This article poses the question; what is 'clean energy', how is this defined, and who decides what kind of energy is truly 'clean'? When a coal company says that they are promoting 'clean energy', or clean coal, is that greenwashing, or are they truly part of the clean energy solution? When an environmental group says they are calling for 'clean energy', what are they pointing at specifically?
Are the 'clean energy' coalitions promoting 'clean' coal, gas, oil, nuclear, and biofuels, or not? What are they promoting, if they are not promoting these industries? How is this 'clean energy' policy different from the 'all of the above policy' currently being pursued by a coalition of the biggest environmental groups and corporations plus their allied politicians?
Isn't the current policy of 'all of the above clean energies' just a greenwashing campaign to justify the continued use of all of these 'dirty' fuels? What is greenwashing anyway, and when does an environmental, corporate, political or other group start greenwashing and then as a consequence of this, they lose their credibility, plus their moral and ethical compass?
Are the 'clean energy' coalitions promoting 'clean' coal, gas, oil, nuclear, and biofuels, or not? What are they promoting, if they are not promoting these industries? How is this 'clean energy' policy different from the 'all of the above policy' currently being pursued by a coalition of the biggest environmental groups and corporations plus their allied politicians?
Isn't the current policy of 'all of the above clean energies' just a greenwashing campaign to justify the continued use of all of these 'dirty' fuels? What is greenwashing anyway, and when does an environmental, corporate, political or other group start greenwashing and then as a consequence of this, they lose their credibility, plus their moral and ethical compass?
Greenwashers blur the line between green and greed, truth and believability, environmentalism and marketing. Following a pair of Greenwashers, the film (above) illustrates the various strategies, sins, and consequences of greenwashing.
Pandora's Promise Movie Review And Synopsis, Part I; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/05/pandoras-promise-movie-review.html
PRO NUCLEAR APOLOGISTS ARE LABELING ANYONE WHO IS AGAINST NUCLEAR AS 'FUKUSHIMA TRUTHERS'
ManBearPig October 19, 2014 "Nuclear power is splitting the Green Movement. On the one side, there is Mark Lynas, Gwyneth Cravens. On the other side, there are Fukushima Truthers.
Is there a choice about how to view an issue, or should everyone just be loyal followers of organizations such as 350.org, and people like Mark Lynas and Gwyneth Cravens, who advocate for nuclear power, while claiming to be green at the same time? To explore this issue in depth, click on this link..
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/05/pandoras-promise-movie-review.html
GREENWASHING EVOLUTION: PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS AND HUGE CORPORATIONS
The next step (which is happening now) in the greenwashing evolution is the combining of huge greenwashing corporations with large environmental groups, in a so called 'partnership'. This article will explore how and why a lot of these partnerships may actually be greenwashing but you get to decide on that, based on the evidence provided in this article.
The partnership of environmental groups, corporations plus foundation and government money comes up with PR campaigns that sounds good on the surface, like 'clean energy' for example. What are the details of clean energy?
No one knows what 'clean energy' actually is, so 'clean energy' stays vague and murky. The phrase 'clean energy' is greenwashing all by itself, because no one even knows what it means, much less how to implement it. President Obama defined clean energy as 'all of the above', which means in effect, anything goes, including nuclear energy, coal, oil, gas, bio fuels and whatever else. As long as an energy source calls itself green and clean, that is good enough to be included in the 'all of the above' clean energy campaign, which is now being touted by politicians, environmental groups and pro dirty fuels apologists.
No one knows what 'clean energy' actually is, so 'clean energy' stays vague and murky. The phrase 'clean energy' is greenwashing all by itself, because no one even knows what it means, much less how to implement it. President Obama defined clean energy as 'all of the above', which means in effect, anything goes, including nuclear energy, coal, oil, gas, bio fuels and whatever else. As long as an energy source calls itself green and clean, that is good enough to be included in the 'all of the above' clean energy campaign, which is now being touted by politicians, environmental groups and pro dirty fuels apologists.
In part, greenwashing partnerships made up of environmental groups who work with corporations, support nuclear power and/or definitely say nothing negative about nuclear energy. In addition, no other greenwashing issues are addressed, such as the military industrial complex monopolistic power and money drain, which blocks meaningful change to a peaceful, abundant, zero carbon, zero nuclear future at every turn, by sucking up the money, attention, energy and resources needed to accomplish this goal.
In Stop Talkin' Bout a Green(washed) Revolution by Sandy LeonVest wrote an excellent article about the silence of groups around this issue specifically; "Groups like 350.org, on the other hand, are very big on “political realities.” They understand the importance of being considered “legitimate” by the mainstream media. Toward that dubious end, they often dismiss as “too radical” any discussion of the impact of war on everything humane. Never mind making the point that war is a global travesty, destroying everything in its path, from human settlements and native habitats to wildlife and the land, air and water."
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS BEING TARGETED BY PRO NUCLEAR FORCES
Many or most of the largest environmental groups are now being targeted by huge global pro nuclear, pro big business forces. Would you believe that these environmental groups are being 'taken over' or influenced and coopted from the INSIDE to the point where they are seen as a not being a threat to the 1% and huge global pro corporate interests that rape and pillage the Earth as they please?
Could it be that in many cases, environmental groups are now 'partnering' with pro nuclear groups and essentially helping them to greenwash nuclear, and/or clean 'coal' or 'clean gas', or whatever other pollution causing corporation is out there with the help of huge piles of money and sometimes very good infiltrators? It seems that the 'clean energy' revolution is made up of more of the same monopolistic, dirty, polluting players that caused the pollution and global warming problem in the first place. The only difference is that they have now partnered with environmental and labor groups to give them more legitimacy and cover.
As hard as it is to believe, absolute power, greed and money seems to rule even in the non profit and government world. If a non profit receives millions of dollars in 'donations', wouldn't you agree that some strings that will be attached to this money? When a large corporate donor asks to join the board of directors of a non profit organization and is then voted in, (such as a Koch Brother joining the board of PBS) do you really believe that this influence of money and direct board membership will have no effect on that organization or where it is going, or what it issues in the form of official, written policy statements? Even the supposedly 'public' media has been coopted and taken over by the pro nuclear apologists.
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/08/pbs-has-sold-out-to-pro-nuclear.html
Via clamshellernh September 6, 2014 on Naomi Klein: "Enough is enough if we want things to change we must change. Band-Aid solutions don’t work. “Only mass social movements can save us now. Because we know where the current system, left unchecked, is headed.” Much of the conversation surrounding climate change focuses on what Klein dismisses as “Band-Aid solutions”: profit-friendly fixes like whizz-bang technological innovations, cap-and-trade schemes and supposedly “clean” alternatives like natural gas. To Klein, such strategies are too little, too late. In her drawn-out critique of corporate involvement in climate change prevention, she demonstrates how profitable “solutions” put forward by many think-tanks (and their corporate backers) actually end up making the problem worse. For instance, Klein argues that carbon trading programs create perverse incentives, allowing manufacturers to produce more harmful greenhouse gases, just to be paid to reduce them. In the process, carbon trading schemes have helped corporations make billions—allowing them to directly profit off the degradation of the planet. Instead, Klein argues, we need to break free of market fundamentalism and implement long-term planning, strict regulation of business, more taxation, more government spending and reversals of privatization to return key infrastructure to public control.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/manipulation/HUGE PRO NUCLEAR CORPORATIONS DOMINATE EVERY ASPECT OF POLITICS, EDUCATION, MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT
"Corporations dominate every aspect of American life–directly and indirectly through government. From work to religion to education to relationships to media and entertainment, they compete to some extent with each other they all share a common adversary which is the people." Bottom line, it is the 1% against the 99%, but they use their control of the media, non profits, government, religions and PR campaigns to 'spin' the truth and get people to believe that all corporations are sacred cows, including the nuclear industry.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/manipulation/
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/manipulation/
PRO NUCLEAR CORPORATIONS INFLUENCE EXTENDS INTO COMMUNITY BASED MEDIA AND ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENTS
The 1% tentacles of power and influence extend even into non profit organizations such as NPR, PBS, Sierra Club, 350.org, Greenpeace, Apollo Alliance, MS Magazine and many more. Sometimes these corporations even use government agencies such as the CIA or FBI to infiltrate, spy on and influence environmental, peace or community activism groups from the inside. The mass media is almost completely controlled by the pro global corporate insiders. For more details on these groups keep reading, and to learn about the media being taken over by the 1%, click on the following link...
The Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons, Faux Media and Fraudulent Science; via A @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/primer-in-art-of-deception-cult-of.html
The pro nuclear crowd has a goal of getting the environmental groups to partnership with them and then to spread the lie that nuclear power is green, 'clean' and safe. Let's start by dismantling this lie, before we get into exposing how many environmental and other organizations are actually promoting nuclear power, which is much worse than carbon fuel in so many ways.
No environmental group should be promoting nuclear power for ANY reason, but many do. Other environmental groups skirt the nuclear issue and support it by not saying anything one way or the other. By not speaking out against nuclear, they are actually supporting a nuclear future, via an 'all of the above' policy. Silence about an issue is agreement with it, much like people in Germany not speaking out about the death camps or about what was happening inside of them.
Speaking out very clearly can and does make a huge difference. Speaking truth to power is the essence of democracy, freedom, human rights, sustainability and bottoms up power. Look at what happened with the Apartheid regime in Africa. That racist and corrupt regime was dismantled by a global campaign of speaking truth to power, boycotting their products, and divesting all investments from that corporate machine which was supporting it and profiting from it.
NUCLEAR POWER PROTESTORS IGNORED BY ORGANIZERS OF CLIMATE ACTION DAY PARADE
http://youtu.be/KDBDjx7LpK0
9/21/2014 The environmental movement 'leaders' are trying to shut down, deny or ignore the voices of nuclear activists. There is no better evidence of this than Kevin Blanch being shunted out of the parade and to the back of the crowd, after being told that Fukushima is not worth mentioning in this 300,000 person strong protest for the environment, organized by 350.org and other large groups, such as Avaaz.
