Increasingly, it is understood that social and economic development can only take off if people feel safe in their communities. This concept brings together issues of disarmament and development in an exciting new way. The 2009 Secretary-General’s report:
The United Nations system, regional and subregional organizations, national and local governments, and civil society organizations have mobilized to prevent and reduce armed violence through evidence-based interventions, but responses need to be scaled up. Armed violence prevention and reduction efforts must be carefully designed, targeted and monitored. Programming options include interventions related to conflict prevention and peacebuilding, to interventions targeting demand and risk factors at the individual, relationship and societal levels.
The report places particular emphasis on tackling the risks and effects of armed violence and underdevelopment. This includes implementing existing conventions and agreements associated with armed violence and development; improving the effectiveness of armed violence prevention and reduction policies through investment in the production, analysis and use of evidence; strengthening capacities to diagnose, articulate strategies and implement programmes; developing measurable goals, targets and indicators for armed violence prevention and reduction; building partnerships among the United Nations system and with regional organizations, national authorities and civil society to ensure coherent policy and programming; increasing resources for armed violence prevention and reduction; and fostering greater international action.
V. Observations and recommendations
63. Tackling armed violence successfully requires coordinated responses that draw on different areas of expertise. Many Governments, civil society actors and United Nations entities are starting to work together to address risk factors and the negative effects of armed violence on development, but the international response is still somewhat fragmented. In bringing together donors, Governments of affected States and civil society, as well as in uniting core competencies and developing good practices, the United Nations system is well-positioned to help catalyse more coherent, comprehensive, coordinated and integrated initiatives, and to encourage targeted armed violence prevention and reduction policies and programmes at the international, national and local levels.
64. In order to be successful, policy responses must involve meaningful and legitimate local ownership, and full partnerships between Governments and civil society. They must also be integrated into regional and subregional approaches.
65. In order to be effective in its role as a convenor and catalyst, the United Nations system, as well as national and local governments and civil society, will need to scale up support to affected States in designing and implementing armed violence prevention and response strategies. The following recommendations are proposed:
(a) Strengthen the implementation of existing global conventions and agreements. There is a range of existing agreements that can contribute to the prevention and reduction of armed violence. United Nations agencies should support national Governments to uphold, implement and strengthen existing global and regional norms and measures, including relevant international and regional treaties, conventions and other instruments that contribute to the reduction and prevention of all forms of armed violence. These include the Firearms Protocol; the Programme of Action; the universal conventions and protocols against terrorism; the three conventions on narcotic drugs; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the conventions on the rights of women and children; Security Council resolutions 1325 (2000) and 1820 (2008) on women, peace and security; and the 2005 World Summit Outcome document. There should also be a concerted effort to ensure that international norms and standards are reflected and implemented at the national and local levels through the adoption of national legislation and other domestic measures.
(b) Improve the effectiveness of armed violence prevention and reduction policies and programmes through investments in the production, analysis and use of evidence. Effective approaches to armed-violence prevention and reduction will require investments by national Governments and international organizations in high-quality data-gathering and analysis capacities. Comprehensive, reliable and timely information is critical for informed policymaking and programming, monitoring and evaluation, and the forecasting of future trends and needs. This will involve ongoing and baseline data collection and analysis, the regular transfer of knowledge and lessons learned and innovative approaches to bring evidence and analysis into the programming process. The most comprehensive picture of conflict, non-conflict and interpersonal armed violence is likely to be obtained from a combination of data drawn from the public health and criminal justice systems, combined with population-based surveys, civil society monitoring, as well as rich historical and cultural research. Routine monitoring and evaluation of armed violence prevention programmes will increase the range of evidence-based options to prevent armed violence available to national authorities, local authorities and civil society.
(c) Strengthen national and local capacities for armed violence prevention and reduction. States have the primary responsibility for preventing and reducing armed violence. Multilateral and bilateral agencies can support Governments of affected countries by strengthening national and local capacities to address armed violence, including capacities to collect reliable data on the scope and scale of armed violence and victimization, and on different risk and resilience factors. This could include the development of national armed violence prevention and reduction strategies, investments in national and local surveillance systems, establishment of effective criminal justice systems based upon the rule of law, including reinforcement of counter-terrorism and policing capacities, and support for programmes targeting specific risk factors and at-risk groups. International agencies and national Governments can also ensure that armed violence prevention and reduction practices are integrated into wider development strategies, such as United Nations Development Assistance Frameworks, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, and other national and local plans. Local actors and in particular governments, community authorities (including local governments and community peace and security committees), research institutions and the media should be supported and strengthened in order to design, implement and measure the effectiveness of local strategies and interventions. Several United Nations stakeholders can be involved in these activities, including the three United Nations regional centres for peace and disarmament.
(d) Develop measurable goals, targets and indicators for armed-violence prevention and reduction. A growing body of evidence demonstrates how armed violence hinders the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and, more generally, social, economic, political and human development. Yet armed violence reduction efforts are seldom incorporated into strategies for achieving the Millennium Development Goals. The Millennium Development Goal Review Process, starting in 2010, provides an opportunity to consider the reduction of armed violence as an important requisite to meeting the Millennium Development Goals, in particular through the development and endorsement of a set of goals, targets and indicators to achieve measurable reductions in armed violence and tangible improvements in human security. Developing measurable goals on armed violence towards 2015 will offer the opportunity to integrate security-related themes into the possible follow-up of the Millennium Development Goals (see S/2008/258).
Throughout October 2009, governments are attending the First Committee, which proposes and adopts resolutions on disarmament and international security. Their discussions include resolutions on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and small arms control. North American Members List is shown below. Contact information provided for your convenience.
|Amnesty International – Canada
214 Montreal Road
Telephone: + 1 613 744 7667
Fax: + 1 613 746 2411
|Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Committee (CPCC)
1, Rue Nicholas Street, #1216
Telephone: +1 613 241 3446
Fax: +1 613 241 4846
|Coalition for Gun Control
3300 Boulevard Rosemont
Telephone: +1 514 725 2021
Fax: +1 514 725 5926
|Group of 78
145 Spruce Street, Suite 206
Telephone: +1 230 0860
Fax: +1 563 0017
PO Box 3352
Telephone: +1 250 877 6030
Fax: +1 250 877 6040
300 – 294 Albert Street
Telephone: +1 613 237 5236
Fax: +1 613 237 0524
|Physicians for Global Survival (PGS)
208-145 Spruce Street
Telephone: +1 613 233 1982
Fax: +1 613 223 9028
57 Erb Street West
Telephone: +1 519 888 6541
Fax: +1 519 888 0018
|Small Arms Firearms Education Research Network (SAFER-Net)
3300 Boulevard Rosemont
Telephone: +1 416 979 5000 ext. 6740
Fax: +1 416 979 5249
|South Asia Partnership – Canada (SAP Canada)
1 Nicholas Street
Telephone: +1 613 241 1333
Fax: +1 613 241 1129
|David Jackman (individual)
95 Main Street
Telephone: +1 613 237 8762
|Peggy Mason (individual)
2077 Kinburn Side Road
Telephone: +1 613 832 9322
|Alan Simons (individual)
1 Kenwood Avenue,
Canada M6C 2R6
Tel. (416) 473.0354
801 Second Avenue
Telephone: +1 212 907 1314
Fax: +1 212 682 9185
|Amnesty International – USA – Military, Security and Police Transfers Working Group
202 East Riverside Street
Telephone: +1 202 544 0200
Fax: +1 202 546 7142
|Arms Trade Resource Center
66 Fifth Avenue
Telephone: +1 212 229 5808
Fax: +1 212 229 5579
|Coalition To Stop Gun Violence – USA (CSGV)
1023 15th Street NW
Telephone: +1 202 408 0061
Fax: +1 202 408 0062
|Crime Gun Solutions LLC (CGS)
2214 West Greenleaf Drive
Telephone: +1 301 631 2950
Fax: +1 301 631 2950
|Derechos Human Rights
46 Estabrook Street
Phone: +1 510 483 4005
Fax: +1 603 372 9710
|Economists Allied for Arms Reduction (ECAAR)
