forms in Nature and appreciate the differences. Because of brain capacity, we dont expect other life-forms of understanding us, but we do have a moral responsibility of understanding them and appreciate the differences. God loves diversity in Nature and in Souls. God loves good Souls from all cultures and religions, and from all life. Yes there is a Soul in every living life-form and God loves them too.

Spiritual Leader of the Global Community
Back to top of page


Message from the President of Earth Government, the Federation of Global Governments

You may use the following short description of myself and the history of the organization. History of the Global Community Organization and Interim Earth Government Since its beginning in 1985, many accomplishments can be claimed by the Global Community: History of the Global Community organization and Earth Government

Short description and history of the Global Community, Earth Government and the Federation of Global Govewrnments

The Global Community organization, Earth Government and the Federation of Global Governments were founded in 1985 in Calgary, Canada by Germain Dufour, Prophete of God, Spiritual Leader and President, and further developed through Global Parliament meetings. Later on in 1990s he was joined by his wife, Virginie, in the developing of many global concepts. Symbiotical relationships were defined to show the path for a better world. The Federation was formed to replace the United Nations. Its basic proposal is a de-centralized global government. A Global Government offers essential services to the people where it operates and the Federation main function is to serve all people and help in this process with the formation of Global Ministries to protect all life on our planet. Essential services to the people of each member nation are now the most important global rights on the Scale of Global Rights and are protected by the Global Protection Agency (GPA) of each member nation whose function is to enforce Global Law as defined in the Global Constitution. The Scale is the fundamental guide to Global Law which itself includes legislation covering all essential aspects of human activities. That is how we will bring about the event of Peace amongst us all and give security to all people, all life on Earth.

As a first step to getting help, all nations can and should approve those first three sections on the Scale of Global Rights. Scale of Global Rights The approval would supersede the political and physical borders of participating member nations. The Global Protection Agency (GPA) would have the approval from all member nations to give immediate help, bypassing normal government protocols. Somewhat like an emergency unit but at the global level. That is what those first three sections mean. They represent an efficient and immediate emergency response to help.

First, participating member nations need to give their approval to the Global Protection Agency ( GPA).

The GPA is a global organization much like the World Trade Organization (WTO) for trade between nations, the World Health Organization (WHO) for health, or the European Union, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), South American Community of Nations (SACON) for trade and economics. The GPA offers an efficient emergency response to help. The GPA is a short term solution, an immediate and efficient response to help.

There are also long term solutions. As with the short term solution, the most significant long term solution is also related to the Scale of Global Rights. The Scale was entrenched in the Global Constitution and is thus the fundamental guide to Global Law. Now the Scale of Global Rights is a long term solution and is also a part of the Global Movement to Help of the Global Community. The Scale was designed to help all life on Earth. What would be preferable is that nations unite amongst themselves to help.

Over time, we have seen the creation of the United Nations, the European Union, the South American Community of Nations, and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Except for the UN, these organizations are mainly concerned with trade and economics. The Global Community offers a more meaningful union in the form of nine or more Global Governments. For instance the South American Community of Nations can be a Global Government by simply accepting the Global Constitution as a way of dealing between member nations. A Global Government is concerned not only with economics and trade, but also with the environment, health, agriculture, energy, food, social, cultural and many other essential aspects. The Federation of Global Governments is the place of meeting between Global Governments. The very first step of the Federation, and maybe the only one for several decades ahead of us, would be the approval of essential services amongst the participating member nations. The Global Community has researched and developed such services and listed them here. All of them are already in operation on a small scale.

I believe that there is no greater task in the world today than for the Global Community to proceed through the maturation of its leadership, emerging from a more self-interested adolescence as a global leader into a nobler adulthood. We have the potential to act as a torchbearer for a better tomorrow. Do we heed the call? I hope this message has convinced many international organizations and the millions of people who have been with us over the past decades, that the question of how to proceed with that maturation is of far deeper significance than the reforming of the United Nations. In fact the United Nations should not be reformed it should be replaced by the Federation. I thus pray that we move with wisdom, grace, clarity, and love in the days, years, and even decades ahead.

Germain Dufour  Achievements of Global Community WebNet Ltd.
Spiritual Leader of the Global Community
(short Bio)
Earth Government
Federation of Global Governments

Back to top of page

Note concerning personal info sent to us by email

Our policy concerning personal information is simple: we dont show it. That includes phone numbers, fax numbers, addresses and any personal notes. Please do indicate what you consider a personal note as sometime it is hard to tell.

