Home   |         NEW: (hypothetically starring) VIC REEVES as LUKE SKYWALKER .. in "Waiting for Godot, the hollywood version".

<< WWF, for example, routinely violates human rights, the law and its own policies. It's already spent millions of dollars illegally pushing for a new park in Congo, Messok Dja. The money comes from WWF itself and its accomplices, including a logging, oil palm, and luxury tourist company, as well as the Wildlife Conservation Society, the U.S. government, the EU, and the UN. As with the creation of almost all African PAs, the first step has been to kick out and terrorize the local Baka (so-called Pygmies) who've probably lived there for thousands of years, and who have adapted and sustainably managed their biodiverse-rich environment. Now they are kept out of their ancestral lands and terrorized, beaten and arrested if they return to seek traditional foods or plant medicines. >>   Share:  
Thrust of argument: Shame on World Wildlife Fund. Direction of resistance / implied resistance: If you have been donating to them, it seems to me that you want to think carefully about repeating such behaviour and maintaining such support.

 

 

Enter your DOMAIN NAME to
collect this point:

 

Removal of resistance: Other key quotes from the article quoted in the title of this grid point:

<<

It turns out that the most diversity is not found in areas where all human interference is banned, but actually the reverse - it's found in places where tribal, indigenous, and other local, communities have stayed put and carried on doing what they've always been doing. It's simply not true that everyone shares responsibility for biodiversity loss.

>>



<<

If we really want to save our world, then we have to start with the rich cutting their massive overconsumption. The wealthiest ten percent cause about half the world's total pollution, so they must work hardest to cut it. Both military conflict and the growth of information technology must be seen as the major polluters they are. The first is barely mentioned in climate activism, and the plan for the second is the exact opposite of what's needed, with yet more energy-hungry "artificial intelligence" lined up to monitor our lives for the benefit of industry and state control. If we're going to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, we must also reduce dependence on "smart" tech, and we must accept the fact that real solutions aren't found in marketing gimmicks like "net zero," offsetting, carbon markets, or "pricing nature." Real solutions are found with the local peoples that have successfully been creating and managing the world's biodiversity since prehistory.

>>



<<

Let's be clear that cutting destructive pollution globally is vital for the climate, and that stopping industrial exploitation of unspoiled areas is essential for the flora and fauna, and the physical and mental health of inhabitants and visitors. None of that is disputed, but these are not the arguments advanced for asserting the right of this "New Deal for Nature" to more taxpayers' cash. It's a marketing gimmick designed to funnel even more money to those who have for decades demonstrated their failure to mitigate either climate change or biodiversity loss.

>>
Unification: Read the article via the link in the references below.
Rebut this point   Support this point   Edit this point

(TVhobo's estimated size of readership since 2013, mainly in the UK and USA, with Germany in third place:
over 200,000 readers across approximately 200 cities/towns

 

Copy/paste point into your work:

Type: Open statement

2 versions:

1. Server time: 1:16:17 on 25/2/2020
2. Server time: 1:17:25 on 25/2/2020

Related points:

References:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/02/24/new-deal-for-nature-paying-the-emperor-to-fence-the-wind/

 

 

previous point on the grid   |   next point on the grid

 

Click here to read about Shams Pirani, the editor and chief author on this grid - note, if you can actually prove anything written above wrong, I would gladly, if the proof is sufficient, correct what I've written and what I think - if I could, however, prove your attempted proof wrong, then I would accordingly say so and maintain whatever point of view is completely based on fact and proof.

Simple text version.

<< WWF, for example, routinely violates human rights, the law and its own policies. It's already spent millions of dollars illegally pushing for a new park in Congo, Messok Dja. The money comes from WWF itself and its accomplices, including a logging, oil palm, and luxury tourist company, as well as the Wildlife Conservation Society, the U.S. government, the EU, and the UN. As with the creation of almost all African PAs, the first step has been to kick out and terrorize the local Baka (so-called Pygmies) who've probably lived there for thousands of years, and who have adapted and sustainably managed their biodiverse-rich environment. Now they are kept out of their ancestral lands and terrorized, beaten and arrested if they return to seek traditional foods or plant medicines. >>

Shame on World Wildlife Fund.

If you have been donating to them, it seems to me that you want to think carefully about repeating such behaviour and maintaining such support.

Other key quotes from the article quoted in the title of this grid point:

<<

It turns out that the most diversity is not found in areas where all human interference is banned, but actually the reverse - it's found in places where tribal, indigenous, and other local, communities have stayed put and carried on doing what they've always been doing. It's simply not true that everyone shares responsibility for biodiversity loss.

>>



<<

If we really want to save our world, then we have to start with the rich cutting their massive overconsumption. The wealthiest ten percent cause about half the world's total pollution, so they must work hardest to cut it. Both military conflict and the growth of information technology must be seen as the major polluters they are. The first is barely mentioned in climate activism, and the plan for the second is the exact opposite of what's needed, with yet more energy-hungry "artificial intelligence" lined up to monitor our lives for the benefit of industry and state control. If we're going to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, we must also reduce dependence on "smart" tech, and we must accept the fact that real solutions aren't found in marketing gimmicks like "net zero," offsetting, carbon markets, or "pricing nature." Real solutions are found with the local peoples that have successfully been creating and managing the world's biodiversity since prehistory.

>>



<<

Let's be clear that cutting destructive pollution globally is vital for the climate, and that stopping industrial exploitation of unspoiled areas is essential for the flora and fauna, and the physical and mental health of inhabitants and visitors. None of that is disputed, but these are not the arguments advanced for asserting the right of this "New Deal for Nature" to more taxpayers' cash. It's a marketing gimmick designed to funnel even more money to those who have for decades demonstrated their failure to mitigate either climate change or biodiversity loss.

>>

Read the article via the link in the references below.



https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/02/24/new-deal-for-nature-paying-the-emperor-to-fence-the-wind/