330 East 38th Street
Telephone: +1 212 490 6494
Fax: +1 212 490 6494
|Firearm Injury Center – Medical College of Wisconsin
Medical College of Wisconsin
8701 Watertown Plank Road
Telephone: +1 414 456 7676, +1 414 456 7670
Fax: +1 414 456 6472
|Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies
893 West Street
Telephone: +1 413 559 5563
Fax: +1 413 559 5620
211 East 43rd Street.
Telephone: +1 212 490 4624
Fax: +1 866 283 0134
|Global Action to Prevent War
GAPW c/o LCNP
211 East 43rd Street
Telephone: +1 212 818 1861
Fax: +1 212 818 1857
2300 Children’s Plaza #88
Telephone: +1 773 880 3826
Fax: +1 773 880 6615
|Human Rights Watch – Arms Division – USA
1630 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 500 Washington
Telephone: +1 202 612 4321
Fax: +1 202 612 4333
|International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW)
727 Massachusetts Avenue. 2nd floor Cambridge
Telephone: +1 617 868 5050 ext 203
Fax: +1 617 868 2560
Boston University School of Public Health
1 Appleton Street
Telephone: +1 617 437 1500
Fax: +1 617 437 9394
|Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV)
Firearms Law Center
268 Bush Street, Suite 555
Telephone: +1 415 433 2062
Fax: +1 415 433 3357
|Maha Vajra Films
2811 Iroquois Road
Phone: +1 847 736 1954
|Million Mom March / Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
1225 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Telephone: +1 202 289 7319
Fax: +1 202 408 1851
|Monterey Institute of International Studies – Program on Security & Development (SAND)
460 Pierce Street
Telephone: +1 831 647 4142
Fax: +1 831 647 4199
|New Yorkers Against Gun Violence
Telephone: +1 212-679-2345
Fax: +1 212-679-2484
1112 16th Street
Telephone: +1 202 496 1304
Fax: +1 202 496 1190
355 Lexington Avenue, Third Floor
Telephone: +1 212 687 2091
Fax: +1 212 687 2092
|Program on Global Security & Disarmament
3140 Tydings Hall
Telephone: +1 301 405 4969
Fax: +1 301 405 8822
|Quaker United Nations Office – New York (QUNO)
777 United Nations Plaza
Telephone: +1 212 682 2745, +1 212 682 8713
Fax: +1 212 983 0034
|Small Arms Working Group (SAWG)
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Telephone: +1 202 797 5283
Fax: +1 202 462 4559
|Task Force for Child Survival & Development
750 Commerce Drive, Suite 400
Telephone: +1 404 687 5635
Fax: +1 404 371 1087
|The Fund for Peace
1701 K Street NW, 11th Floor
Telephone: +1 202 223 7940
Fax: +1 202 223 7947
San Francisco General Hospital
Telephone: +1 415 821 8209
Fax: +1 415 282 2563
|Veterans for Peace (VFP)
216 South Meramec Ave
St. Louis MO
211 East 43rd Street, Suite 706
Telephone: +1 646 487 0003
Fax: +1 646 487 0004
|Watchlist on Children & Armed Conflict
C/o Women’s Commission for Refugee Women & Children
122 East 42nd Street, 12th Floor
Telephone: +1 212 551 2743
Fax: +1 212 551 3180
|Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND)
691 Massachusetts Avenue
Telephone: +1 781 643 6740
Fax: +1 781 643 6740
|Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF)
777 UN Plaza, 6th Floor
Telephone: +1 212 682 1265
Fax: +1 212 286 8211
|World Conference on Religion and Peace (WCRP)
777 United Nations Plaza, 9th Floor
Telephone: +1 212 687 2163
Fax: +1 212 983 0566
|World Peace Foundation
79 John F. Kennedy Street
Telephone: +1 617 496 9812
Fax: +1 617 491 8588
|World Vision International (WV)
800 West Chestnut Avenue
Telephone: +1 626 301 7715
Fax: +1 626 301 7786
25 Treasure Road
Telephone: +1 631 369 6896
Fax: +1 626 608 3189
|Loretta Bondi (individual)
Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies
1717 Massachusetts Avenue NW, 5th Floor Washington
Telephone: +1 202 663 5956
Fax: +1 202 663 5879
|Barbara Frey (individual)
214 Social Sciences Building
267 Avenue 19 South
Telephone: +1 612 626 1879
Fax: +1 612 626 2242
|Bill Godnick (individual)
Telephone: +1 305 251 6813
firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
|Matt Schroeder (individual)
Arms Sales Monitoring Project
Federation of American Scientists
1717 K Street
Telephone: +1 202 454 4693
Fax: +1 202 675 1010
|Rachel Stohl (individual)
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington
Telephone: +1 202 797 5283
Fax: +1 202 462 4559
|Daniel Webster (individual)
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
624 North Broadway
Telephone: +1 410 614 3243
Fax: +1 410 614 9055
In attempt to research the H1N1 vaccine, due to the number of people showing concern on the issue, I uncovered things I did not want to see.
I will not draw conclusions for you, but rather present the materials in order for you to make your own decisions. I am not advising you to get or not to get the vaccine. It is my feeling, however, you are not being presented with all of the facts. To that end I submit the following:
A week ago I assembled a compilation of news articles I have found on the subject of the vaccine and published it here and updated here. There you will find a treasure trove of articles, including those discussing the fact Baxter, a pharmaceutical company, developed a vaccine for the Avian flu before incidence of the flu had occurred. In the process of distributing the vaccine it was learned Baxter had somehow contaminated a large percentage of the vaccine as detailed here in an article from infowars:
As reported by multiple sources last month, including the Times of India, vaccines contaminated with deadly live H5N1 avian flu virus were distributed to 18 countries last December by a lab at an Austrian branch of Baxter.
It was only by providence that the batch was first tested on ferrets in the Czech Republic, before being shipped out for injection into humans. The ferrets all died and the shocking discovery was made.
Czech newspapers immediately questioned whether the events were part of a conspiracy to deliberately provoke a pandemic, following up on accusations already made by health officials in other countries.
Initially, Baxter attempted to stonewall questions by invoking “trade secrets” and refused to reveal how the vaccines were contaminated with H5N1. After increased pressure they then claimed that pure H5N1 batches were sent by accident.
Since the probability of mixing a live virus biological weapon with vaccine material by accident is virtually impossible, this leaves no other explanation than that the contamination was a deliberate attempt to weaponize the H5N1 virus to its most potent extreme and distribute it via conventional flu vaccines to the population who would then infect others to a devastating degree as the disease went airborne.
The fact that Baxter mixed the deadly H5N1 virus with a mix of H3N2 seasonal flu viruses is the smoking gun. The H5N1 virus on its own has killed hundreds of people, but it is less airborne and more restricted in the ease with which it can spread. However, when combined with seasonal flu viruses, which as everyone knows are super-airborne and easily spread, the effect is a potent, super-airbone, super deadly biological weapon.
Indeed, some have already suggested that the current scare could represent the use of such a weapon.
Now it has been announced that Baxter is seeking a sample of the potentially lethal never before seen form of swine/avian/human flu virus in order to assist the World Health Organization in developing a new vaccine, reaping billions in the process.
Why should Baxter be trusted, when they have already been proven to be at the very least criminally negligent, and at worst a prime suspect in attempting to carry off one of the most heinous crimes in the history of mankind?
There are also concerns with other manufacturers of vaccines. Also discussed is the fact some, if not all, of the various vaccine preparations are believed to contain toxins, including mercury, strengthening additive adjuvants, and Triton X100. Brand names throughout the world noted are Celvapan, Pandemrix, Focetria, Peramvir, and others.
There are many concerns based on these facts and others. The FDA has not tested this vaccine. The government can in no way be held responsible for any harm done from the vaccines. There have been deaths reported due to the vaccines. The German government had soldiers take vaccinations different from what was purchased for the general public, namely versions of the vaccine that do not contain mercury or other toxic substances contained in the adjuvants.
