|Global Movement for Taxation on all Earth Natural Resources
The planet and all its resources of land, the air, water, forests, minerals, the atmosphere, electro-magnetic frequencies, and even satellite orbits are the common heritage of the Global Community. The Global Economic Model makes sure that the profits of the Earth will benefit all life on Earth.
The Global Economic Model has put forward a system of finance based on principles that a global community leases land and other types of natural resources. Thus, cities and provinces would draw their funding from the lease payment.
All the Earth natural resources belong to the Global Community to be used, developed and protected for the maximum benefit of the people and of all life. For example water belongs to the Earth and all species and is sacred to life therefore, the world’s water must be conserved, reclaimed and protected for all future generations and its natural patterns respected.
Water is a fundamental human right and a public trust to be guarded by all levels of government; therefore, it should not be commodified, privatized or traded for commercial purposes. These rights must be enshrined at all levels of government. In particular, an international treaty must ensure these principles are noncontrovertable.
Water is best protected by local communities and citizens, who must
be respected as equal partners with governments in the protection and regulation
of water. Peoples of the Earth are the only vehicle to promote democracy
and save water.
|Theme and Author
|November 29, 2007
| Labor Goes to Bali: Unions Ready to Take on Global Warming
by Brendan Smith and Jeremy Brecher and Tim Costello, Global Labor Strategies
AlterNet, The Mix is the Message, ForeignPolicy
The devastating realities of climate change, and the scientific consensus around its cause and cure, are shifting the global political climate.
Some people might say you are anti-business. Is that the case?
This week trade unionists from around the world will travel to Bali for the December 3rd launch of negotiations for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol limiting greenhouse gasses. It will include delegates from such U.S unions as the Electrical Workers (IUE), Mine Workers, Service Employees, Boilermakers, Steelworkers, Communication Workers, Transport Workers (TWU), and UNITE HERE garment and textile workers. It will also include the AFL-CIO Industrial Union Council as well as such labor-oriented groups as the Blue-Green Alliance, the Cornell Global Labor Institute, and the Labor Research Association. The Kyoto Protocol was signed by 172 countries - not including the U.S. The AFL-CIO, which then represented the great majority of all U.S. unions, opposed the Kyoto protocol. What will be the stance of American labor toward an even stronger version for the future?
As trade unionists, we are confident that Bali will mark the beginning of a new and more ambitious process of social change, where our collective hearts and minds must aspire to save our planet, on the basis of solidarity and mutual respect.
|November 14, 2007
| Palm oil: Cooking the Climate Once you pop, you can't stop
by Greenpeace Canada http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/
Indonesia — If, as you read this, you're tucking into a KitKat or dipping into a tube of Pringles, you might be interested to know that these products contain palm oil that is linked to the destruction of forests and peatlands in Indonesia. As our new report "How the palm oil industry is cooking the climate" shows, it's a recipe for disaster. The manufacturers of these products - Nestlé, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever - are sourcing their palm oil from suppliers who aren't picky about where they site their plantations. As the volunteers at the Forest Defenders Camp in Sumatra have seen, this includes tearing up areas of pristine forest then draining and burning the peatlands. Indonesia's peatlands act as huge carbon stores so replacing them with plantations them not only threatens the amazing biodiversity, including the rare Sumatran tiger, it also releases huge volumes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. They only cover 0.1 per cent of the land on Earth, but thanks in part to the activities of the palm oil industry they contribute 4 per cent to global emissions. If expansion of the palm oil industry continues unabated, that figure can only rise. What's to be done? The Indonesian government should urgently introduce a moratorium on forest and peatland destruction, which will provide a chance to develop long-term solutions and prevent further emissions from deforestation. And our eyes are fixed firmly on the UN climate meeting in Bali next month, where the next phase of the Kyoto Protocol will be discussed. With deforestation accounting for up to a fifth of global emissions, including financing for forest protection as a core part of the plan to tackle climate change is essential.
|November 27, 2007
| UNDP wants climate justice through trade
by ASHOK B SHARMA
published by Indian Society For Sustainable Agriculture and by Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd.