What we show is the work done by participants and authors, and their email addresses if any. We will show any work concerning issues, email discussions, opinions, articles, letters, reports, works of art, research papers, discussions and global dialogues, and messages for publication.

And also please note that our computer harddrives will not be containing personal info either. This is because of the damage hackers can do.

Back to top of page

Celebration of Life Day, May 26, 2008

Dear friends,

On and around May 26, 2009, millions of people will join together in a global call to celebrate Life, the gift to the universe from God.

Celebration of Life Day
is May 26 every year, a day to say
thank you God for the gift of Life on Earth

Celebration of Life Day on May 26

On May 26, 2009, the Global Community asked all Peoples of the world to participate in this celebration of Life in your own community. The following project was appropriate to everyone.

From the experience in your life and local community tell us:

*    Why are you important to this Global Community?
*    Why is it important to you?
*    What do you like about it?
*    What bothers you about it?
*    Anything need to be done?
*    What is really good there?
*     What is very very important?
*     What is not so important?
*     What is not good?
*     What is needed to keep the good things?
*     What could make them even better?
*     What could you do to keep the good things good?
*     Could they help get rid of bad things?
*     What unimportant things need to go?
*     How could you help get rid of these things?

to sustain Earth, humanity and all life.

Please send us the following information:

1.     What are the most important issues that would allow your community become more sustainable? Over the past several years, many communities have held Life Day dialogues to determine the answer to this question. We look forward to hearing from all of you.

2.     A brief story of success in your community from the last 10 years in regard to a sound sustainable development.

3.     A picture related to the above or to a Life Day event.

4.     A sample of your idea of the Earth Flag.

We will gather this information from groups all over the world and compile it into a comprehensive report. Your work will be shown during Global Dialogue 2009. Please mail or email your ideas, pictures and descriptions, videos, Earth Flag samples to:

Germain Dufour
Spiritual Leader of the Global Community
Earth Government
Federation of Global Governments

Visit our website for more details concerning the Celebration of Life Day.

Celebration of Life Day

On May 26, as part of the Global Community Peace Movement, the Human Family,we will be rejoicing with all Peoples of the world , and all life, for the annual Celebration of Life Day. Life is the most precious gift ever given by God to the universe and this event needs to be celebrated.

At the early stage of the formation of the Earth, and a while later, all the conditions for the formation of life were present, and life was created to better serve God. Life was made of matter and every particle of that matter had a Soul that merged with all the others. A Soul is a part of the Spirit of God, His consciousness, and is a living, loving presence, a Being. A Soul can merge with other Souls and become one Soul, and it can evolve as well. The first spark of life was the cause for the formation of a unique and independent Soul to better serve God. Throughout the different evolutionary stages of life on Earth, Souls have guided the step-by-step evolution of life and kept merging with one another to better serve God. They guided the evolutionary process in small, incremental ways over a period of several billion years. Many groupings of Souls became more complex than others as they were much brighter beings than other groupings, but all serve God in their own special way.

One unique and most wonderful grouping was the grouping that made the Human Soul. God loves the human Souls a lot because of their wonderful qualities. Over the past thousands of years, through their Souls human beings became conscious of God in many different ways. Religions of all kinds started to spread on Earth to adore God and pray. Different groupings of Souls affected human beings in different ways and Peoples today have different religious beliefs. God is like a river feeding plentifully and bountifully all lifeforms and plants. There are many pathways leading to the river. They are God's pathways. God loves diversity in Nature and in Souls. God loves good Souls from all religions.

Different religions have different ways to love, adore and pray to God. And God's Heaven exists. Heaven on Earth is different from God's Heaven. To be in Heaven with God will mean a Soul has left the matter of the universe forever to enter God's Heaven.

The Divine Will or Will of God is the most powerful force of the universe and is pure spiritual energy. The Will of God is for life to reach God, God’s Pure Light, in the best possible ways. Life is the building block through which Souls can have a meaningful relationship with God. By observing the Universe, the galaxies, we are observing and studying God. We are seeing His magnificence, His greatness, and His complex making. There is more to the Universe we observe today, that is, there is more to God, much more. God is self-existent, eternal and infinite in space and time. Follow God's Word. God's Plan was revealed to humanity a short while ago.