His quote; "the event was giant, epic amazing, I got kicked or of the parade, I kissed Amy Goodman on the mouth, I was interviewed by 15 different new outlets, INCLUDING a kids network a 12 year old and a 8 year old. A N.Y.C. cop gave me a blessing, and I got into to it and put the fear of god in some climate wantabe hall monitors. WOW THE BEST ACTIVISM DAY IN MY 40 PLUS YEAR CAR. WOW WOW WOW IT WAL AMZAING INCREDABLE EPIC, GIANT, 801-452-1908"
9/20/2014 - John Lennon was shot and killed at this hallowed spot. As Kevin says, the music died that day. John sang the song 'Imagine' (listen to it below). It provides a vision of the future; one free of chemicals, nuclear and carbon fuel, as well as money, Heaven, Hell, religions, borders, possessions, greed, hunger, artificial divisions and wars.
There is no way to get to his vision without getting rid of carbon fuels, nuclear energy and chemicals. But almost no one knows these things or they don't care enough to do anything to move in that direction. According to Kevin and his guest, the younger generation is totally out of touch with reality, due to video games, self absorption, mass media TV and technology.
http://youtu.be/jAvk-Ma8UKY?t=4m42s
9/20/2014 - John Lennon was shot and killed at this hallowed spot. As Kevin says, the music died that day. John sang the song 'Imagine' (listen to it below). It provides a vision of the future; one free of chemicals, nuclear and carbon fuel, as well as money, Heaven, Hell, religions, borders, possessions, greed, hunger, artificial divisions and wars.
There is no way to get to his vision without getting rid of carbon fuels, nuclear energy and chemicals. But almost no one knows these things or they don't care enough to do anything to move in that direction. According to Kevin and his guest, the younger generation is totally out of touch with reality, due to video games, self absorption, mass media TV and technology.
http://youtu.be/jAvk-Ma8UKY?t=4m42s
If Fukushima and nuclear energy is not worth protesting, what is? Nuclear energy and Fukushima is a HUGE GLOWING ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.
Fear And The Nuclear Elephant In The Room
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/10/fear-and-nuclear-industry-elephant-in.html
Fear And The Nuclear Elephant In The Room
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/10/fear-and-nuclear-industry-elephant-in.html
Everyone is working very hard to ignore it and deny that the elephant exists; the huge corporate monopoly, the huge environmental groups, the mass media, and the political system as well. They married, and are now in bed together. How did very sad situation this happen? To understand how and why this happened to Kevin and other carbon free, nuclear free activists, you have to understand the history of the environmental movement, who leads it and their relationships, partnerships and money ties to huge corporations with HUGE amounts of money and profits at stake.
NUCLEAR POWER IS NOT CLEAN, SAFE OR HEALTHY
To become more informed about why all environmental, peace, human rights, and justice groups should be making bold and clear statements that they are AGAINST nuclear power, click on the following link. Why aren't the environmental groups educating their members about the dangers of nuclear power, the Carrington Event, and nuclear weapons risks? Any one of these things can wipe out all life on the planet in 24 hours, but all that is coming from most large environmental groups around this subject is the sound of crickets chirping. No one even knows what Fukushima is, no oe knows what will happen if the Carrington Event happens today, no one is aware that the US is on hair triggers via a first strike nuclear weapons policy. Yet, they still call themselves environmentalists, despite being ignorant and/or in denial about these things.
Nuclear Power Is Too EXPENSIVE, Dirty, Dangerous And Toxic, Even More So AFTER Decommissioning; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/10/nuclear-power-expensive-dirty-dangerous.html
At what point does an organization or government agency that receives donations or advertising revenue become so compromised by the influence, money and strings attached, that it can no longer serve it's function or mission, much less have a vision?
There is one critical question to ask of all organizations.
What is the VISION of the group?
Where is it going to end up?
Where are all of the donations, volunteer time, energy and support going in the future in this group, specifically?
Is the environmental group you are supporting little more than a revolving door for people that come directly from huge global polluting organizations, including the nuclear industry, or are they tackling the difficult issues and taking on the huge behemoths that are destroying the world and extinguishing thousands of species?
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOUR GROUP LEADERS
There is one critical question to ask of all organizations.
What is the VISION of the group?
Where is it going to end up?
Where are all of the donations, volunteer time, energy and support going in the future in this group, specifically?
Is the environmental group you are supporting little more than a revolving door for people that come directly from huge global polluting organizations, including the nuclear industry, or are they tackling the difficult issues and taking on the huge behemoths that are destroying the world and extinguishing thousands of species?
Have you looked at what the organization you support actually does with huge amounts of money and a membership roster that may total millions of people?
What is it accomplishing?
What are the specific policy statements of the organization?
What actions is it taking in relation to that policy statement, such as nuclear energy for example?
Does it support a carbon free, nuclear free, chemical free future? If not, why not?
Is your favorite non profit either silent about nuclear or actively promoting nuclear power, which includes such things as thorium for example?
Whether your favorite group is silent (and thereby agreeing with pro nuclear forces) or it is in active support of nuclear, this stand converts directly into the creation of uranium/thorium mines, processing facilities, coal fired plants to support nuclear fuel production, and emissions from nuclear plants. At the end, the nuclear industry creates nuclear radioactive waste that must be guarded for one millions years. All nuclear plants end up creating man made radioactive elements that are used for the production of nuclear weapons.
What is it accomplishing?
What are the specific policy statements of the organization?
What actions is it taking in relation to that policy statement, such as nuclear energy for example?
Does it support a carbon free, nuclear free, chemical free future? If not, why not?
Is your favorite non profit either silent about nuclear or actively promoting nuclear power, which includes such things as thorium for example?
NO POLICY STATEMENT AND NO ACTIONS, MEANS AGREEMENT WITH POLLUTING MONOPOLIES
If there is no policy statement, and there is no action, then that organization is supporting the industry, bottom line. (clean coal, clean gas, clean nuclear, clean oil, GMO, toxic chemicals, etc.) Just having a policy statement does very little. Anyone can say something, but then do nothing.Whether your favorite group is silent (and thereby agreeing with pro nuclear forces) or it is in active support of nuclear, this stand converts directly into the creation of uranium/thorium mines, processing facilities, coal fired plants to support nuclear fuel production, and emissions from nuclear plants. At the end, the nuclear industry creates nuclear radioactive waste that must be guarded for one millions years. All nuclear plants end up creating man made radioactive elements that are used for the production of nuclear weapons.
The lack of a public, clear, unambiguous statement about nuclear power by all environmental or other non profit, public media or other groups may very well mean that behind closed doors, they are actually supporting the nuclear industry. They just won't say it, because that would lose them their donor and financial support base.
A ZERO CARBON, ZERO NUCLEAR FUTURE MEANS EDUCATING PEOPLE ABOUT DANGERS THAT THESE MONOPOLIES POSE
Without a clear statement plus education, AND ACTIONS taken against the nuclear power industry, the group's name, influence, membership roster and political support are positively oriented towards the nuclear industry. How will people know about the hazards of the nuclear industry, if there is no education of members around this? How will people know about the dangers of the carbon fuel industry, if no information about that is going out to members? Are you seeing anything educational about the dangers of nuclear and carbon fuel coming into your email or mailbox from your favorite environmental, human rights or other group? If not, why not?
This issue is too important for you to not know where your organization stands on the issue.. Find out where your group's statement or policy decision is around nuclear power and other 'clean energy' issues. Ask the top echelon in YOUR favorite environmental group, where it stands on this issue, if you can. Are they for a zero carbon, nuclear free future, or not. Where is their policy statement that states this in writing?
This issue is too important for you to not know where your organization stands on the issue.. Find out where your group's statement or policy decision is around nuclear power and other 'clean energy' issues. Ask the top echelon in YOUR favorite environmental group, where it stands on this issue, if you can. Are they for a zero carbon, nuclear free future, or not. Where is their policy statement that states this in writing?
If a large organization refuses to support a zero carbon future, and if they refuse to state that they are against nuclear, it may actually be nothing more than a front group. Let's first define what a front group is, because there are a LOT of them out there.
FRONT GROUPS DIVERT ENERGY, MONEY AND ATTENTION FROM THE REAL ISSUES, SPREAD DISINFORMATION
A front group takes a lot of money and diverts attention from the real issue, or deflects a lot of energy away from the issue in a variety of ways. Front groups are masters of 'disinformation'.
Wikipedia; "Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.
Unlike traditional propaganda techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole (a limited hangout)."
FRONT GROUP DEFINITION AND EXAMPLES
According to Sourcewatch; "A front group is an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned. The front group is perhaps the most easily recognized use of the third party technique. For example, Rick Berman's Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) claims that its mission is to defend the rights of consumers to choose to eat, drink and smoke as they please. In reality, CCF is a front group for the tobacco, restaurant and alcoholic beverage industries, which provide all or most of its funding.
An environmental group may be a front group for the nuclear industry, by fighting for children, women, animals, wilderness, or oceans, but never taking a stand on nuclear energy, or directly tackling this issue, which does affect women, children, animals, oceans and wilderness, just to name a few. The lack of attention to the nuclear issue may actually make the group a 'front group' for the nuclear industry. They absorb a lot of time and energy of volunteers, donations, and political support which would otherwise go to fighting the nuclear industry and shutting down the industry.
An environmental group may be a front group for the nuclear industry, by fighting for children, women, animals, wilderness, or oceans, but never taking a stand on nuclear energy, or directly tackling this issue, which does affect women, children, animals, oceans and wilderness, just to name a few. The lack of attention to the nuclear issue may actually make the group a 'front group' for the nuclear industry. They absorb a lot of time and energy of volunteers, donations, and political support which would otherwise go to fighting the nuclear industry and shutting down the industry.
GLOBAL CLIMATE COALITION
Of course, not all organizations engaged in manipulative efforts to shape public opinion can be classified as "front groups." For example, the now-defunct Tobacco Institute was highly deceptive, but it didn't hide the fact that it represented the tobacco industry. There are also degrees of concealment.
The Global Climate Coalition, for example, didn't hide the fact that its funding came from oil and coal companies, but nevertheless its name alone is sufficiently misleading that it can reasonably be considered a 'front group'.
The Global Climate Coalition, for example, didn't hide the fact that its funding came from oil and coal companies, but nevertheless its name alone is sufficiently misleading that it can reasonably be considered a 'front group'.