The UN Development Programme (UNDP) for the first time in its human development report has analysed the impact of climate change. The Human Development Report 2007-08 – Fighting climate change : Human solidarity in a divided world is released at a time when the climate change agenda is slowly gaining its entry in the WTO negotiations and the discussions on the review of the work under Kyoto Protocol is slated to take place in Bali in Indonesia in December, this year. The report documented the impact of climate change across the world also projected the likely scenario for the future. Making out a case for alternative sources of energy and fuels like bio-fuels, the UNDP report said that global trade has a major role to play. It said :
International trade could play a much larger role in the expanding Markets for alternative fuels. Brazil is more efficient than either the European Union or the United States in producing ethanol, Moreover, sugar-based ethanol is more efficient in cutting carbon emissions. The problem is that imports of Brazilian ethanol are restricted by high import tariffs. Removing these tariffs would generate gains not just for Brazil, but for climate change mitigation.Negotiations on emissions limits for the post-2012 Kyoto Protocol commitment period can – and must – frame the global carbon budget. Saying so it noted most developed countries like Canada fell short of the targets. Though the European Union and UK have both embraced their targets, they are likely to fall far short of the goals set unless they move rapidly to put climate mitigation at the center of energy policy reform. Two major OECD countries like US and Australia are not bound by Kyoto Protocol. The report suggested two ways to mitigate climate change, one is to directly tax carbon dioxide emission and the other is cap-and-trade. Under cap-and-trade system, the government sets an overall emissions cap and issues tradable allowances that grant business the right to emit a set amount. Those who can reduce emissions more cheaply are able to sell allowances. One potential disadvantage of cap-and-trade is energy price instability while the potential advantage is environmental certainty, it noted. While the transition to climate protecting energy and life styles will have short-term costs, there may be economic benefits beyond what what is to be achieved by stabilizing temperatures. These benefits are likely to be realized through Keynesian and Schumpeterian mechanisms with new incentives for massive investment stimulating overall demand and creative destruction leading to innovation and productivity jumps in a wide array of sectors, the foreward to the report said. While government leadership is going to be essential in correcting the huge externality that is climate change, Markets and prices will have to be put to work so that private sector decisions can lead more naturally to optimal investment and production decisions.
|November 11, 2007
| Deal climate injustice at home: Greenpeace India
by ASHOK B SHARMA
published by Indian Society For Sustainable Agriculture and by Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd.
More than 800 million poor people in India are bearing the burnt of climate change. This is partly due to the emissions caused by the few privileged rich people in the country, said a report released by Greenpeace India Society. The report on climate injustice entitled `Hiding Behind the Poor’ urged the government to apply the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” in the country to deal with the situation arising out of climate change. The study authored by G Ananathpadmanabhan, K Srinivas and Vinuta Gopal, however advocated India’s right to seek common but differentiated responsibilities at the global level. Referring to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, it said that India claims its right to development and thus its right to consume more energy from fossil fuels, asking developed nations to create the carbon space. Implicit in this is the notion that the developed countries need to decrease their carbon dioxide emissions drastically so that developing countries can still increase theirs without pushing the planet in the direction of climate change.” However, the study pointed out that over the last few decades, emissions of rapidly developing countries like India and China have surged. In fact, rankings by the WRI of top GHG emitters has US on top and developing countries such as China and India are ranked at No 2 and 5 respectively, making them amongst the world’s biggest emitters. The Greepeace India made an urgent plea to the government to consider the situation especially when the next round of negotiations for the second phase of Kyoto Protocol is scheduled to take place in Bali in Indonesia in December, this year. The Greenpeace India report further said that India was faced with two sharply contradictory realities. On the one hand there was a rapidly growing rich consumer class which has made the country the 12. The largest luxury market in the world and on the other hand India has become the home to more than 800 million poor people on the planet who are extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. India’s per capita carbon dioxide emission has averaged to 1.67 tonne.
|November 19, 2007
| A World Dying, But Can We Unite To Save It?