The Divine Plan for humanity is:

a)     for everyone to manage Earth responsibly, and
b)     about to reach the stars and spread Life throughout the universe and thus help other Souls to evolve and serve God in the best possible ways.

Humanity’s higher purpose is to serve God by propagating life throughout the universe. Humanity will evolve spiritually to fulfill God's Plan. The human species has reached a point in its evolution where it knows its survival is being challenged. The human species knows through the Souls and now that all human Souls have merged together and formed the Soul of Humanity, we will find it easier to fight for our own survival. The Soul of Humanity does not make decisions for us and can only help us understand and guide us on the way. In the past, human beings have had some kind of symbiotical relationship (which is something common in Nature between lifeforms in an ecosystem) with the Souls, and now with the Soul of Humanity. We work together for both our survival and well-being. Cooperation and symbiosis between lifeforms (especially human beings) on Earth and between lifeforms and their Souls and the Soul of Humanity have become a necessity of life. We help one another, joint forces, and accomplish together what we cannot accomplish separately. Several billion years ago this symbiosis between matter and Souls resulted in the making of complex biochemical systems. Symbiosis has worked throughout the evolution of life on Earth and today, the Soul of Humanity has decided to be more active with humanity by purifying Souls. The Soul of Humanity shows us the way to better serve God.

The Soul of Humanity is helping to bring about the event of Peace in the world. Knowing that Earth is a spiritual entity as well as a physical entity in space and time in the universe we begin to have a better relationship with Earth and with all its living inhabitants. This way Earth management will become a spiritual and a natural process whereby each person is responsible and accountable for its management the best they can. Peace in the world and Earth management have for too long been in the hands of and affected by government and business leaders, in the hands of a few people on the planet, as opposed to being in the hands of all of us (7 billion people on Earth) working together to keep our planet healthy. We are the keepers of the Earth.

The Soul of Humanity will help us:

*     resolve problems, concerns and issues peacefully;
*     reinstate the respect for Earth;
*     work with humanity to keep Earth healthy, productive and hospitable for all people and living things;
*     bring forth a sustainable global society embracing universal values related to human and Earth rights, economic and social justice; respect of nature, peace, responsibility to one another;
*     protect the global life-support systems and manage Earth;
*     evolve spiritually to fulfill God’s Plan; and
*     enter God’s Heaven, His Spirit, His Pure Light, His universal mind and global consciousness.

We have the responsibility of managing Earth. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of life within the Global Community. 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 oppose to a measure or an action causing an irreversible loss.

Life exists on millions of other planets in the universe and our species got to be who we are today through the evolutionary process. Other lifeforms in the universe may have evolved to be at least as advanced as our species. Their Souls may even be more complicated than ours. They may have merged a trillion times more than the human Souls. They may have evolved as well.

We the Peoples of the Global Community, the Human Family, are reaffirming faith in the fundamental human and Earth rights, the Scale of 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 small. We the Peoples implies every individual on Earth, every community and every nation. Earth management is now a priority and a duty of every responsible person on Earth. The Global Community has taken action by calling the Divine Will into our lives and following its guidance. Divine Will is now a part of the Soul of Humanity to be used for the higher purpose of good and life's evolution. We will learn to serve humanity and radiate the Will of God to others.

As never before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a new beginning. This requires a change of mind and heart, and calling Divine Will to come into our life to show us the way. It requires a new sense of global interdependence and universal responsibility. We must develop and apply the vision of a sustainable way of life locally, nationally, regionally, globally, and within ourselves throughout life. Our cultural diversity is a precious heritage and different cultures will find their own distinctive ways to realize the vision. We must deepen and expand the global dialogue that generated the ongoing collaborative search for truth and wisdom.

Life often involves tensions between important values. This can mean difficult choices. However, we must find ways to harmonize diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with the common good, short-term objectives with long-term goals. Every individual, family, organization, and community has a vital role to play. The arts, sciences, religions, educational institutions, media, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and governments are all called to offer creative leadership. The partnership of government, civil society, and business is essential for an effective global governance based on global concepts and the Scale of Human and Earth Rights.

In order to build a sustainable global community, each individual, each local community, and national governments of the world must initiate their commitment to the Human Family.