George W. Bush, at the International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza at the United Nations General Assembly on September 14, 2005, placed the US under UN and WHO law in the event of a pandemic “emergency”. In April, WHO declared Swine Flu a Level 5 Emergency. At Level 6 the WHO is permitted to call the shots worldwide. Our sovereignty, our Constitution – no matter. He also released these directives, deemed unconstitutional by many, altering the channels of government and giving extra constitutional powers to the President in an emergency:
Details are spelled out in NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51 and HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20 : , but here is a snippet from Wikipedia on the subject:
The presidential directive says that, when the president considers an emergency to have occurred, an “Enduring Constitutional Government” comprising “a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President,” will take the place of the nation’s regular government, presumably without the oversight of Congress. Conservative activist Jerome Corsi and Marjorie Cohn of the National Lawyers Guild have said that this is a violation of the Constitution of the United States in that the three branches of government are separate and equal, with no single branch coordinating the others. The directive, created by the president, claims that the president has the power to declare a catastrophic emergency. It does not specify who has the power to declare the emergency over.
The directive further says that, in the case of such an emergency, the new position of “National Continuity Coordinator” would be filled by the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (this position was held by Frances Townsend until her resignation on November 19, 2007 then by Kenneth L. Wainstein, and now John Brennan) The directive also specifies that a “Continuity Policy Coordination Committee”, to be chaired by a senior director of the Homeland Security Council staff, and selected by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be “the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination”.
The MODEL STATE EMERGENCY HEALTH POWERS ACT was passed in many states in 2002 and others after that point.
The National Vaccine Information Center, along with the ACLU and other organizations concerned about lack of informed consent protections and other threats to civil liberties, opposed the legislation. NVIC took the position that, while it is critical for the U.S. to have a sound, workable plan to respond to an act of bioterrorism, as well as enough safe and effective vaccines stockpiled for every American who wants to use them, there are legitimate concerns about a plan which forces citizens to use vaccines without voluntary, informed consent.
The MSEHPA, which was passed by many states in 2002, included provisions that would allow state health officials to use the state militia to:
- take control of all roads leading into and out of cities and states;
- seize homes, cars, telephones, computers, food, fuel, clothing, firearms and alcoholic beverages for their own use (and not be held liable if these actions result in the destruction of personal property);
- arrest, imprison and forcibly examine, vaccinate and medicate citizens without consent (and not be held liable if these actions result in your death or injury).
As well I have noted the following web site:
Transformational Medical Technologies Initiative (TMTI) was pioneered by The Department of Defense (DoD) in 2006 to better prepare and protect the warfighter and the nation from emerging, genetically engineered, and unknown biothreat agents.
President Obama Declares A National Health Emergency Due to Swine Flu
From Fox News last week:
President Obama signed a proclamation declaring the H1N1 influenza a national emergency, giving doctors and medical facilities greater leeway in responding to the flu pandemic.
Obama signed the declaration late Friday, which the White House said allows medical treatment facilities to better handle a surge in flu patients by waiving federal requirements on a case-by-case basis.
“The foundation of our national approach to the H1N1 flu has been preparedness at all levels — personal, business, and government — and this proclamation helps that effort by advancing our overall response capability,” the White House said in a statement.
In the proclamation, Obama said the pandemic keeps evolving, the rates of illness are rising rapidly in many areas and there’s a potential “to overburden health care resources.”
Because of vaccine production delays, the government has backed off initial, optimistic estimates that as many as 120 million doses would be available by mid-October. As of Wednesday, only 11 million doses had been shipped to health departments, doctor’s offices and other providers, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention…..
Worldwide, more than 5,000 people have reportedly died from swine flu since it emerged this year and developed into a global epidemic, the World Health Organization said Friday. Since most countries have stopped counting individual swine flu cases, the figure is considered an underestimate.
The flu has infected millions of Americans and killed nearly 100 children in the U.S. The chief of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Friday that over a thousand people have died as a result, with 46 states reporting widespread H1N1 activity.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, we’ve seen more than 1,000 deaths and 20,000 hospitalizations,” Frieden said. “We expect it to occur in waves, but we can’t predict when those waves will happen.”
In a normal year, according to CDC, 36,000 Americans die from the flu. That is an average of 1 in every 8500 citizens. Our first case was sometime late this spring I believe. Since that point, the number of deaths has not reached anywhere near that number. The report stated over 20,000 people have been hospitalized with the flu and also states millions have been infected, killing one thousand.The article above says there have been 5000 deaths worldwide CDC reports between 250,000 and 500,000 deaths occur from flu in a typical year worldwide. I’m not a mathematical genius, but this does not even seem as bad as the normal run of the mill flu. Supposedly it will get worse, but until then why subject citizens to the risk involved? In the United States or anywhere else. Globally, citizens are up in arms about this. They feel, as I do, there is no reasonable cause for mandatory injections, governmental panic, etc..
Here is a map updating you to the number of cases worldwide. Be certain to use the check boxes on the left side of site to mark for H1N1.
I have never been a conspiracy theorist. Over the past several weeks, however, I have become aware and laid out for you the perilous United Nations Agenda 21. I have pointed out the names and statements made by the people involved. I have shown you quote after quote illustrating what they mean by Sustainable Development and the contempt they have for God and the human race. I have shown you reports, paid for by our own government, where thousands of noted scientists refute the bogus claims made by the U.N. about “global warming”. I have told you of the grab for control of our lives this “agenda” proposes. Now allow me to introduce you to another of their “terms”.
In a paper written by Dr. Madeleine Cosman, entitled Sustainable Medicine and Sustainable Development , Dr. Cosman states:
….Sustainable Medicine is central to the concept of Sustainable Development of the world’s landmasses, air, and water.
Sustainable Development esteems the planet’s intrinsically valuable environment. In that bio-diverse environment human beings are a dangerous, capricious burden. In the Agenda 21 worldview, people, especially rich intelligent people, consume too much and they make too many of themselves. Their effects must be curbed and their numbers reduced.
Sustainable Development is a private property land grab. It is justified in the name of global equity, overcoming economic disparities, and assuring global integrity of the environment. Sustainable Medicine is a body grab. It is justified in the name of achieving global medical equity, overcoming health disparities, and assuring an enduring global environment free of too many people.
Sustainable Medicine makes decisions through visioning councils that determine what shall be done or not done to each body in its group in its native habitat. Sustainable Medicine experts do not refer to citizens in sovereign nations but to “humans” in their “settlements.”
Sustainable Medicine uses two classes of public actions to affect the largest numbers of people worldwide most efficiently. The first class of actions attacks high technology products. The method is to create a public health crisis that forces government or industry to eliminate a valuable medical or surgical technology that because of its expense and inequitable distribution makes it medically “unsustainable.” Sustainable Medicine therefore clamors to eliminate such important, life-saving and life-extending medical devices as flexible polyvinylchloride plastic tubings treated with phthalates. During the past 50 years, flexible medical tubing has revolutionized breathing machines, intravenous medicating and blood transfusing, kidney dialysis, parenteral feeding, and neonatal medicine and surgery.
Sustainable Medicine’s second class of public action attacks ideas of high technology scientific progress. The method is to revise people’s expectations for health, for medical care, and for long life “in harmony with the environment”. Sustainable Medicine devotees celebrate human death as natural, inevitable, and environmentally beneficial. Rather than a mere right to die, Sustainable Medicine inculcates a duty to die.
Sustainable Medicine is the pivot around which all other Sustainable Development revolves. Principle #1 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) states: Human beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. Few Americans know the meaning of Sustainable Medicine, or worse, the implications of healthy life in harmony with nature. However, an Internet Google search for Sustainable Medicine yielded (in May, 2005) a total of 5,850,000 English language references. Germans, English, Canadians, and Scandinavians under socialized medicine appreciate Sustainable Medicine for they daily deal with its rationing, long waiting times for care, low technology, and emphasis on medical caring, not medical curing.