by Geoffrey Lean , Countercurrents.org, The Independent
Humanity is rapidly turning the seas acid through the same pollution that causes global warming, the world’s governments and top scientists agreed yesterday. The process — thought to be the most profound change in the chemistry of the oceans for 20 million years — is expected both to disrupt the entire web of life of the oceans and to make climate change worse. The warning is just one of a whole series of alarming conclusions in a new report published by the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Scientists add that, as the seas become more acidic, they will be less able to absorb carbon dioxide, causing more of it to stay in the atmosphere to speed up global warming. Research is already uncovering some signs that the oceans’ ability to mop up the gas is diminishing. Environmentalists point out that the increasing acidification of the oceans would in itself provide ample reason to curb emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and felling forests even if the dwindling band of skeptics were right and the gas was not warming up the planet.
Getting agreement on a new treaty to tackle climate change hangs on resolving an “after you, Claude” impasse between the United States and China, the two biggest emitters of carbon dioxide, the main cause of global warming. China insists - with other key developing countries like India and South Africa — that the United States must move first to clean up. It points out that, because of the disparity in populations, every American is responsible for emitting much more of the gas than each Chinese. But the US refuses to join any new treaty unless China also accepts restrictions.
|November 19, 2007
| Globalisation Or Militarist Imperialism? India Must Choose: the Indo-US nuclear deal
by Rohini Hensman, Countercurrents.org,
If India wishes to be a respected member of the international community, it would need to uphold international law. This would entail working with other countries to outlaw weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including Depleted Uranium weapons), as well as weapons that target civilians, such as land mines and cluster bombs, all of which violate international law by failing to confine their effects to military targets. Obviously this would imply halting the nuclear weaponisation programme in India.
It is easy to understand why the current US administration is so desperate to seal a strategic alliance with India, at a time when Pakistan, its traditional ally in South Asia, appears to be faltering. For India, however, the deal would be a disaster. Backing out of it under pressure from public opinion may be embarrassing, but not shameful; on the contrary, it is the only democratic option. Going through with it, on the other hand, would be detrimental to India in the multifarious ways outlined above. Clearly, the democratic option is both the wisest and the only honourable one.
|November 6, 2007
How to Hold Corporations Accountable
by Kevin Danaher, Shannon Biggs and Jason Mark
AlterNet, The Mix is the Message, Environment
When the system doesn't allow people to protect themselves from corporate harm to their communities, it is time to change the system.
Can you tell us about "democracy"? It's a word used by everyone and can mean so many things.
Some people might say you are anti-business. Is that the case?
Many people in this country don't understand that corporations have personhood rights. Why does this come as such a surprise to some people?
Speak about the regulatory system. It's supposed to keep corporations from doing harm, but everywhere you look -- the water, the land, the air -- everything is polluted.
Some believe that laws such as anti-corporate personhood ordinances are a waste of time because they will be challenged and shot down, so why bother? What is the logic behind civil disobedience to the law?
Do you believe it's possible to change the role of corporations in our society?
|October 31, 2007
11 Solutions to Halting the Environmental Crisis
by Yifat Susskind, AlterNet, The Mix is the Message, Environment
Here are 11 solutions already being put into practice by innovative communities around the world. You probably don't need to be told that the threat of climate change is real. If you're concerned about the issue, it's fairly easy to conjure the apocalyptic scenes of widespread drought, frequent deadly storms, mass hunger, and wars over natural resources like oil and water. Much harder to come by are examples of positive actions that can avert these disasters and ease the crisis in places where they are already in play. So let's skip the litany of catastrophes that await if global warming is not controlled. Instead, why not focus on some solutions? None are perfect or complete, but each offers a model of positive change that is more than theoretically possible -- it is already happening. Many of these examples are small-scale and local. That's instructive because our best hope for sustainability -- in agriculture, industry, energy, community design, and government -- may lie in local, small-scale models like some of those presented here. It may seem as though large-scale problems require large-scale solutions. But most big institutions and processes are driven by the very people and ideas that have generated our global crisis. It's in the local and the small that the majority of people can exercise agency and decision-making power.
|October 28, 2007
| Uncommon Grace: Biology And Economic Theory
by Charles Sullivan, firstname.lastname@example.org Countercurrents.org
In a society that holds sacred the private ownership of property and economic self interest, it may seem strange that neither my wife nor I consider ourselves property owners. At best, we are squatters or temporary guardians of something that has inherent value; an evolving biological entity that exists far beyond the realm of economic self interest and monetary valuation systems.
