Rio+20 will Discuss Planetary Boundaries to Humanity


The globalist Rio+20 conference is just around the corner, and the topics to be discussed during such meeting will be of out most importance to all of us, not because its attendees wish to really solve issues that threaten humanity as a whole, but because the sponsors of the movement are planning to bring about world tyranny through environmental policy; much like the Nazis did even before Hitler rose to power. That is not to say that the world is not under the threat of environmental problems, but none of those problems will be talked about and solved in Rio de Janeiro next week.

The Rio+20 is the back to origins episode in a series of meetings organized by the United Nations and the corporations that support it (Shell, Coca Cola, Nestle, BASF, among others). As we have reported over and over, neither the corporations nor the UN have the best interests of humanity in mind. In fact, the greatest problems humans face today, included the environmental catastrophes stem from corporate greed and government inability to curb their appetite for natural resources and human depopulation policies.

In all previous occasions, the political meetings held as action fora to implement policies in favor of the environment have been rocked by scandal, fraud and last minute back room deals, which were uncovered and exposed to the public. That is why the fraudulent pseudoscience behind anthropogenic global warming failed, and its sponsors had to change their speech to ‘climate change’. But that fraud was also exposed as a recycled idea of the 70s and 80s, when Maurice Strong and other globalist servants warned about ‘global cooling’.

Later came the scandal known as ‘climategate’. Tons of e-mails and documents from the University of East Anglia were made public and with it scientists, researchers and journalists who were skeptic about the ‘climate change’ fraud stopped the globalist neofeudalists in their tracks. The ‘climategate’ scandal put an end to the theft that would have meant a generalized carbon emission scheme, which failed to be the next cash cow for globalists like Al Gore who were heavily invested in the commerce of carbon credits.

The ‘climategate’ e-mails revealed how a group of so-called scientists carried out data manipulation, colluded, suppressed evidence that debunked the anthropogenic warming theory and sought to clamp down of any sign of dissent by anyone in the scientific community. The sentiment that dissent had to be oppressed later translated into other scholars voicing their intention to crush climate skeptics who did not follow the fairytale known as man-made global warming. An investigation carried out by the University of East Anglia, the origin of the fraud, concluded that there had been no collusion, suppression of evidence or intention to attack dissenters.

In the last two meetings sponsored by the UN, the public learned more about the lies and disinformation the controllers used to achieve their goals of keeping most of humanity underdeveloped. The ‘danish text’ was uncovered and with it more details of how the UN wanted to chain down nation-states by mandating perpetual membership in its carbon emissions reduction and deindustrialization initiatives that would drive the world to a post-industrial era dominated by worldwide poverty in the name of saving the planet. This document would also hand more power to the corporate controlled rich nations.

As if the discovery of the ‘danish text’ wasn’t bad enough, the public later discovered the scandal surrounding one of the leaders of the ‘climate change’ doomsday scenario movement. Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, one of the godfathers of the globalist environmental agenda, was denounced for supporting an alarmist, unfounded claim about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. Although Pachauri later retracted his strong support for the report, he thought it was a good idea to hire the man behind the IPCC report who had written about the false Himalayan glacier melting.

Despite all their failures to lure the populations into believing that a micro managed global system under the power of the UN and its sponsors is the solution to all problems, the globalists are back at it again. The Rio+20 meeting will serve to discuss a new caveat in their efforts to curve development for all the people of the world who have not enjoyed it. The new talking point coming right out of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity is the imposition of Safety Limits on Human Activity for the sake of reducing the impact that such activity causes on planet Earth. That all sounds fine and dandy on paper, but what is not fine at all is what it all means: an anti-human agenda.

Let’s see what two of the most revealing sections of the UN document say about humanity and their activities. Section 11 states that there are too many people in the world living at too high a material standard. That is in itself a lie, because most people in the world belong to the middle and lower classes. But the document offers two options to deal with the so-called exploding population. First, its says that most human beings should live as “peasants”, which would set the planet’s population to about 5 to 7 billion people. Second, it says that should the planet continue to enjoy the high standards of development, “a reasonable estimate for an industrialised world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion.” This is the same kind of speech often proposed by UN supporters like Ted Turner and Bill Gates, who through their tax exempted foundations carry out United Nations depopulation programs in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Section 12 touches the core of a very delicate issue for millions of people: Religion. The document condemns Christianity and says that the “western worldview” denies the sacred attributes of nature which became firmly established with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions. The UN supports a view that says that humans should be seen as part of a different type of community which includes plants and animals. In other words, the UN wants human life to have the sam value as animals and plants. Under this premise, saving a human life, for example, is not more important than saving a tree or a bird. This policy also pursues an initiative born in the UN that intends to equal humans to plants and animals so that people’s inherent right to life, given to them by their creator becomes obsolete.

A recent article published on Scientific American magazine reports about a study that began in 2009 which sought to analyze the concept of planetary boundaries. That is the creation of limits to human activity for the sake of ‘saving the planet’. The need for such limits, proponents say, stems from the threat posed to humans by CO2 emissions, rising sea levels, human induced climatic changes and so on. All of these supposed threats have been widely debunked by skeptic scientists, but the imposition of such limits are deeply rooted in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity itself, therefore limiting development continues to be a center piece in the fight the UN leads against humanity. The study does not look at real environmental problems such as Chemtrails, Genetically Modified Organisms, the threat of Nuclear Power (Fukushima), War, Pesticide use and many other real problems.

