On May 23rd the Shanghai Daily ran an article titled, “UN chief sees biodiversity key to sustainable development, ending poverty”.
The article starts out stating that, “UN Secretary-General Ban Ki- moon on Friday called on everyone to recommit to global action to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss, for people and for our planet, saying that biodiversity is essential to sustainable development and eradicating poverty.” The article goes on to quote the Secretary-General saying, “Protecting ecosystems and ensuring access to ecosystem services by poor and vulnerable groups are essential to eradicating extreme poverty and hunger."
And how does Ban think this is going to be accomplished? The article states, “Ban said reducing deforestation and land degradation and enhancing carbon stocks in forests, dry lands, (Is he advocating the building of dams becuase the environmental movement is against that?) range lands and crop lands generate significant benefits and are cost-effective ways to mitigate climate change.” He continues saying, “any sustainable development framework must provide conditions for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity for more equitable sharing of benefits”.
Souza Dias claims, "Biodiversity underpins all those ecosystem functions and benefits essential to human well-being, not only in terms of our economies, but also for our health, food security, prevention of natural hazards, and our cultural roots”. He also states that, “biodiversity sustainably can provide solutions to a range of challenges to sustainability and human well-being, including poverty eradication, food security, sustainable production and consumption, water security, disaster risk reduction and climate change.”
For those who don’t follow this stuff you will read these comments and it may sound rational. But what happens when we take them one at a time, analyze them and then ask what they're really saying and what these statements mean?
First of all sustainable development is indefinable, or unendingly re-definable according the the green whim of the moment, which is common in all things the left promotes, especially when it comes to the green movement. The word sustainable means to be able to do something over and over again. What exactly is it that’s not being done over and over again they wish to restore or prevent from disappearing? What exactly is the current generation destroying for future generations? They never tell us what isn’t being done over and over again, since they only declare things are unsustainable without any evidence to support these hysterical speculations. What is it they actually want? Remember when they claimed using traditional energy souces was unsustainable? Which of course meant modern agriculture was unsustainable. All of that turned out to be blatantly false. As for biological sustainability - its even less definable and borders on neo-pagan nature worshipping mysticism.
Are we to assume no species of animal or plant can be allowed to go extinct? If that’s the case what steps should be taken to prevent that? Under the Endangered Species Act that requires setting aside “suitable habitat”, which can include ridiculous amounts of acreage. And it doesn’t stop there. Anything done around that “suitable habitat zone” can be restricted because some bureaucrat decides it’s detrimental to some bug, or plant that’s been designated as endangered. That stopped the Keystone Pipeline. How is that going to reduce hunger and support good economic policy?
Let’s take a look at the comments made by Ban and Diaz.
1. Ban is quoted saying: “biodiversity is essential to sustainable development and eradicating poverty.” - If there ever was a logical fallacy – this is it! Okay, so now we have to ask - why and how? If biodiversity is essential to eradicating poverty there must be some firm logical foundation to support that statement. What is it? Just exactly how is biodiversity going to eradicate poverty? If anything - it will increase it! Unless of course you reduce the world’s population dramatically, which is the underlying motive of the environmental movement, and that doesn’t really supply an answer to endng poverty. Poverty has been with mankind for all of human history. The idea of eradicating poverty is just more leftist utopian blather, and will never be achieved by any of the means discussed. It’s a red herring to deflect attention from the real goal. World governance by the most corrupt and incompetent organization the world has ever known. The United Nations!
2. “Ban said reducing deforestation and land degradation and enhancing carbon stocks in forests, dry lands, range lands and crop lands generate significant benefits and are cost-effective ways to mitigate climate change.” - What exactly does “enhancing carbon stocks mean”? First let’s define REDD+. “Launched in September 2008, the United Nations Collaborative initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, known better simply as UN-REDD was created with the goal of helping countries implement REDD+ strategies. What are REDD+ strategies? To quote the UN: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) - is an effort to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development. “REDD+” goes beyond deforestation and forest degradation, and includes the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
A key component of the REDD+ strategy, it includes forest management activities such as restoring existing but degraded forests and increasing forest cover through environmentally appropriate afforestation and reforestation.