The shadowy way front groups operate makes it difficult to know whether a seemingly independent grassroots is actually representing some other entity. Thus, citizen smokers' rights groups and organizations of bartenders or restaurant workers working against smoking bans are sometimes characterized as front groups for the tobacco industry, but it is possible that some of these groups are self-initiated (although the tobacco industry has been known to use restaurant groups as fronts for its own interests)."
While you are reading through the greenwashing positions being taken by the following environmental and other organizations, think about if they are acting more like fake front groups and helping greenwash for certain industries, like the nuclear industry or a carbon industry, or are they acting as true representatives of seven future generations and the public commons, as stewards, while doing no harm?
Corporations often use board positions, leaders, funding, alliances, partnerships and/or 'donations' or grants to control both politicians, community groups, community based media outlets, corporate owned media, and/or non profit interest groups. The motive for corporations doing any of the above is to derail the group's actions that may threaten the corporation with negative publicity, lawsuits, bad publicity and/or loss of value of the corporate brand.
Some funding and/or management of environmental groups comes from corporations that almost universally support things like GMO's, nuclear power, carbon fuel, etc;
Goldman Sachs
DuPont
WalMart
JP Morgan
Monsanto
BP
Shell
Chevron
Coca-Cola
Bank of America
GAP
Intel
Northrop Grumman
Lockheed
GE
Koch Brothers owned corporations
Pandora's Promise Movie Review And Synopsis, Part I; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/05/pandoras-promise-movie-review.html
PBS; Radioactive Wolves In Chernobyl Exclusion Zone Movie Synopsis and Review
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/04/chernobyl-pbs-radioactive-wolves-in.html
Nuclear Disaster Related Movies/TV Shows Can Be Industry Propaganda Or Truth - How To Tell The Difference; via @AGreenRoadGE
Koch Brothers owned corporations
When a non profit works with a huge corporation like one of those above, and that non profit issues vague greenwashing kinds of statements together with the corporation, does that mean something positive is happening? Or does it mean that the non profit has lost it's credibility to accomplish real and meaningful changes with the force of law and with outside neutral certification, with teeth?
If a corporation makes very vague green statements and reports that it is working with an environmental organization, does that make the greenwashing claims from that corporation any better or more believable? Let's dive into the murky world of greenwashing, non profit organizations and explore how they are interconnected.
WHOLE EARTH CATALOG
Stewart Brand is the founder and publisher of the “Whole Earth Catalog,” and is featured prominently in the movie Pandora's Promise, as an ardent pro nuclearist. At the same time, he pretends to be for the environment. Those two things don't mix, so an average person with common sense may come to the conclusion that this organization can legitimately be called a 'front group', assuming it does not change it's pro nuclear stance, correct?
THE BREAKTHROUGH INSTITUTE
Michael Schellenberger is president and co founder with Ted Norhaus at the Breakthrough Institute, and is featured in the movie 'Pandora's Promise'. The group works closely with the Brookings Institute, and World Resources Institute, and formed the Apollo Alliance, with directors; Leo W. Gerard, International President, United Steelworkers, Co-Chair, Michael Brune, Executive Director, Sierra Club, Co-Chair.
Pandora's Promise is a pro nuclear PR movie, presenting nuclear energy as the solution for climate change, when in fact, it is the exact opposite. (see link and debunk article below)
BLUE GREEN ALLIANCE
"Kim Glas is the Executive Director of the BlueGreen Alliance, a national partnership of labor unions and environmental organizations dedicated to expanding the number and quality of jobs while growing a clean energy economy."
But what is a 'clean energy' economy? How is that defined? This 'clean energy' statement above is the same one used by 350.org. The nuclear industry claims it is all about 'clean energy', but that term is actually nothing more than greenwashing.
The movie Pandora's Promise talks about 'clean energy' in the same breath with nuclear power. Bottom line, the Blue Green Alliance is promoting nuclear power, by not coming out with a specific policy statement that defines what the meaning is of 'clean power' specifically.
Why isn't this alliance coming out with an anti nuclear statement, such as the one at this link, by Friends Of The Earth?
http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/nuclear_power_friends_of_t.pdf
This one example of how greenwashing works, shows how huge monopolistic industries take over political, environmental and labor groups, such as those itemized and listed in this article specifically...
The movie Pandora's Promise talks about 'clean energy' in the same breath with nuclear power. Bottom line, the Blue Green Alliance is promoting nuclear power, by not coming out with a specific policy statement that defines what the meaning is of 'clean power' specifically.
Why isn't this alliance coming out with an anti nuclear statement, such as the one at this link, by Friends Of The Earth?
http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/nuclear_power_friends_of_t.pdf
This one example of how greenwashing works, shows how huge monopolistic industries take over political, environmental and labor groups, such as those itemized and listed in this article specifically...
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Phil Angelides, President, Riverview Capital Investment, Robert Borosage, Director, Campaign for America's Future, Larry Cohen, President, Communications Workers of America, Lawrence J. Hanley, International President, Amalgamated Transit Union, William Hite, General President, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry, Gerald Hudson, International Executive Vice President, Service Employees International Union, Lorretta Johnson, Secretary-Treasurer, American Federation of Teachers, Bob King, President, United Auto Workers, D. Michael Langford, National President, Utility Workers Union of America, Peter Lehner, Executive Director, Natural Resources Defense Council, Mindy S. Lubber, JD, MBA, President, CERES, Joseph Nigro, General President, International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, Larry Schweiger, President and CEO, National Wildlife Federation, Kathleen Rest, Executive Director, Union of Concerned Scientists."
http://www.bluegreenalliance.org/about/board-of-directorsPANDORA'S PROMISE IS A GREENWASHING MOVIE THAT PROMOTES NUCLEAR POWER
Pandora's Promise is a movie that greenwashes (and promotes) nuclear power. The Breakthrough Institute, GreenBlue Alliance, CERES, 350.org, and the Apollo Alliance are pretty much one and the same thing. Wouldn't you agree that the groups that are a part of this grand alliance and pro nuclear partnership support the goal of 'clean power', which is greenwashing, pure and simple? Wouldn't you agree that this means that these groups are now coopted, if not completely taken over by the 'clean' nuclear industry?
Wouldn't you agree that these individuals, associations, non profits and groups are now supporting the promotion of nuclear power, just by association, if not outright giving the nuclear industry their vote? To find out how much of a pro nuclear PR piece this movie and others like it really are, dive into them via the following links...
Wouldn't you agree that these individuals, associations, non profits and groups are now supporting the promotion of nuclear power, just by association, if not outright giving the nuclear industry their vote? To find out how much of a pro nuclear PR piece this movie and others like it really are, dive into them via the following links...
Pandora's Promise Movie Review And Synopsis, Part I; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/05/pandoras-promise-movie-review.html
PBS; Radioactive Wolves In Chernobyl Exclusion Zone Movie Synopsis and Review
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/04/chernobyl-pbs-radioactive-wolves-in.html
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/06/nuclear-disaster-related-movies-can-be.html
How many of the environmental or other groups above are making statements about the pro nuclear PR movies that are coming out, such as the movie above, and others like it? Is the group, organization, association, or company you belong to saying anything SPECIFIC about nuclear energy or carbon fuels and the future? If your favorite group isn't saying anything specific, their silence means agreement and support of such things as clean coal, clean gas, and clean nuclear, by definition.
Supporting a nuclear future means supporting the Carrington Event, with the resulting melting down and out of 400+ nuclear plants, plus 400 spent fuel pools globally, which will result in the extinction of most life on the planet. (see story link below)
Supporting a nuclear future means supporting the Carrington Event, with the resulting melting down and out of 400+ nuclear plants, plus 400 spent fuel pools globally, which will result in the extinction of most life on the planet. (see story link below)
WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF GENOCIDE?
Wouldn't you agree that supporting genocide by not saying anything critical about it, is pretty close to actually committing genocide? Isn't being silent about genocide about the same thing as being an accomplice to a murder; which is defined as knowing who killed someone, but staying silent about it?
Wikipedia; "(2) Where two or more persons form an intention in common to carry out an unlawful purpose and to assist each other therein and any one of them, in carrying out the common purpose, commits an offence, each of them who knew or ought to have known that the commission of the offence would be a probable consequence of carrying out the common purpose is a party to that offence.
S.21(1)(b) A defendant is a party to an offence where they do or omit to do anything for the purpose of aiding another person (the principal) to commit an offence. Refers to physical acts or omissions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accomplice
ARE THESE GENOCIDAL ACTS?
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/04/40-60-million-deaths-due-to-global-open.html
IPPNW - Global Health Effects And Number Of Deaths Caused By Chernobyl Nuclear Planet Meltdown - 69 Million Victims; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/07/ippnw-health-effects-of-chernobyl-25.html
Nuclear Power Plant Studies Show Child Leukemia, Breast, Thyroid Cancer Rates Increase RADICALLY Closer To Plants; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/10/child-leukemia-breast-thyroid-cancer.html
14,000 US Infant Mortality/Deaths From Fukushima Nuclear Disaster - Peer Reviewed Study; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/09/number-of-global-infant-mortality.html
Chernobyl Coverup And Denial Of 1.5 Million DEATHS - Russian Academy Of Sciences; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/chernobyl-coverup-and-denial-of-1.html
2014 - Tokyo, Japan Should Be Evacuated Says Dr. Mita MD, Most Of Japan Radiation Contaminated After The Fukushima Mega Nuclear Disaster; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/tokyo-is-it-safe-to-visit-or-live-in.html
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/tokyo-is-it-safe-to-visit-or-live-in.html
Silence on issues such as the ones above is giving permission for this very sad and deadly situation to continue. By giving permission or not saying anything against it, it will only get much, much worse in the future. Why is killing one person murder, but causing the deaths of tens of millions of innocent people is labeled a meaningless statistic and no crime is involved at all?
