Posts Tagged Green

Absolute Insanity! – Scientists Propose Dumping Hundreds of Tons of Iron into Ocean to ‘Stop Global Warming’

via: NaturalSociety
by: Anthony Gucciardi
July 21, 2012

In an attempt to ‘stop global warming’, scientists have been experimenting with dumping several tons of iron into the Antarctic ocean in order to potentially fertilize the development of plankton. Despite raising a multitude of red flags raised from leading scientific organizations and health watch organizations, a new study is now calling for the practice to be even further extended as a worldwide ‘geoengineering’ strategy to alter the climate via dumping hundreds of tons of iron dust into the ocean. Previous research found that by dumping the heavy metal into oceans worldwide it could not only devastate the marine life population, but deplete oxygen levels and explode the growth of certain unwanted organisms.

The implementation began with a California-based company known as Planktos, a self-described private ‘ecorestoration’ company. While the widescale iron dumping experiment was halted due to lack of funding, some are still calling for the plan to be followed through. Using a 115-foot ship, the company team members aimed to travel over 200 miles west of the Galápagos Islands and ultimately dump a hundred tons of iron dust into international water.

As iron can stimulate plankton growth (organisms which absorb CO2), it has been touted to be a method of artificial engineering the climate with great effectiveness. In fact, one scientist named John Martin said in 1980 that a “half tanker of iron” could cause an ice age.  Planktos sought to dump excessive amounts of iron into the ocean, capture carbon, and then sell carbon credits to companies looking to ‘offset’ their global emissions. A mission that ultimately collapsed.

But now Planktos’ CEO Russ George and some ‘environmental scientists’ are back in the saddles and looking to revisit the concept that involves selling off potentially millions (if not billions) of dollars of outlandish carbon credits to major corporations. An operation that while not only risky in regards to what we know might happen, but also what we don’t know that may happen. As detailed in a UNESCO report, it is documented that such tinkering with the ocean’s natural regulation is quite risky. The report states:

“Large-scale fertilization could have unintended (and difficult to predict) impacts not only locally, e.g. risk of toxic algal blooms, but also far removed in space and time. Impact assessments need to include the possibility of such ‘far-field’ effects on biological productivity, sub-surface oxygen levels, biogas production and ocean acidification.”

For now, the plan has no set date or confirmation. If the organizations and individuals backing this plan get their way, however, hundreds of tons of iron may soon be dumped into the earth’s oceans without properly identifying the risks associated with the process.

Continue Reading At: NaturalSociety.com

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Apple drops ‘Green’ badge, then relists with EPEAT

via: NaturalNews
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
By: Simon Victor

[NaturalNews] Recently, Apple removed its products from the EPEAT rating system (Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool), a move which baffled consumers and ‘tech industry’ insiders alike. A total of 39 products were removed from the listing which included already certified desktop computers, monitors and laptops, MacBooks Air and Pro – and then Apple made a U-turn.

In an unusual twist of events, Bob Mansfield, Senior Vice President of Hardware Engineering at Apple, released an open letter on the company’s website. “We’ve recently heard from many loyal Apple customers who were disappointed to learn that we had removed our products from the EPEAT rating system. I recognize that this was a mistake. Starting today, all eligible Apple products are back on EPEAT.”

The delisting had baffled industry insiders and consumers alike, leaving many to speculate as to why Apple would do so. Many reasoned that this was because Apple’s new products have changed in terms of environmental friendliness, due to features such as non-removable batteries. However, in Apple’s defense, Kristen Huguet toldThe Loop “We also lead the industry by reporting each product’s greenhouse gas emissions on our website, and Apple products are superior in other important environmental areas not measured by EPEAT, such as removal of toxic materials.”

At present, EPEAT does not measure toxins and other environmental areas of concern, neither does it measure smartphones or tablets.

According to the CIO Report, Robert Frisbee, CEO of EPEAT said of the original decision to delist, “They [Apple] said their design direction was no longer consistent with the EPEAT requirements. They were important supporters and we are disappointed that they don’t want their products measured by this standard anymore.”

Continue Reading At: NaturalNews.com

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Documentary – Agenda 21 Explained – Full Version

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

World Bank Wants Control Of The High Seas

Brandon Smith
Alt-Market
February 26, 2012

As a proponent of legitimate free markets, I am always up for a little creative entrepreneurship.  However, there is a considerable difference between building productive markets, and engaging in monopolistic piracy.  Global conglomerates and the elites that operate them have long been familiar with the pirate’s life, and not the fun filled adventure-time rope swinging swashbuckling brand.  In fact, it was elitists like Sir Francis Drake, commissioned by the English monarchy, who embodied this disturbing covert bedlam.  We’re talking murder, mayhem, and blood-money, folks!  So, it should be of no surprise to anyone that the thieving mercantile swine of our era are returning to the high seas to plunder once again, only in a much more subversive and devious manner.