So this is all about CO2 and the false premise that CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming! Since the incredibly small amount of warming that was taking place ended over 18 years ago it’s now “climate change”, in spite of the fact that levels of CO2 has increased. The very premise for Ban’s comments is fraudulent. Ban’s solution to end poverty is to take farm land and turn it into forests. Did I understand that correctly? Not the Sahara desert, or the Gobi desert, or some other largely “pristine” but desolate area of the world, but areas that are already inhabited with large populations needing agricultural acreage. Acreage that’s being eaten up with crops to make ethanol. A policy the UN and the green movement supports. Does this seem like cognitive dissonance, or is it a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the facts?
3. Ban claims, “any sustainable development framework must provide conditions for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity for more equitable sharing of benefits”. What does, “the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity for more equitable sharing of benefits”. What does that mean? And how is that to be accomplished? We come right back to the leftist's desire of controlling outcomes that are acceptable to leftist elites. In effect - when the word’s conservation, sustainability and biodiversity are used by leftists they're nothing more than triggers to promote worldwide socialism under the guise of equitability. In short - it's the same old socialist theme - you are being cheated by the rich so we're going to forcibly take it from them and give it to you. Just give us the power!
4. Souza Dias claims, "Biodiversity underpins all those ecosystem functions and benefits essential to human well-being, not only in terms of our economies, but also for our health, food security, prevention of natural hazards, and our cultural roots”…..“biodiversity sustainably can provide solutions to a range of challenges to sustainability and human well-being, including poverty eradication, food security, sustainable production and consumption, water security, disaster risk reduction and climate change.” - First of all there’s no such thing as an eco-system other than the planet itself. These ‘eco-systems’ they talk about are never stable. Too much rain and plant and animal species are changed. Too little water and another change will take place. Forest fires destroy untold acreage and the plants and animals inhabiting the area changes. Furthermore, species become extinct as a result of being biologically incompetent, and will be replaced by plants or animals that can adapt to change. How many species have gone extinct? Over 95% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, and all the species living today will become extinct. Extinction is the rule, not the exception!
Let’s break down Dias’ thoughts individually.
- "Biodiversity underpins all those ecosystem functions and benefits essential to human well-being". That statement is a red herring. What is it he wants to implement? Controlled habitat that prevents use by humans so certain species will not be effected?
- "Not only in terms of our economies", How is this really an economic issue? Explain!
"But also for our health," How is this a health issue? Explain!
- "Food security" - How does committing to a UN biodiversity project provide food security? Explain!
- "Prevention of natural hazards" - How does biodiversity prevent natural hazards, and what exactly qualifies as a natural hazard, and if they’re natural, how could they be prevented? Do we really believe global warming causes hurricanes, tornadoes, etc? We know those claims have been proven false. Perhaps a commitment to biodiversity prevents earthquakes?
- Cultural roots” - And the least definable and least meaningful of them all….cultural roots. What does that mean? Never change what we do…forever? End cultural patterns disapproved by the UN? Perhaps it means destroying the US Constitution. Since the green movement is so hot on "going back to nature" perhaps it means abandoning all the advances that make modern life possible.
Dias claims “biodiversity sustainably can provide solutions to a range of challenges to sustainability and human well-being, including poverty eradication, food security, sustainable production and consumption, water security, disaster risk reduction and climate change.”
All these sound bites sound appealing, but this is nothing more that another emotional appeal by the left claiming they have the answers that will bring about utopia. The problem is all they ever deliver is dystopia. Following a UN sponsored biodiversity program will not end poverty, provide food security, disaster risk reduction (whatever that means) or climate change. Oh, it will provide “production and consumption” controls, but I don't think anyone except the ruling elite will like that outcome. Because misanthropic leftists will be telling the world what to produce and how much of it everyone will be allowed to consume.
They will also control how much water you may use and for what. If we have any delusions about what that will mean then just take a look at what's being done in California (which is facing a devastating drought) with the delta smelt, allowing thousands of gallons of fresh water to flow into the delta for the benefit of a bait fish, while destroying the farms that need it.
As for climate change? It’s the greatest fraud perpetrated by any human organization in all of human history. The mere fact the UN continues to use this as a reason to adopt any of their schemes is a clear demonstration of the deliberate fraudulence behind their sustainable development and biodiversity programs.
Let's not be fooled by clever sounding rhetoric. The answer is in the history. The history of the left is filled with tyranny, misery, squalor, suffering, disease and early death, and if the world accepts these deliberate misrepresentations and red herrings of "sustainable development" and "biological diversity" - that's what will follow, and their warnings are as valid as The Monkey Stampede!