One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic." - Joseph Stalin
THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY IS CREATING HUGE SACRIFICE ZONES, WITH NO CONSEQUENCES FOR ANYONE RESPONSIBLE
Sacrifice Zones, Nuclear Power and the Sacrificial Victims System Is Spreading Globally As Part Of Predatory Capitalism
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/09/sacrifice-zones-nuclear-power-and.html
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/09/sacrifice-zones-nuclear-power-and.html
Why is the nuclear industry allowed to sacrifice tens of thousands of square kilometer areas that become permanent toxic wastelands over and over again, via nuclear accidents? Why is the nuclear industry allowed to sacrifice the lives of millions of people over and over again, and still continue to stay in business? Who is behind what could be called a silent, deadly, and invisible genocide? Who is supporting what could very well be called a genocide by staying silent, when they could or should be speaking out against it?
The invisible pollution and destruction of all life, genomes and the environment should be priority number ONE with environmental groups, but they are strangely silent and say nothing. By keeping people ignorant of the dangers, and by not taking on the risks and threats, the following environmental and other groups could be seen to be supporting the genocide of the planet via the nuclear industry.
The invisible pollution and destruction of all life, genomes and the environment should be priority number ONE with environmental groups, but they are strangely silent and say nothing. By keeping people ignorant of the dangers, and by not taking on the risks and threats, the following environmental and other groups could be seen to be supporting the genocide of the planet via the nuclear industry.
CERES AND 350.ORG
What is 350.org? It is an umbrella group that represents it has linkages, affiliations and working relationships with over 200 environmental groups. What does it stand for? It makes very clear that it is anti fossil fuel, but does not say anything about what it does stand FOR, anywhere on the website. AGRP found some links buried really deep, which showed the agenda of 350.org is actually pro nuclear both passively and actively, as detailed below.
EVIDENCE THAT 350.ORG IS PRO NUCLEAR
It is scary to think that leaders of some environmental groups such as Apollo Alliance and 350.org are so ardently pro nuclear, because they also 'control' so many large environmental groups. via usagi; "Bill Mckibben is the founder of 350.org and he is a pro nuclear advocate. He loves nuclear power." Where is the proof?
In an article at the 350.org website, at the following link, http://gofossilfree.org/ipcc-divest-from-fossil-fuels-for-a-safe-climate/ IPCC: DIVEST FROM FOSSIL FUELS FOR A SAFE CLIMATE
350.org advocates eliminating fossil fuels, but 350 does not say what fossil fuels should be replaced with anywhere on the 350 website, other than supporting the goals of the IPCC. The link on this article then goes to an article on the Guardian, article quoted below....
"Nuclear power is cited among the low-carbon energy sources needed, but the draft report warns it "has been declining since 1993" and faces concerns about "safety, nuclear weapon proliferation risks, waste management security as well as financial and regulatory risks"."
Via Bernardo Issel in Solar Times; "This was my response to the McKibben quote, "I find Bill McKibben's statement duplicitous -- coming from him that is. For years he's been cheer leading for taking action on global warming, but taking no responsibility for how that would manifest at the policy level -- leaving it wide open for groups like EDF and NRDC to collaborate with nuclear interests on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) which would have promoted nuclear power. (This New Yorker article discusses the efforts to benefit nuclear in climate legislation during Obama's early years.
Just last year in speaking with a 350 staffer, he acknowledged they didn't have a person focused on policy matters. There is also criticism of McKibben for doing the same in regards to the Copenhagen climate meeting. And what the fuck. -- a shout out to Wall Street? And that statements ignores how Obama and our other politicians have been corrupted to underwrite nuclear as I understand has been occurring through the years of the Obama administration. Here's an article discussing a latest chapter of such -http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059998194
I support NIRS or others engaging with McKibben to bring up nuclear, but let's ponder that for the last many years he's made only approval of Keystone XL the main issue to pressure Obama upon and by which Obama could "redeem himself on climate" while Obama has supported nuclear.
Also, I'm guessing that there are enough nuclear power projects being developed around the world that McKibben's comment that," I don't foresee, especially post-Fukushima, a kind of political system in most of the world that would let it happen" is utterly shallow, ignoring active struggles taking place right now in regards to nuclear power and mining for uranium and whatnot. Besides in his own political system of the United States, it is happening -- and in my view as I lay forth above, with his complicity."
350.ORG, BLUE GREEN ALLIANCE, AND APOLLO ALLIANCE ARE FOR CLEAN ENERGY, BUT DO NOT DEFINE WHAT THAT IS
The thing to notice is that both the Apollo Alliance and 350.org have very slick PR campaigns talking about 'clean energy', but they give no specifics about what this 'clean energy' consists of. Once you are a member of these groups and/or donate your hard earned money, time, attention and support to them, you are directly giving this very vague and greenwashing statement of their your support as well.
Greenwashing groups use your voice to promote 'clean' nuclear power, (or at least they do not fight the nuclear industry, which is the same as supporting them). They 'allow' the nuclear industry to get money from Congress to build more 'clean' nuclear power plants at a rate that is at least 10 to 1 in favor of nuclear as compared to renewable energies. Is 'clean nuclear' what your group supports? Where is their policy statement around nuclear energy, just to make it clear? If there is no policy statement, why isn't there one? Maybe there is no policy statement, because they are a greenwashing front group for the very industries that are the problem. What do you think?
Greenwashing groups use your voice to promote 'clean' nuclear power, (or at least they do not fight the nuclear industry, which is the same as supporting them). They 'allow' the nuclear industry to get money from Congress to build more 'clean' nuclear power plants at a rate that is at least 10 to 1 in favor of nuclear as compared to renewable energies. Is 'clean nuclear' what your group supports? Where is their policy statement around nuclear energy, just to make it clear? If there is no policy statement, why isn't there one? Maybe there is no policy statement, because they are a greenwashing front group for the very industries that are the problem. What do you think?
What could be the true hidden motive, if indeed these are 'front groups'? Let's dive in deeper shall we?
CERES PULLS THE STRINGS BEHIND THE CURTAIN OF 350.ORG
In an investigative report that is well worth diving into in depth, WrongKindOfGreen says; "The present can only be fully understood if one understands the past. Therefore, in order to understand the present day 350.org divestment campaign, we must look at the inception/creation of 350.org’s partner: The Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (Ceres).
Who is Ceres? Ceres is the 21st century puppeteers of Wall Street who, most recently, are pulling the strings behind the 350.org divestment campaign. Ceres represents the very heart of the nexus: millionaire liberals, their foundations, the “activists” they manage, and most importantly, where the plutocrats invest their personal wealth and that of their foundations. ["As a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization, Ceres relies on support from foundations, individuals and other funders to achieve our mission to integrate sustainability into day-to-day business practices for the health of the planet and its people." (Source: Ceres 2010 Annual Report)
On the Ceres Board of Directors we find key NGO affiliations: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Sierra Club, World Resources Institute, Ecological Solutions Inc. and Green America, to name a few. (The history of the Ceres board of directors is discussed at length, further in this report.) The Ceres Network Companies (the first pillar) make up the crème de le crème (approx. 70 corporations) of the corporate world. Examples include Citi, Bloomberg, Coca-Cola, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Suncor and Virgin.
The Ceres Coalition (the second pillar) is comprised of more than 130 institutional investors, environmental and “social advocacy” groups, and public interest organizations. Examples of coalition members are Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, Rockefeller Financial Asset Management, NRDC, World Wildlife Fund, Rainforest Action Network, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) (a founder of Avaaz) and The Carbon Neutral Company"
Bottom line, wouldn't you agree that this report says is that the big environmental players are now part of the corporate structure and have been absorbed by the pro nuclear Matrix? What is happening is that the agreements between environmental organizations and corporations that they are forging such as with Exxon after the Valdex oil spill, is that these 'partnerships' become largely symbolic, meaningless greenwashing, devoid of any meaningful positive changes towards a sustainable, zero carbon, zero nuclear future.
Anything other than a zero carbon, zero nuclear future is greenwashing, pure and simple, as Naomi Klein pointed out above.
Anything other than a zero carbon, zero nuclear future is greenwashing, pure and simple, as Naomi Klein pointed out above.
A GRAND PARTNERSHIP, BUT NO MEANINGFUL ACTION, NO SPECIFIC ZERO CARBON GOALS
The environmental groups involved in this grand coalition and partnership can and do claim credit, and do more corporate money fund raising. The huge corporations who are involved in these partnerships can claim that they are doing something positive, because they are 'partnering' with all of these environmental groups. Fundamentally though, very little to nothing has been changed other than a corporation putting lipstick on a pig.
At the same time, these huge environmental groups are getting very dirty and radioactive. Carbon use is still increasing bottom line, and new nuclear power plants are now being built in the US for the first time in decades. Globally, tens of thousands of nuclear weapons are not being dismantled. Do you see any other result from this 'partnership', other than a greenwashing statement about a 'clean' energy future?
At the same time, these huge environmental groups are getting very dirty and radioactive. Carbon use is still increasing bottom line, and new nuclear power plants are now being built in the US for the first time in decades. Globally, tens of thousands of nuclear weapons are not being dismantled. Do you see any other result from this 'partnership', other than a greenwashing statement about a 'clean' energy future?
Bottom line, isn't greenwashing becoming the norm for both corporations and large environmental organizations? Nothing has really changed. No big shifts are being created to move humanity towards a zero carbon, zero nuclear future. Huge organizations need to LEAD the paradigm shift that is needed to move humanity as fast as possible to a zero carbon future (not a carbon neutral future), if humanity is going to make it. If they don't lead, they are the problem, and zero carbon emissions laws are needed to FORCE them to act.
No huge paradigm leaps are being made by this partnership, because there are no laws making anyone do anything in terms of zero carbon emissions. Pretty much, the businesses involved can promote their business as usual, with 'voluntary actions'. The goal of these huge polluting corporations is not NOT have any laws around zero carbon or zero nuclear, and that is what they are getting inside this partnership. There is lots of talk, lots of disinformation, lots of partnering, plus lots of corporate money pouring into the large environmental groups, and that is about all.
No huge paradigm leaps are being made by this partnership, because there are no laws making anyone do anything in terms of zero carbon emissions. Pretty much, the businesses involved can promote their business as usual, with 'voluntary actions'. The goal of these huge polluting corporations is not NOT have any laws around zero carbon or zero nuclear, and that is what they are getting inside this partnership. There is lots of talk, lots of disinformation, lots of partnering, plus lots of corporate money pouring into the large environmental groups, and that is about all.