This past week, World Bank President Robert Zoellick made his organization’s intentions for oceanic regimentation known, at least in a candy coated way, at the Economist World Oceans Summit in Singapore:

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:23126775~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html

Over the last several years, World Bank has seen fit to insinuate itself into the environmental movement as a “bastion” of green ideology.  In reality, World Bank has long used the threats of environmental destabilization (some of them real, some of them fake) as tools for the centralization of resources into the hands of mega-corporations.  In fact, if one was to attempt to sum up exactly what it is that World Bank actually does in a single phrase, it would probably be “resource domination”.  This domination is achieved through the strict lending guidelines that sovereign countries have to commit to in order to attain financing from the supranational entity.

Like a greasy loan shark working for a hardboiled mob cartel, World Bank’s M.O. is to lend large capital packages (made with money or credit created out of thin air) which the target country and its government obviously cannot afford to pay back.  These loans often stipulate that the country relinquish control of its natural resources, the true wealth of the nation, over to international corporate bodies for “management”.  Through this process, World Bank removes competition from a market and hands designated companies (globalist front-companies) the keys to the kingdom.

Environmental manipulation has been used in the past by World Bank as a cover for resource piracy.  Global corporations including Enron, Bechtel, GM, and Monsanto from the late 90’s onward have been handed coveted water rights to entire communities and nations under the guise of managing “water scarcity”.  This control of the water supply has extended even to rainwater collection.  World Bank’s argument in the case of water privatization was that monetizing the resource would create “incentives” for populations to conserve water.  That is to say, the higher they could increase the cost of water, the more coveted it would become, and the more careful people would be when using it.  This feudalistic idea was expressed clearly in a World Water Council (founded with the help of the Vice President of World Bank) document entitled “The Long Term Vision For Water, Life, And Environment”:

http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsaca/i/fulltext/mirh/education.pdf

In 1998 the World Water Forum expounded a need for control and regulation over the planet’s water supply.  This meeting was packed with top multinational corporations and commissioned by a viper’s nest of global elites, including:

-Dr Ismali Serageldin (Commission Chair), Vice President, World Bank, and Chair of Global Water Partnership
-Margaret Catley-Carlson, President, Population Council
-Gordon Conway, President, The Rockefeller Foundation
-Mohamed T. El-Ashry, Chair and CEO of the Global Environment Facility
-Howard Hjort, former Deputy Director, FAO
-Enriquo Iglesias, President, Inter-American Development Bank
-Yolanda Kababadse, President, World Conservation Union
-Jessica Mathews, President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, USA
-Robert S. McNamara, Co-Chair, Global Coalition for Africa
-Maurice Strong, Chair, Earth Council, member of Commission on Global Governance, and a chief adviser in charge of the UN reform process
-Wilfred Thalwitz, former Senior VP, World Bank
-Jerome Mondo, Chair of the Supervisory Board, Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux

In March of 2000, the forum made the following statement:

“Water is an economic good and its economic value should be recognized in the allocation of scarce water resources to competing uses. While this should not prevent people from meeting their basic needs for water services at affordable prices, the price for water must be set at a level that encourages conservation and wise use…”

http://www.waternunc.com/gb/secwwf11.htm

This methodology of artificially raising prices through the issuance of securities to enforce a particular environmentalist ideal, in the end, has NOTHING to do with protecting the environment.  Essentially, it creates the derivitization of natural resources that is the calling card of globalized tyranny.  Cap and Trade programs were designed to monetize air usage.  Energy derivatives were used by Enron to allow easier manipulation of electric and oil prices.  Water privatization was designed to corporatize a free flowing resource and create artificial scarcity.  And now, World Bank wants to apply the same con game to one of the last economic commons; the ocean.  The only beneficiaries in these schemes have always been large conglomerates, along with a smattering of stock investors who revel in the idea of erecting entire markets out of absolutely imaginary products with no real inherent value.

As with water privatization, the flood of massive bureaucracy in the guise of corporate management over oceanic usage will only create a mind boggling maze of red tape that will thwart all business interests except the largest.  This is entirely deliberate.