Let our time be a time remembered for the awakening of a new reverence for life, the firm resolve to achieve sustainability, the quickening of the struggle for justice and peace, and the joyful celebration of life. Let our expanding consciousness blend with that of the Soul of Humanity.

Humanity welcomes the "Belief, Values, Principles and Aspirations of the Global Community" (see the Global Constitution on our website) with Faith in the Divine Will and without fears such as the fear of change. Humanity seeks meaningful experiences and embraces the future for the better. Divine Will has caused the event of the Global Community.

Our time is the age of global cooperation and symbiotical relationships. There are many different kinds of symbiotical relationships. Symbiotical relationships exist between nations of the European Union. It is mainly an economic base symbiotical relationship. Other types of symbiotical relationships maybe created all over the world between communities, nations, and between people themselves. The Global Community, the Global Governments Federation, and the Global Government of North America are examples. They may be geographical, economical, social, business-like, political, religious, and personal. There has always been symbiotical relationships in Nature, and between Souls and the matter of the universe to help creating Earth and life on Earth to better serve God.

The Global Community has begun to establish the existence of a meaningful global co-operation all over the planet. National governments and large corporations have taken the wrong direction by asserting that free trade in the world is about competing economically without any moral safeguards and accountability to peoples and the environment. The proper and only way is for free trade to become a global cooperation between all nations. Surely, if we can cooperate in fighting against terrorism, then we should also be able to cooperate in fighting against the effects of the type of free trade and the emergence of the planetary trading blocks as applied by national governments members of the World Trade Organization(WTO). It has already been shown (see Newsletters on our website) that these effects will be disastrous socially and environmentally and are a direct threat to the existence of life on Earth. The Global Community is proposing a solution that the process of trading within the planetary trading blocks be changed from a spirit of global competition to that of global economic cooperation. This is the new way of doing business, the new way of life.

The Global Community has made clear that globalization and planetary trading blocks should be serving the Human Family and not the other way around, the people around the world serving the very few rich individuals. The September 11 event was the result of bad trading of arms and oil and the absence of moral responsibility and accountability in our way of doing business with the Middle East nations. By applying proper moral safeguards and accepting responsibility and accountability of all products (arms and oil in this case), from beginning to end where they become wastes, each corporation would make free trade and globalization serving the Human Family. The September 11 event was also a turning point in human history and indicated the end of the last superpower in the world and the birth of the Global Community. 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. When you do exploration work, and develop, 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, construction products, transportation and communications products and equipment, to genetically engineered food products. All consumer products! All medical products! All pharmaceutical products! In order words, a person (a person may be an individual, a community, a government, a business, an NGO, or an institution) becomes responsible and accountable for anything and everything in his or her life.

Certainly an important action has been for the Canadian Government to ratify the Kyoto Protocol as it is. No more waiting! Time for action is now! We are all responsible for the creation of global warming, and there are plenty of observable effects. Greenhouse gases are accumulating dangerously in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, and temperatures are rising globally due to these activities. Climate changes have to be manage without delays and the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol is only the beginning of a long fight for the protection of life on Earth. There is much more to be done to even come close to what we have to do. The ratification was only the beginning to help save the next generations.

Global consumption is a very important aspect of globalization. Consumers should be concerned with the impact of their decisions on the environment but also on the lives, human and Earth rights and well-being of other people. Since one of the key functions of families as a social institution is to engage in production (selling their labour in return for wages) and consumption (using those wages to buy goods and services), then the role of families has impacts on sustainable consumption and development. Corporations are required to expand their responsibilities to include human and Earth rights, the environment, community and family aspects, safe working conditions, fair wages and sustainable consumption aspects. Global Community has summarized the rights of every person on Earth by developing the Scale of Human and Earth Rights. The scale will eventually be replacing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Global Constitution established all rights.

Just as corporations have social responsibilities and so do consumers in societies. Consumers are socialized to improve the quality of their lives. Quality of life is a multi-dimensional, complex and very subjective concept. For instance, someone who has changed their consumption habits to better ensure that their choices will make a better quality of life for themselves, the environment and future generations, may be seen by others as having a lower or inferior quality of life since they have removed themselves from the materialistic mainstream characteristic of our consumer society. Someone may feel that an absence of violence and abuse in their life leads to a higher quality of living even though they have fewer tangible resources, money, or shelter; peace of mind and freedom from abuse has increased the quality of their daily life relative to what it was like before. There are universal quality of life values which lead to "human betterment" or the improvement of the human condition. In addition to the value of species survival (human and other living organisms), they include: adequate resources, justice and equality, freedom, and peace or balance of power. A better quality of life for all people of the Global Community Earth Government is a goal for all of us and one of our universal values.

