Published on May 6, 2012
From the Non-Profit Industrial Complex with Love | The Art of Annihilation
"... and I will say this to our colleagues from Western civil society - you have definitely sided with a small group of industrialists and their representatives and your representative branches. Nothing more than that. You have become an instrument of your governments." - Lumumba Di-Aping
Where is the line that distinguishes the bystander from the perpetrator when atrocity becomes both systemic and political?
In December 2009, the Morales government proved the most progressive of all states (in alliance with ALBA, the AOSIS and the G77 nations) at the COP15 climate meeting in Copenhagen. This union, led by Bolivia, aggressively pursued the scientific targets necessary in order for the world to avoid complete ecological collapse and a global genocide of unparalleled proportions. Ironically (and most revealing), these progressive states led leaps and bounds ahead of the environmental movement itself.
The institutionalized environmental "movement" was united under an umbrella organization/campaign titled TckTckTck, a social media giant, contrived by some of the world's most powerful corporations and marketing executives. [1] One such TckTckTck partner (there are 280 partners made public) was the Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change consisting of corporations such as Shell, RBF and Coca-Cola. (When this information was uncovered and made public, TckTckTck removed them from their website and scrambled to recover from the PR nightmare.) The Bolivian government's leadership was so incredibly dignified and courageous that it even put the more legitimate Climate Justice movement to shame.
To get a sense of exactly who the corporate greens really represent (hint -- it is not you), consider this: Bolivia and the AOSIS called for an agreement to the global temperature from exceeding no more than a 1ºC rise and to reduce atmospheric CO2 to 300 ppm. In stark contrast, the NGOs "demanded" that temperatures not exceed a +2ºC and further "demanded" that world emissions peak by 2019 (meaning that emissions would continue to increase, business as usual, until 2019 at which point we would begin an effort to decrease). TckTckTck includes over 200 international partners including Avaaz, Conservation International, Greenpeace International, World Wildlife Fund (and many more pro-REDD advocates and profiteers) as well as Climate Action Network International (CAN) [2] who represents (and speaks on behalf of) over 700 NGOs. (CAN also lobbies governments for REDD - a false solution that breeds a new form of climate racism.)
Regarding the issue of human rights, the hundreds of corporate NGOs -- by campaigning to get the public to accept the global average temperature further rising up to a 2ºC limit -- thereby sanctioned/sanctions most all species on this planet to an unprecedented annihilation within decades. [Note: Consider that at under +1ºC, we are already committed to a minimum +2.4ºC not including feedbacks: Ramanathan and Feng 2008 paper. Further, note climate scientist James Hansen's warning that even 1ºC now looks like an unacceptably high risk.]
Considering that the corporate NGOs are leading us to certain species eradication, one must consider what constitutes criminal negligence. In the United States, the definition of criminal negligence is compelling: "Crimes Committed Negligently (Article 33.1) A crime shall be deemed to be committed with clear intent, if the man or woman was conscious of the social danger of his actions (inaction), foresaw the possibility or the inevitability of the onset of socially dangerous consequences, and willed such consequences to ensue." "A crime shall be deemed to be committed with indirect intent, if the man or woman realized the social danger of his actions (inaction), foresaw the possibility of the onset of socially dangerous consequences, did not wish, but consciously allowed these consequences or treated them with indifference." "A Crime Committed by Negligence (Article 33.1): A criminal deed committed thoughtlessly or due to negligence shall be recognized as a crime committed by negligence." "A crime shall be deemed to be committed thoughtlessly, if the man or woman has foreseen the possibility of the onset of socially dangerous consequences of his actions (inaction), but expected without valid reasons that these consequences would be prevented." "A crime shall be deemed to be committed due to negligence if the man or woman has not foreseen the possibility of the onset of socially dangerous consequences of his actions (inaction), although he or she could and should have foreseen these consequences with reasonable."
Read more:
http://wrongkindofgreen.org/2012/12/1...
