committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-19--With coal in decline, how will we pay to reclaim abandoned mine lands?

While Congress has focused much of its attention of late on saving the nation from the COVID 19 virus , other critically important legislation has languished in committee .
One of those bills , H.R .
4248 , is bipartisan legislation , passed via voice vote in the U.S. House on January 15 but not yet taken up by the Senate , that would reauthorize through September 30 , 2036 , the 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act ( SMCRA ) , which sunsets in 2021 .
A key element of this legislation is the reauthorization of Abandoned Mine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pays for the cleanup of mine lands abandoned prior to 1977 , and which was amended in 1990 to allow funds to reclaim mines abandoned after 1977 .
The fund is currently financed by fees of 28 cents per ton for surface mined coal , 12 cents per ton for coal mined underground , and 8 cents per ton for lignite .
The current fees are 20 percent lower than when the program was first authorized in 1977 .
Under the law , 80 percent of AML fees are distributed to states with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wyoming get the lion ’ s share , followed by West Virginia , Kentucky , and Illinois ) .
The other 20 percent goes to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ( OSMRE ) for responding to emergencies such as landslides , land subsidence , and fires , and to carry out high-priority cleanups in states without approved programs .
States with approved programs can also use AML funds to establish programs to insure homeowners against land subsidence caused by underground mining .
The emergence of cheap natural gas , combined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coal , ” has significantly reduced domestic use of coal .
Coal production in the U.S. has dropped from 636.7 million metric tons ( Mmt oil equivalent ) in 2006 , when the SMCRA was last reauthorized , to just 400.7 Mmt in 2018 .
That ’ s a 37 percent decline .
Coal exports , too , are falling , with projections that 2020 thermal coal exports will be 18.6 million metric tons lower than in 2018 to just 35.5 million metric tons .
As coal production falls , so do fees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
OSMRE Acting Director Lanny Erdos reports that the fund collected $ 155 million from a fee on coal production in 2019 , versus $ 184 million in 2018 .
That ’ s about half of what the OSMRE was collecting a decade ago .
According to the OSMRE , the mining industry has paid about $ 9.82 billion in fees to fund the AML program and distributed $ 5.75 billion in grants to states and tribes .
Another $ 1.77 billion has gone for operating expenses and AML emergencies , leaving over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this unappropriated balance has been invested in U.S. Treasury Securities and earned $ 1.5 billion in interest .
And since 1996 , almost all of this interest has helped fund health care plans for members of the United Mine Workers of America .
But OSMRE estimates that another $ 10.1 billion is needed to finish its job .
Do the math .
Even if the AML fund continues to receive $ 150 million a year ( doubtful with coal production continuing its free fall ) , only $ 2.25 billion would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reauthorization .
Add in the unappropriated balance at you are still $ 5.5 billion short .
This begs the question : Is the plan to leave half of the unremediated sites as is or to do halfway jobs in cleaning up all of these sites ?
Or does Congress have a separate plan for coming up with the rest of the money needed to finish the job ?
While Congress ’ s only change to the AML fees has been to lower them , the environmental group Appalachian Voices has proposed that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the AML fees through the year 2050 – to 55 cents for surface mined coal , 24 cents for underground coal , and 16 cents for lignite .
This , along with spending the entirety of the current unappropriated balance , would cover the $ 10.6 billion Appalachian Voices says is needed at the minimum to complete the cleanup program .
But even doubling the AML fees , by Appalachian Voices ’ accounting , would leave nothing left to cover any ongoing support for the UMWA health care and retirement funds .
Worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major coal companies filed for bankruptcy during the past 3 years , leaving wide open the possibility that sufficient fees might never be collected .
Compounding the problem , several west coast cities and the entire state of Washington have made coal exports more difficult and more costly , including by blocking plans for coal-export terminals ( citing health concerns and pollution risks ) .
These actions prompted the states of Utah , Montana , and Wyoming to file suit , claiming the bans violate the Interstate Commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coal is shipped to Japan ( whose reliance on coal has increased since the Fukushima nuclear incident ) through the port of Richmond , California , whose city council voted for a total ban on coal handling and storage .
Rep. Matt Cartwright ( D , PA ) , lead author of H.R .
4248 , says that millions of Americans live less than a mile from an abandoned coal mine .
Abandoned mine sites in many cases are contaminating local water supplies , polluting soils , killing wildlife , and sickening humans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seekers who are injured or even killed while ( likely ) trespassing .
Maybe there is a better way to approach the cleanup of abandoned mine lands – one that more economically utilizes available resources .
Jonathan Wood , an environmental attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation and Research Fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center ( PERC ) , has argued that federal regulation complicates abandoned mine cleanups by providing a powerful disincentive for states , local governments , and private groups to assist in the federal effort to clean up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environmental regulations make even parties working to clean up these mine sites liable for the sites ’ environmental impacts , meaning that no amount of care will protect Good Samaritans from liability should their cleanup efforts fail to end pollution entirely or should a tragic accident occur .
Wood suggests that federal policies should not just protect Good Samaritans from liability but should also actively reward efforts that aid in mine cleanups .
Mitigating adverse environmental impacts from defunct mines benefits the federal government and the states and localities , downstream property owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and everyone .
In Wood ’ s view , an incentive framework that harnesses markets and allows Good Samaritans to capture a share of the benefits could lead to faster , cheaper cleanups though innovative solutions .
Replacing regulatory disincentives with positive incentives could dramatically lower the costs of abandoned mine cleanup as well .
That ’ s a far better solution than relying on an industry being choked to death by competition for cheaper fuels and by the Beyond Coal movement .
Declining coal production levels almost guarantee that the forecast revenues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or even doubling them will not raise the revenues projected by federal lawmakers .