Global Community found that an adequate level of health care is a universal value as well as a human right. We expect adequate health services to be accessible, affordable, compassionate and socially acceptable. We believe that every individual of a society is co-responsible for helping in implementing and managing health programmes along with the government and the public institutions.

Being unified under the Soul of Humanity, Divine Will, God the Spirit and the Human Family dissolve all barriers and expand our global consciousness. We become more whole and complete within ourselves and as a group. Our common Spirit is able to resolve planetary problems in a coherent way. One common 'global Vision' allows us to see how all the parts of the whole relate to each other. We have the right relationship with one another, with all lifeforms and Earth itself, and with the Soul of Humanity, the Divine Will and God the Spirit.

On May 26, let us all celebrate life in our heart, mind and Spirit. Let us thank God for the gift of life.

Back to top of page

Cultural Appreciation Day August 22 of each year

On August 22 of every year the Global Community celebrates the Global Cultural Day, the Cultural Appreciation Day. The event's theme is "Culture, Values and Social Development."

Noting that culture and development are not mutually exclusive, event organizers are asked to promote a union between historical preservation and future local - global growth. The Global Community is rich with tradition and art. Culture is certainly tangible - churches, temples and monuments; and intangible - heritage with performing arts, fine arts or visual arts. Every community is based on a society distinctly different from any other country and its people.

The Cultural Appreciation Day celebration.

The Cultural Appreciation Day celebration promotes the meaning of culture, the real nature of Humanity and what inhibits its development.

It is for all, regardless of education, age, race, political or religious beliefs. The idea of the Cultural Appreciation Day celebration is that Humanity in truth is limitless, and that there is a unity underlying all the apparent diversity in our daily lives.


Activities during the celebration may include mask making, cooking, singing, music, dance/drama, and puppet making by and for the children.

The day provides vendors, live entertainment, children's activities, and food in celebration of the various cultural groups.

The Cultural Appreciation Day celebration occurs at the same time and is an important part of the Global Exhibition.

For the fourth year since the first time ever promoting of a Global Exhibition, there is a Global Exhibition at the time of Global Dialogue 2009, and at the same site in Nanaimo. It is also occurring everywhere else in the world along with Global Dialogue 2009. People of all nations are asked to organize a Global Exhibition during the period August 17 - August 22 of each year.

Back to top of page

We seek more symbiotical relationships with people and organizations

The Global Community has a symbiotical relationship with many people and organizations all over the planet. We work together to help create a better future for all life on Earth. Check the website especially created for educating on the issue of Earth ownership.

For examples we have symbiotical relatinships with:

  • Global Environment Ministry
  • Sustainable Civilisation, Peace and Disarmament
  • Sustainable Development Global Information Society
  • Global Peace Movement
  • Global Justice Movement
  • Global Movement to Help essential services
  • Global Community of North America (GCNA) Emergency, Rescue, and Relief Centre
  • Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC)
  • Global Governments Federation
  • Global Community Affiliated Centres for Education and Training

Global Dialogue 2009 has many other issues  Portal of the Global Community  Global Information Media is now accepting articles, letters, reports, research papers, discussions and global dialogues, and messages for publication. This Media is a way to communicate
workable sound solutions to problems arising in the world. Let us share our problems and workable sound solutions. 639 Global Dialogue issues than Earth ownership, and we wish to set up symbiotical relationships with other groups on those other issues for the benefits of all life on Earth. Anyone interested please contact us.

Back to top of page

Proceedings of Global Dialogue 2008

Proceedings of Global Dialogue 2008 are now ready for reading and found on the Global Community website.  Proceedings of  Global Dialogue 2008 As a start to reading the Proceedings we suggest you read the summary table of the Proceedings of Global Dialogue 2009 shown here and as evaluated by the Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC). And again the next step might be to read the info from Participants and authors. All work from the participants, their Global Files, and work from other authors or organizations are shown in the following 6 categories. Global Files of our participants show more of the work presented to the Dialogue.   Global Files 2009 Please let us know of any corrections and omissions, or if you would prefer your name and info not be published on the Global Community website. Our services are free, and we do not charge fees.