In an ownership society, the land is valued not as an evolved living biological entity with inherent value and rights, including the fulfillment of its own evolutionary destiny, but as a commodity — a natural resource. Ecological integrity is the foundation of planetary health. It is the organizing principle of life. Undermining that integrity for short term profits is to limit all future options in perpetuity, the ultimate incarnation of insensate greed and selfishness. Like all economic systems that are not based upon real science, or an appropriate land ethic, the concept of property rights and private ownership are misguided and ultimately self-destructive constructs. The public welfare and the ecological integrity of the earth exceed all economic self interests in importance. Economics are based upon self-serving, false premises, whereas ecology is real. The most precious things in life are those that cannot be commodified, and hence, owned.
|October 5, 2007
| Economic Sharing: A Shift In Global Values
by Rajesh Makwana, Countercurrents.org Rajesh Makwana is the Director of Share The World's Resources (STWR), an NGO campaigning for global economic and social justice. He can be contacted at email@example.com
A growing body of progressives within the global justice movement, including environmentalists, economists and policy makers, broadly agree that a significant overhaul of the world’s economic and political systems is long overdue, and that without significant restructuring our most pressing problems will never be tackled. It is time for a significant re-evaluation of global economic and political values and the creation of an economy that serves the needs of the global community as a whole, within our environmental limitations.
In order to consider how the ownership and management of key resources could be organized, it is useful to group them according to type. There are three general categories:
-Naturally occurring resources – e.g. land, water, oil, gas and mineral ores
-Produced goods – e.g. agricultural produce, medicines, building materials and machinery
-Services – e.g. utilities, healthcare and education
|October 22, 2007
| Investigative report concerning the Northwest Passage, Canadian territory of Nunavut , and Canada Sovereignty
by Germain Dufour, Spiritual Leader of the Global Community
The creation of Nunavut was the outcome of the largest aboriginal land claims agreement between the Canadian government and the native Inuit people. The Inuit is one of the first indigenous peoples in the Americas to achieve self-government. They have the right to participate in decisions regarding the land and water resources, and rights to harvest wildlife on their lands. Conservation, restoration, and management of the Earth resources is about asking ourselves the question of "Who owns the Earth?" The Global Community has proposed a democracy for the people based on the fact that land, the air, water, oil, minerals, and all other natural resources rightly belong to the Global Community along with the local communities where those resources are found. The Earth is the birthright of all life. To gain control of the Northwest Passage, Canada would have to show strong Earth management initiatives and the protection of its environment. Without the fulfillment of the Global Community criteria for sovereignty no one can claim ownership - sovereignty - of both Nunavut and the Northwest Passage. In Nunavut there is also a vast array of different life-form communities such as the polar bears, caribou, Arctic foxes, seals, beluga whales, northern fulmars, and those communities of organisms that inhabit the sea floor like brittle stars, worms, zooplankton, microalgae, bivalves and some of the lesser known sea spiders. And there are many more. Everyone of those global communities have an Earth right of ownership of the North and of all its natural resources. It is their birthright. They dont express themselves in English, but we understand them. Human beings have a moral obligation to protect and conserve the biodiversity of life on Earth. Fot the protection of those global communities we will need to create a biodiversity zone in the North by way of Earth rights and taxation of natural resources. We are all members of the Global Community. We all have the duty to protect the rights and welfare of all species and all people.
