Earth First,Green groups,Royal society not what they seem?

[mason-free party]

http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCmappa/12mm17/12mm17b.html

Welcome to Mappa Mundi no.17.

This is the third in the trilogy of works highlighting the views of those in the so-called green movement. The first of the trilogy focused on so-called green individuals. The second explored loose associations of so-called greens i.e. those who share similar ideas because they belong to the same generation or because they belong to the same family or because they’re involved in the same type of so-called green work. The final work in this trilogy explores the greenness, or rather, the lack of it, amongst green organizations and the vicious, politically conventional, muppets in the media from journalists to the rich and famous.



Green Groups.
Body Shop.

In august 2000 the body shop opened its first motorway store - the granada services on the m4 in wiltshire.



Council for Environmental Conservation>>Environmental Council.

"Changed its name in 1988 to the Environmental Council - a private company and a charity which works closely with business."[1]



Earth First! (UK).

For a young and supposedly radical, direct action, movement Efuk! seem surprisingly conventional. In their magazine ‘do or die’, they express admiration for bernard planterose’s ideas for Reforesting scotland - including some of his reactionary proposals:-

* that Forests should be exploited to produce economic wealth, “It is the forest that holds the key to any hope for a vibrant future. It is the fulcrum of ecological and social wealth in the Highlands.”[2]

* the exploitation of slave Animal i.e. the grazing of livestock Animals, “Sheep need not be purged from the highlands - bernard planterose, in the hugely inspiring ‘Rural Manifesto for the Highlands’ hints at ways in which ‘less might be more’, and Sheep farming restored to a more secure footing. Confining Sheep to smaller pastures instead of the vast ranges utilized today, more intensive management, integrating farming into an agro-forestry’ system - all could allow the Sheep to take advantage of the milder micro-climate .. ”[3]

* support for culling, “It is therefore with great reluctance that I say culling might be unavoidable ..”[4]

The author approves of better conditions for Sheep but all s/he’s doing is creating a greener abattoir. It seems as if s/he’s just wandered in from a pep talk with the countryside alliance.

In the same issue of ‘do or die’ the article 'eternal threat' gives some philosophical support for oomans’ exploitation of Animals. Greens’ proposition that oomans should live in harmony with nature is a euphemism for oomans’ invasion of Wilderness areas and their dominance over Wildlife. It is proclaimed as an integrationist ethic but it is more of an anthropogenic assimilation principle in which oomans and Animals live side by side until the time comes for oomans to slit Animals’ throats. It is not surprising then that Animal murderers like those in ‘we do, you die’ are opposed to what they rather fancifully call the "false separation between humanity and all other life". The last thing the Animal murdering cut-throats want is for Wildlife to be beyond the reach of their knives, "Conservation by segregation is the Noah's ark solution, a belief that wildlife should be consigned to tiny land parcels for its own good and because it has no place in our world." These objections to the idea of ooman-free Wilderness areas are irrelevant but their purpose is to disparage the idea without examining it. The author is just running away from a debate. Wildlife need not be confined to small parcels of land. On the contrary, they should be able to enjoy massive Wilderness areas. And, secondly, if people want Lions and Tigers wandering through their villages then that is up to them but such a system of integration would be in addition to, and not a substitute for, ooman free Wildlife areas. There are vast areas of land around the Earth which no longer have any Wildlife so why shouldn’t Wildlife have some land where they don’t have to put up with the fear engendered by the mere presence of bipeds? The idea of ooman-free Wilderness areas is designed to protect both Wildlife from oomans and oomans from Wildlife. The idea of "humanity as part of nature inextricably linked" sounds grandiose but its just a code phrase not merely to open up Wilderness areas for ooman development but, even worse, to oppose the creation of ooman free Wilderness areas.

Contradictorily then for an organization which supports a supremacist-assimilationist ethic, Efuk! insists on segregating species at its meetings, “Mass trespass in commemoration of the diggers. Meeting saturday, 12 midday for mass trespass to mystery site (no Dogs).”[5] Could you trust such green wadicals to live in harmony with Wildlife when they can’t even cope with oomanized Dogs at their meetings?

The latest issue of Efuk!’s action update contains articles on support for refugees, opposition to the prison building system, the usual out-dated anti-racist nonsense, and opposition to the deportation of illegal immigrants. What have any of these issues got to do with protecting Wildlife and saving the Earth’s life support system? Nothing. Efuk! is cleary drifting further and further away from its roots. Either the movement has been infiltrated by conventional oomano-imperialists or it’s about time somebody took them to court and prosecuted them under the trades description act for falsely labelling their objectives. Efuk! ought to rename themselves oomano-imperialists first! - oafs! for short.