Summary Table

Local to global issues of Global Dialogue 2008  Global Roundtables and Group Email Discussions  Group Email Discussions Global Overview of the work done sone far by participants Recommendations drawn from the Global Overview

These five sections give you a good idea of what we have done throughout the year from September 1st 2007 to August 31 2008, and what needs to be done in the coming years. The final product of this global process is to give humanity a sense of direction for a better future. This final product is shown in the Proceedings.  Proceedings of  Global Dialogue 2008 We are showing the way.

Back to top of page

Global Sustainability

We live in a world where all natural and human resources are exploited without limits, so that a small minority can consume far more than their rightful share of the world's real wealth. Now, while that is going on, we found that the industrial era faces a burnout, because it is exhausting the human and natural resource base on which our very lives depend. A sound governance and management of our planet is needed for the long term survival of our species.

We need to grow strong caring communities in which we get more of our human satisfaction from caring relationships and less from material goods. We need to reclaim the ideal of being a democratic middle-class people without extremes of wealth and poverty.

And we need to realize what is a priority, what is the most important, and what is the least important for our survival. We need to make hard choices. We need a clear vision. We need a common vision. And we must all change! There are many important aspects of our lives we can no longer do, or should never do anymore. They are destructive. Humanity and all life can no longer afford activities that destroy life and the global environment, and certainly the military is a major one of them. And there are other activities we must do, thousands of them, to assure the survival of life on Earth. In view of the planetary state of emergency, we all must change, we must do things differently to give life on Earth a better survival chance.

We need ways of organizing ourselves to help us live in a world with less energy and fewer material goods. We need to recover a deep sense of community that has disappeared from many of our lives. This means letting go a sense of ourselves as consumption machine.

The Global Community has found that consumption of the Earth resources and the amount of wastes we create can be managed very differently, more efficiently, and be less destructive to the global environment. Our ways of doing business and trade can be improved upon to decrease waste and consumption of Earth resources.

Often what is called trade is really moving of resources across borders between subsidiaries of the same corporation. Nothing to do with free competition. Economic activity is centrally-managed and planned by the corporate elite. Capital move freely across borders as restrictions on the flow of money have been removed. Corporations can relocate their operations to the countries with the lowest wages, the least active unions and the lowest environmental standards. The reality is that more polluting industries are encouraged to relocate to developing countries. A polluting industry tends to increase the chances that people in the surrounding area will have health problems. It costs less to dump a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country.

The Global Community has developed a strategy to improve our ways of doing business and trade so as to protect all life on the planet. 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 natural resources of the Earth belong to all the "global communities" along with the Global Community where they are found. When people know they own the resources in their communities then people can start directing the wealth of their resources towards the building of local-to-global economic democracies in order to meet the needs for food, shelter, universal healthcare, education, and employment for all in their community.

The Global Community concept of ownership states that land and natural resources of our planet are a common heritage and belong equally to everyone, to all life on Earth, as a birthright. Products and services created by individuals are properly viewed as private property. Products and services created by a group of individuals are properly viewed as collective property. Along with ownership comes the obligation of using the resources, share them or lose them. Land and all other Earth natural resources are not commodities. Use the land, share it or lose it. This principle also applies to banks and similar institutions all over the world and to Wall Street. You own property because the previous owners could not pay. Use that property, share it or lose it.

It should also be our goal to create locally owned enterprises that sustainably harvest and process local resources to produce jobs, goods and services. We should favor local firms and workers, who pay local taxes, live by local rules, respect and nurture the local ecosystems, compete fairly in local markets, and contribute to community life.

A community should benefit from the use of commonly held natural resources. That includes land, air, water, all minerals, and the electromagnetic spectrum. The exploitation and use of natural resources should be taxed. Moving taxes onto resources and land use and off of incomes should make people less expensive to employ.

Taxes should be designed to conserve resources and energy, and increase employment. Labour should not be taxed but pollution should.

Resource taxes should be assessed as early as possible. Resources should be taxed before entering the manufacturing process in order to green all aspects from extraction phase to the finished product.