This letter may be a starting place for a group global discussion and roundtable on the issues of Canada sovereignty in the Nunavut and the control of the Northwest Passage. If you wish to send a reply I will post it on the Global Community website at
http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/EmailDiscussions/ and http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GPA/2008discussionroundtables.htm
For now I started the process by researching and writing a paper concerned with the issues, and you will find the paper at
|September 16, 2007
| SCALE OF CONFLICTS BETWEEN FIRMS, COMMUNITIES, NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT , by Jose G. Vargas-Hernández,
Global Environment Minister,
Research Professor, Mexico
The role of the nation-state is to regulate conflicts between the essential elements, the nation-state, capitalists (firms), laborers and consumers, binding together disparate and conflicting interests. This paper is aimed to review the different levels of scale of conflicts between firms, communities, New Social Movements and the role of government.
|Read or Download full WORD document of Research Paper by author
|September 9, 2007
| Because humanity has developed jurisprudence systems by which various entities claim legal title to selected segments of the earth, the earth is owned by those entities, by John R. Ewbank,
firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org , (part of our group discussion by email)
Because humanity has developed jurisprudence systems by which various entities claim legal title to selected segments of the earth, the earth is owned by those entities having, under the local jurisprudence, the legal title to various areas. All systems invonving confiscation of such veted property rights can be attacked as "thievery".Rights of eminent domain have permitted government intervention for better use of land, and this involves use not merely for government fbut also for rr and utilities,and other public interests. However, those asserting common ownership and or confiscation must be classified by at least some analysts as thieves.
|Read see also
|September 17, 2007
| World - Grid Type, Continuously Under-development - System Dynamics. Why do we need it? , by Leslaw Michnowski,
Manage the Sustainable Development Global Information Society website.
Committee for Futures Studies "Poland 2000 Plus", Polish Academy of Sciences,
The main goal of the United Nations is realization of sustainable development world society vision. Such society would need to integrate social development with economic development and environmental protection. For this end it is necessary to enable sustained economic growth, internalizing externalities and DECOUPLING the range of economic growth from the range of deficit natural resources depletion growth and degradation of environment. It is necessary also to COUPLE economic growth with popular life-quality growth. To achieve sustainable development OF THE WORLD SOCIETY we have to build, a commonly accessible WORLDWIDE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION (SYSTEM DYNAMICS) SYSTEM for:
- dynamic monitoring,
- long range forecasting, and
- measurable evaluation,
of policy, economy, work, and other changes effects in life-conditions of human beings and nature in general. I propose a research program aimed at describing conditions of creation such big, grid, multi stage built, information system.
|September 12, 2007
| What Is Being Stolen From Us All
by Jeff Berg Countercurrents.org
Once again, this time in Iraq, we see the natural resource wealth of an entire nation enriching none but a criminal class and megacorporations. I will assume a distinction. Once again this is only able to take place as a result of the planned aggression and full cooperation of a government & military that acts as if it is a wholly owned subsidiary of a monied elite. Much the same thing is being done here in Canada but "thanks" to the connivance of significant elements of our corporate and government elite it is being achieved without the need for military force. It should be noted however that to some in the corporate class the missing military element is a major mistake even in Canada as it seriously erodes the huge profit margins possible in war zones and markedly reduces the amount of money that can be transferred from citizens to shareholders in times of military conflict. (The quintessential double dip) Admittedly this is a minority opinion but as Iraq will not be the last to prove not an uninfluential one. Evidence of this influence here in Canada can be seen by the massive increase in expenditures for our military and security industrial complexes over the last few years. NB. Before the Harper government's commitment to a $13 billion increase in military spending Canada’s military spending was the 7th highest in absolute terms in the OECD and 12th overall in the world. If you are skeptical of the claim that Canadians are being all but completely shut out of the benefits of their resource wealth go to the Parkland Institute site and discover for yourself the pitiful fraction the Albertan people receive of their resource wealth compared to the people of Norway. http://www.ualberta.ca/PARKLAND/ For we the Canadian people the situation is an even crueler joke as we receive even less benefit while at the same time bearing more of the brunt of the economic problems associated with being a resource dollar. Aka. Dutch Disease http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dutchdisease.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease And it is all Canadians and especially Albertans and even the rest of the world that are at the same time forced to pick up the massive environmental tab even as the profits flee the province and the country.
|August 5, 2007
| Who should own the Earth ?, by Norman Kurland email@example.com
Email discussion with Norman Kurland and Garry Davis of the Global Justice Movement, and with John Watkins of the Alliance for Human Empowerment