U.N. Rio+20 Final Decisions are made Secret

By CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON | CLIMATE DEPOT | JUNE 21, 2012

RIO DE JANEIRO — In a shock move, officially-accredited non-government delegates who had traveled thousands of miles to attend the UN’s Rio+20 sustainable development conference in Brazil have been refused all access to the central negotiating text.

This key document, containing all of the environmental conference’s decisions, is now restricted to governmental delegates only.

The UN’s panic decision to classify the Rio negotiating text follows CFACT’s Climate Depot revelation at the UN climate conference in Durban in 2011 of the then-public Durban draft, whose contents the world’s news media had failed to report.

CFACT’s exposure of the strange proposals in the Durban text – which gave “Mother Earth” the right to sue Western nations in a new “International Climate Court”, and suggested that CO2 concentration should be halved (which would wipe out most plant and animal species on Earth) – led to the hasty abandonment of half of the text the day before negotiations were concluded.

According to WordPress, which hosts 500,000 blog postings on all subjects worldwide every day, the WattsUpWithThat.com blog posting that summarized the Durban draft received more hits than any other posting that day. The original 2011 article first appeared at Climate Depot and was also linked on the Drudge Report for several days.

It is known that the Rio text includes several items dropped from the Durban text, including proposals for the UN to levy a 2% tax on all financial transactions worldwide, which would cripple the financial markets by imposing costs many times the profits on each transaction.

A senior UN official, who did not want to be named and asked for CFACT’s video camera to be turned off, revealed the following facts to CFACT’s representatives here in Rio:

There is no public UN documentation center at Rio, though such centers were always available at previous UN conferences.

Mr. Olafsson, a deputy Secretary General of the UN, had issued orders to all staff, presumably with the authority of Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, that the Rio negotiating text was now classified and was to be refused to all officially-accredited delegates from non-government organizations.

Delegates wishing to complain about the secrecy at the Rio conference had to make their complaint to the UN offices at the Rio conference center. The UN offices, however, were in a building for which special “secondary passes” were required. Delegates from non-government organizations were not entitled to secondary passes unless there were exceptional circumstances.

Copies of the negotiating text could be released at the request of a government delegate. However, for the first time, access to the plenary session at which the negotiations are taking place is also restricted. Accredited representatives of non-government organizations are not permitted to attend the plenary sessions.

Copies of the current text were also classified on the Rio conference’s official website.

Delegates would find “RESTRICTED ACCESS” (Acesso Restrito) signs all over the conference center. Freedom of movement within the conference, even for accredited representatives, was no longer permitted.

The official added that the UN has become acutely sensitive to criticism, particularly because of a number of financial and sexual scandals at the UN’s plush headquarters in New York, many of which had not been exposed in the mainstream news media. The official thought it quite likely that the Rio negotiating text had been classified because the Durban text, once CFACT had released it, had proven to be such a grave embarrassment to the UN and to the participating governments, most of whose negotiators did not actually read the long, diffuse texts before agreeing to them.

Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot, has attended many UN conferences and is in Rio, said: “This censorship by the UN is without precedent. The public has had access to these documents at previous UN summits. This latest development makes a mockery of any UN claim to ‘transparency.’”

United Nations Religion: Fake Environmentalism on the Rise

The value of a human life will be equaled to that of a tree or an insect. The core of the initiative enacted already in Bolivia was drafted by its communist leader Evo Morales.

Canada.com
April 12, 2011

Bolivia will this month table a draft United Nations treaty giving “Mother Earth” the same rights as humans — having just passed a domestic law that does the same for bugs, trees and all other natural things in the South American country.

The bid aims to have the UN recognize the Earth as a living entity that humans have sought to “dominate and exploit” — to the point that the “well-being and existence of many beings” is now threatened.

The wording may yet evolve, but the general structure is meant to mirror Bolivia’s Law of the Rights of Mother Earth, which Bolivian President Evo Morales enacted in January.

That document speaks of the country’s natural resources as “blessings,” and grants the Earth a series of specific rights that include rights to life, water and clean air; the right to repair livelihoods affected by human activities; and the right to be free from pollution.

It also establishes a Ministry of Mother Earth, and provides the planet with an ombudsman whose job is to hear nature’s complaints as voiced by activist and other groups, including the state.

“If you want to have balance, and you think that the only (entities) who have rights are humans or companies, then how can you reach balance?” Pablo Salon, Bolivia’s ambassador to the UN, told Postmedia News. “But if you recognize that nature too has rights, and (if you provide) legal forms to protect and preserve those rights, then you can achieve balance.”

The application of the law appears destined to pose new challenges for companies operating in the country, which is rich in natural resources, including natural gas and lithium, but remains one of the poorest in Latin America.

But while Salon said his country just seeks to achieve “harmony” with nature, he signalled that mining and other companies may come under greater scrutiny.

“We’re not saying, for example, you cannot eat meat because you know you are going to go against the rights of a cow,” he said. “But when human activity develops at a certain scale that you (cause to) disappear a species, then you are really altering the vital cycles of nature or of Mother Earth. Of course, you need a mine to extract iron or zinc, but there are limits.”

Bolivia is a country with a large indigenous population, whose traditional belief systems took on greater resonance following the election of Morales, Latin America’s first indigenous president.

In a 2008 pamphlet his entourage distributed at the UN as he attended a summit there, 10 “commandments” are set out as Bolivia’s plan to “save the planet” — beginning with the need “to end capitalism.”

Reflecting indigenous traditional beliefs, the proposed global treaty says humans have caused “severe destruction . . . that is offensive to the many faiths, wisdom traditions and indigenous cultures for whom Mother Earth is sacred.”

It is through events like the Copenhaguen Conference that grassroots organizations get bamboozled into falling for fake environmentalism.

It also says that “Mother Earth has the right to exist, to persist and to continue the vital cycles, structures, functions and processes that sustain all human beings.”

In indigenous Andean culture, the Earth deity known as Pachamama is the centre of all life, and humans are considered equal to all other entities.

The UN debate begins two days before the UN’s recognition April 22 of the second International Mother Earth Day — another Morales-led initiative.

Canadian activist Maude Barlow is among global environmentalists backing the drive with a book the group will launch in New York during the UN debate: Nature Has Rights.

“It’s going to have huge resonance around the world,” Barlow said of the campaign. “It’s going to start first with these southern countries trying to protect their land and their people from exploitation, but I think it will be grabbed onto by communities in our countries, for example, fighting the tarsands in Alberta.”

Ecuador, which also has a large indigenous population, has enshrined similar aims in its Constitution — but the Bolivian law is said to be “stronger.”

Ecuador is among countries that have already been supportive of the Bolivian initiative, along with Nicaragua, Venezuela, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Antigua and Barbuda.