Be sustainable locally first, and globally next only if needed. Let go the WTO, NAFTA or any free trade agreement.

A workable type of Tobin tax should be in place as it is a powerful instrument to promote global sustainability and force shareholders to be responsible and accountable to the people of global communities. A Tobin tax is a tax on all trade of currency across borders to put a penalty on short-term speculation in currencies. The tax rate should be 10 to 25 cents per hundred dollars.

The proposal is important due to its potential to prevent global financial crises such as we are seeing now. Also, an estimated $500 billion per year makes it possible to meet urgent global priorities, such as preventing global warming, disease, and unemployment. The tax should be managed by the Global Community and the Federation of Global Governments. In the globalized economy, there is a lack of adequate funding for global problems which threaten local communities worldwide. Projects which could help to address these needs and create jobs will cost more than $500 billion annually. Private donors do not meet the need, and some nations cut their aid budgets. New multilateral approaches to public finance, such as Tobin Taxes, may provide part of the answer.

Back to top of page

Yes We Can Save The Planet

We are facing the dire consequences of ecological collapse, Climate change, water scarcity, extinction of biodiversity and over population.

In the past 20 million years, the carbon dioxide content of the biosphere has been 300 ppm. Only in the past hundred years has the carbon dioxide reached 370 ppm. The question is whether this change may react in such a way that it becomes a tipping point for extreme disaster.

In 1930, the population of the planet was2 billion. In 2000. It was 6 billion. In 2020. It will be 8 billion

There is massive, inequity in distribution of world income. A living wage in San Francisco, is $96 a day. Poverty in the US is defined as, $12 a day. 60% of people in the world live on less than three dollars a day and they cannot afford any of the economic material luxury goods, which the current global economy thrives on.

40% of people by 2020 will not have enough water to live on and 95% of people in the world are predicted to be living in urban situations.

It is predicted that oil will peak by 2010. Oil is the source for growing food and fertilisers and plastics etc,. Because of this, the poorest people in the world will not be able to sell sufficient goods to survive.

We are in phase six of biodiversity, mass extinction. Within 20 years, 20% of biodiversity will be extinct and 50% by 100 years. This makes the biosphere, unsustainable. We are looking towards a whole systems crisis within 20 years, unless we get our act together fast.

The structure of the political system is changing, due to the rapid change in the nature of information now available andthe fact that individuals have a greater say in what they want. Individuals, therefore, need to be educated, and there needs to be greater emphasis on holistic education and holistic health. Economic rationalism per se does not work in a global milieu which does not have infinite resources.

Peace needs to be emphasised above all else, because the greatest threat to our extinction as a species is aggressive competition and war. There are still 40,000 nuclear weapons in the world, and we completely forget about this., when we talk about climate change.

The big change occurring, which seems to be ignored., generally, is the coming together of science and religion. It is now proven scientifically, that Human consciousness has a profound effect on the environment, as well as on society. The experiments done are more valid and more stringent than any medical double-blind trial, you will see for example in The New England Journal of Medicine.

For humanity , to survive a greater emphasis needs to be on decentralized representation, and a transnational representation of the voices of the Global community of people who in their billions are crying out for change

The creation of Ministries and Commissions for peace throughout the World would be a tremendous advance for global society, in rapid transformation and change

Only by expressing in every way the new paradigm based on interrelationship, interdependency and cooperation amongst all humanity regardless of race, creed, culture or belief system can we hope to reverse the trend of global degradation and demise

Back to top of page

Global Peace Movement

The Global Community claims that everyone on Earth should be able to live in peace. This Global Peace Mouvement is about the courage to live a life in a harmonious peace order and showing by example, thus preventing poverty, wars, terror and violence. We need to educate the coming generations with good principles, being compassionate, social harmony and global  sustainability  being some of them. The responsibility of a peacemaker is to settle differences through compromise and negotiation before they erupt into violence. Conflicting views do not have to bring about fighting. War is an irreversible solution to a problem. War is never an appropriate solution to resolve a conflict. In order to bring about the event of peace, the Global Community is offering other good organizations around the world to work together to bring warring parties to peace.

Peace in the world and the survival and protection of all life on our planet go hand-in-hand. Asking for peace in the world means doing whatever is necessary to protect life on our planet. Protecting life implies bringing about the event of peace in the world. Let our time be a time remembered for a new respect for life, our determination to achieve sustainability, and our need for global justice and peace.