Who decides what shall be done or not done to your body whether healthy, diseased, injured, or fatally ill? Sustainable Medicine uses identical protocols for human body ownership as Sustainable Development proposes for private land ownership.
PEEVE is a valuable acronym for remembering the basic concepts than animate Sustainable Medicine and Sustainable Development. PEEVE incorporates the infamous three “E”s of Sustainable Development: equity, economy, and environment. Sustainable
Medicine is guided by:
P = Precautionary Principle. If any risk, stop. If evidence is inconclusive, stop absolutely. If no proof, stop anyway. The prudent “Better safe than sorry” is perverted to “Safe sorrow for all!”
The pernicious Precautionary Principle destroys risk-benefit analysis. It hinders experiment and innovation. It impedes progress and requires reversion to simpler, more “natural” products. In land use, it requires removing “invasive species” and beneficial genetically manipulated seeds that could harm some plant, insect, or person. In medicine, the Precautionary Principle deprives courageous masses of people of necessary, life-sustaining medication and equipment because of potential harm to a few. The Precautionary Principle propels it proponents beyond intellectual cowardice to anti-technology, anti-progress, Luddite primitivism.
In both land use and medicine, the Precautionary Principle almost always is paired with its craven corollary, the Irreversability Principle. In landscape, the Irreversability Principle requires that rather than mine a precious resource that once extracted is irreversibly used, better save it than spend it on today’s life-sustaining necessities even if people will pay and legally own the resource. In bodyscape, the Precautionary Principle plus Irreversibility Principle withhold beneficial, aggressive, high technology diagnostics and medical therapies that might harm someone or something now or later.
E = Environment over all. Its “intrinsic value” is necessary for future generations on the globe.
Of what value to whom is never explained. Mystical inherent goodness, importance, and protection-worthy vulnerability of the environment make the environment trump all other needs of people and societies. It is better to force people to starve by insect-destroyed crops and to die of malaria than to use the pesticide DDT that potentially might harm birds, fish, polar bears, or human infant reflexes.
E = Equity demands no “disparities” among all people globally, among all people inter-generationally, and among all species of life and non-life: human, animal, plant, and inanimate rock.
Equity between current and future generations requires prudent use, no squandering, and abstaining from use of available assets. Equity among rich and poor requires no greedy group abusing the “carrying capacity” of the world’s natural resources. Species-equity is more important than equity among peoples. In the contest between preserving habitat for spotted owls, long-fingered salamanders, salmon, and fairy shrimp versus habitat and livelihoods of ranchers, loggers, and mineral miners, the “natural needs” and “value” power of animals are superior to those of people. The Sustainable Medicine documents quote the U.N. Biodiversity Treaty’s inscrutable rule: “Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual, and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living things are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right way, and human activities should be molded along Nature’s rhythms.”
V = Visioning councils for stakeholders
Sustainable Medicine uses the same “visioning,” vision councils, vision language, vision consensus-building techniques, and vision incentives, bribes, prohibitions, protocols, and principles that facilitate the Sustainable Development land grabs of private property. Local Agenda 21 groups impose laws and regulations on localities that bypass votes of state legislatures and of the U.S. Congress. Depredations of the Endangered Species Act and the Environmental Protection Agency derive from international treaties, and work of non-governmental organizations such as ICLEI, the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives.
The vision is the cluster of global community ideas. Agenda 21 outsiders impose these concepts upon local citizens and their leaders while encouraging locals to believe they themselves initiated the ideas of the vision. Regulations and restrictions inevitably follow the implanted vision in order to implement it. The implanted vision is viewed as prophecy and revelation of future global peace. Actually, the vision is a tenacious Marxist apparition from old, surly, nihilistic Fabian socialism.
The Wye River Group On Healthcare, for instance, held its National Summit at the University Club in Washington, DC, on September 23rd 2003, attended by the elite of academic medicine, pharmacology, and government including Dr. Mark McClelland, then head of the FDA, now Director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. The meeting topic was “Communities Shaping a Vision for America’s 21st Century Health & Healthcare.” Experts answered such questions as: Why create a shared vision based on principles and values in America? How best connect community leaders with the vision and enable them to advance change? Is this the right time to spring the vision?
Wye River Group on Healthcare promotes the Sustainable Medicine vision for the future by working in 12 selected cities that have active Sustainable Development visioning groups: Albuquerque, NM, Chicago, IL, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Hanover, NH, Jackson, MS, Muncie, IN, Portland, OR, Raleigh/Durham, NC, Salt Lake City, UT, San Diego, CA, San Antonio, TX, and Spokane, WA. Wye River Group’s separate Foundation for American Health Care Leadership addresses “lack of healthcare infrastructure…health disparities… unique demands of an aging population, unrealistic public expectations, and appropriate use of burgeoning technology” that require “visionary leadership focused on a shared vision” for American health and healthcare.
E = Economic equity. High technology is too expensive and inequitably distributed. Whatever everyone cannot have, no one shall have.
Under Sustainable Development, the use of waterpower or fossil fuel for generating electricity in the Third World will pollute the environment as well as distract the native population from its indigenous culture in harmony with the environment. Wind-power is cleaner and more sustainable, even if not dependable nor adequate for modern progress. Likewise, under Sustainable Medicine, medical Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRIs) for diagnostics, and organ-transplant techniques for life-extending treatments are unsustainable. People must revise their expectations for long life and good health, and reject ever more sophisticated medicine and surgery dedicated to curing rather than to caring. We must reach a level sustainable plateau in medicine, says medical ethicist Dr. Daniel Callahan. As the natural world has its predictable cycles of birth and death, so people, especially Americans, must accept natural limits to life and reject interventions that unnaturally extend life at its beginnings, such as neonatal medicine, and at life’s ends. We must not expect progress, we must not waste, and we must not spend on futile care.
SUSTAINABLE MEDICINE DOCUMENTS
The original documents that enunciate Sustainable Medicine are astonishing in their theory and in their calls for implementation. Few physicians, surgeons, or lawyers have access to the materials that I first reviewed in August 2003. I obtained them directly from their source in Switzerland, the office of Dr. Jasmin von Schirnding, World Health Organization, Geneva.
Documents in English and French are not issued to the general public (and may not be “reviewed, abstracted, quoted, reproduced or translated, in part or in whole, without the prior written permission of WHO”). Some of these texts are available electronically from WHO: http://www.who.int/wssd/resources/en/.
What gives further credence to Dr. Cosman’s paper can be found by a simple “google” for “population control”. It is a well established fact the U.N. has mandated a decrease in world population, of up to 93% by some charges. It is well documented, that aided by funds from the United States, they have gone on a decades long mission to offer abortion and other types of birth control to women in third world countries. Our own government has funded the deaths of an untold number of infants here in the United States. I never really understood it was all related until recently. Had I investigated, I would have understood.
Once again, a simple consultation with Wikipedia will tell you of a Brittish clergyman, Thomas Malthus, who in 1798 (not a typo) published An Essay on the Principle of population. He assigns two categories to population control. Positive checks (disease, war, disaster, famine, poverty) and Preventive checks (factors believe to affect the birth rate such as moral restraint, abstinence and birth control). He proclaims positive checks would ultimately save humanity from itself and human misery was an absolute necessary consequence.
Paul R. Ehrlich, a US biologist and environmentalist published The Population Bomb in 1968. Many of the ideas in that book we’ve heard of recently in speaking of President Obama’s own staff. To quote:
A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. Treating only the symptoms of cancer may make the victim more comfortable at first, but eventually he dies- often horribly. A similar fate awaits a world with a population explosion if only the symptoms are treated. We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparent brutal and heartless decisions. The pain may be intense. But the disease is so far advanced that only with radical surgery does the patient have a chance to survive.
… compulsory birth regulation…the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired family size.
This spawned the ecology movement of the 1970s and the “Global Cooling” panic ensued. As did the race to scale down the human race in favor of “Gaia”. In a follow up book, released in 1990, he continued to sound the population alarm.