Regarding the realistic nature of the imposition of planetary boundaries, the Breakthrough Institute evaluated the study and the idea of creating limits to what humans can do and the impact that such planetary boundaries would have on civilization. The conclusion is that such planetary boundaries are not a feasible solution to take on any kind of environmental problem. “The planetary boundaries framework is not a useful guide for policy or environmental management in any concrete sense, as it does not capture the challenges involved in most of the environmental problems it lists,” said geographer Linus Blomqvist. In fact, the Breakthrough Institute calls the imposition of planetary boundaries a deceptive way to deal with global environmental challenges. Read the analysis of the study on the Institute’s website.

According to Blomqvist, neither the establishment of planetary boundaries as proposed in the study, nor the transgression of those limits would have a significant impact on planetary survival. But Blomqvist warned about what humans must do in order to guarantee their existence in a sustainable planet. “The real limitations for sustainability are rather our ability to grow enough food, maintain a healthy climate and so on,” Blomqvist said. That is exactly what the policies in the works by the UN want to avoid. Under the auspices of the UN and its limits on human activity, more land would be left untouched for the animals and plants to enjoy and less land would be used for the sustainable production of food.

Despite the unreal nature that planetary boundaries presents and how it doesn’t address the real environmental problems posed above, the official establishment of such limits will be discussed during the United Nations Rio+20 Summit. Unofficially, many countries have already given the UN control over large areas of their territorial lands and waters by naming such areas National Parks, Biodiversity Areas or Protected Areas. Many of the most valuable resources humanity has are now under the control of the UN, which slowly and seamlessly tries to tighten the grip of control over those resources.


Eco-Tyranny at the Door Step: US Government Land Grabbing Policies

“Our Vision, Our Values” is the name of Obama’s Federal Government move to confiscate private property, eliminate land rights and steal the nations resources.


The environmentalist movement isn’t about protecting the environment at all, according to meteorologist-turned-journalist Brian Sussman.

It’s about destroying private property, controlling behavior, and expanding government – and the Obama administration has a secret plan to further all of it, he says.

Sussman is now blowing the whistle on the real nature of environmentalism in his explosive brand-new book, “Eco-Tyranny.”

He reveals secret memos from inside Obama’s Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, outlining a covert plan “to pursue a program of land consolidation” for the federal government to secure tens of millions of acres of land that will be permanently out of reach for entrepreneurs, businessmen and private citizens.

The plan, entitled “Our Vision, Our Values,” notes that 130-140 million acres under BLM management are worthy of consideration as “treasured lands.” Because ecosystems defy “jurisdictional boundaries,” the memo outlines strategies by which the federal government can “rationalize and consolidate” its fragmented landholdings in order to properly “manage-at-scale.” While an ecosystem can simply refer to a single pond or small area, it can also refer to entire geographic regions, thus giving the government an almost unlimited justification to seize private property adjacent to “treasured lands.”

Sussman exposes this is not just theoretical discussion within the White House. The Obama administration is already moving to implement this as policy without consulting Congress by issuing an executive order entitled “America’s Great Outdoors Initiative.”

The unilateral order explicitly sets as a goal “reconnecting” huge swaths of land under federal ownership, creating large “corridors” compromising millions of acres that will be unavailable for use by private citizens.

The initiative also calls for the federal government to work through “public/private partnerships and locally supported conservation strategies.” This translates into activist environmental organizations having input on all decisions involving expanding government lands.

As it stands, the federal government controls more than 50 percent of the land in eleven Western states.

Read Full Article →

“World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe”


Almost six years ago, I was the editor of a single-topic issue on energy for Scientific American that included an article by Princeton University’s Robert Socolow that set out a well-reasoned plan for how to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below a planet-livable threshold of 560 ppm. The issue came replete with technical solutions that ranged from a hydrogen economy to space-based solar.

If I had it to do over, I’d approach the issue planning differently, my fellow editors permitting. I would scale back on the nuclear fusion and clean coal, instead devoting at least half of the available space for feature articles on psychology, sociology, economics and political science. Since doing that issue, I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical details are the easy part. It’s the social engineering that’s the killer. Moon shots and Manhattan Projects are child’s play compared to needed changes in the way we behave.

A policy article authored by several dozen scientists appeared online March 15 in Science to acknowledge this point: “Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change. This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.”

The report summarized 10 years of research evaluating the capability of international institutions to deal with climate and other environmental issues, an assessment that found existing capabilities to effect change sorely lacking. The authors called for a “constitutional moment” at the upcoming 2012 U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio in June to reform world politics and government. Among the proposals: a call to replace the largely ineffective U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development with a council that reports to the U.N. General Assembly, at attempt to better handle emerging issues related to water, climate, energy and food security. The report advocates a similar revamping of other international environmental institutions.

Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers. There would have to be consideration of some way of embracing head-in-the-cloud answers to social problems that are usually dismissed by policymakers as academic naivete. In principle, species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non, but that kind of pronouncement also profoundly strains credibility in the chaos of the political sphere. Some of the things that would need to be contemplated: How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow? Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries? How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond the current mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?

Behavioral economics and other forward-looking disciplines in the social sciences try to grapple with weighty questions. But they have never taken on a challenge of this scale, recruiting all seven billion of us to act in unison. The ability to sustain change globally across the entire human population over periods far beyond anything ever attempted would appear to push the relevant objectives well beyond the realm of the attainable. If we are ever to cope with climate change in any fundamental way, radical solutions on the social side are where we must focus, though. The relative efficiency of the next generation of solar cells is trivial by comparison.