Not only does it cause prices to rise to levels beyond what the impoverished (a global majority) can pay for a commodity, but it also squeezes out small business owners whose only advantage was the level playing field of an open resource.  On the oceans of World Bank, a small fishing outfit will have no chance to make a living, because the permit process, new taxes, and new legal requirements, will empty their bank accounts before they ever get started, leaving only the big boys to ravage the seas at will, and legally, because they will have paid the exorbitant fees for the right to do so.

There is also a very good reason why Zoellick at the World Oceans Summit mentioned fishery issues so often, and why he is so keen on the idea of international regulations on their operations.

On dry land, companies like Monsanto are the slavemasters of food supply.  The centralization of national farming infrastructures has given these companies unrivaled power over how we eat, and thus, how most of the populace survives.  However, the ocean, an unparalleled food source, is still a decentralized region of production.  Anyone can fish it, almost anywhere, without having to ask permission from the government, or a private company.  This obviously does not sit well with World Bank, not because they fear overfishing, but because it provides a sovereign means of survival, allowing people to remain independent from the globalist system.

By utterly corporatizing resources that have through all of time been freely accessible to every human being, World Bank and the elitists they serve hope to build a framework for total centralization of all means of production and sustenance on Earth.  Does this sound like mad scientist stuff?  Absolutely.  Does that make it any less factual or terrifying?  Not a chance.

The real cleverness in using the environmental aspect of ocean management lay in the reality that there is, indeed, severe damage being done to many parts of the ocean’s ecosystems.  Cap and trade is based on the lie of anthropomorphic global warming and highly misrepresented data on the effects of CO2 (just ask any global warming enthusiast why NASA and the CRU have never released the source data for their experiments to prove that their claims are true).  The monetization of the air we breathe can be defeated in the minds of the general public for this reason.  But with the oceans, legitimate pollution is occurring.  This gives World Bank a much more tangible argument for supranational regulation in the name of environmentalism.  What people must realize, though, is that this regulation will have no effect on the deterioration of the seas.  In fact, it will likely hasten their destruction.

The international nature of how the oceans are utilized also opens the globalization door to World Bank.  When a supranational entity is given de facto governance over a region that is used by all sovereign countries, it gives that entity the ability to interfere in the decision making processes of those nations without any input or respect to the people who live within them.  For Americans, this means being susceptible to laws created by men far outside our borders who we cannot vote in, vote out, or chase down with our pitchforks when the voting is rigged.  This has always been the goal of globalists; to create the most dominant and unaccountable ruling body in history, while at the same time convincing the masses that we cannot live without it.

At bottom, centralization is the foundation for the collectivist fallacy; that there is a “greater good” that must be maintained by the establishment.  This process makes the establishment indispensable in the minds of the public.  The elites in power today have chosen environmental dogma as their version of the “greater good”, because the “end of the world as we know” can be used to rationalize almost any brand of despotic behavior, from food and water rationing as a method for social conditioning, to population control or even depletion in the name of “saving the planet”.  Always beware the true motivations of any governing institution that seeks to assert itself as the purveyor of all that is “best” for the people.  Such groups are rarely if ever what they seem…

Source: InfoWars.com

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Comments

Green companies with political ties to Obama receive billions in federal funds

Via: Natural News
By: J. D. Heyes
Sunday, February 19, 2012

In case you may have forgotten, one of candidate Barack Obama’s central themes during his 2008 presidential bid was “change.” In particular, he wanted to change the way Washington did its business, pointing out – correctly, by the way – that there was too much collusion between lawmakers and lobbying interests. There would be no room for lobbyists or special interests pulling the strings or winning undue influence inhisadministration, by golly.

“They won’t work in my White House!” Obama shouted to a crowd in Iowain 2007, as he began his quest for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. “They are not going to dominate my White House.”

Said political newsmagazine Politicoat the time, “Obama casts himself as a break from the usual Washington politicians, highlighting his refusal to take donations from lobbyists, his pledge to make government more transparent, and his intention to close the revolving door between the White House and lobbying firms.”

Broken promises – early and often

Yet, the pledge not to tolerate lobbyists in his administration was a promise Obama broke the moment he took office, as his administration hired about a dozen of them right off the bat, with more to follow.

These early broken promises on pledges to change Washington’s special interest culture only set the stage for further violations of the people’s trust, culminating in http://www.washingtonpost.com. It seems the old axiom is true: The more things change, the more they stay the same. The only difference nowadays is that federal taxpayer dollars are flowing to firms and interests this president prefers. In Obama’s case, they are so-called “green energy” or “clean energy” interests.

Read More At NaturalNews.com

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 318 other followers