From now on, building global communities for peace require understanding of global problems this generation is facing. There are several major problems: conflicts and wars, no tolerance and compassion for one another, world overpopulation, unemployment, insufficient protection and prevention for global health, scarcity of resources and drinking water, poverty, Fauna and Flora species disappearing at a fast rate, global warming and global climate change, global pollution, permanent lost of the Earth's genetic heritage, and the destruction of the global life-support systems and the eco-systems of the planet. We need to build global communities that will manage themselves with the understanding of those problems. All aspects are interrelated: global peace, global sustainability, global rights and the environment. The jobless is more concerned with ending starvation, finding a proper shelter and employment, and helping their children to survive. Environmental issues become meaningless to the jobless. In reality, all concerns are interrelated because the ecology of the planet has no boundaries. Obviously, as soon as our environment is destroyed or polluted beyond repair, human suffering is next.

Our goal for peace in the world can only be reached by resolving those global problems. Those problems have brought up a planetary state of emergency. In view of the planetary state of emergency, shown and declared by the Global Community, we all must change, we must do things differently to give life on Earth a better survival chance and bring about the event of peace amongst us all.

Our first objective was to find statements from all religions, all faiths, that promote ethical and moral responsibility to life and a responsible Earth management. This was assumed to work well within the context of the global civilization of the 3rd Millennium and after defining the Global Community criteria of symbiotical relationships. In this context, we have defined that any symbiotical relationship is for the good of all. It is based on a genuine group concern and unconditional support for the individual's well-being ~ a giant leap in human behaviour. Symbiotical relationships are needed today for the long term future of humanity, for the protection of life on our planet, and to bring about the event of peace amongst us all.

The fundamental criteria of any symbiotical relationship is that a relationship is created for the good of all groups participating in the relationship and for the good of humanity, all life on Earth. The relationship allows a global equitable and peaceful development and a more stable and inclusive global economy.

Religious rituals now support the conservation efforts and play a central role in governing the sustainable use of the natural environment.

The Global Movement to Help, an initiative of the Global Community and of the Federation of Global Governments, is now applying more emphasis on the urgent need from the people of all nations to give everyone essential services. The urgent need to give all Global Citizens essential services was made obvious in the past few years after the occurrence of natural disasters, and the global destruction created by the military.

The very first step of the Federation, and maybe the only one for several decades ahead of us, is the approval of essential services amongst the participating member nations. To that effect, new global ministries will be established to guide us onto the path of global sustainability. Through these new global ministries, we want each Global Government to take a larger share of responsibility of the specific region where it operates, and be more accountable to the people of that region. Be compassionate. Essential services to the people of each member nation are now the most important global rights on the Scale of Global Rights and are protected by the Global Protection Agency (GPA) of each member nation. The GPA will train and lead a global force, bypassing traditional peacekeeping and military bodies such as the United Nations and NATO. The GPA is a short term solution, an immediate and efficient response to help.

There are also long term solutions. The Scale of Global Rights is the fundamental guide to Global Law. Global Law includes legislation covering all essential aspects of human activities.

The GPA will enforce the law. And that is a long term solution to the planetary state of emergency. And that is also how we can solve the global problems facing this generation, thus largely improving the quality of life of the next generations, and that is how we will bring about the event of peace amongst us all.

An important aspect of global governance is the security of a person and of a nation. Security must be achieved by other means than conflicts and wars. We might as well shelved the war industry from humanity right now and that means phasing out all nuclear, biological, chemical weapons right now. War products and equipment and weapons of mass destruction from all nations must be decommissioned. Governments that have weapons of masss destruction are obviously terrorist governments. The Global Community is asking them to disarm. No waiting! Global security can only be achieved if it can be shared by all peoples and through global co-operation, based on principles as explained in the Global Constitution such as justice, human dignity, and equity for all and for the good of all.

War is not sustainable to all life on the planet. 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.

The military is no replacement to the " will of the people ", democracy, the rule of law, social justice, and to Global Rights and Global Justice. The Global Community has no need of a subversive military force. NATO must be subject to the people, the Global Community, and to the Federation of Global Governments.

Back to top of page

Copyright © 2010 Global Community WebNet Ltd.Global Community WebNet Ltd