In 1974, the US National Security Council, under the direction of Henry Kissinger, did a study entitled National Security Study Memorandum 200, which stressed the fact that 13 countries would make up 47% of world population by 2050, which would adversely effect the welfare and progress of those countries. It goes on to say this would be a threat to our national security.
The National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition proclaimed in a study entitled, Food, Land, Population and the US Economy that the US could not achieve a sustainable economy beyond a population of 200 million and the effects of overpopulation would impact the country after 2020. Have they never driven across the US in a vehicle? We have over 300 million people and there are plenty of open spaces to grow food in. They emphatically state we must reduce US population by at least one third and world population by two thirds.
The National Audobon Society released a study recently called Population and Habitat: Making the Connection, also supporting population control measures.
The head of the UN Millennium Project, Jeffrey Sachs, is a proponent of population control as well. He was even opposed to mosquito nets for children in third world countries, as that would interfere with population reduction.
There is a global agenda to take control of the human race. Our Congress and our President are complicit in this assault. The Health Care Bill now being forced down our throats, in my opinion, also falls into play with all this. One only has to read Dr. Cosman’s paper above to see the connection.
Do I know any of this is true? No. My gut tells me it is all true. I don’t want to believe it. When bills are being created 1990 pages in length, in secret, and without permission of the American people; when our white house is full of communist sympathizers and nut jobs that look up to Mao Tse Tung and down upon God and the Constitution; when nothing can be discussed and they try to interfere with free speech and the right to assemble; when they refuse to answer questions and launch personal attacks instead?????? You must admit, they have given us no reason to trust, only reason to fear.
I will take no vaccine. I will not be silent. I will fight tooth and nail to see none of this anti-American, anti-human agenda is passed. You must make your own decision.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 7 so far )
So, what exactly is the Club of Rome and who are its members? Founded in 1968, the CoR describes itself as “a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity.” It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN beaureacrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe.
I would like to start this analysis of the Club of Rome by listing some prominent members of the CoR and its two sub-groups, the Clubs of Budapest and Madrid. Personally it isn’t what the CoR is that I find so astonishing; it is WHO the CoR is! This isn’t some quirky little group of green activists or obscure politicians. They are the most senior officials in the United Nations, current and ex-world leaders, and the founders of some of the most influential environmental organisations. When you read their reports in the context of who they are – its gives an entirely new, and frightening, context to their extreme claims.
The Club of Rome subsequently founded two sibling organizations, the Club of Budapest and the Club of Madrid. The former is focused on social and cultural aspects of their agenda, while the latter concentrates on the political aspects. All three of these ‘Clubs’ share many common members and hold joint meetings and conferences. As explained in other articles on this website it is abundantly clear that these are three heads of the same beast. The CoR has also established a network of 33 National Associations. Membership of the ‘main Club’ is limited to 100 individuals at any one time. Some members, like Al Gore and Maurice Strong, are affiliated through their respective National Associations (e.g. USACOR, CACOR etc).
Some current members of the Club of Rome or its two siblings:
Al Gore – former VP of the USA, leading climate change campaigner, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Academy Award winner, Emmy winner. Gore lead the US delegations to the Rio Earth Summit and Kyoto Climate Change conference. He chaired a meeting of the full Club of Rome held in Washington DC in 1997.
Javier Solana – Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, High Representative for EU Foreign Policy.
Maurice Strong– former Head of the UN Environment Programme, Chief Policy Advisor to Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the Rio Earth Summit, co-author (with Gorbachev) of the Earth Charter, co-author of the Kyoto Protocol, founder of the Earth Council, devout Baha’i.
Mikhail Gorbachev– CoR executive member, former President of the Soviet Union, founder of Green Cross International and the Gorbachev Foundation, Nobel Peace Prize winner, co-founder (with Hidalgo) of the Club of Madrid, co-author (with Strong) of the Earth Charter.
Diego Hidalgo– CoR executive member, co-founder (with Gorbachev) of the Club of Madrid, founder and President of the European Council on Foreign Relations in association with George Soros.
Ervin Laszlo– founding member of the CoR, founder and President of the Club of Budapest, founder and Chairman of the World Wisdom Council.
Anne Ehrlich – Population Biologist. Married to Paul Ehrlich with whom she has authored many books on human overpopulation. Also a former director of Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club, and a member of the UN’s Global Roll of Honor.
Hassan bin Talal – President of the CoR, President of the Arab Thought Forum, founder of the World Future Council, recently named as the United Nations “Champion of the Earth”
The Dalai Lama – The ‘Spiritual Leader’ of Tibet. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.
David Rockefeller– CoR executive member, former Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, founder of the Trilateral Commission, executive member of the World Economic Forum, donated land on which the United Nations stands.
Sir Crispin Tickell – former British Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Permanent Representative on the Security Council, Chairman of the ‘Gaia Society’, Chairman of the Board of the Climate Institute, leading British climate change campaigner.
Kofi Annan– former Secretary General of the United Nations. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.
Javier Perez de Cuellar – former Secretary General of the United Nations.
Gro Harlem Bruntland – United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Change, former President of Norway
Robert Muller – former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, founder and Chancellor of the UN University of Peace.
Father Berry Thomas– Catholic Priest who is one of the leading proponents of deep ecology, ecospirituality and global consciousness.
Stephen Schneider– Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports.
Bill Clinton– former President of the United States, founder of the Clinton Global Iniative.
Jimmy Carter– former President of the United States, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.
Bill Gates – founder of Microsoft, philanthropist
Garret Hardin – Professor of Human Ecology. Originator of the ‘Global Commons‘ concept. Has authored many controversial papers on human overpopulation and eugenics.
OTHER CURRENT INFLUENTIAL MEMBERS:
(these can be found on the membership lists of the COR (here, here, and here), Club of Budapest, Club of Madrid and/or CoR National Association membership pages)
Ted Turner – media mogul, philanthropist, founder of CNN
George Soros – multibillionare, major donor to the UN
Tony Blair – former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Deepak Chopra – New Age Guru
Desmond Tutu – South African Bishop and activist, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Timothy Wirth – President of the United Nations Foundation
Henry Kissinger – former US Secretary of State
George Matthews – Chairman of the Gorbachev Foundation
Harlan Cleveland – former Assistant US Secretary of State and NATO Ambassador
Barbara Marx Hubbard – President of the Foundation for Conscious Evolution
Betty Williams – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Marianne Williamson – New Age ‘Spiritual Activist’
Robert Thurman – assistant to the Dalai Lama
Jane Goodall – Primatologist and Evolutionary Biologist
Juan Carlos I – King of Spain
Prince Philippe of Belgium
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
Dona Sophia – Queen of Spain
José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero – current Prime Minister of Spain
Karan Singh – Former Prime Minister of India, Chairman of the Temple of Understanding
Daisaku Ikeda – founder of the Soka Gakkai cult
Martin Lees – CoR Secretary General, Rector of the UN University of Peace
Ernesto Zedillo – Director of The Yale Center for the Study of Globalization
Frithjof Finkbeiner – Coordinator of the Global Marshall Plan
Franz Josef Radermacher – Founder of the Global Marshall Plan
Eduard Shevardnadze – former Soviet foreign minister and President of Georgia
Richard von Weizsacker – former President of Germany
Carl Bildt – former President of Sweden
Kim Campbell – former Prime Minister of Canada and Senior Fellow of the Gorbachev Foundation
Vincente Fox – former President of Mexico
Helmut Kohl – former Chancellor of Germany
Romano Prodi – former Prime Minister of Italy and President of the European Commission
Vaclav Havel – former President of the Czech Republic
Hans Kung – Founder of the Global Ethic Foundation
Ruud Lubbers – United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Mary Robinson – United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Jerome Binde – Director of Foresight, UNESCO
Koïchiro Matsuura – Current Director General of UNESCO
Federico Mayor – Former Director General of UNESCO
Tapio Kanninen – Director of Policy and Planning, United Nations
Konrad Osterwalder – Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations
Peter Johnston – Director General of European Commission
Jacques Delors – Former President of the European Commission
Domingo Jimenez-Beltran – Executive Director of the European Environment Agency
Thomas Homer-Dixon – Director of Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Toronto
Hazel Henderson – Futurist and ‘evoluntionary economist’
Emeka Anyaoku – former Commonwealth Secretary General, current President of the World Wildlife Fund
Wangari Maathai – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, founder of the Green Belt Movement
While I can not prove this next statement, my gut tells me President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on the promise of his signature on UN Kyoto Protocol treaty in December of this year at COP 15 in Copenhagen. Look at all the Peace Prize recipients on the list.