While Congress has focused much of its attention of late on saving the nation from the COVID 19 virus, other critically important legislation has languished in committee. One of those bills, H.R. 4248, is bipartisan legislation, passed via voice vote in the U.S. House on January 15 but not yet taken up by the Senate, that would reauthorize through September 30, 2036, the 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), which sunsets in 2021.
A key element of this legislation is the reauthorization of Abandoned Mine Land (AML) fund, which pays for the cleanup of mine lands abandoned prior to 1977, and which was amended in 1990 to allow funds to reclaim mines abandoned after 1977. The fund is currently financed by fees of 28 cents per ton for surface mined coal, 12 cents per ton for coal mined underground, and 8 cents per ton for lignite. The current fees are 20 percent lower than when the program was first authorized in 1977.
Under the law, 80 percent of AML fees are distributed to states with an approved reclamation program (Pennsylvania and Wyoming get the lion’s share, followed by West Virginia, Kentucky, and Illinois). The other 20 percent goes to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) for responding to emergencies such as landslides, land subsidence, and fires, and to carry out high-priority cleanups in states without approved programs. States with approved programs can also use AML funds to establish programs to insure homeowners against land subsidence caused by underground mining.
But here’s the rub.
The emergence of cheap natural gas, combined with environmentalist zeal to move “Beyond Coal,” has significantly reduced domestic use of coal. Coal production in the U.S. has dropped from 636.7 million metric tons (Mmt oil equivalent) in 2006, when the SMCRA was last reauthorized, to just 400.7 Mmt in 2018. That’s a 37 percent decline. Coal exports, too, are falling, with projections that 2020 thermal coal exports will be 18.6 million metric tons lower than in 2018 to just 35.5 million metric tons.
As coal production falls, so do fees paid to the abandoned mine land program. OSMRE Acting Director Lanny Erdos reports that the fund collected $155 million from a fee on coal production in 2019, versus $184 million in 2018. That’s about half of what the OSMRE was collecting a decade ago.
According to the OSMRE, the mining industry has paid about $9.82 billion in fees to fund the AML program and distributed $5.75 billion in grants to states and tribes. Another $1.77 billion has gone for operating expenses and AML emergencies, leaving over $2.3 billion unappropriated. Since 1990, this unappropriated balance has been invested in U.S. Treasury Securities and earned $1.5 billion in interest. And since 1996, almost all of this interest has helped fund health care plans for members of the United Mine Workers of America.
But OSMRE estimates that another $10.1 billion is needed to finish its job. Do the math. Even if the AML fund continues to receive $150 million a year (doubtful with coal production continuing its free fall), only $2.25 billion would be collected over the 15-year life of the reauthorization. Add in the unappropriated balance at you are still $5.5 billion short.
This begs the question: Is the plan to leave half of the unremediated sites as is or to do halfway jobs in cleaning up all of these sites? Or does Congress have a separate plan for coming up with the rest of the money needed to finish the job?
While Congress’s only change to the AML fees has been to lower them, the environmental group Appalachian Voices has proposed that this massive shortfall can be erased through doubling the AML fees through the year 2050 – to 55 cents for surface mined coal, 24 cents for underground coal, and 16 cents for lignite.
This, along with spending the entirety of the current unappropriated balance, would cover the $10.6 billion Appalachian Voices says is needed at the minimum to complete the cleanup program. But even doubling the AML fees, by Appalachian Voices’ accounting, would leave nothing left to cover any ongoing support for the UMWA health care and retirement funds.
Worse, Newsweek reported last October that 11 major coal companies filed for bankruptcy during the past 3 years, leaving wide open the possibility that sufficient fees might never be collected. Compounding the problem, several west coast cities and the entire state of Washington have made coal exports more difficult and more costly, including by blocking plans for coal-export terminals (citing health concerns and pollution risks).
These actions prompted the states of Utah, Montana, and Wyoming to file suit, claiming the bans violate the Interstate Commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Nearly all of Utah’s coal is shipped to Japan (whose reliance on coal has increased since the Fukushima nuclear incident) through the port of Richmond, California, whose city council voted for a total ban on coal handling and storage.
Rep. Matt Cartwright (D, PA), lead author of H.R. 4248, says that millions of Americans live less than a mile from an abandoned coal mine. Abandoned mine sites in many cases are contaminating local water supplies, polluting soils, killing wildlife, and sickening humans – and in some cases tempting risk seekers who are injured or even killed while (likely) trespassing.
Maybe there is a better way to approach the cleanup of abandoned mine lands – one that more economically utilizes available resources.
Jonathan Wood, an environmental attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation and Research Fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), has argued that federal regulation complicates abandoned mine cleanups by providing a powerful disincentive for states, local governments, and private groups to assist in the federal effort to clean up the mines.
As Wood explains, environmental regulations make even parties working to clean up these mine sites liable for the sites’ environmental impacts, meaning that no amount of care will protect Good Samaritans from liability should their cleanup efforts fail to end pollution entirely or should a tragic accident occur.
Wood suggests that federal policies should not just protect Good Samaritans from liability but should also actively reward efforts that aid in mine cleanups. Mitigating adverse environmental impacts from defunct mines benefits the federal government and the states and localities, downstream property owners, public land recreationists, conservationists, and everyone.
In Wood’s view, an incentive framework that harnesses markets and allows Good Samaritans to capture a share of the benefits could lead to faster, cheaper cleanups though innovative solutions. Replacing regulatory disincentives with positive incentives could dramatically lower the costs of abandoned mine cleanup as well.
That’s a far better solution than relying on an industry being choked to death by competition for cheaper fuels and by the Beyond Coal movement. Declining coal production levels almost guarantee that the forecast revenues from merely extending the current AML fees or even doubling them will not raise the revenues projected by federal lawmakers.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-16--Charting a free market approach to protecting Colombia’s rainforests

In the remote San Lucas Mountains of Colombia , earning enough money to survive can be difficult .
Many sadly turn to illegal activities such as farming coca to simply scratch out a living .
A cause like the “ environment , ” one might think , would be of low priority on most people ’ s list .
However , such thinking would be wrong .
A growing number of local citizens in the region are banding together to help protect this wild and exotic ecosystem from over abuse , and the results have been impressive .
The local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is called WebConserva .
It is using a market-based approach that compensates farmers for pursuing a better , reasoned course in both making a living and protecting nature simultaneously .
Their program is simple .
As explained in a recent feature story in Reuters : “ [ The ] environmental group WebConserva is leading a first-of-its kind project bringing together farmers in San Lucas and roasters across Colombia to produce coffee from plantations that build protective borders around forests to shield the biodiversity within .
So far the project includes 10 families farming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of coffee , which the environmental group covers at a cost of around $ 77,000 a year .
WebConserva hopes eventually to include 200 families , which could protect 20,000 hectares ( 49,420 acres ) or more of virgin forest .
In San Lucas , the families pledge not to fell trees to expand their crops or to hunt the animals that depend on the forests for survival .
Depending on the quality of the product , they receive around $ 250 to $ 300 per 125 kilos ( 275 pounds ) of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country where prices regularly dip below production costs.
” Colombia is home to some 50,000 species of rare animals and plants , including ocelots , pumas , speckled bears , and jaguars .
Deforestation has been taking place at a rampant rate , with some 543,620 acres felled in 2017 alone .
While much of this is for needed economic development , which is a good thing , some of it is done with callous disregard for the environment .
Thus , a program like that employed by WeConserva is an important one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occurs without harming endangered species , of which according to the International Union for Conservation says there are 1050 in Colombia alone .

In the remote San Lucas Mountains of Colombia, earning enough money to survive can be difficult. Many sadly turn to illegal activities such as farming coca to simply scratch out a living.
A cause like the “environment,” one might think, would be of low priority on most people’s list. However, such thinking would be wrong.
Share the facts at CFACT.org:
A growing number of local citizens in the region are banding together to help protect this wild and exotic ecosystem from over abuse, and the results have been impressive.
The local organization spearheading this free market environmental initiative is called WebConserva. It is using a market-based approach that compensates farmers for pursuing a better, reasoned course in both making a living and protecting nature simultaneously.
Their program is simple. As explained in a recent feature story in Reuters:
“[The] environmental group WebConserva is leading a first-of-its kind project bringing together farmers in San Lucas and roasters across Colombia to produce coffee from plantations that build protective borders around forests to shield the biodiversity within.
So far the project includes 10 families farming some 400 hectares (988 acres) of coffee, which the environmental group covers at a cost of around $77,000 a year. WebConserva hopes eventually to include 200 families, which could protect 20,000 hectares (49,420 acres) or more of virgin forest.
In San Lucas, the families pledge not to fell trees to expand their crops or to hunt the animals that depend on the forests for survival. Depending on the quality of the product, they receive around $250 to $300 per 125 kilos (275 pounds) of coffee, an enviable return in a country where prices regularly dip below production costs.”
Colombia is home to some 50,000 species of rare animals and plants, including ocelots, pumas, speckled bears, and jaguars. Deforestation has been taking place at a rampant rate, with some 543,620 acres felled in 2017 alone.
While much of this is for needed economic development, which is a good thing, some of it is done with callous disregard for the environment. Thus, a program like that employed by WeConserva is an important one to help ensure at least some development occurs without harming endangered species, of which according to the International Union for Conservation says there are 1050 in Colombia alone.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-20--Reopening America means rebuilding It