The Art of Annihilation: http://theartofannihilation.com/
Wrong Kind of Green: http://wrongkindofgreen.org
"... and I will say this to our colleagues from Western civil society - you have definitely sided with a small group of industrialists and their representatives and your representative branches. Nothing more than that. You have become an instrument of your governments." - Lumumba Di-Aping
Where is the line that distinguishes the bystander from the perpetrator when atrocity becomes both systemic and political?
In December 2009, the Morales government proved the most progressive of all states (in alliance with ALBA, the AOSIS and the G77 nations) at the COP15 climate meeting in Copenhagen. This union, led by Bolivia, aggressively pursued the scientific targets necessary in order for the world to avoid complete ecological collapse and a global genocide of unparalleled proportions. Ironically (and most revealing), these progressive states led leaps and bounds ahead of the environmental movement itself.
The institutionalized environmental "movement" was united under an umbrella organization/campaign titled TckTckTck, a social media giant, contrived by some of the world's most powerful corporations and marketing executives. [1] One such TckTckTck partner (there are 280 partners made public) was the Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change consisting of corporations such as Shell, RBF and Coca-Cola. (When this information was uncovered and made public, TckTckTck removed them from their website and scrambled to recover from the PR nightmare.) The Bolivian government's leadership was so incredibly dignified and courageous that it even put the more legitimate Climate Justice movement to shame.
To get a sense of exactly who the corporate greens really represent (hint -- it is not you), consider this: Bolivia and the AOSIS called for an agreement to the global temperature from exceeding no more than a 1ºC rise and to reduce atmospheric CO2 to 300 ppm. In stark contrast, the NGOs "demanded" that temperatures not exceed a +2ºC and further "demanded" that world emissions peak by 2019 (meaning that emissions would continue to increase, business as usual, until 2019 at which point we would begin an effort to decrease). TckTckTck includes over 200 international partners including Avaaz, Conservation International, Greenpeace International, World Wildlife Fund (and many more pro-REDD advocates and profiteers) as well as Climate Action Network International (CAN) [2] who represents (and speaks on behalf of) over 700 NGOs. (CAN also lobbies governments for REDD - a false solution that breeds a new form of climate racism.)
Regarding the issue of human rights, the hundreds of corporate NGOs -- by campaigning to get the public to accept the global average temperature further rising up to a 2ºC limit -- thereby sanctioned/sanctions most all species on this planet to an unprecedented annihilation within decades. [Note: Consider that at under +1ºC, we are already committed to a minimum +2.4ºC not including feedbacks: Ramanathan and Feng 2008 paper. Further, note climate scientist James Hansen's warning that even 1ºC now looks like an unacceptably high risk.]
Considering that the corporate NGOs are leading us to certain species eradication, one must consider what constitutes criminal negligence. In the United States, the definition of criminal negligence is compelling: "Crimes Committed Negligently (Article 33.1) A crime shall be deemed to be committed with clear intent, if the man or woman was conscious of the social danger of his actions (inaction), foresaw the possibility or the inevitability of the onset of socially dangerous consequences, and willed such consequences to ensue." "A crime shall be deemed to be committed with indirect intent, if the man or woman realized the social danger of his actions (inaction), foresaw the possibility of the onset of socially dangerous consequences, did not wish, but consciously allowed these consequences or treated them with indifference." "A Crime Committed by Negligence (Article 33.1): A criminal deed committed thoughtlessly or due to negligence shall be recognized as a crime committed by negligence." "A crime shall be deemed to be committed thoughtlessly, if the man or woman has foreseen the possibility of the onset of socially dangerous consequences of his actions (inaction), but expected without valid reasons that these consequences would be prevented." "A crime shall be deemed to be committed due to negligence if the man or woman has not foreseen the possibility of the onset of socially dangerous consequences of his actions (inaction), although he or she could and should have foreseen these consequences with reasonable."
Read more:
http://wrongkindofgreen.org/2012/12/1...
The Art of Annihilation: http://theartofannihilation.com/
Wrong Kind of Green: http://wrongkindofgreen.org