The pieces now begin to fall into place. I will spend the next several days, laying out pieces of this for you in as much as I can.
If you have anything to contribute to this, please leave your information in the comment section. I am merely a citizen like you, with a full time job. Any help that can be given to me would be appreciated.
Time is short. Please, tell everyone you know, no matter what side of the fence they are on. Please point them here. We will try to learn about this together, quickly. I will be posting additional information on this daily until it’s all laid out.
Saturday is the 64th anniversary of the UN. I will be in my hometown protesting with a few others that understand what is happening. It only takes one to protest. Call your friends. Hold up signs. “Say no to Agenda 21- Tell our President NOT TO SIGN AWAY OUR SOVEREIGNTY IN DECEMBER OR EVER”. As I say repeatedly, change starts with YOU.
No matter what side of the proverbial fence you are on, I’ll bet this is not Change You Can Believe In!
Even if the annual flow of carbon emissions were to immediately stabilize at today’s rate (40 gigatons), the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would be double the pre-industrial level by 2050, resulting in a high probability of dangerous temperature rises, serious economic damage and potentially destabilizing political consequences… It is the cumulative stock of emissions produced by the currently developed industrialized countries that are the root cause of dangerous rise in greenhouse gas concentrations. Since 1840, three quarters of the cumulative total has been generated by Annex I countries with the United States alone accounting for close to 30 per cent. Th e picture is even starker if per capita emissions are used.
Equity is an essential ingredient of an eff ective global climate change policy, as refl ected in the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”, set forth in the UNFCCC. Not only have today’s high-income economies generated about 80 per cent of past fossil fuel-based emissions, but those same emissions have helped carry them to high levels of social and economic well-being. Th ese countries carry the responsibility for the bulk of climate damage but they also have the capacity to repair it. Th is will require additional multilateral fi nancing, on an adequate and predictable scale, comprising grants, concessional loans and compensatory payments. In the context of the ongoing UNFCCC negotiations, developing countries have insisted on the fact that Annex II countries have a clear-cut responsibility for providing new and additional fi nancial resources to meet the agreed full costs incurred by developing-country parties in complying with their obligations. Translating such responsibilities into tangible resources is still a major stumbling block. Th e Greenhouse Development Rights (GDR) methodology provides one possible way of sharing the burden of emissions reductions among countries according to their capacity to pay for reductions and their responsibility for past and current emissions. Each of these criteria is defi ned with respect to a development threshold so as to explicitly safeguard the right of lowincome countries to economic growth (such as a PPP per-capita income level of $9,000, beyond which human and economic development approaches “advanced” levels); only individuals with incomes above this threshold have a responsibility to pay for emissions abatement. Each country is assigned an emissions allocation based on per capita rights. In addition, each country is assigned an obligation to pay for abatement—whether at home or abroad— based on its share of cumulative emissions starting from a base year (such as 1990) and the cumulative income of its population with incomes above the development threshold.1 Following these criteria, at this point, the EU, for example, would need to contribute $32.9 billion for every $100 billion of climate fi nancing, while the contribution of the United States would be $47.7 billion and that of Japan $11.2 billion.
Placing this challenge in the context of an evolving investment programme is to recognize that developing countries will themselves be responsible for mobilizing resources on an increasing scale over time, as well as for insisting on the responsibility of developed countries for meeting the additional costs of undertaking such investments in the initial stages of the transition. Developed countries need to live up to the responsibility they took on themselves under UNFCCC regarding climate change related assistance to developing countries.
Policy Brief #13 The Trillion Dollar Plan
The rapidly unfolding global fi nancial and economic crisis will severely disrupt economic growth worldwide, affect the livelihoods of billions around the world and endanger progress toward the poverty reduction and other millennium development goals (MDGs). Major industrialized countries and some developing countries have put together massive fi nancial sector rescue packages and large fi scal stimulus packages. Since the outbreak of the crisis up to March 2009, the total support is estimated at a staggering $20.8 trillion or 33.5 per cent of the estimated World Gross Product (WGP) for 2008. Th e vast majority of these resources comprise government guarantees of toxic assets held by the banking sectors in the United States, Europe and elsewhere.
The fiscal stimulus plans total about $2.6 trillion or 4 per cent of WGP to be spent, roughly, over the three-year period between 2009 and 2011. Many observers, including analysts at the IMF and the United Nations, consider this amount of fi scal stimulusto be insufficient.
Developing countries are particularly exposed to this crisis. They have less resilient economies and with fewer resources they are more typically forced to pursue pro-cyclical monetary and fiscal policies, imposing greater variability in their economic performance to the detriment of long-term growth. Global responses should urgently redress this asymmetry.
In the first place, this would require providing sufficient financial resources to developing countries to engage in counter-cyclical measures. If spent eff ectively, this could not only put the global economy on a more sustainable growth path but also help to meet poverty targets and development goals set by the international community.
For this, the United Nations has estimated that developing countries would need around $1 trillion for 2009 and 2010, half of which would be used for covering short-term fi nancing needs, with the other half required for long-term development lendingand assistance. While this seems like large sum of money, it can be feasibly delivered through existing mechanisms and within existing commitments. Moreover, it would send a strong signal of solidarity to developing countries that they will be supported through the crisis.
Meeting short-term liquidity needs ($500 billion)
According to the World Bank and the Institute for International Finance, private capital fl ows to developing countries declined by about $500 billion in 2008 from 2007 levels and a further decline by about $630 billion is forecast for 2009. The decline has been the result of, inter alia, a severe squeeze of trade credits, which is aff ecting trade and growth of developing countries directly.
Well over $1 trillion in corporate, external debt in emerging markets and other developing countries will mature in 2009 and will need to be rolled over. As commodity prices and exports decline and income from worker remittances subsides, most developing countries will experience severe balance of payment problems. Th e World Bank estimates that 98 of 104 developing countries are expected to fall short of covering external fi nancing needs, with an estimated gap which could be as high as $700 billion. For low-income countries alone, the IMF estimates that the balance-of-payments shock could amount to $140 billion in 2009.
The G20 already seems to have neared an agreement on doubling (as proposed by the EU) or tripling proposed by the United States) the IMF’s existing lending capacity of $250 billion. New SDR issuance could amount to $250 billion as has been proposed in the past, but failed to gain the backing of the United States government. Now this seems more acceptable. The Japanese government has already lent $100 billion of its reserves to increase the IMF’s lending capacity. Countries with vast amounts of reserves, such as China or some of the major oil exporters, could contribute similarly, though this likely will require making suffi cient progress towards governance reform of the IMF to make this politically more acceptable for these countries. Mobilizing resources through regional reserve funds should also be considered. For instance, Asian countries have already agreed to increase resources for liquidity provisioning through the Chiang Mai Initiative, their main mechanism of regional fi nancial cooperation. Both international (IMF) and regional channels should be used, requiring closer collaboration between the IMF and regional institutions of financial cooperation.
What about conditionality?
Adequate oversight of the usage of resources will also need to be established, ensuring in particular that the compensatory financing is not subject to the kind of pro-cyclical policy conditionality which is typically attached to existing mechanisms. Financing needs for fiscal stimulus ($500 billion) In addition, another $500 billion in enhanced long-term official fi nancing will be needed to cover fiscal revenue gaps in 2009 and 2010 (due to falling export revenues and slower growth) and provide developing countries with the necessary resources to protect social spending and finance fiscal stimulus packages. Spread over two years, these resources would provide the means for a stimulus of about 3 per cent per year of the combined GDP of developing countries (excluding China and major oil-exporting countries), which—assuming a multiplier eff ect of about 1.7 from well-designed and internationally coordinated fi scal packages— would support adequate growth recovery. Half of the required resources could be mobilized by enhancing the lending capacity of multilateral development banks and the remainder through increased offi cial development assistance through accelerated delivery on existing donor commitments.
How to finance $250 billion for increased development lending?
The increase in development lending could be mobilized through the multilateral development banks. This could be achieved as follows:
• By optimizing use of available capital, the World Bank could make new development financing commitments for about $100 billion.
• With a $60 billion replenishment of their capital and maintaining solid leverage ratios, regional development banks could expand development lending by about $150 billion. This should be feasible. The World Bank would be using existing lending space and has already announced increased lending capacity in this way. The Asian Development Bank has already requested a replenishment of its capital. Surplus countries with vast amounts of reserves and sovereign wealth funds could similarly allocate some of its resources to regional development banks in order to expand their lending capacity.
How to mobilize and additional $250 billion in offi cial development assistance for the poorest countries?
The increase in ODA could be mobilized as follows:
• $50 billion
• $200 billion would need to be mobilized through an acceleration of the delivery on existing ODA commitments.
The required resources can be provided on the basis of available resources and existing commitments. The World Bank’s concessional window (IDA) was already replenished by $30 billion in 2008 to cover three years of credits and grants. This could be frontloaded to make these resources available during 2009 and 2010. Equally concessional lending windows of regional development banks (ADB, AfDB, IDB and others) could be frontloaded to provide the additional $20 billion.
Donors have repeatedly pledged to deliver on existing aid commitments, including at the Doha Follow-up Conference on Financing for Development of November-December 2008. At the 2005 Gleneagles Summit, the G8 committed to raise ODA to at least $160 billion per year (at 2008 prices) by 20101 (up from $103.7 billion in 2007). Meeting this commitment should increase existing aid fl ows by a total of about $115 billion over 2009-2010. Further delivery towards the agreed UN target of 0.7 per cent of their annual GNI could provide the remaining $85 billion needed over 2009-2010, which would bring ODA to about 0.4 per cent of GNI of OECD/DAC members.
The World Bank’s proposal for a “Vulnerability Fund” of the size of 0.7 per cent of the developed countries’ stimulus packages (amounting to about $15 billion) might form a part of this broader proposal.
UN-DESA Policy Brief #17 Reaching a Climate Deal in Copenhagen
There is a growing awareness that action is urgently needed to seriously address the climate change problem. Th e multilateral process that began with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 resulted in the Bali Action Plan (BAP) in 2007. Th e BAP calls for enhanced action on adaptation, mitigation, technology development and transfer, and fi nance, which should be specifi ed in an international agreement by the end of 2009 in Copenhagen. This brief addresses some key development and burden sharing aspects related to mitigation and adaptation which need due consideration to ensure a successful and sustainable outcome of the negotiations.
Crisis as opportunity
The current financial crisis provides an opportunity to make a fundamental change in the patterns of international cooperation, investment and production. New sustainable development trajectories are to be sought, based on low-carbon, clean technologies, with a large component of renewable energy sources. In fact, there are important synergies to be expected from integrating climate and energy related investments into strategies addressing the economic downturn, for example the employment gains of shifting towards renewable energy. A ‘shared vision’ based on the essential premise of the UNFCCC convention—common but diff erentiated responsibilities and capabilities will be the basis of any new international agreement agreed in Copenhagen. Negotiating parties must ensure that this shared vision show a clearand strong commitment to the overall objective of sustainable development and catch-up growth in developing countries. It should also include equity considerations such as poverty reduction and convergence in terms of income distribution and emissions per capita.
..Towards a new climate finance architecture
In order to enhance predictability, funding must not be voluntary but tied to agreed long-term commitments, based e.g. on pro rata mechanisms (such as levied percentages of financial flows, mandatory contributions in relation to GDP). Wider ranging options which include taxes on capital flows or on international transport, energy use or emissions, or volumes of transactions in carbon markets, permit-auctioning, and others can generate considerable additional annual fl ows on the order of tens of billions of dollars. Revenue sources, like auctioning of emissions permits and carbon or energy taxation imply carbon-pricing, which in itself may stimulate the shift towards sustainable, low-carbon development. Yet, carbon pricing may generate adverse (regressive) income eff ects which will need to be addressed. Th e future fi nancial ‘architecture’ should enable the mobilization of adequate, additional and predictable funding. It would need to be built on, and handle, fl ows of fi nance mobilized according to objective criteria refl ecting responsibilities and capabilities to contribute to climate related policies. Disbursements to eligible recipient countries should also be based on agreed criteria which should indicate priorities of resource allocation towards the most vulnerable countries. The overall governance in a new architecture should ensure policy coherence and a focus on sustainable development.
Effective mitigation will require lead and aggressive action in the North as well as mitigation actions in developing countries in the future, supported by full and eff ective assistance by the North, as articulated in the convention and reaffirmed in BAP. Development has to be central to the climate change agreement —both mitigation and adaptation have to be an integrated part of development agendas and the global process must strengthen the appropriate links with global and national efforts in this connection. Th is requires an urgent scaling up of funding and technology available to developing countries for mitigation as well as adaptation and support for an investment “push” and catch-up growth in developing countries. Th is remains the only sustainable option to deal with future developing country emissions and climate change challenges.
could be mobilized by front-loading resources in the already replenished International Development Assistance (IDA) window of the World Bank and those in the concessional windows of the regional development banks.
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.
Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.
The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED, to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. It was agreed that a five year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session.
The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 13 so far )
- The best way to understand what Sustainable Development actually is can be found by discovering what is NOT sustainable.
- According to the UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report, items for our everyday lives that are NOT sustainable include: Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paved and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment (capitalism, free markets).
- Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Rio Earth Summit in 1992 said, “. .. Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”
- Are you starting to see the pattern behind Cap and Trade, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and all of those commercials you’re forced to watch about the righteousness of Going Green? They are all part of the enforcement if Sustainable Development.
- And one of the most destructive tools they use to force it on us is something called the “precautionary principle.” That means that any activities that might threaten human health or the environment should be stopped — even if no clear cause and effect relationship has been established — and even if the potential threat is largely theoretical.
- That makes it easy for any activist group to issue warnings by news release or questionable report and have those warnings quickly turned into public policy — just in case.
- In short, it’s all about wealth redistribution. Your wealth into a green rat hole.
- Now they have taken this and wrapped it all in a nice green blanket, scaring us with horror stories about the human destruction of the environment — and so we are now throwing our liberties on the bon fire like a good old fashioned book burning — all in the name of protecting the planet.
- Free trade, social justice, consensus, global truth, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, open space, heritage, comprehensive planning, critical thinking, and community service are all part of our new language.
- Rather than good management of resources, Sustainable Development has come to mean denied use and resources locked away from human hands. In short, it has become a code word for an entire economic and social agenda…
- The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making Nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society. As such, every societal decision would first be questioned as to how it might effect the environment. To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components; land use, education, and population control and reduction...
- Sustainable Development’s Social Equity plank is based on a demand for “social justice.” …
- Under the Sustainablist system, private property is an evil that is used simply to create wealth for a few. So too, is business ownership….
- Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based on one overriding premise: that the wealth of the world was made at the expense of the poor. It dictates that, if the conditions of the poor are to be improved, wealth must first be taken from the rich. Consequently, Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based not on private enterprise but on public/private partnerships…
- Sustainable Development policy is redefining free trade to mean centralized global trade “freely” crossing (or eliminating) national borders. It definitely does not mean people and companies trading freely with each other…
- “Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right way and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms.” from the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty presented at the 1992 UN Earth Summit. (hello, can anyone say Cass Sunstein??…are we ‘getting it’ yet?)…
- Under Sustainable Development there can be no concern over individual rights — as we must all sacrifice for the sake of the environment. Individual human wants, needs, and desires are to be conformed to the views and dictates of social planners. The UN’s Commission on Global Governance said in its 1995 report: “Human activity… combined with unprecedented increases in human numbers… are impinging on the planet’s basic life support system. Action must be taken now to control the human activities that produce these risks”Under Sustainable Development there can be no limited government, as advocated by our Founding Fathers, because, we are told, the real or perceived environmental crisis is too great. Maurice Strong, Chairman of the 1992 UN Earth Summit said: “A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally-damaging consumption patterns. The shift will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.”…
- The politically based environmental movement provides Sustainablists camouflage as they work to transform the American systems of government, justice, and economics. It is a masterful mixture of socialism (with its top down control of the tools of the economy) and fascism (where property is owned in name only — with no control). Sustainable Development is the worst of both the left and the right. It is not liberal, nor is it conservative. It is a new kind of tyranny that, if not stopped, will surely lead us to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind.
In walks Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cqN4NIEtOY
While Americans clearly voted for change in the last election, I am not sure this is the change they meant. No matter, they are hoisting it up on us like a speeding bullet ! Change is almost here. All it will take is “Cap and Trade”, “Health Care Reform” and “Card Check” to pass. Please do a search on my site if you would like to know any more about these PENDING bills.
This started many years ago- and yes, it takes about 20 years for fundamental change to take place. While it started with the GATT agreement of 1947, it moved on from there. Slowly at first, but then under George Bush, Sr., then President Clinton, things started moving more quickly. NAFTA, WTO, First they made it possible for our manufacturing to move away. While we were all screaming ” Why isn’t our government securing our jobs? … Why are they making trade regulations so unfair to American workers?.. Why do corporations moving jobs overseas still get tax breaks”.. Well, all these years later, our worst fears are being realized. Now the only large scale manufacturing left is owned by the Government. The rest will soon follow or die.
Then, the started ebbing away at our 401K plans. Black Monday, October, 1987. Then over-valuation that caused the “Internet bubble”, and on from there to where we are now with much of the citizen’s wealth deteriorated to the point where many have to work years later than anticipated. But, that was not enough. We still had our homes. About twenty years ago, even after the Savings and Loan Crisis, they started making it easier for money to be lent. It was like giving candy to a baby. No longer did we all attempt to pay off our homes in 30 years. They made it easy for us to roll consumer debt into our mortgages. This went on for several years until it became more prevalent that most did not own their homes outright nor even hold the majority equity. Even though Appraisers were screaming about the abuses that were going on in the marketplace – no one would listen. I believe that is because it was part of the plan all along. Let’s not forget the “Progressive Agenda” started to rear it’s ugly head against our Constitution under Teddy Roosevelt. Eventually, in 1921, the Council for Foreign Relations was formed (see previous articles on my site) and real “progress” began. It was slow enough so we would not put the pieces together. Until Obama. They are so close now, they feel comfortable wearing their arrogance on their sleeve. To get a very good feel for how we got here, allow me to recommend another article by Henry Lamb. http://www.pushhamburger.com/morenews12.htm
Make NO mistake. This is a GLOBAL INITIATIVE. Much of the wealth lies here and so does the legacy of the Founding Fathers. We are a tough nut to crack, so they must use code, back door allegiances, and a bit of magic. There’s so much going on now it is hard for anyone that must work to pay attention. It is my personal belief that the whole “women’s rights” movement of the 1970’s was also a part of the plan. Why would they want mothers in schools watching them indoctrinate our children? Why would they want mothers home all day so they could pay attention to what is going on in the neighborhood or Washington DC. So, what better way than to say to women.. you are not equal, let’s make you equal. We were equal all along, it was they that treated us unequally. But instead of changing themselves (which is not what it was about), they FUNDAMENTALLY changed this country… with our help. They made us feel bad if we CHOSE to stay home with our kids, then they made it all but impossible. Another reason to allow debt to be built up. We would have to occupy ourselves with work outside the home, in addition to the work inside the home and the children. No time to go over every little spec of instructional material they were cramming down our children’s throat. No time to find out they were not teaching our children about the Constitution or the Founding Fathers any longer. No time to realize the UN and the Teachers Union were implementing a whole new agenda. (Give your kids and Grandkids a copy of The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen and ask them to read it )
Our Government now owns our banks, too, right? Well, actually the banks own the government. That is a whole set of novels unto itself. However, this all started with the implementation of the FED. A very good book on this subject is “The Creature from Jekyll Island” by G.Edward Griffin. This has been going on since the progressives took over the country in 1913, under Wilson, with the institution of the Fed giving the banks the ability to manipulate the money supply. Catapulted further under FDR, who gave up tying our money supply to the gold standard in 1933. Then paper money no longer became backed by silver under Johnson, meaning it was purely a fictional piece of paper we could pretend was actual money. This gave the FED power to print away with nothing to stop them from manipulating the money supply at their whim. Now today we see, they can print money hand over fist without answering to anyone. The only one paying any attention today is China. Why, because they see where first Bush and now Obama are leading us. By printing money without limit, by running up the deficit to levels which can never be paid back, by devaluing our currency and instituting hyper-inflation (coming soon to a neighborhood near you), they thereby initiate another CRISIS, causing us to have no other choice but to leave our dollar for a world wide currency. This is already being discussed by Europe and the UN. That will spell the end of our sovereignty. We are already funding the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Your tax dollars hard at work, just not for you.
The United Nations is heavily involved and is leading the crunch against America. Most of their current agenda surrounds Global Governance, or put another way – death to American Sovereignty. I would like to direct your attention to a small piece of that – The Marrakech Process- by reading The Marrakech Memorandum. This was discussed in the article I mentioned earlier at RecycleWashington.com . You can find out more about it’s TEN YEAR PLAN to global governance at their website: http://esa.un.org/marrakechprocess/
So, what could possibly get in their way? Well, citizens, of course. That’s why they had to poke fun of the Townhallers and the Tea Party participants. Why they GROSSLY underestimated attendance at the March on Washington DC a few weeks ago. Why the media can not report it. Why no real journalist can talk about it (even OReilly). Most of the media belongs to the Council on Foreign Relations, by the way. It’s all part of the gig and the media is in on it. That’s why they have worked for years on fine tuning the Martial Law regulations, and, not to sound crazy, but why they are currently hiring internment specialists (really- I saw the ad). Not all the politicians are in on it, but many are. Long term Senators especially. That is why they have to go! The sooner the better! We MUST have term limits, too! NOW!
What else stands in their way? Oh, yeah, THE INTERNET! TALK RADIO! That is why the FCC is attempting an agenda currently to control both. An agenda already in progress. Do NOT let it happen. Pay attention. If they get us there, we’re done. Do not let anything pass in Congress. NOTHING. They are leaving everything open to interpretation, and the interpreter is Cass Sunstein. You may wish to make his acquaintance as well (search prior articles on my site).
While space will not allow every detail, perhaps I have connected enough of the dots for your to see the big picture. All of the stuff that does not make sense, all the trashing of our Constitution, all of the freaks being appointed to high positions… it’s all for the end game. The end game is doing away with any meaningful sovereignty for the US. We are now at a crossroads. If you condone the New World Order/ One World Order thing that puts the crackpots at the UN in charge of you and all you’ll ever be – do nothing. If this seems like a nightmare to you, then you need to get involved NOW! Right NOW! They almost have it. I beg you. Do NOT let them win.
I have recently posted lists of tools you can use to root out the bad guys (located in the Citizen Tools category on right). The trick is to follow the money and watch the regulations. Please give up a few nicities, like watching television a few hours a week or reading that fiction novel. We need all hands on deck. We have been asleep so long they almost have it in the bag. We need to make up for lost time. We need to mobilize and fight back NOW. They are way ahead of us. They have armies and systems in place. Our only saving grace is there are, I believe, more of us than them. This reminds me of a time in our country’s history. How ironic.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 8 so far )