Meanwhile, despite all of these partnerships, global negative tipping points are accelerating and getting worse, along with little or no publicity about this by these environmental groups, especially not on the nuclear front.
2014 List of 45+ Global Tipping Points, Many Of Them Have Been Reached Or Exceeded, Almost All Are Getting Worse; via @AGreenRoad
The ultimate goal of the 350.org organization specifically seems to be to convince all of it's members to push for or not to block/fight the building globally of hundreds or even thousands of nuclear power plants and to switch off carbon fuel plants along the way. Corporations can do whatever they want to do on the environmental front, as long as they agree to vague statements and meaningless assurances of 'behaving' correctly via a voluntary process only, via carbon 'credits', having carbon 'neutral' policies in place, and massaging carbon footprints via statistics/credits, all of which is policed or checked by no one other than themselves. Everything is voluntary, and they really don't have to do anything, other than spend a few bucks on carbon 'credits'.
Definitely, the organizations involved in these huge partnerships are all in agreement that no laws should be passed such as mandating a zero carbon, zero nuclear future. This 'clean energy' non solution essentially dooms humanity to accelerating negative global tipping points, as specifically itemized in the article above.
Definitely, the organizations involved in these huge partnerships are all in agreement that no laws should be passed such as mandating a zero carbon, zero nuclear future. This 'clean energy' non solution essentially dooms humanity to accelerating negative global tipping points, as specifically itemized in the article above.
Of course the PR companies make huge money putting up fancy websites crowing about how 'green' these huge corporations are now that they are partnering with environmental groups. But what are they really DOING to make the huge changes necessary? Where is the evidence of actions taken, year to year, of the massive changes that are needed to drive civilization towards the zero carbon and zero nuclear goals that are needed?
Making vague statements about buying energy credits, or having a goal of being carbon 'neutral' is the same as saying that no changes are required. Let's just burn more and more carbon, build more nuclear plants, and set a goal of being carbon 'neutral' with an 'all of the above' policy, while money changes hands on the way down, as the ship called Earth sinks into oblivion. These all of the above policies are the same as playing musical chairs while the Titanic sinks. No amount of chair moving is going to change what happens to the ship, or the passengers.
Being carbon neutral due to buying carbon 'credits' is much different from doing something like switching to a TRUE zero carbon emissions footprint, (no carbon credits purchased), zero waste, zero chemical emissions, along with having cradle to cradle initiatives and documentation in place to document this. Reaching for and achieving a goal of a zero carbon and zero nuclear footprint involves real, meaningful changes, not greenwashing.
Being carbon neutral due to buying carbon 'credits' is much different from doing something like switching to a TRUE zero carbon emissions footprint, (no carbon credits purchased), zero waste, zero chemical emissions, along with having cradle to cradle initiatives and documentation in place to document this. Reaching for and achieving a goal of a zero carbon and zero nuclear footprint involves real, meaningful changes, not greenwashing.
MORE NUCLEAR MEANS GLOBAL WARMING ON STEROIDS
The nuclear industry is trying to claim it is 'green' or 'clean', when in truth, it is the dirtiest and most expensive fuel going..
Nuclear Energy As A Direct Cause Of Global Warming, Acid Rain, And Acid Oceans; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/12/nuclear-energy-as-direct-cause-of.html
Nuclear Industry And CFC Global Warming Gases; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.de/2014/05/nuclear-industry-and-cfc-global-warming.html
Low Dose Radiation Causes Oxygen Depletion Globally, Kills Trees, Corals, Fish, Algae; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/07/low-dose-radiation-causes-oxygen.html
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/07/low-dose-radiation-causes-oxygen.html
Could Krypton 85 Gas And Open Air Fission Be Generating Massive Typhoons, One A Week Basis? via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/10/could-krypton-85-gas-and-open-air.html
Nuclear power plants release up to 9 times more CO2 than Solar, Water, or Wind Power
http://timeforchange.org/co2-emission-nuclear-power-stations-electricity
Why aren't the big environmental groups like 350.org, CERES, Bluegreen Alliance, etc., coming out with articles like the ones above? Why won't they make anti nuclear policy statements or news releases? Why are they all so QUIET, especially after Fukushima, which is the biggest mega nuclear disaster that has ever happened? Fukushima was a WAKE UP CALL for this small dust mote riding on a sunbeam. Up to now, the biggest environmental groups all seem to be asleep, in denial or in bed with the biggest polluting corporations who want to keep this mega disaster quiet and hushed up, because talking about it and the lessons to be learned from it might wake people up and force positive paradigm shifting changes to happen.
After diving into all of the reasons why nuclear power plants should be on the hit list of all environmental groups via the links above, wouldn't you agree that the pro nuclear (and/or no opposition) stand by the Apollo Alliance, Blue Green Alliance, Ceres and 350.org plus other environmental groups make up the worst kind of greenwashing? The following list of greenwashing companies is long, but that is the starting point, so the positive opportunities are HUGE.
Greenwashing; Fake 'Green' Products, Services And Industries; Misleading Half Truths And Public Manipulations
THESE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP/CORPORATE PARTNERSHIPS SUPPORTED THE FIRST NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN THE USA, IN DECADES
In the end, wasn't it this partnership of environmental groups and huge corporations (including the nuclear industry) that approached President Obama and got new funding for more nuclear power plants for the first time in many generations? This grand partnership that included the largest environmental groups told the public and the government that clean power INCLUDED NUCLEAR, and that the nuclear industry is a good thing to pour BILLIONS of dollars of public money into, to build new nuclear plants, for the first time in decades, via an 'all of the above' policy.
Since the millions of members of these 200+ environmental groups aligned with 350.org, Ceres, and Apollo Alliance did not say no, nor did they put up any fight, President Obama went ahead and restarted the nuclear industry, after it had died a quite natural and deserved death many years ago.
Wouldn't you call this restart of funding for the nuclear industry a massive success for a huge greenwashing campaign that included the largest environmental groups, with nuclear companies sitting right there in the middle, with all of them agreeing that the nuclear industry needs more money and deserves to get it?
Wouldn't you call this restart of funding for the nuclear industry a massive success for a huge greenwashing campaign that included the largest environmental groups, with nuclear companies sitting right there in the middle, with all of them agreeing that the nuclear industry needs more money and deserves to get it?
THE WORST GLOBAL THREAT ISSUES GOT BURIED, DENIED AND IGNORED BY THIS GRAND PARTNERSHIP
Meanwhile, the horrific and real risks of nuclear power in the future were completely ignored and denied by all parties involved. The real global negative tipping points, threats and issues were not talked about at these conferences, meetings and grand partnerships, of that you can be very sure. They did not talk about the Carrington Event, and more than likely, 99% of the participants do not even know what this is, because the efforts of the disinformation and cover up campaign waged by the nuclear industry was so effective.
Super Solar Storm To Hit Earth - 'Carrington Effect'; 400 Nuke Plants Will Melt Down/Explode, Lawsuits Needed; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/super-solar-storm-predicted-to-hit-2013.html
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/x-class-solar-flare-to-hit-earth.html
So far, it looks like the grand partnership between the nuclear industry and environmental and other groups actually created worse and bigger risks for the future of humanity, rather than solving anything. Now let's dive into some specific organizations and explore the greenwashing aspect a little more in depth.
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND
The WWF, the most famous and powerful environmental organization worldwide, is facing accusations of working too closely with industries that destroy the environment and of ‘greenwashing’ dubious companies. The Fund allegedly collaborates with companies that deforest jungles, displace farmers, destroy the habitat of animals and contaminate the environment, German journalist and documentary maker Wilfried Huismann reveals.
The documentary “A Pact with the Panda – What the WWF doesn’t tell” made huge waves in Germany, alienating hundreds of thousands of supporters and donors, and calling into an investigation of the WWF. So far the documentary is only available in German. For the English-speaking world, here is the story of the dark side of the WWF.
http://wrongkindofgreen.org/2013/07/22/watch-wwf-silence-of-the-pandas-a-journey-into-the-heart-of-the-green-empire/
Imagine an international mega-deal. The global organic food industry agrees to support international agribusiness in clearing as much tropical rainforest as they want for farming. In return, agribusiness agrees to farm the now-deforested land using organic methods, and the organic industry encourages its supporters to buy the resulting timber and food under the newly devised “Rainforest Plus” label. There would surely be an international outcry.
Virtually unnoticed, however, even by their own membership, the world’s biggest wildlife conservation groups have agreed exactly to such a scenario, only in reverse. Led by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), many of the biggest conservation nonprofits including Conservation International and the Nature Conservancy have already agreed to a series of global bargains with international agribusiness.
In exchange for vague promises of habitat protection, sustainability and social justice, these conservation groups are offering to greenwash industrial commodity agriculture.
NEW YORK, April 22 — Christine Todd Whitman, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, cannot be held liable for assuring residents near the burning detritus of the World Trade Center after the 2001 attacks that the air was safe to breathe, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
EPA Covered Up And Hid Fukushima Radiation Plume Hitting USA; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/01/epa-covered-up-and-hid-fukushima.html
CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL And NATURE CONSERVANCY
Imagine an international mega-deal. The global organic food industry agrees to support international agribusiness in clearing as much tropical rainforest as they want for farming. In return, agribusiness agrees to farm the now-deforested land using organic methods, and the organic industry encourages its supporters to buy the resulting timber and food under the newly devised “Rainforest Plus” label. There would surely be an international outcry.
Virtually unnoticed, however, even by their own membership, the world’s biggest wildlife conservation groups have agreed exactly to such a scenario, only in reverse. Led by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), many of the biggest conservation nonprofits including Conservation International and the Nature Conservancy have already agreed to a series of global bargains with international agribusiness.
In exchange for vague promises of habitat protection, sustainability and social justice, these conservation groups are offering to greenwash industrial commodity agriculture.
EPA
Many people believe that the EPA is protecting them from harm in many ways, and that it may actually be too powerful, so it needs to be weakened, because it is bad for business organizations. Despite doing some good on the environmental front, the EPA is also infiltrated, coopted and influenced by corporate interests.NEW YORK, April 22 — Christine Todd Whitman, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, cannot be held liable for assuring residents near the burning detritus of the World Trade Center after the 2001 attacks that the air was safe to breathe, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/22/AR2008042202807.html
Carol Browner, was the former EPA Administrator and Obama Administration climate “czar”. She has now signed up at the Exelon’s Nuclear Matters front group. She was also named chair of the board of the League of Conservation Voters (LCV). The LCV is the nations leading 'left' environmental political action committee.
Carol Browner, was the former EPA Administrator and Obama Administration climate “czar”. She has now signed up at the Exelon’s Nuclear Matters front group. She was also named chair of the board of the League of Conservation Voters (LCV). The LCV is the nations leading 'left' environmental political action committee.
Watchdog: Inexplicable that EPA shut down Fukushima radiation monitoring after finding high levels of radiation in drinking water
http://enenews.com/watchdog-inexplicable-epa-shut-down-fukushima-radiation-monitoring-after-finding-high-levels-radiation-drinking-water
EPA Raises Allowable Radiation In Drinking Water By 27,000 Times, Allows 1 in 1.7 People Cancer Rate; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/06/epa-raises-allowable-radiation-in.html
EPA Raises Allowable Radiation In Drinking Water By 27,000 Times, Allows 1 in 1.7 People Cancer Rate; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/06/epa-raises-allowable-radiation-in.html
EPA Covered Up And Hid Fukushima Radiation Plume Hitting USA; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/01/epa-covered-up-and-hid-fukushima.html
LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS
Carol Browner, was the former EPA Administrator and Obama Administration climate “czar”. She has now signed up at the Exelon’s Nuclear Matters front group. She was also named chair of the board of the League of Conservation Voters (LCV). The LCV is the nations leading 'left' environmental political action committee.
The coopting and sell out of environmental organizations is not just a US problem or a European problem, it is a global problem. Corporations do this same thing of coopting and taking over non profits and community groups or organizations in all countries worldwide. Here is just one example of how it works in other countries;
via Homolumina; "yep, that's what they do, they fight their enemy with whatever they have… I remember back in the 70s in GER when the RAF, a former left winged group of intellectuals, was militarized by the KGB so they could scapegoat and then destroy them. A friend of mine was involved as an undercover agent, so I know first hand. He was later found shot after trying to get out."
WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE
On the Ceres Board of Directors we find key NGO affiliations: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Sierra Club, World Resources Institute, Ecological Solutions Inc. and Green America, to name a few. (The history of the Ceres board of directors is discussed at length, further in this report.)"
RAN
WWF, Greenpeace, and RAN are particularly culpable. With rainforests threatened as never before, RAN targets the Girl Scouts, Greenpeace supports Kleenex’s clearcut of Canadian old growth boreal forests for toilet paper, and WWF runs a bad-boy logger club who pay $50,000 to use the panda logo while continuing to destroy primary forests.
SIERRA CLUB
On the positive side;
The Sierra Club says it is anti nuclear, so that is a good start..
Grassroots Sierra Club anti nuclear campaign
Sierra Club anti nuclear group on Facebook here
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NuclearFreeCampaign/
Sierra Club puts out a clear policy statement about being opposed to the nuclear industry. So what is the issue around Sierra Club? via fireguyjeff; "Sierra Club started in the 60s.They were viewed as very dangerous by the govt (for simply taking any sort of stance that would question business as usual). Then the suits infiltrated SC and used it a a money (salary) machine and it became more than compromised. After years of little to no results "working within the system", Greenpeace was founded out of frustration with the poor results gained from the Sierra Club approach."
Sierra Club sounds good on the surface, but is it accomplishing the goals of being a grassroots, volunteer based conservation organization, and getting things done to make a difference, which is where it started out? Does it offer more than group outings? Does it take a stand on large issues and lead paradigm shifts that are needed to help humanity get through the multiple planet emergencies? Or has this organization been compromised by the business 'suits' type who do very little or nothing to threaten the corporate status quo, while sounding good in sound bites, social activities and websites with meaningless policy statements, with no actual actions and results?
"Over the last few years, many Chapter leaders began to ask: if the Sierra Club is founded on being a grassroots, volunteer-based conservation organization, how could it function effectively without staff to support the volunteers and develop local conservation policy?"
The question to ask is; at what point does an environmental group that gets little to nothing done on the anti nuclear or environmental front become a greenwashing group, despite having a clear anti nuclear policy statement? Did you know that the national Sierra Club organization supported the building of Diablo Canyon, and that this support was the difference between shutting it down and starting it up?
Wikipedia; "Rather than face public opposition at Diablo Canyon, PG&E approached the Sierra Club's president and cut a deal with certain board members where Diablo would be chosen rather than the Nipomo Dunes area. The wife of the Sierra Club president, who worked out the deal, would then be elected to PG&E's board of directors. As part of the plan, the decision was made when Sierra Club board member Martin Litton was out of the country, the only member who knew of Diablo's history and importance.[3][4] The board was flown down to see the site in Frank Sinatra's Lear Jet with Danny Kaye on board providing entertainment. Kaye would later become opposed to nuclear power.
The Sierra Club president forbade any chapter from opposing Diablo Canyon, so The San Luis Obispo Chapter formed the Shoreline Preservation Conference to oppose the construction on the grounds that the area had been proposed as a state park, was a sacred Chumash Indian site, had some of the largest oak trees on the West Coast, was located on the second-to-last coastal wilderness area in California, and could be sitting on the fault that lightly shook Santa Barbara in a 1927 earthquake. The internal dispute over Diablo Canyon was a primary reason for the split-up of the Sierra Club, that led to the formation of Friends of the Earth by David Brower.[3][5]
The above example shows how the greenwashing of environmental groups happens. Local groups may be active for a short time, until the national board steps in and calls a halt to it, or comes out officially in favor of a nuclear project such as Diablo Canyon.
Ask the Sierra Club reps where the organization stands on nuclear energy and nuclear weapons? Are they for or against a nuclear free future, and why specifically? Where is their policy statement saying this IN WRITING? Is the anti nuclear position built into the bylaws, or is it just a convenient statement put up for window dressing in order to attract members, and then discarded when a huge nuclear corporations wants their support and throws some dollars their way?
Ask them; where is their educational campaign to bring Sierra Club members up to speed about how dangerous the nuclear industry is? Where are their educational articles going out to their members, exposing the many lies of the nuclear industry, and around Fukushima specifically? Where are the articles that will inform their members about the hazards of low dose radiation? At what point does a huge environmental group become worthless and end up just doing greenwashing?
GREENPEACE
From Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace:
"In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That’s the conviction that inspired Greenpeace’s first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska’s Aleutian Islands.
Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change."
via fireguyjeff; "Greenpeace raised the bar and offered civil disobedience and "in your face" public messaging about serious issues. The latter process proved to be too slow for many people. It became clear that there were some issues that should/could not be negotiated."
As corporations took over or compromised large environmental groups, the environmentalists adjusted their tactics as well. Because the large environmental groups were no longer making a difference, or accomplishing anything, more extreme and radical movements were born and launched, like Greenpeace. But even when a group starts with pure intentions and motives, things change due to corporate influence.
Ask the Greenpeace reps where Greenpeace stands on nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Are they for or against a nuclear free future? Where is their policy statement saying this IN WRITING?
Ask the Greenpeace reps where Greenpeace stands on nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Are they for or against a nuclear free future? Where is their policy statement saying this IN WRITING?
Molly Dorozenski, Greenpeace USA Communications, molly.dorozenski (AT) greenpeace.org, +1 917-864-3724
Martin Kaiser, Head of International Climate Policy at Greenpeace International, martin.kaiser (AT) greenpeace.org, +49 1718780817
Ask them; where is their educational campaign to bring Greenpeace members up to speed about how dangerous the nuclear industry is? Where are their educational articles exposing the many lies of the nuclear industry, and Fukushima specifically? Where are the articles that will inform their members about the hazards of low dose radiation?
CLEAN AND SAFE ENERGY COALITION A FRONT GROUP FOR NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
via Heart of the Rose; "Patrick Moore was a leading figure with Greenpeace Canada and subsequently with Greenpeace International between 1981 and 1986. In 1991 he established a consultancy business, Greenspirit Enterprises, "focusing on environmental policy and communications in natural resources, biodiversity, energy and climate change."[1] Moore began working for the Nuclear Energy Institute front group, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, in 2006.
Greenpeace was considered a radical organization compared to Sierra Club, but Greenpeace also got coopted by the nuclear industry. So the members who really wanted to make a difference, jumped ship and created Earth First, which is an even more radical organization.
In 2009, 1Sky’s campaign director, Gillian Caldwell, a lawyer by training, was paid $203,620 (US) through the Rockefeller Family Fund. Although McKibben often refers to 350.org/1Sky as a “scruffy little outfit” – a salary of more than $200,000 is hardly typical of a legitimate grassroots organization.
In the Dec 3, 2009 article Prepping for Copenhagen as found on the Skoll Foundation website, the author reports, “The Skoll Foundation, along with a number of Skoll social entrepreneurs and partners, will be participating in the Copenhagen meetings on climate change later this month. Reflecting the high caliber of environmental leaders in the Skoll portfolio, some 10 Skoll social entrepreneurs and/or their organizations will be at Copenhagen: ACORE, Amazon Conservation Team,BioRegional Development Group, Ceres, EcoPeace/Friends of the Earth Middle East, Fundacion Gaia, Global Footprint Network, Health Care Without Harm, IDE-India, and Gillian Caldwell (formerly of Witness), representing 1Sky.”
In the December 15, 2009 article More from the Ground in Copenhagen, also featured on the Skoll Foundation website, Skoll CEO Sally Osberg reports: Just a couple of highlights from the Climate Leaders’ Summit: Leadership on climate change – both moral and real – is coming from the sub-nation state levels and small countries.
What Osberg neglects to report is the fact that these very states were deliberately and grossly undermined by the non-profit industrial complex, with corporate TckTckTck, 350.org(1Sky) and Avaaz at the helm of the elitist fifth column. [Further reading: The Most Important COP Briefing That No One Ever Heard | Truth, Lies, Racism And Omnicide | Who Really Leads on the Environment? The "Movement" Versus Evo Morales]
IS MARCHING AND PROTESTING GOING TO DO ANY GOOD?
Via clamshellernh September 6, 2014 "Chris Hedges: The Last Gasp of Climate Change Liberals – Truthdig
The march, because its demands are amorphous, can be joined by anyone. This is intentional. But as activist Anne Petermann has pointed out, this also means some of the groups backing the march are little more than corporate fronts. The Climate Group, for example, which endorses the march, includes among its members and sponsors BP, China Mobile, Dow Chemical Co., Duke Energy, HSBC, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Greenstone. The Environmental Defense Fund, which says it “work[s] with companies rather than against them” and which is calling on its members to join the march, has funding from the oil and gas industry and supports fracking as a form of alternative energy. These faux environmental organizations are designed to neutralize resistance. And their presence exposes the march’s failure to adopt a meaningful agenda or pose a genuine threat to power.
Our only hope comes from radical groups descending on New York to carry out direct action, including Global Climate Convergence and Popular Resistance. March if you want. But it should be the warm-up. The real fight will come once people disperse on 11th Avenue."
EARTH FIRST CREATED AFTER GREENPEACE SELL OUT
It is clear that organizations like PETA and Earth First are legitimate green organizations made up of frustrated former Greenpeace/Sierra Club, or etc groups. The members in PETA and Earth First are fighting to protect the environment, the Earth and animals/plants. Of course the mass media reports that they are they nothing more than terrorists. What do you think? Can you see how some people left the above 'greenwashing' pro nuclear groups so that they could actually maybe do something and get something done, instead of having the top echelon of these big environmental groups blocking all of their efforts at the grass roots level, or doing nothing but sucking up money and wasting time in meetings at the top levels?
Because those activists who are seeing through the greenwashing were not getting anywhere by working within the larger environmental movement groups, they chose to work in small non corporate controlled, non corporate funded direct action kinds of ways, via groups like Earth First, PETA, etc., who are not corporate funded.
But the negative side effect of this is that these activists were destroying property, like knocking over GMO 'research' crops on college campuses, letting minks out of cages, etc. The corporations responded by passing special laws, making all of these organizations and their members 'terrorists'. Now they can put these direct action activists away with very long jail sentences.. The corporations are going after all of these direct action activists. In a strange way, because corporations are resisting meaningful, REAL change through laws that mandate sustainable green ways of doing business, they are creating the problem of 'terrorists' by greenwashing and not responding to the calls for meaningful change.
via fireguyjeff; Out of the frustration of Greenpeace tactics, the Earth First! movement was born. With emphasis on "movement". Direct action was the primary tenet of EF! That meant what ever works as long as no on gets hurt. How did that work out for a lot of these activists?
Wikipedia; "Rodney Adam Coronado (born July 3, 1966) is a Native American (Pascua Yaqui) eco-anarchist and animal rights activist. He is an advocate and former activist for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and a spokesperson for the Earth Liberation Front. He was a crew member of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and a member of the editorial collective of the Earth First! Journal.[1]"
"The longtime radical animal liberation activist Rod Coronado has been sent back to prison for four months after a US district judge in Michigan ruled he had violated the terms of his parole. Coronado’s offense was associating with fellow radical activist Mike Roselle by accepting a friend request from Roselle on the social networking website Facebook. We speak with Dean Kuipers, author of Operation Bite Back: Rod Coronado’s War to Save American Wilderness."
via fireguyjeff; "EF! intentionally had no hierarchy, hence could not be infiltrated. It was extremely compartmentalized, much like Anonymous. There was no one person or group the govt or business could go after to make EF! go away. Monkey wrenching events were very covert, yet almost no one associated with EF! ever knew who did "it". The EF! Journal was the paper equivalent of ENENEWS back in the 90s." (The FBI did find and jail large numbers of activists through whatever means.)
via Shaker1; "Many Earth First! people have gone to jail for their actions. They are some of the people who will set fires, participated in tree-sits at proposed logging sites, etc. to achieve their ends. But they are decidedly non-violent to humans and animals. They generally have strong anarchist leanings. One won't find some national organization or fund-raising efforts beyond the requirements of legal counsel.
Infiltration, which the government on a lot of levels did and does do, just exposed small groups or extremely active people who by the number of their actions played with the odds of getting caught."
The CIA was supposedly set up to deal only with FOREIGN Cold War and terrorist threats, but it's mission has somehow now changed to operate against US citizens through mind control, inside the USA. If the CIA is now operating inside the US, what role do the other 18 intelligence agencies and FBI have? Isn't the CIA and Homeland Security Agency, together with the militarized local police starting to look more and more like Nazis? Certainly, the US military industrial complex has global conquest ambitions behind it. Only dictatorship led nations spend 50% or more of their budget on their military, and the US is one of a few nations on Earth that fits in this category.
Could it be that the 1% have their hands firmly on the reigns of power and can order the CIA do to whatever they want, with no meaningful opposition, even on a national level inside the US, and against environmental groups?
But what about the UN? Can't the United Nations help out or make a difference in some way?
Infiltration, which the government on a lot of levels did and does do, just exposed small groups or extremely active people who by the number of their actions played with the odds of getting caught."
IS THE CIA CONTROLLING LARGE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS?
The mantra of these radical groups that started after the big environmental groups were coopted and taken over by the pro nuclear forces might have been;
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
[Remarks on the first anniversary of the Alliance for Progress, 13 March 1962]”
― John F. Kennedy
Where did this infiltrating, coopting, and partnerships with corporations and taking over of many large environmental groups originate from? Taking over large organizations takes great planning, preparation, PR deception, money payoffs and infiltrations. Who would have that kind of power? Who would have that kind of motive? Who would have that kind of money? Maybe the CIA did not take over all of these groups. Maybe the CIA is not involved in this greenwashing campaign at all, but what if they are involved somehow?
Where did this infiltrating, coopting, and partnerships with corporations and taking over of many large environmental groups originate from? Taking over large organizations takes great planning, preparation, PR deception, money payoffs and infiltrations. Who would have that kind of power? Who would have that kind of motive? Who would have that kind of money? Maybe the CIA did not take over all of these groups. Maybe the CIA is not involved in this greenwashing campaign at all, but what if they are involved somehow?
It turns out that at least some of the environmental groups, women's rights groups, and media groups were funded or infiltrated by the CIA to steer the public to whatever thought process fit the current needs of huge profit making corporations and the military industrial complex. And it turns out that the CIA is also ardently pro-nuclear from its very inception, as it imported and hired thousands of Nazi scientists. Nothing has changed since then...
Gloria Steinem admitted Ms. magazine was funded by the CIA. Here is a link to proof of CIA funding:
Gloria Steinem admitted Ms. magazine was funded by the CIA. Here is a link to proof of CIA funding:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a1M9EAly2hog&refer=home
Operation Mockingbird, the CIA's long term effort to control the news, has shifted into overdrive. On July 2, a little noticed "reform" passed in January went into effect. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, will allow the CIA to flood America with more government propaganda.
HOW MUCH OF NEWS MEDIA IS CONTROLLED BY CIA?
The CIA was supposedly set up to deal only with FOREIGN Cold War and terrorist threats, but it's mission has somehow now changed to operate against US citizens through mind control, inside the USA. If the CIA is now operating inside the US, what role do the other 18 intelligence agencies and FBI have? Isn't the CIA and Homeland Security Agency, together with the militarized local police starting to look more and more like Nazis? Certainly, the US military industrial complex has global conquest ambitions behind it. Only dictatorship led nations spend 50% or more of their budget on their military, and the US is one of a few nations on Earth that fits in this category.
CIA IMPORTED AND HIRED NAZI WAR CRIMINALS TO START NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
Project Paper Clip; CIA Imported And Hired Nazi War Criminals To Develop Nuclear Industry; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/04/project-paper-clip-usa-imported-and.html
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/04/project-paper-clip-usa-imported-and.html
CIA ASSASSINATIONS
The CIA is involved with many things inside of the US, other than magazines and media..
CIA Used To Assassinate Foreign Democratically Elected Leaders And Install US Friendly Dictators
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/07/cia-in-usa-used-to-assassinate-foreign.html
CIA Used To Assassinate Foreign Democratically Elected Leaders And Install US Friendly Dictators
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/07/cia-in-usa-used-to-assassinate-foreign.html
Dark Legacy; How And Why The Coverup Of John F. Kennedy Assassination Was Accomplished Via Skull And Bones Member; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/04/dark-legacy-how-and-why-coverup-of-john.html
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/04/dark-legacy-how-and-why-coverup-of-john.html
Could it be that the 1% have their hands firmly on the reigns of power and can order the CIA do to whatever they want, with no meaningful opposition, even on a national level inside the US, and against environmental groups?
But what about the UN? Can't the United Nations help out or make a difference in some way?
UN GLOBAL WARMING ACTION WAS BLOCKED BY USA, THE QUESTION IS - WHY?
WORLD BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Earth Island reports that; "One of the organizations profiled was the Business Council for Sustainable Development (BCSD), which the report identified as the principle vehicle by which multinationals were influencing the UN process. “One of the BCSD’s primary targets at the Earth Summit is the hearts and minds of the global public”.
In 1994, the BCSD became the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). It remains a powerful business lobby group and is one of the main signatories to the letter in the Financial Times, trying to portray itself as a “Friend of Rio”. Despite representing big business, it is still trying to win your hearts and mind.
The partnership between large non profits, huge corporations, environmental groups, and politicians in the US has influenced things to the point where the US was the only country to not sign the Kyoto Accords. The US was opposed to the rest of the world, who all agreed that global warming was real and needed some REAL action.
The position of huge corporations is that voluntary action is enough, through the use of carbon credits and 'carbon neutral' measures. The huge monopolistic corporations claim that no laws or meaningful changes are needed when it comes to global warming, because global warming does not REALLY exist. Isn't this also the essence of greenwashing?
Top 100 Global Warming Denialist Groups Are ALL Funded By HUGE Corporations; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/06/top-global-warming-denialists-funded-by.html
MASS MEDIA CONTROLLED BY HUGE CORPORATIONS
After all, there are 100 global warming denialist organizations who will claim that global warming does not exist. The mass media features these supposed experts spouting on and on about it. They will even go so far as to demean and attack the scientists studying global warming personally, and ask others to do so as well.
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/06/top-global-warming-denialists-funded-by.html
The mass media in the US reinforces this same message, that global warming does not really exist, and/or that it is 'natural', and/or that the changes happening are all good, via countless 'interviews' with the representatives from these 100 organizations. Even the public funded news media has adopted a pro nuclear 'clean energy' focus in their programming. Could it have been infiltrated and taken over at the top levels, just like the other large environmental organizations?
PBS Has Sold Out To The Pro Nuclear Apologists, Shows Only One Sided Coverage, While Demonizing Any Other Points Of View
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/08/pbs-has-sold-out-to-pro-nuclear.html
Bernie Sanders on Why Big Corporate Owned Media Shouldn’t Get Bigger; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/12/bernie-sanders-on-why-big-media.html
GLOBAL CORPORATIONS AND THE 1%; THE ART AND SCIENCE OF DECEPTION
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/corporations-art-and-science-of.html
Fake Mass Media News; The Many Ways The Viewing Public Is 'Programmed' And TV Programming Is Censored; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/04/fake-news-one-of-many-ways-programming.html
Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/05/outfoxed-rupert-murdochs-war-on.html
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/primer-in-art-of-deception-cult-of.html
Because most people get their 'news' and form their beliefs based on what is shown on TV, the US is the world leader in mass media mind programming, psychic numbing, and hypnosis. The goal is to keep most people asleep and truly unaware of what is REALLY going on in the world, via shallow soundbites, lots of violence, movie stars and royalty, plus the notable court case or political drama of course, to keep people talking.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton
Even the supposed leaders of the corporate environmental movement seem to either have lost their way, or be greenwashing....
Psychic Numbing Definition, PTSD, Neuroscience, Religion, War, Nuclear Denial Disorder, And A Call To Awareness, Return To The Vortex
Titantic and Costa Concordia - Example of Normalcy Bias In Fukushima Mega Disaster; via @AGreenRoad
How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job; via A Green Road
Cognitive Dissonance And The Nuclear Industry; How Reality Refuses To Intrude; via @AGreenRoad
How To Not Become A Victim Of Negative Emotions; Become A Master Of Your Emotions, Using The Science Of Sustainable Health And Success
In the meantime, as everyone is numbed up, drugged out and misinformed, never a word is heard about the real issues of the day, and no investigative reporters are out there digging up dirt on huge corporations, no sireeee, that is not allowed anymore.
Have you ever noticed how the bought off politicians that get all of their money from these same huge corporations, all worship at the alter of these same God like corporations and the golden calf of money and power as well? None of them stand up for the people anymore, or if they do, it is via words only, and then they take no meaningful actions to follow up. Almost no one dares to stand up to the major monopolies such as nuclear, GMO, and carbon fuel industry, just to name a few, and that is the way these huge corporations like to keep it, because they can exert their absolute power, absolutely.
Even the supposed leaders of the corporate environmental movement seem to either have lost their way, or be greenwashing....
Richard Branson failed to deliver on $3bn climate change pledge
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/13/richard-branson-failed-climate-change-pledge
SUMMARY
This brings up to the point of asking the question; what does work when it comes to making a positive difference for 7 future generations? Should everyone just accept that the 1% have absolute control and power in the US, and nothing works, so everyone should just sit idly by and watch TV?
The best strategy is to not have any sacred or golden cows. As you have most likely discovered by now, many or most of the large environmental groups seem to have sold out to corporate green washing 'partnerships'.
These large environmental and human rights groups could have taken or could still take a stand today and push for laws requiring zero carbon, nuclear free, green and sustainable, equitable, human rights friendly operation by corporations, rather than settling for meaningless, vague promises with no laws, no fines and no consequences. These groups could be standing against more free trade laws, which only accelerate the rush to environmental and human destruction via ever expanding corporate power.
As Carl Sagan says, there is no individual or cavalry coming that can save us from ourselves and the consequences of our own actions. There are people who can and do make a positive difference, but they cannot do it alone or without your help.
Art And Science Of Deception; Global Corporations And The 1%
There is also good news; the power to save ourselves is in our hands.
Bottom line, we get to save ourselves.We need to stop blindly following and/or believing 100% in anything and everything that individual people, organizations or political parties say and start using critical thinking skills. There is no need to agree 100% with anyone, or anything.
As individuals, we can take what works for us from a person, organization or political party and leave the rest. We can 'believe' some of what multiple people, organizations say, but not 100%, and still be ok, normal and part of society. We can think for ourselves.
The bad news: there are no heroes or large organizations working to really save the planet, as they have been taken over and coopted, so all they seem to be doing is greenwashing…so that means we get to save ourselves. Take a stand and make a difference in some small way in your local area, where no large corporation can stop you or buy you off.
A ZERO CARBON AND NUCLEAR FREE FUTURE IS POSSIBLE
The good news: the power to save ourselves is in our hands. On a local community level, it is possible to set a goal of creating a zero carbon, nuclear free future and accomplish it.
Holistic Living, Health, Self-Healing, Environment And Renewable Energy
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/green-energy-green-living.html
The moral of this whole story is to start where you are, locally, because on an international and national level, the 1% have everything sewed up, taken over and bolted down. Instead of trying to slog it out in that minefield, find a small local group to join that shares your interest and passion in whatever cause you are wanting to make a difference with (not a huge 1% controlled environmental group).
Organize a local zero carbon action via a small group and then make it happen. That is really where all of the meaningful change happens anyway. Locally, no one can stop you and a small group from taking on goals and then making them happen. Small groups is where all meaningful change happens anyway.
You can move house, one neighborhood, one town at a time, and eventually end up with the whole state, as your goal grows larger. Eventually you will achieve goals in the whole state. Who knows what can happen if you start small, and work up the ladder. Whatever it is you start may even have a national or international effect and shift some paradigms eventually. Start with a small seed, walk down the road less traveled and see what happens; stay open to the miracles.
Finally, unless massive and large changes are made, it seems that the best strategy is to forget about financially supporting the large national or international groups, as they have adopted a policy of going full speed, straight into a 6 foot thick reinforced concrete and radioactive wall, together in a marriage partnership with the largest corporations.
You can move house, one neighborhood, one town at a time, and eventually end up with the whole state, as your goal grows larger. Eventually you will achieve goals in the whole state. Who knows what can happen if you start small, and work up the ladder. Whatever it is you start may even have a national or international effect and shift some paradigms eventually. Start with a small seed, walk down the road less traveled and see what happens; stay open to the miracles.
Finally, unless massive and large changes are made, it seems that the best strategy is to forget about financially supporting the large national or international groups, as they have adopted a policy of going full speed, straight into a 6 foot thick reinforced concrete and radioactive wall, together in a marriage partnership with the largest corporations.
End
How Pro Nuclear And Anti 99% Corporations Control Eco Environmental Organizations Like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, 350.org via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/04/how-pro-nuclear-and-anti-99.html
More articles below;
Ancient Stories, Success, Motivation, Activism, Spiritual, Interfaith, Consciousness, Near Death, Miracles, Healing, Auras, Reincarnation
Holistic Living, Health, Self-Healing, Environment And Renewable Energy
Exploring the Inner and Outer Mysteries of Life
Peace, War, Drones, Human Rights, Justice, Prisons, War on Drugs, Violence Prevention, Death Penalty, Jury Rights, Women's Rights
Drugs, Medicine, GMO's, Cloning, Education
Children And Adults - Negative Effects Of Chronic, Cumulative Man Made Radiation Exposure
Nuclear Power Plant Threats, Accidents, Recycling Nuclear Fuel, Movie Reviews, Next Generation Nuclear Plants, Terrorists
Individual Radioactive Elements/Isotopes, USA Radiation, Radiation Exposure Prevention, Reversal, Chelation
Lawsuits, Aging Nuclear Reactors, Recertification, Music, Lyrics, Poetry
Long Term Storage Of Nuclear Waste, Ocean Dumping, Incineration, Decontamination, Water Contamination, Dry Cask
More articles below;
Teaching the Science Of Sustainable Health And Success. What works for 7 future generations without causing harm? To access a library full of articles, movies, books and videos, click on links below.
Teaching the Science Of Sustainable Health And Success. What works for 7 future generations without causing harm? To access a library full of articles, movies, books and videos, click on links below.
SEARCHABLE DATABASE OF ARTICLES AND VIDEOS
A Green Road Project Magazine And Education Database
- Click in search box in upper right corner and type in search term to find any related article(s)
- Click on 'pages' in upper left corner to see index of all subjects
- Click in search box in upper right corner and type in search term to find any related article(s)
- Click on 'pages' in upper left corner to see index of all subjects
SITE MAP, INDEX AND TABLE OF CONTENTS
About A Green Road Project, Fair Use, Mission, Vision, Purpose, Values, Affiliations, Networking, Privacy Policy, Disclaimer/Release, More
Watch/Learn; AGRP YouTube Channel
Watch/Learn; AGRP YouTube Channel
Planet Earth 911 Emergencies And Global Threats
Art And Science Of Deception; Global Corporations And The 1%, Whistleblowers, And Solutions
Negative Effects Of Internal Radiation Exposure, Radiation Monitoring Networks
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/effects-of-internal-low-level-nuclear.html
Radiation In Food/Water, Geiger Counters, Dosimeters, Radiation Readings
Animals, Insects, Birds And Plants - Negative Effects Of Chronic, Cumulative Man Made Radiation
First Strike Policy, Nuclear Bombs, Down Winders, Acute Radiation Sickness, Nuclear War, Dirty Bombs, Bomb Shelters
Uranium Mining, Enrichment, Nuclear Fuel Chain, Open Air Testing, Fracking
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/effects-of-internal-low-level-nuclear.html
Radiation In Food/Water, Geiger Counters, Dosimeters, Radiation Readings
First Strike Policy, Nuclear Bombs, Down Winders, Acute Radiation Sickness, Nuclear War, Dirty Bombs, Bomb Shelters
Nuclear Power Plant Threats, Accidents, Recycling Nuclear Fuel, Movie Reviews, Next Generation Nuclear Plants, Terrorists
Individual Radioactive Elements/Isotopes, USA Radiation, Radiation Exposure Prevention, Reversal, Chelation
"Do not go where the freeway may lead - Go instead where there is no path and leave A Green Road for others to follow."
………………………………………
Post a Comment