Oafs! latest wease is, “A no border group emerged from the mayday 2000 conference in london. They are promoting critical evaluation of the border regime in the u.k. through information and interventions. The border regime includes intimidation and humiliation of refugees through vouchers, dispersal, detention centres, as well as control of internal and external borders.”[6] In the editorial, ‘whose side we’re on’ it is stated .. “many (oafs!) agreed to make anti-racism and refugee support a higher priority in response to the current climate.”[7]

The mundi club would like to question this new policy - if oaf!s supports the free movement of oomans around the Earth does it also support the free movement of Animals? If it supports ooman refugees being allowed to stay in this country does it also support giving sanctuary to the Wildlife which, around the Earth, is being persecuted and eradicated by oomano-imperialists? Earth First! was founded to combat anthropocentrism but clearly, in the uk, the oaf!s eco-nazi proclivities are coming more and more to the fore. This is inevitably what happens when bipeds gather together. Oaf!s isn’t in the slightest bit bothered about evaluating the impact of such planetless, supremacist, free market, ooman rights’ policies on Wildlife or the Earth’s life support system. It seems as if the oaf!s movement has been infiltrated by ooman-imperialists seeking to extend eco-nazis’ domination over the Earth. Oaf!s policies are indistinguishable from capitalists’ demand for global free trade, the free movement of people, and the abolition of national border controls. Oaf!s and global capitalists are just tweedle dum and tweedle dee - and they’ve even given themselves complementary names - one call themselves globalizers and the other calls themselves anti-globalizers - although which one is which is difficult to tell. What greater compliment is there to the domination of capitalism when anti-capitalist radicals promote exactly the same policies as capitalists. Oaf!s are now working in conjunction with global capitalists in a perfect pincer movement to expropriate Wildlife habitats. Giving carnivores and Animal abusers the right to roam wherever they want is sickening. Even worse the right to roam negates the right of communities to decide who they want to invite into their communities.

Over the last few years the radical green movement in this country has spent a huge amount of time acting like the socialist workers party trying to win the support of trade unionist planks. The anti-macdonald’s brigade spent years defending the rights of workers in the company rather than defending the rights of Animals. Then we had the liverpool dockers’ campaign. After the months spent courting the interests of liverpool dockers in an industrial dispute it would be interesting to find out how many of them are now active in the Earth First! movement? How many macdonald’s workers are now active in oaf!? We’ve now got the prospect of radical greens wasting years of their time on supremacist, anthropocentric, ooman rights issues. Oaf!s growing preoccupation with the promotion of ooman interests is in direct proportion to their growing support for the exploitation of Wildlife.



foE

One of the world’s biggest and most well established green organizations, foes of the Earth, believes there is no room for the Reforestation needed to combat global burning, "Given the scale of the global climate change problem, questions are raised over the availability of sufficient land for reforestation."[8]



German Green Party.

Protecting their Sausages.

“Germany’s centre-left government was last night pitched into crisis by the resignation of two cabinet ministers accused of mishandling the fallout from the spread of bse. The sudden turn of events posed a new threat to british farming since the politician tipped to take over as germany’s health minister is best known as a determined opponent of the lifting of the ban on beef imports from britain. (The resignations of andrea fischer and karl-heinz funke) marked the latest phase in a giddying turnaround in the fortunes of the government which, until recently, had been riding high in opinion polls. By yesterday, the number of confirmed bse cases had grown to ten. (Miss hohn is a green who might take over as the health minister and has vigorously opposed the lifting of the ban). “Ms fischer, a leading member of the green party, first fell foul of the crisis last month when she was forced into a u-turn over the need to recall sausages containing mechanically recovered meat products. She later admitted that a warning from government experts on practices in the sausage industry had lain unattended for 10 days in her ministry.”[9]



Green Anarchist.

Green Anarchist blames the European Community for a Conspiracy to create F&M.

Green anarchist published an article exploring the possibility that the foot and mouth epidemic was created by a conspiracy between the european union and euro-phile elements within the maffia, “The intention is clear - to make people throughout europe dependent on european control of the food supply.”[10] The contention being that the european community forced brutland to close down the country’s network of local abattoirs and this led to a dramatic increase in the length of the journeys that Animals had to endure on their way to the abattoir thereby encouraging the spread of the disease .. “the possible european origin of the (f&m) outbreak. Europe is responsible for the increased transportation of Animals about britain, because of the forced closure of many british abattoirs due to the imposition of european regulations.”[11]

Green anarchist points out that the epidemic distracted attention from electoral efforts to save brutish sovereignty. It speculates, along with the ‘ecologist’ magazine, that the ultra-nationalistic but upper crust independence party, the referendum party, and william hague, that, “The real issue, which should have been dominating the (2001 general) election, the abolition of the pound, was knocked right off the agenda.”[12] In other words, eurocrats were guilty of silencing extreme right wing, pharmer-loving, meat-eating, ultra-patriotic, eurosceptics trying to save her majesty’s mug on the country’s currency, “The people most likely to shout about the abolition of the pound are the euro-sceptic right, the uk independence party, and countryside alliance, farmers, and rural tories. With foot and mouth, these people would be deflected. .. the foot and mouth outbreak proved a master-stroke by somebody to electorally undermine the countryside alliance/conservative anti-europeans.”[13] Most radicals would say yessiree to that. To lend credence to the view that eurocrats were forcing right wing tory extremists back into their subsidized, luxury pharmyard bunkers, the author provides an earlier example of eurocrats’ dastardliness, “Gordon foxley was the director of ammunition procurement at the ministry of defence. In october 1993 he was found guilty of corruption. He accepted £1.5 million in bribes (from a fiat subsidiary, and two other european companies). As a result of his corruption, contracts .. went to these companies. The royal ordnance fuse factory at blackburn closed, losing at least 862 jobs.”[14] Green anarchist believes it is possible that foxley-ite elements within the maffia spread f&m as part of what it regards as “the european totalitarian agenda”, “After studying europe, the idea of uk officials inside acting on behalf of europe ought to be a favourite thesis by now.”[15] Green anarchist concludes this scenario by suggesting that, “Europe is also responsible for the fact that uk farmers feel forced to export to europe in order to survive economically.”[16] It ought to be pointed out that brutish pharmers export their disease ridden * not because they are compelled to do so by eurocrats but because eurocrats provide them with subsidies to do so.



Greenpeace.

For a more in depth look at greenpeace please see sp7 ‘A Critique of Greenpeace’s Vision of a World with 1,600,000,000 Vehicles’.

Discussions with Handley.

Handley was a pharmer and one of the leaders of the september 2001 fuel tax protests. He .. “even discloses that he met senior figures from greenpeace on Friday, and acknowledges that cheaper petrol is not the long term answer to the country’s problems. “The greens and us have a lot in common,” he ventures, “we couldn’t agree on fuel prices but did on everything else.” (He declares he is not an arthur scargill), “Scargill planned everything. The first protest I was involved in, a friend just rang me the evening before and asked if I felt like coming along.””[17]

Royal Society.

Corporate funding from Rhone Poulenc and Glaxo.

(The royal society is composed of fellows of the society [frs]). The society .. “publishes many of the most prestigious journals in science. Outraged by what they saw as media ‘misrepresentation’ of the experiments of arpad pusztai, the royal society established a ‘rebuttal unit’ in 1999 to ensure that journalists heard the wisdom of its elders more easily. Set up as a product of royal patronage, the society’s funds have traditionally come, with minimal parliamentary scrutiny, from the public purse. More recently it has begun to receive substantial funds from transnational biotechnology corporations, such as rhone poulenc and glaxo welcome.”[45]



Royal Society for Nature Conservation.

Corporate funding from Reckitt and Coleman.

"The Royal Society for Nature Conservation is to receive an estimated £200,000 for selling its logo in an endorsement deal .. with Reckitt and Coleman.”[46]



National Trust, The British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, and the Council for Environmental Conservation funded by RTZ.

"RTZ subsidizes the National Trust, The British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, and the Council for Environmental Conservation."[47]



Corporate Green Lobbying Groups.
Introduction.

The Material Basis of a Green Planet.

One of the green movement’s principal policies is the promotion of alternative power. Slowly, ‘green’ industries are beginning to emerge which manufacture, construct, and maintain, these new forms of energy. At present these industries are small but, as fossil fuels run down, there could be a substantial increase in green energy so that perhaps, one day, they’ll become giant multi-nationals. These ‘green’ industries will be run by ‘green’ industrialists. They will be much more sympathetic to the green movement than the fossil fuelled corporations had been and may even subsidize green organizations. This will give green energy companies a bigger and bigger influence on the green movement. Ultimately, the green power industry could end up becoming the main financial backers for the green movement - just as big business funds the tories and now the labour government and as, in the past, trade unions had funded the labour party. Whilst greens might feel some relief about receiving permanent funding - after decades of having to organize green jumble sales and green fairs - this does open up the prospect of continued corruption in the political process. Conventional industries corrupted the tory party (as they are now corrupting the labour government) and the trade unions corrupted the labour party so it is unlikely that it will not happen to the so-called green movement. Corruption is even more likely when the world’s Earth wrecking corporations decide that environmental issues have become so critical that they’ve got to join in the creation of a green society. They might one day start seeing the writing on the wall for conventional energy but this is unlikely to mean that their wider attitudes will necessarily change. Having believed they didn’t have to care about the damage they inflicted on the Earth, such attitudes might persist when they are involved in introducing alternative power - this is especially likely to be the case if such attitudes merge with greens belief that anything they do must, by definition, be green. These are the reasons why societies powered by alternative energy could end up being like fossil fuelled societies without the fossil fuels. Just because the alternative power industry is supposed to be green doesn’t mean to say that the people running it are also going to be green let alone be at the forefront of promoting wider green policies for the creation of a sustainable planet. A number of green industrial associations have already begun to emerge and whilst it is not surprising that they consist of new green companies as well as conventional companies diversifying into green markets, there is the danger that greens industrialists are going to end up becoming incorporated into the conventional business world pursuing a green business-as-usual agenda.



Green Alliance.

According to ‘lobster’, “The corporations referred to above (glaxo smith kline, hsbc, unilever, tesco, royal bank of scotland, centrica, shell uk, bp) are all members or supporters of Green Alliance, arguably the most influential and well connected pressure group in britain. Immediately after the 1997 general election robin cook helped provide foreign office funding for the green globe task force (which) shares an office with green alliance in buckingham palace road, london sw1.”[48] Tarmac is also a major green alliance supporter.



Brutish State Working Parties.

The UK’s Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment.

“The government has an advisory committee on business and the environment. It is chaired by chris fay, chair of shell uk.”[49]



Global, Corporate, Green Organizations.

Various global, corporate, green organizations were set up in the 1990s.

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (wbcsd).

The wbcsd was founded by stephan schmidheiny, a swiss industrial billionaire, “The wbcsd was an alliance of 120 companies - many of them among the world’s largest - from 20 sectors of industry in no fewer than 35 countries.”[50] Its members include some of the world’s biggest Earth rapist corporations. Unice’s members include huge multi-national corporations such as bp and speaks for .. “130 companies in 35 countries in 25 industrial sectors.”[51]

Business Council for Sustainable Development.

"Changing Course is the pre-summit product of the Business Council for Sustainable Development, a body of the great and green from global big business."[52]

Business Council for a Sustainable Energy Future (bcsef).

The bcsef’s membership consists of various high tech green businesses, “Over twenty companies and organizations were listed as members of the new business council, and they included energy-efficiency and renewables organizations like the solar energy industries association, the united states export council for renewable energy, the american wind energy association, energy conversion devices, inc.. and the north american insulation manufacturers association.”[53] In comparison to the wbcsd, the bcsef is a group of green star trek futurologists virtually without power or influence. Its biggest member is enron.

Hilary f french points out, “More recently, the u.s. based business council for a sustainable energy future - a coalition of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and natural gas companies that favour taking action to avert global warming - has begun to participate in international climate negotiations, where they counterbalance the lobbying efforts of oil and coal companies.”[54] In his 1996 book andrew rowell points out that, “Ironically, another business organization surfaced at berlin (global burning conference) - the business council for sustainable energy future (bcsef). Its name sends alarm bells ringing and it is just another vested ‘industry front group’. Made up of companies who are due to benefit from emission reduction measures (solar panel manufacturers and makers of energy conservation equipment, as well as from gas companies), the bcsef is at loggerheads with the global climate coalition.”[55]



Corporations proclaiming a Green Stance.
bp

“Yesterday the company (bp) - one of the world’s three biggest oil giants - published record figures for the half year, despite spending £7 million changing its logo from ‘BP’ to ‘bp’ in an attempt to boost its green image. Profits soared from $1.3 billion to $3.6 billion.”[56]

ICI

"ICI's company environmental specialist, Chris Hampson, said that carbon tax "could have serious implications for domestic economies without having a significant effect on global carbon dioxide emissions."