Reopening America means rebuilding It

It should be pretty obvious that we shouldn ’ t expect everyone to shut down their lives , means of livelihood , and societal lifestyles waiting for that uncertain time — maybe never— when the coronavirus threat entirely disappears .
Either way , various population groups — age and health vulnerability , location and density , employment nature and circumstances , sustainable income status , and family/friendship interdependence — will be impacted differently .
Too early , and the virus will rapidly rebound and spread again , possibly overwhelm medical response capabilities , and more people will die , particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , debt and poverty will spread just as fast , crashing our national economic systems and capacities .
Even more people will die — and in all population groups .
Federal , state and metropolitan policymakers and enforcers must soon make some very tough decisions .
Guided by ever-hypothetical fatality models , how much time and lost revenue are they are willing to gamble waiting for an effective medical intervention and/or cure ?
As representatives and members of the public they serve , how long will it be worth to oblige or compel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of influence and authority to financial hardship ?
Thus , disrupting their children ’ s learning progress , socialization , as well as drain away any savings they may have somehow managed to stash in investments , banks or mattresses .
As politicians , how will individual legislators and executors balance lethal public health threats posed by COVID-19 , versus infectious wrath that will be visited upon them by their increasingly impoverished and demoralized electorates ?
In reality , these are not simple binary decisions : public health ( e.g.
, death ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ e.g.
, economy and security ) on the opposite .
Dr. Joseph Lapado , an associate professor at UCLA ’ s David Geffen School of Medicine , similarly observes that the pandemic crisis now rests on a fulcrum .
In an April 10 Wall Street Journal editorial “ Lockdowns Won ’ t Stop the Spread , ” he observes : “ On the one side is the COVID-19 and every possible action that might prevent people from contracting and dying from infection .
“ On the other side is everything else that matters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and shelter their families ; civil liberties ; the education of their children ; social well-being , including the prevention of loneliness , isolation and domestic violence ; and all other medical conditions , from cancer and heart disease to dental emergencies.
” Dr. Lapado urges us to recognize that in order to help set the right course for the country [ and by extension for our personal lives ] , we must first grasp some simple — but tough —facts : “ The novel coronavirus is highly contagious and tragically lethal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vaccine within the next 18 months .
We have taken measures to slow the virus , but these can ’ t stop it.
” He adds , “ The only thing that can stop the virus at this advanced stage of community transmission is a complete lockdown , which can happen in authoritarian countries like China , but not in the U.S. ” Lapado warns that while an extended shutdown will temporarily quell the viral spread , short of a miracle treatment , it will later resume its infectious rampage .
States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it in this manner .
“ Once lifted , the appetite for a repeat shutdown will be tepid at best , even in left-leaning states .
The reality of the shutdown costs — the upheaval caused by school closures , economic hurt , social isolation and lost lives and livelihoods — will be fresh.
” Clearly recognizing this reality , some governors are collaborating with others to plan policies that combine strategies aimed at slowing the virus and accelerating medical preparedness to reduce fatal casualties .
This , while also concurrently reopening the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health gains achieved at great pain and cost by current shutdowns .
Coronavirus epicenter New York ’ s Governor Andrew Cuomo has taken the lead in organizing a committee of health and economic officials also representing six other hard-hit Northeast Democrat states including New Jersey , Connecticut , Massachusetts , Pennsylvania , Rhode Island , and Delaware to come up with responsible ways to address this enormous challenge .
It is apparent that there are no universal one-solution fits-all nation , state , nor municipal applications .
Widely varying population densities in different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different preventative social distancing considerations .
Although California and New York shut down businesses at about the same time , New York , which is approximately twice as dense , has experienced about 25 times higher per capita fatalities .
New York City ’ s population is about 300 times more concentrated than the U.S. as a whole , and 11 times more than Los Angeles County .
In addition , more than half of New York City residents use public transportation , exposing them to greater virus exposure risks .
We can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisions and actions lie ahead that will impact all of us .
In any case , we should recognize that planned interventions to protect lives from the virus now must consider deadly collateral impacts on lives , livelihoods and cherished lifestyle qualities that will make full recovery possible .
Doing otherwise will empower this viral enemy to conquer our future .

It should be pretty obvious that we shouldn’t expect everyone to shut down their lives, means of livelihood, and societal lifestyles waiting for that uncertain time — maybe never— when the coronavirus threat entirely disappears.
Either way, various population groups — age and health vulnerability, location and density, employment nature and circumstances, sustainable income status, and family/friendship interdependence — will be impacted differently.
Too early, and the virus will rapidly rebound and spread again, possibly overwhelm medical response capabilities, and more people will die, particularly in my age group.
Too late, debt and poverty will spread just as fast, crashing our national economic systems and capacities. Even more people will die — and in all population groups.
Federal, state and metropolitan policymakers and enforcers must soon make some very tough decisions. Guided by ever-hypothetical fatality models, how much time and lost revenue are they are willing to gamble waiting for an effective medical intervention and/or cure?
As representatives and members of the public they serve, how long will it be worth to oblige or compel families, individuals, within their boundaries of influence and authority to financial hardship? Thus, disrupting their children’s learning progress, socialization, as well as drain away any savings they may have somehow managed to stash in investments, banks or mattresses.
As politicians, how will individual legislators and executors balance lethal public health threats posed by COVID-19, versus infectious wrath that will be visited upon them by their increasingly impoverished and demoralized electorates?
In reality, these are not simple binary decisions: public health (e.g., death) on one side; national health (e.g., economy and security) on the opposite.
Dr. Joseph Lapado, an associate professor at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, similarly observes that the pandemic crisis now rests on a fulcrum. In an April 10 Wall Street Journal editorial “Lockdowns Won’t Stop the Spread,” he observes:
“On the one side is the COVID-19 and every possible action that might prevent people from contracting and dying from infection.
“On the other side is everything else that matters: livelihoods that allow people to feed and shelter their families; civil liberties; the education of their children; social well-being, including the prevention of loneliness, isolation and domestic violence; and all other medical conditions, from cancer and heart disease to dental emergencies.”
Dr. Lapado urges us to recognize that in order to help set the right course for the country [and by extension for our personal lives], we must first grasp some simple — but tough —facts:
“The novel coronavirus is highly contagious and tragically lethal to many. There is no guarantee of a vaccine within the next 18 months. We have taken measures to slow the virus, but these can’t stop it.”
He adds, “The only thing that can stop the virus at this advanced stage of community transmission is a complete lockdown, which can happen in authoritarian countries like China, but not in the U.S.”
Lapado warns that while an extended shutdown will temporarily quell the viral spread, short of a miracle treatment, it will later resume its infectious rampage. States will get only one pass at addressing it in this manner. “Once lifted, the appetite for a repeat shutdown will be tepid at best, even in left-leaning states. The reality of the shutdown costs — the upheaval caused by school closures, economic hurt, social isolation and lost lives and livelihoods — will be fresh.”
Clearly recognizing this reality, some governors are collaborating with others to plan policies that combine strategies aimed at slowing the virus and accelerating medical preparedness to reduce fatal casualties. This, while also concurrently reopening the economy and returning social normality without sacrificing health gains achieved at great pain and cost by current shutdowns.
Coronavirus epicenter New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo has taken the lead in organizing a committee of health and economic officials also representing six other hard-hit Northeast Democrat states including New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Delaware to come up with responsible ways to address this enormous challenge.
It is apparent that there are no universal one-solution fits-all nation, state, nor municipal applications.
Widely varying population densities in different regions, for example, present very different preventative social distancing considerations. Although California and New York shut down businesses at about the same time, New York, which is approximately twice as dense, has experienced about 25 times higher per capita fatalities.
New York City’s population is about 300 times more concentrated than the U.S. as a whole, and 11 times more than Los Angeles County. In addition, more than half of New York City residents use public transportation, exposing them to greater virus exposure risks.
We can have no doubt that countless very difficult decisions and actions lie ahead that will impact all of us. In any case, we should recognize that planned interventions to protect lives from the virus now must consider deadly collateral impacts on lives, livelihoods and cherished lifestyle qualities that will make full recovery possible.
Doing otherwise will empower this viral enemy to conquer our future.
This article originally appeared at NewsMax


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-20--Facebook suppresses post about Facebook suppressing “The Post”

Over the weekend CFACT posted an important editorial to Facebook .
It is from The New York Post and explains what happened when Facebook “ fact checkers ” suppressed questions about China ’ s veracity about the origins of the Coronavirus .
Not only did Facebook suppress the original article , they suppressed CFACT ’ s posting of the editorial !
Way back on Feb. 23 , The Post ran an opinion piece by Steven Mosher saying that we couldn ’ t trust China ’ s story about the origins of COVID-19 .
He argued that the virus might — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population thanks to errors at a Chinese laboratory in Wuhan , rather than via that city ’ s now-notorious “ wet market.
” The piece was widely read online — until Facebook stepped in .
The social media giant ’ s “ fact checkers ” decided this was not a valid opinion .
If you tried to share Mosher ’ s column on Facebook , the social network stuck a “ False Information ” alert on top , saying that finding was “ checked by independent fact-checkers ” and preventing your friends from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see for themselves .
CFACT ’ s Facebook friends realized the importance of the piece and stepped up .
As of right now 592 of you clicked “ share ” to make sure your friends saw it , 462 of you clicked “ like ” and 41 of you took the time to comment .
The result ?
Only 6,935 of our combined friends actually got to see this post when they logged into FB .
That ’ s a share ratio of only 11.7 to one .
Simply put , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post on Facebook , a little less than only 12 of your friends got to see it .
In a piece entitled “ A very fresh look at climate change , ” Dr. Lehr discussed the role the sun and other factors play in the climate .
Climate campaigners used Facebook ’ s tools to report Dr. Lehr ’ s article .
As a result Facebook reduced the number of people who saw the article .
It put the words ” false information ” over the picture of the Earth that illustrates the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact check ” article which states , “ anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gas emissions account for 100 % of the rapid global warming trends observed after 1950.
” One hundred percent ?
No questions may be asked ?
No other facts considered ?
Should Dr. Lehr recant as Galileo was forced to recant his heretical notion that the Earth orbits the sun ?
“ E pur si muove !
” Galileo replied according to legend .
“ And yet it does move !
” Climate science can not attribute today ’ s incredibly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CO2 , methane , solar radiation , cloud formations , planetary oscillations , or other factors .
Claiming 100 percent influence is foolish .
The UN IPCC doesn ’ t even try to go there .
Making such an exaggerated claim in a “ fact check ” is nothing more than an attempt to stifle questioning and suppress debate .
That ’ s not how the scientific method operates .
We do not know with certainty how or why climate changes .
We do know with certainty that climate has always changed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure groups deliberately distort the facts and falsely conflate extreme weather events they know to be natural and historically normal with climate and human industry .
We also know with certainty that when researchers of the high-caliber of Dr. Jay Lehr express their opinion they are often right , occasionally mistaken , but always sincere and seeking truth .
We know with equal certainty that the global warming movement deliberately misleads the public , does so with deliberate knowledge of what they are up to , and seeks to suppress facts that challenge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entities are dominated by the Left .
They take sides and aim to prevent the public from benefiting from a balanced and free marketplace for ideas from which to make up their own minds .
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg put up a Facebook post congratulating himself for his efforts to use “ fact checkers ” to “ reduce ” and discredit distribution of posts on his platform about the Coronavirus .
Facebook uses the same techniques on climate , economics , politics , and a host of other hotly debated issues .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that could lead to imminent physical harm , then we ’ ll take it down .
We ’ ve taken down hundreds of thousands of pieces of misinformation related to Covid-19 , including theories like drinking bleach cures the virus or that physical distancing is ineffective at preventing the disease from spreading .
For other misinformation , once it is rated false by fact-checkers , we reduce its distribution , apply warning labels with more context and find duplicates .
Sure Mark , we shouldn ’ t drink bleach , thanks for that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drinking Clorox , or China using your “ fact-checking ” snitch link to suppress questioning about how it handled the virus ?
You can ’ t possibly be unaware , Mark , that the Left uses control of process to stifle debate .
Is Dr. Jay Lehr ’ s opinion that the sun is a significant factor , and global temperature can not be attributed 100 % to fossil-fuel use so heretical that it should not be permitted to compete in the marketplace for ideas freely and unimpeded ?
News flash — when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 97 % , let alone 100 % , that ’ s when you should be counting your change .
Look in the mirror Mark Zuckerberg .
There would be no Facebook without virality !
The internet powers that be at the time , Google , Microsoft , Yahoo , etc .
could have used a simple little suppression algorithm ( like the one you ’ ve deployed against us ) .
This would have prevented people from widely finding and sharing with their friends a cute little new site called Facebook that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harvard dorm room .
Think about it Mark , if big tech had treated you , the way you treated the NY Post and CFACT , you ’ d be working for them .
You ’ d be making $ 400,000 per year as a top programmer and would have just saved up your first million — a heckuva sweet slice of the American dream , but not exactly kid billionaire .
If big tech had suppressed you Mark , as you aim to suppress us , we would not know your name @

Over the weekend CFACT posted an important editorial to Facebook. It is from The New York Post and explains what happened when Facebook “fact checkers” suppressed questions about China’s veracity about the origins of the Coronavirus.
Not only did Facebook suppress the original Post article, they suppressed CFACT’s posting of the editorial!
Here’s an excerpt:
Way back on Feb. 23, The Post ran an opinion piece by Steven Mosher saying that we couldn’t trust China’s story about the origins of COVID-19. He argued that the virus might — might — have jumped to the human population thanks to errors at a Chinese laboratory in Wuhan, rather than via that city’s now-notorious “wet market.”
The piece was widely read online — until Facebook stepped in.
The social media giant’s “fact checkers” decided this was not a valid opinion. If you tried to share Mosher’s column on Facebook, the social network stuck a “False Information” alert on top, saying that finding was “checked by independent fact-checkers” and preventing your friends from clicking to connect to the original article to see for themselves.
CFACT’s Facebook friends realized the importance of the piece and stepped up. As of right now 592 of you clicked “share” to make sure your friends saw it, 462 of you clicked “like” and 41 of you took the time to comment. The result? Only 6,935 of our combined friends actually got to see this post when they logged into FB. That’s a share ratio of only 11.7 to one. Simply put, for every one of you who shared this post on Facebook, a little less than only 12 of your friends got to see it.
In a piece entitled “A very fresh look at climate change,” Dr. Lehr discussed the role the sun and other factors play in the climate. Climate campaigners used Facebook’s tools to report Dr. Lehr’s article. As a result Facebook reduced the number of people who saw the article. It put the words” false information” over the picture of the Earth that illustrates the article and linked to a supposed “fact check” article which states, “anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gas emissions account for 100% of the rapid global warming trends observed after 1950.”
One hundred percent? No questions may be asked? No other facts considered?
Should Dr. Lehr recant as Galileo was forced to recant his heretical notion that the Earth orbits the sun? “E pur si muove!” Galileo replied according to legend. “And yet it does move!”
Climate science cannot attribute today’s incredibly complex climate “100 percent” to CO2, methane, solar radiation, cloud formations, planetary oscillations, or other factors. Claiming 100 percent influence is foolish. The UN IPCC doesn’t even try to go there. Making such an exaggerated claim in a “fact check” is nothing more than an attempt to stifle questioning and suppress debate. That’s not how the scientific method operates.
We do not know with certainty how or why climate changes. We do know with certainty that climate has always changed. We also know with certainty that climate pressure groups deliberately distort the facts and falsely conflate extreme weather events they know to be natural and historically normal with climate and human industry.
We also know with certainty that when researchers of the high-caliber of Dr. Jay Lehr express their opinion they are often right, occasionally mistaken, but always sincere and seeking truth. We know with equal certainty that the global warming movement deliberately misleads the public, does so with deliberate knowledge of what they are up to, and seeks to suppress facts that challenge their pronouncements.
So-called “fact-checking” entities are dominated by the Left. They take sides and aim to prevent the public from benefiting from a balanced and free marketplace for ideas from which to make up their own minds.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg put up a Facebook post congratulating himself for his efforts to use “fact checkers” to “reduce” and discredit distribution of posts on his platform about the Coronavirus. Facebook uses the same techniques on climate, economics, politics, and a host of other hotly debated issues.
If a piece of content contains harmful misinformation that could lead to imminent physical harm, then we’ll take it down. We’ve taken down hundreds of thousands of pieces of misinformation related to Covid-19, including theories like drinking bleach cures the virus or that physical distancing is ineffective at preventing the disease from spreading. For other misinformation, once it is rated false by fact-checkers, we reduce its distribution, apply warning labels with more context and find duplicates.
Sure Mark, we shouldn’t drink bleach, thanks for that. Which is more likely, idiots drinking Clorox, or China using your “fact-checking” snitch link to suppress questioning about how it handled the virus?
You can’t possibly be unaware, Mark, that the Left uses control of process to stifle debate.
Is Dr. Jay Lehr’s opinion that the sun is a significant factor, and global temperature cannot be attributed 100% to fossil-fuel use so heretical that it should not be permitted to compete in the marketplace for ideas freely and unimpeded? News flash — when the climate folks say that something is 97%, let alone 100%, that’s when you should be counting your change.
Look in the mirror Mark Zuckerberg.
There would be no Facebook without virality!
The internet powers that be at the time, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc. could have used a simple little suppression algorithm (like the one you’ve deployed against us). This would have prevented people from widely finding and sharing with their friends a cute little new site called Facebook that a clever young programmer cobbled together in his Harvard dorm room. Think about it Mark, if big tech had treated you, the way you treated the NY Post and CFACT, you’d be working for them. You’d be making $400,000 per year as a top programmer and would have just saved up your first million — a heckuva sweet slice of the American dream, but not exactly kid billionaire.
If big tech had suppressed you Mark, as you aim to suppress us, we would not know your name.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-21--Can conservation genomics rescue the vaquita?

Vaquitas are small , pudgy looking porpoises that have a cute “ baby Yoda ” look to them .
Once common along the upper Gulf of California in Mexico , the species has today been brought near to the brink of extinction .
A survey conducted in 1997 found some 567 remaining in the wild .
Today many believe that number has dropped below 100 .
What is causing the demise of the Vaquita ?
Conservationists pin the blame on two culprits .
The first is the result of black-market fishing — not for the vaquita per se , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the bahaba and totaba .
The nation of China in particular pays high prices for these exotic fish , often up to $ 80,000 per kilogram .
Though prohibited by the Mexican government , many hard-pressed Mexican fisherman take their chances and use “ gillnets ” that not only entrap bahabas and totabas , but also vaquitas in the mix .
The second reason the endangered porpoises are imperiled is a result of genetic weaknesses in the remaining population .
As its numbers have dwindled , the pickings for mating vaquitas have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to mate with their cousins or siblings .
Not good .
This has weakened the genetic pool , however there may be other genetic reasons at play too .
Fortunately , modern science might be able to intervene in time to rescue the species at the sound of the bell .
As explained in Wired.com : “ The answer may come from a burgeoning wing of ecology known as conservation genomics .
By using the vaquita ’ s DNA data as a yardstick , scientists can gauge whether other animals whose populations are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ danger of inbreeding .
If the data suggests , as it does with the vaquita , that a species ’ population has been stable over time and there is little variation within its genome , it ’ s probably at very low risk .
If , on the other hand , the genetic variation is high , then the risk might be too .
By cross-referencing the genomes in this way , scientists can quickly assess the most urgent threats an animal faces : If inbreeding isn ’ t the biggest problem , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They can also determine whether the animal should be taken into captivity , and if so , how many individuals would be enough.
” Of course , this form of “ conservation genomics ” isn ’ t limited to just vaquitas but can also be applied to other critically endangered species such as mountain gorillas , white rhinos , and Marsican brown bears as well .
Time will tell if scientists are able to harness genome science to not just maintain , but also improve the status of many animals and plants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For more information , check out the full article at Wired.com .

Vaquitas are small, pudgy looking porpoises that have a cute “baby Yoda” look to them. Once common along the upper Gulf of California in Mexico, the species has today been brought near to the brink of extinction.
A survey conducted in 1997 found some 567 remaining in the wild. Today many believe that number has dropped below 100.
What is causing the demise of the Vaquita? Conservationists pin the blame on two culprits.
The first is the result of black-market fishing — not for the vaquita per se, but for catches of a giant croaker fish like the bahaba and totaba. The nation of China in particular pays high prices for these exotic fish, often up to $80,000 per kilogram. Though prohibited by the Mexican government, many hard-pressed Mexican fisherman take their chances and use “gillnets” that not only entrap bahabas and totabas, but also vaquitas in the mix.
The second reason the endangered porpoises are imperiled is a result of genetic weaknesses in the remaining population. As its numbers have dwindled, the pickings for mating vaquitas have become slim indeed – with many having to mate with their cousins or siblings. Not good. This has weakened the genetic pool, however there may be other genetic reasons at play too.
Fortunately, modern science might be able to intervene in time to rescue the species at the sound of the bell. As explained in Wired.com:
“The answer may come from a burgeoning wing of ecology known as conservation genomics. By using the vaquita’s DNA data as a yardstick, scientists can gauge whether other animals whose populations are declining—animals they may know less about—are in danger of inbreeding. If the data suggests, as it does with the vaquita, that a species’ population has been stable over time and there is little variation within its genome, it’s probably at very low risk. If, on the other hand, the genetic variation is high, then the risk might be too.
By cross-referencing the genomes in this way, scientists can quickly assess the most urgent threats an animal faces: If inbreeding isn’t the biggest problem, then maybe poaching or habitat loss is. They can also determine whether the animal should be taken into captivity, and if so, how many individuals would be enough.”
Of course, this form of “conservation genomics” isn’t limited to just vaquitas but can also be applied to other critically endangered species such as mountain gorillas, white rhinos, and Marsican brown bears as well. Time will tell if scientists are able to harness genome science to not just maintain, but also improve the status of many animals and plants staring down the brink of annihilation.
For more information, check out the full article at Wired.com.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-21--Financiers of misery – Part 1

Financiers of misery – Part 1

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization , anti-development banks , the Agency for International Development ( USAID ) , NGO ( non-government organization ) pressure groups and other eco-imperialists are properly condemned for using their money , power , and control over trade and lending to keep millions of African , Asian and Latin American families from having access to reliable , affordable energy , pesticides and spatial insect repellants to prevent disease , and modern agricultural technologies .
Those outfits perpetuate poverty , disease , malnutrition and death .
Yet the eco-manslaughter continues .
Too many US , EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by neo-colonialist elements in their leadership and ranks , and among the politicians who set their budgets and programs .
The NGOs enjoy tax-exempt status and global prestige , because the human and environmental costs of their policies rarely receive more than superficial scrutiny by media , human rights or other “ watchdogs.
” But the fact is , few NGOs would even exist without the wealthy foundations that finance them .
Indeed , “ philanthropic ” foundation support for radical environmentalist groups and campaigns is one of the best kept secrets of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to spotlight some of them and call them to account .
Wealthy foundations – often created with profits and fortunes made in industry and technology – directly and indirectly support some of the most radical anti-energy , anti-technology and agro-ecology activism in America , Europe and the world .
Their wealth , direct and indirect aid mechanisms , and inter-locking global network of funders , managers and advisors make them a powerful , callous , oppressive force .
They use direct donations and a growing number of clever non-transparent pass-through operations ( funds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) to consolidate money from multiple donors and direct “ charitable giving ” to organizations and projects that support their ideologies and causes .
The system also helps insulate the foundations – and their patrons and managers – from direct association with the most questionable , controversial , and often thuggish and lethal organizations and activists .
The funding , in turn , enables the organizations and activists to paint themselves as legitimate , benevolent and popular voices worthy of attention in global and domestic debates over laws , policies and regulations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the use of modern , innovative farm technologies like improved pesticides , GM crops ( genetically modified , engineered through biotechnology ) – and even fertilizers , tractors and hybrid seeds – under the auspices of what they cleverly call “ agro-ecology.
” A big part of the problem is that the World Bank , EU agencies and Euro foundations demand and support primitive subsistence farming , and block food imports from countries that permit biotech farming .
The World Bank ’ s Global Environment Facility and various European donors support groups like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Organic Agriculture Network , Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya , and Resources Oriented Development Initiatives of Kenya .
In fact , virtually every African country is beset by their “ benevolence , ” as are India and other countries in Asia and Latin America .
All of them promote the supposed benefits of organic farming that bans the use of “ dangerous , poisonous ” manmade pesticides – but permits the use in “ organic ” farming of “ natural ” pesticides and other chemicals that are also toxic and dangerous to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insects .
They stridently oppose all biotech crops – including life-saving Golden Rice – and have been pressuring Kenyan and other African governments to ban more than 200 pesticides that have been approved as safe in many other countries .
Many of the groups even oppose mechanized equipment like tractors .
Among the EU funders are BioVision , the Danish Agency for International Development Cooperation , the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency , the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation , and the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation .
They even support newspapers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is often little more than another NGO that runs and supports anti-technology campaigns and seeks donations from readers and major funding from foundations in exchange for stories .
Self-proclaimed “ philanthropic , charitable ” US foundations are just as guilty .
They probably provide far more significant than EU funding , but their secretive networks make that hard to ascertain .
Foundation support for the agro-ecology Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa helps illustrate how all this works .
AFSA is a pan-African alliance of organizations committed to “ resisting ” the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It claims the use of modern agricultural technologies like pesticides for crop protection , chemical fertilizers , and genetically modified crops for drought and insect resistance and higher yields will result in “ massive land grabs , destruction of indigenous biodiversity and ecosystems , displacement of indigenous peoples … and the destruction of their livelihoods and cultures.
” AFSA ’ s core members include activist pressure groups that espouse an even broader variety of anti-capitalist , anti-technology , radical environmentalist goals and philosophies .
Among the more notable and notorious ones are The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biodiversity , GroundSwell International , Friends of the Earth ( FOE ) , and La Via Campensina Africa .
These organizations work together to plan and support pro-organic , anti-biotech campaigns , and provide financial management and expertise in furthering AFSA principles .
Letting them retain tax-exempt status is a travesty .
Core member La Via Campensina Africa ( The Peasant Way – Africa ) , for example , is a radical , proponent of anti-technology agro-ecology .
It rejects modern farming technologies : crop protection pesticides and herbicides , fertilizers for nutrient-depleted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bananas , cassava and other crops that have been all but destroyed by viruses and diseases .
It also advocates an anti-free market program of peasant-centric subsistence agriculture that largely limits farmers to backbreaking organic agricultural farming methods , and selling to local markets .
Agro-ecology farmers are largely limited to those local markets , in part because they can not raise enough crops for export to wider markets like Europe – while other produce is blocked because many EU nations ban the import of crops that are so much as tainted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The US-based AgroEcology Fund ( AEF ) helped to launch and continues to support the AFSA .
It acts as a pass-through fund of funds to hide sources , and helps to coordinate , direct and manage giving to outfits like AFSA .
The AEF also partners with AFSA and other organizations such as the Center for Food Safety ( CFS ) , to battle “ the industrial model ” and promote organic farming .
The AgroEcology Fund directly gave the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa in 2015 $ 200,000 and has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and possibly more via clandestine means ) .
That may not sound like much , but such funds pay for 10-100 times more hourly wages and activism in Africa than they would in USA .
In 2017 , the AEF and AFSA worked together on a campaign to prevent biotech seed patent protections laws from being enforced in Africa .
The AEF was created by three wealthy American foundations , the Christensen Fund , the New Fields Foundation , the Swift Foundation and a donor who remains unknown .
AEF programs and funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which was created to help “ philanthropists ” better direct funds to projects and programs in line with their neo-colonialist goals ; the NVF is managed by Arabella Advisors .
Ironically and perversely , the foundations that funded AEF ’ s creation are rooted in money generated in innovation , industry and technology .
Now AEF and its foundation backers battle agricultural innovation and keep African farmers mired in farming practices that can feed few people , and can successfully battle few crop-devouring insect pests , much less protect crops against recurrent locust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have abundant food – traditional , modern and organic .
Meanwhile , poor countries are saddled with barely enough food , no safety net for all those times when droughts or insects destroy crops , and diktats from ultra-wealthy foundations and pressure groups that tell farmers they should be happy to engage in dawn-to-dusk subsistence farming , ox-drawn plowing , stoop labor , banging on metal pans to drive the locust hordes away , and living on the verge of starvation .

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization, anti-development banks, the Agency for International Development (USAID), NGO (non-government organization) pressure groups and other eco-imperialists are properly condemned for using their money. Additionally their power, and control over trade and lending to keep millions of African, Asian and Latin American families from having access to reliable, affordable energy, pesticides and spatial insect repellants to prevent disease, and modern agricultural technologies.
Those outfits perpetuate poverty, disease, malnutrition and death. Yet the eco-manslaughter continues.
Too many US, EU and UN government agencies have been captured by neo-colonialist elements in their leadership and ranks, and among the politicians who set their budgets and programs. The NGOs enjoy tax-exempt status and global prestige, because the human and environmental costs of their policies rarely receive more than superficial scrutiny by media, human rights or other “watchdogs.”
Yet the fact is, few NGOs would even exist without the wealthy foundations that finance them. Indeed, “philanthropic” foundation support for radical environmentalist groups and campaigns is one of the best kept secrets of modern society. It’s time to spotlight some of them and call them to account.
Wealthy foundations, (often created with profits and fortunes made in industry and technology) directly and indirectly support some of the most radical anti-energy, anti-technology, agro-ecology activism in America, Europe and the world. Their wealth, direct and indirect aid mechanisms, and inter-locking global network of funders, managers and advisors make them a powerful, callous, oppressive force.
They use direct donations and a growing number of clever non-transparent pass-through operations (funds of funds, or foundations of foundations) to consolidate money from multiple donors and direct “charitable giving” to organizations and projects that support their ideologies and causes. The system also helps insulate the foundations – and their patrons and managers – from direct association with the most questionable, controversial, and often thuggish and lethal organizations and activists.
The funding, in turn, enables the organizations and activists to paint themselves as legitimate, benevolent and popular voices worthy of attention in global and domestic debates over laws, policies and regulations.
They have become especially effective in blocking the use of modern, innovative farm technologies like improved pesticides, GM crops (genetically modified, engineered through biotechnology) –even fertilizers, tractors and hybrid seeds – under the auspices of what they cleverly call “agro-ecology.”
A big part of the problem is that the World Bank, EU agencies and Euro foundations demand and support primitive subsistence farming. They block food imports from countries that permit biotech farming. The World Bank’s Global Environment Facility and various European donors support groups like the Route to Food Initiative, Kenya Organic Agriculture Network, Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya, and Resources Oriented Development Initiatives of Kenya. In fact, virtually every African country is beset by their “benevolence,” as are India and other countries in Asia and Latin America.
All of them promote the supposed benefits of organic farming that bans the use of “dangerous, poisonous” manmade pesticides – but permits the use in “organic” farming of “natural” pesticides and other chemicals that are also toxic and dangerous to humans, wildlife, fish and beneficial insects. They stridently oppose all biotech crops – including life-saving Golden Rice – and have been pressuring Kenyan and other African governments to ban more than 200 pesticides that have been approved as safe in many other countries. Many of the groups even oppose mechanized equipment like tractors.
Among the EU funders are BioVision, the Danish Agency for International Development Cooperation, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, and the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. They even support newspapers like Britain’s Guardian, which is often little more than another NGO that runs and supports anti-technology campaigns and seeks donations from readers and major funding from foundations in exchange for stories.
Self-proclaimed “philanthropic, charitable” US foundations are just as guilty. They probably provide far more significant than EU funding, but their secretive networks make that hard to ascertain. Foundation support for the agro-ecology Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa helps illustrate how all this works.
AFSA is a pan-African alliance of organizations committed to “resisting” the “corporate industrialization” of African agriculture. It claims the use of modern agricultural technologies like pesticides for crop protection, chemical fertilizers, and genetically modified crops for drought and insect resistance and higher yields will result in “massive land grabs, destruction of indigenous biodiversity and ecosystems, displacement of indigenous peoples … and the destruction of their livelihoods and cultures.”
AFSA’s core members include activist pressure groups that espouse an even broader variety of anti-capitalist, anti-technology, radical environmentalist goals and philosophies. Among the more notable and notorious ones are The African Biodiversity Network, African Center for Biodiversity, GroundSwell International, Friends of the Earth (FOE), and La Via Campensina Africa. These organizations work together to plan and support pro-organic, anti-biotech campaigns, and provide financial management and expertise in furthering AFSA principles. Letting them retain tax-exempt status is a travesty.
Core member La Via Campensina Africa (The Peasant Way – Africa), for example, is a radical, proponent of anti-technology agro-ecology. It rejects modern farming technologies: crop protection pesticides and herbicides, fertilizers for nutrient-depleted soils, and even biotech replacements for bananas, cassava and other crops that have been all but destroyed by viruses and diseases. It also advocates an anti-free market program of peasant-centric subsistence agriculture that largely limits farmers to backbreaking organic agricultural farming methods, and selling to local markets.
Agro-ecology farmers are largely limited to those local markets, in part because they cannot raise enough crops for export to wider markets like Europe – while other produce is blocked because many EU nations ban the import of crops that are so much as tainted by glyphosate, neonicotinoids or biotech pollen.
The US-based AgroEcology Fund (AEF) helped to launch and continues to support the AFSA. It acts as a pass-through fund of funds to hide sources, and helps to coordinate, direct and manage giving to outfits like AFSA. The AEF also partners with AFSA and other organizations such as the Center for Food Safety (CFS), to battle “the industrial model” and promote organic farming.
The AgroEcology Fund directly gave the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa in 2015 $200,000 and has given it some $500,000 overall (and possibly more via clandestine means). That may not sound like much, but such funds pay for 10-100 times more hourly wages and activism in Africa than they would in USA. In 2017, the AEF and AFSA worked together on a campaign to prevent biotech seed patent protections laws from being enforced in Africa.
The AEF was created by three wealthy American foundations, the Christensen Fund, the New Fields Foundation, the Swift Foundation and a donor who remains unknown. AEF programs and funding are overseen by New Venture Fund, which was created to help “philanthropists” better direct funds to projects and programs in line with their neo-colonialist goals; the NVF is managed by Arabella Advisors.
Ironically and perversely, the foundations that funded AEF’s creation are rooted in money generated in innovation, industry and technology. Now AEF and its foundation backers battle agricultural innovation and keep African farmers mired in farming practices that can feed few people, and can successfully battle few crop-devouring insect pests, much less protect crops against recurrent locust plagues.
Equally perverse, rich countries have abundant food – traditional, modern and organic. Meanwhile, poor countries are saddled with barely enough food, no safety net for all those times when droughts or insects destroy crops, and diktats from ultra-wealthy foundations and pressure groups that tell farmers they should be happy to engage in dawn-to-dusk subsistence farming, ox-drawn plowing, stoop labor, banging on metal pans to drive the locust hordes away, and living on the verge of starvation.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-22--Fossil fuel industry shutdown contradicts  alarmist agenda

Three reasons for this .
1 ) we can see how much misery there is with a shutdown economy .
The relationship between the economy and energy is synergistic , The economy does not go without energy , and if the economy tanks there is no demand for energy , that tanks and with it a large portion of jobs .
What is so great about that future ?
2 ) The idea that you can take out the entire fossil fuel industry means many jobs will be lost , Look at all the things that are made that require @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not build wind turbines or have a solar panel field without some way to get the materials , which had to made with energy and then get it to site .
3 ) The shut down is currently proving Man is not driving the bulk of the co2 input into the atmosphere but instead its the cyclical warming of the co2 rich oceans which outsource it to the air , You can open a can of soda and understand that .
Carbonated drinks tend to lose their fizz at higher temperatures because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is increased as the temperature is raised .
This can be explained by the fact that when carbonated liquids are exposed to high temperatures , the solubility of gases in them is decreased .
Consequently , gas that has not dissolved can easily be lost .
The increase in SSTs can be seen by comparing now to 30 years ago ( on the left ) That has to outsource much of the co2 So with the world ’ s economies tanking the last 3 months , and remember the US contributes only 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why has the seasonal rise of co2 not diminished , In addition , the jagged rise of co2 is further proof that on way to counter its increase is through planting billions of trees .
If their agenda was truly concerned about it , then why not use a classic GREEN solution ?
But look at the step-up function on a yearly basis ( From CDAC Berkely Lab ) The reason for this is in the northern hemisphere winter is there is much less plant life to take the co2 out .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s input of co2 from having to heat our home , but is that the major cause ?
If so why has there been no diminishing of the rate of increase ?
The COVID 19 outbreak right now , with no slowdown in the seasonal rise , is exposing that the oceans have still not reached a satisfactory equilibrium and are certainly a big input mechanism , That the climate agenda is pushing the idea that this is what we can do without fossil fuels relies on people not looking beyond what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economies opening back up if the man was contributing the lions share of the co2 , then there should be a response .
But right now there is no response , The seasonal downturn is coming and it should be more than average if this is mainly man-made .
The reason for this is in the northern hemisphere winter is there is much less plant life to take the co2 out .
In addition , there is more of man ’ s input of co2 from having to heat our home , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If so why has there been no diminishing of the rate of increase ?
The COVID 19 outbreak right now , with no slowdown in the seasonal rise , is exposing that the oceans have still not reached a satisfactory equilibrium and are certainly a big input mechanism , That the climate agenda is pushing the idea that this is what we can do without fossil fuels relies on people not looking beyond what they are being told .
Even with the economies opening back up if the man was contributing the lions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be a response .
But right now there is no response , The seasonal downturn is coming and it should be more than average if this is mainly man-made .
As always this will be attacked as anti-environment when nothing is further from the truth Let me lay my cards on the table .
I am an all of the above energy guy .
I am fan of wind and solar because they need forecasts every day , in fact , every hour .
And what I do for a living is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ huge variables .
So there is plenty of reason for me to want wind and solar involved .
They need the same longer range forecasts as fossil fuel companies and the extra daily forecasts .
Besides what ’ s not to love about a cheap free source of energy , except in its current state its neither compared to our other source and can not be stored efficiently , In any case , I am not a fan of forcing things down people ’ s throat with painful measures .
In addition not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why are we still being held hostage by the “ China Syndrome ” This is America in 2020 , We can build safe carbon-neutral nuclear plants .
Until such a time that wind and solar can be phased in as their technology improves , they are not the solution but just a part of it And I am not for stopping their advancement in the least , Great forecasts can cheapen costs !
But it defies common sense the left is cooing over a co2 free input from man when right in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is still increasing , So how is it , man ?
If there is lag then there has to be some response down the road a greater than average fall in the summer months .
When this current crisis wanes Given the natural hysteria over any hurricane or any event out of the ordinary , the climate will become a huge issue in this election , I think the Trump administration should address the widespread perception among a large block of voters that they won ’ t even listen .
For starters advance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue away from them .
PLANT MORE TREES , not shut down the economy with a Green New Deal , you can call a real green deal .
That is not my idea , Tucker Carlson in this clip on a show I was on with him put it in my head .
2 ) Push Nuclear power , use it as an infrastructure matter .
By addressing this issue and showing you are for the freedom you can attract people more than trying to counter it with facts since most of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This issue is not about climate , that is a smokescreen for a political agenda .
So you have to fight on the POLITICAL battlefield in front of you , which is this large voting bloc that is not going to listen to nerds like me arguing over climate but will listen to something that can capture their imagination , that assures them they have a future .
A future that many of them are convinced will not exist , given what has been forced upon them .
You don ’ t retreat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rid of all the nonsense that is attached to this issue , the cottage industry that has turned into a roaring factory known as “ climate science ” which would not be so bad except if you look at who the bulk of the people pushing it are leftist .
So go above them , Appeal to a true green plan .
Use technology .
Don ’ t demonize any one contributor , solar wind , fossil fuels , etc .
The big thing I want is to take the issue out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so much , people have become obsessed with it and want it out of the common sense arena , into the complex .
By causing confusion from complexity , you force reliance on those in control and there is what may be behind all this A tepid US economy and a lack of freedom of choice run counter to what made this country what it is .
Any economic ideas have to be based on free-market ideas and not forced on people or diminish their chance to have life , liberty and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about it there are simply too many people concerned about this to ignore them .
But in the terrible time that we are in now , in a way , this may be showing us that man ’ s input of co2 vs the entire trend is small indeed .
We will know better at the end of the year , but if true , it exposes much of their missive as being a political agenda that only used climate and weather as a vehicle to push their points

Three reasons for this.
1) We can see how much misery there is with a shutdown economy. The relationship between the economy and energy is synergistic. The economy does not go without energy. If the economy tanks there is no demand for energy and with it a large portion of jobs. What is so great about that future?
2) The idea that you can take out the entire fossil fuel industry means many jobs will be lost. Look at all the things that are made that require the use of fossil fuels. You cannot build wind turbines or have a solar panel fields without some way to get the materials, which had to be made with energy, to the site.
3) The shut down is currently proving Man is not driving the bulk of the CO2 input into the atmosphere but instead its the cyclical warming of the CO2 rich oceans which outsource it to the air. You can open a can of soda and understand that.
From this link:
https://sciencing.com/info-8793154-carbonation-affected-temperature.html
Carbonated drinks tend to lose their fizz at higher temperatures because the loss of carbon dioxide in liquids is increased as the temperature is raised. This can be explained by the fact that when carbonated liquids are exposed to high temperatures, the solubility of gases in them is decreased. Consequently, gas that has not dissolved can easily be lost.
The increase in SSTs can be seen by comparing now to 30 years ago (on the left).
That has to outsource much of the co2.
So with the world’s economies tanking the last 3 months, and remember the US contributes only 15% of man’s input, why has the seasonal rise of CO2 not diminished?
In addition, the jagged rise of CO2 is further proof that the way to counter it’s increase is through planting billions of trees. If their agenda was truly concerned about it, then why not use a classic GREEN solution?
But look at the step-up function on a yearly basis (From CDAC Berkeley Lab)
The reason for this is in the northern hemisphere, where winter has a reduced plant life resulting in a reduced CO2 output. In addition, there is more of man’s input of CO2 from having to heat our home, but is that the major cause? If so, why has there been no diminishing rate of increase? The reason for this is in the northern hemisphere, where winter has a reduced plant life resulting in a reduced CO2 output. In addition, there is more of man’s input of CO2 from having to heat our home, but is that the major cause? If so, why has there been no diminishing rate of increase?
The COVID-19 outbreak right now, with no slowdown in the seasonal rise, is exposing that the oceans have still not reached a satisfactory equilibrium and are certainly a big input mechanism. That the climate agenda is pushing the idea that this is what we can do without fossil fuels, relies on people not looking beyond what they are being told. Even with the economies opening, if Man was contributing the lions share of the co2, then there should be a response. Yet right now there is no response. The seasonal downturn is coming and it should be more than average if this is mainly man-made.
As always this will be attacked as anti-environment when nothing is further from the truth. Let me lay my cards on the table. I am an all of the above energy guy. I am a fan of wind and solar because they need forecasts every day, in fact, every hour. Additionally, what I do for a living is forecast where wind and cloud cover are huge variables. So there is plenty of reason for me to want wind and solar involved. They need the same longer range forecasts as fossil fuel companies and the extra daily forecasts. Besides what’s not to love about a cheap free source of energy, except in its current state it’s neither compared to another source and can not be stored efficiently. In any case, I am not a fan of forcing things down people’s throat with painful measures. In addition, not only is there a greener solution but why are we still being held hostage by the “China Syndrome”?
This is America in 2020. We can build safe carbon-neutral nuclear plants. Until such a time that wind and solar can be phased in as their technology improves, they are not the solution but just a part of it. I am not for stopping their advancement in the least. Great forecasts can cheapen costs!
It defies common sense the left is cooing over a CO2 free input from man when right in their face the data is showing that it is still increasing. So how is it Man? If there is lag then there has to be some response down the road to a greater than average fall in the summer months.
When this current crisis wanes, given the natural hysteria over any hurricane or any event out of the ordinary, the climate will become a huge issue in this election. I think the Trump administration should address the widespread perception among a large block of voters that they won’t even listen. For starters advance a global green agenda, take the issue away from them. PLANT MORE TREES, not shut down the economy with a Green New Deal. You can call it a Real Green Deal.
That is not my idea, I was on a show that aired with Tucker Carlson which put the idea in my head.
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6101737930001#sp=show-clips
2) Push Nuclear power, use it as an infrastructure matter. By addressing this issue and showing you are for freedom you can attract people more than trying to counter it with facts since most of them won’t look or listen. This issue is not about climate. That is a smokescreen for a political agenda. So you have to fight on the POLITICAL battlefield in front of you, which is this large voting bloc that is not going to listen to nerds like me arguing over climate but will listen to something that can capture their imagination. That assures them they have a future. A future that many of them are convinced will not exist, given what has been forced upon them. You don’t retreat, you re-route. This would get rid of all the nonsense that is attached to this issue, the cottage industry that has turned into a roaring factory known as ‘climate science’ which would not be so bad except if you look at who the bulk of the people pushing it are leftist. So go above them. Appeal to a true green plan. Use technology. Don’t demonize any one contributor; solar wind, fossil fuels, etc. The big thing I want is to take the issue out of their hands. Because it matters so much, people have become obsessed with it and want it out of the common sense arena, into the complex. By causing confusion from complexity, you force reliance on those in control and that is what may be behind all this. A tepid US economy and a lack of freedom of choice run counter to what made this country what it is.
Any economic ideas have to be based on free-market ideas and not forced on people or diminish their chance to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
But make no mistake about it there are simply too many people concerned about this to ignore them. Yet in the terrible time we find ourselves now, in a way, this may be showing us that man’s input of CO2 vs the entire trend is small indeed. We will know better at the end of the year, but if true, it exposes much of their missive as being a political agenda. One that only used climate and weather as a vehicle to push their points.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-22--U.S. slaps another UN bureaucracy – Guess WHO

Was the United Nation ’ s World Health Organization ( WHO ) a tragic comedy of errors and enabler of deceit in the weeks following the coronavirus outbreak in the city of Wuhan , China last December ?
At the least , the agency ’ s lollygagging on the virus and deference to China ’ s spin and secrecy precluded earlier action to stem the spread of Covid-19 .
WHO ’ s actions are a reminder of the dubious political nature of the United Nations itself .
The WHO plays a major role in recommending , coordinating and assisting in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , public health crises around the world .
It has an annual budget near $ 5 billion .
Earlier this month President Donald Trump announced he was withholding more than $ 500 million in funding for the WHO , pending a 60-day review of this UN agency ’ s conduct in the weeks following the outbreak of the coronavirus in China .
The U.S. is by far the WHO ’ s largest financial contributor .
As I ’ ve written , the U.S. needs to go bigger , and extricate from China economically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wuhan was reported to the WHO , the agency tweeted China ’ s bogus claim that there was “ no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission ” of the coronavirus .
Later in January , WHO revised this , but claimed there was “ moderate ” risk of a worldwide spread .
By January 30th , the agency then declared a “ public health emergency of international concern.
” It was not until six weeks—mid February—before WHO experts were allowed into China to investigate the outbreak .
All along the WHO was parroting China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement it embellished China ’ s “ transparency ” and later urged countries not to restrict travel to and from China .
The Trump administration ignored this insanity and on January 31st imposed travel restrictions on China , and subsequently on Europe .
The World Health Organization has consistently taken China ’ s word , including opposition to the travel ban , and data on coronavirus , which low-balled the number of people infected by Covid-19 .
WHO ’ s subservience to China also reveals itself as it pretends Taiwan does not exist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , rather than independent .
It took the WHO until March 11th to declare Covid-19 a worldwide “ pandemic.
” By then , 118,000 cases of infection were reported in 114 countries .
Italy was the hardest hit nation and , three days earlier , imposed a stay-at-home lockdown .
The WHO ’ s Director-General , Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus of Ethiopia has a bias toward China with his praise of the dictatorial government , even as China was covering up the seriousness of the virus back in January .
The WHO ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pattern between international organizations and the Communist giant .
Though China is not a major donor to the WHO or other UN agencies , it exerts influence by its geopolitical power with other nations in Southeast Asia and Africa with which it has substantial economic and military ties .
China ’ s influence also comes from its role in the UN ’ s budget committees and its contributions in money and personnel to UN peacekeeping missions .
By contrast , the United States has diminished its role in the United Nations , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Council and the UN Educational , Scientific and Cultural Organization , two corrupt bureaucracies .
UNESCO has long been anti-Israel , while the Council routinely ignored human rights abuses by its member nations , even as it criticized the U.S. and the UN ’ s favorite villain , Israel .
Then there is the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change .
The IPCC has long exaggerated the degree of warming of the planet and its effect , which it claims is all due to mankind ’ s use of fossil fuels , contrary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s crying-wolf over its climate predictions is more a means to redistribute wealth from first world nations , starting with the U.S. , and “ change the economic model , ” according to a senior UN climate official .
In other words , the UN ’ s climate agenda , including its crown jewel , the Paris Agreement on Climate Change , is less about the weather and all about a money-and-power grab .
The WHO ’ s negligent role in the Covid-19 crisis and its fawning over China during its cover-up calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The U.S. has wisely diminished its role in UN agencies inimical to its interests , even as it remains the UN ’ s largest financial contributor overall .
If the WHO leadership also can not reform itself and become an objective force for global health , the U.S. should continue to redirect funding to other global health agents .

Was the United Nation’s World Health Organization (WHO) a tragic comedy of errors and enabler of deceit in the weeks following the coronavirus outbreak in the city of Wuhan, China last December?
At the least, the agency’s lollygagging on the virus and deference to China’s spin and secrecy precluded earlier action to stem the spread of Covid-19. WHO’s actions are a reminder of the dubious political nature of the United Nations itself.
The WHO plays a major role in recommending, coordinating and assisting in the prevention of, and response to, public health crises around the world. It has an annual budget near $5 billion.
Earlier this month President Donald Trump announced he was withholding more than $500 million in funding for the WHO, pending a 60-day review of this UN agency’s conduct in the weeks following the outbreak of the coronavirus in China. The U.S. is by far the WHO’s largest financial contributor. As I’ve written, the U.S. needs to go bigger, and extricate from China economically.
Two weeks after the virus from Wuhan was reported to the WHO, the agency tweeted China’s bogus claim that there was “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission” of the coronavirus. Later in January, WHO revised this, but claimed there was “moderate” risk of a worldwide spread. By January 30th, the agency then declared a “public health emergency of international concern.”
It was not until six weeks—mid February—before WHO experts were allowed into China to investigate the outbreak. All along the WHO was parroting China in downplaying the virus. In a statement it embellished China’s “transparency” and later urged countries not to restrict travel to and from China. The Trump administration ignored this inanity and on January 31st imposed travel restrictions on China, and subsequently on Europe.
The World Health Organization has consistently taken China’s word, including opposition to the travel ban, and data on coronavirus, which low-balled the number of people infected by Covid-19. WHO’s subservience to China also reveals itself as it pretends Taiwan does not exist since China views it as a province, rather than independent.
It took the WHO until March 11th to declare Covid-19 a worldwide “pandemic.” By then, 118,000 cases of infection were reported in 114 countries. