Fear

Clothed in innocence, the treaty is in fact designed to radically transform Western Civilization into a society where wolves and other entities of nature have more rights than humans.
Biodiversity treaty more than senate willing to pay. 
Sovereignty International Corporation

I've posted this before but I'm going to post it again and ask you to add a comment if you can help explain to me why the US has still not ratified the Convention on Biodiversity.  

 In search of answers I've been doing some reading on websites written by those who opposed the Convention. This has proven enlightening but the level of paranoia is scary.

The open letter to congress I mentioned in class (from 293 signers, representing four million American voters) only specifically mentions two issues - alien species and the transfer of technology. However the testimony given to congress focused on a third issue - private property rights and the threat of a massive property grab by the federal government if not the United Nations themselves. Here is testimony given by Senator Hutchison (Texas) from the Congressional Record S13790, Friday, September 30, 1994. 

I am especially concerned about the effect of the treaty on private property rights in my State and throughout America. Private property is constitutionally protected, yet one of the draft protocols to this treaty proposes "an increase in the area and connectivity of habitat." It envisions buffer zones and corridors connecting habitat areas where human use will be severely limited. Are we going to agree to a treaty that will require the U.S. Government to condemn property for wildlife highways? Are we planning to pay for this property? One group, the Maine Conservation Rights Institute, has prepared maps of what this would mean. I do not know if they are accurate yet, but that is my point. Neither do the proponents of this treaty. 

This is the map, presented on the Senate floor. Note the heading - As mandated by the convention on biological diversity.

The areas you see in red represents "wilderness reserves" which will be off limits to humans. Areas in yellow represents highly regulated buffer zones where human existence will be greatly restricted. The areas in green represent zones for normal use of high density mixed use urban areas. 

In the minds of some the UN Convention on Biodiversity has become associated with the Wildlands Project (now known as the Wildlands Network). This organization focuses on scientific and strategic support for creation of “networks of people protecting networks of connected wildlands.”  They identified existing protected areas and proposed wildlife corridors that would connect them as pathways for wide-ranging species in need of room to roam. Their ideas are not exactly radical and their maps are very general but it is these rather general maps that were apparently the inspiration for the scary map above.

Worst of all, the basis for protecting biodiversity and ecosystems was to be centered on what is known as the Wildlands Project. This draconian plan calls for setting aside vast areas (about 50 percent) of America into reserve wilderness areas, interconnecting corridors, and human buffer zones where human use would be eliminated or severely restricted. According to the June 25, 1993 issue of Science magazine, such a system of reserves and corridors would create "an archipelago of human-inhabited islands surrounded by natural areas."
Biodiversity treaty more than senate willing to pay. 
Sovereignty International Corporation 

The Rewilding Project is brought to us from the United Nations. A relevant tentacle of Agenda 21, the Rewilding Project is designed to restore a major portion of the planet to its 'original' state before man came along and messed it all up; however, it could not be happening if it were not being implemented by state and local legislation. 

Suffice to say that when they want your property you WILL sell and at a price they set. Otherwise, they'll remove you forcefully. Private land is being taken all over America by local, state and federal governments under 'eminent domain'. ... In the case of Wildlands and their Corridors, it will be dedicated exclusively to plants, insects, bees, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians and animals. Carnivores figure heavily in their plan. 
From The Rewilding Project

This video tells the complete story (check out how the map changes at 3:34 to 'simulated map'). Wetland mitigation, critical habitat and conservation easements are all part of the same conspiracy....

Fear itself

Clothed in innocence, the treaty is in fact designed to radically transform Western Civilization into a society where wolves and other entities of nature have more rights than humans.
Biodiversity treaty more than senate willing to pay.
Sovereignty International Corporation

I've tried to look into this several times but it's just not easy for me to understand exactly why the US did not ratify the Convention on Biodiversity. In search of answers I've been doing some reading on websites written by those who opposed the Convention. This has proven more enlightening but the level of paranoia is scary.

The open letter to congress I mentioned in class (from 293 signers, representing four million American voters) only specifically mentions two issues - alien species and the transfer of technology. However the testimony given to congress focused on a third issue - private property rights and the threat of a massive property grab by the federal government if not the United Nations themselves. Here is testimony given by Senator Hutchison (Texas) from the Congressional Record S13790, Friday, September 30, 1994.

I am especially concerned about the effect of the treaty on private property rights in my State and throughout America. Private property is constitutionally protected, yet one of the draft protocols to this treaty proposes "an increase in the area and connectivity of habitat." It envisions buffer zones and corridors connecting habitat areas where human use will be severely limited. Are we going to agree to a treaty that will require the U.S. Government to condemn property for wildlife highways? Are we planning to pay for this property? One group, the Maine Conservation Rights Institute, has prepared maps of what this would mean. I do not know if they are accurate yet, but that is my point. Neither do the proponents of this treaty.

This is the map, presented on the Senate floor, that quite possibly convinced them to vote against the ratification of the Biodiversity Treaty. Note the heading - As mandated by the convention on biological diversity.

The areas you see in red represents "wilderness reserves" which will be off limits to humans. Areas in yellow represents highly regulated buffer zones where human existence will be greatly restricted. The areas in green represent zones for normal use of high density mixed use urban areas.

In the minds of some the UN Convention on Biodiversity has become associated with the Wildlands Project (now known as the Wildlands Network). This organization focuses on scientific and strategic support for creation of “networks of people protecting networks of connected wildlands.”  They identified existing protected areas and proposed wildlife corridors that would connect them as pathways for wide-ranging species in need of room to roam. Their ideas are not exactly radical and their maps are very general but it is these rather general maps that were apparently the inspiration for the scary map above.

Worst of all, the basis for protecting biodiversity and ecosystems was to be centered on what is known as the Wildlands Project. This draconian plan calls for setting aside vast areas (about 50 percent) of America into reserve wilderness areas, interconnecting corridors, and human buffer zones where human use would be eliminated or severely restricted. According to the June 25, 1993 issue of Science magazine, such a system of reserves and corridors would create "an archipelago of human-inhabited islands surrounded by natural areas."
Biodiversity treaty more than senate willing to pay.
Sovereignty International Corporation

The Rewilding Project is brought to us from the United Nations. A relevant tentacle of Agenda 21, the Rewilding Project is designed to restore a major portion of the planet to its 'original' state before man came along and messed it all up; however, it could not be happening if it were not being implemented by state and local legislation.

Suffice to say that when they want your property you WILL sell and at a price they set. Otherwise, they'll remove you forcefully. Private land is being taken all over America by local, state and federal governments under 'eminent domain'. ... In the case of Wildlands and their Corridors, it will be dedicated exclusively to plants, insects, bees, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians and animals. Carnivores figure heavily in their plan.
From The Rewilding Project

This video tells the complete story (check out how the map changes at 3:34 to 'simulated map'). Wetland mitigation, critical habitat and conservation easements are all part of the same conspiracy....

Generally exaggerated

I was updating a figure for the next lecture and came across this chart from an annual poll conducted by the Gallup organization. (See the post below and the comment.)

It's very depressing but as the evidence of global climate change accumulates there has been a very large swing in the US and almost 50% of people think the problem is being exaggerated.

We've changed the pH of the ocean. The freaking ocean.

Automatic loss

From an article in the New York Times yesterday: Trying to Lace Together a Consensus on Biodiversity Across a Global Landscape


“Every degree centigrade the planet warms will lead automatically to a 10 percent loss in known species,” said Ahmed Djoghlaf, the executive secretary of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.

That the most annoying thing I think I've read all week. What is especially irritating is that Ahmed Djoghlaf is a really big cheese at the United Nations. 'Executive secretary' is UN speak for the Director of a program so this guy effectively runs the Convention on Biological Diversity. He's certainly well educated with a PhD in political sciences, a Master of Arts, Government and Politics, a Master of Political Sciences and a Law degree. Okay, I think I see the problem there.

Let's see if we can restate that:

"The unknown future climate changes caused by man's alteration of the global atmosphere will most likely have a dramatic effect on many species distributions and abundances. An unknown number of our known and unknown species may go extinct. This may, or may not, matter to ecosystem function."

To be honest I find this far scarier than the 10% per degree scenario. On the bright side if we do screw up the planet astronomers today identified a planet 120 trillion miles away where "The chances for life on this planet are 100 percent."  Sigh.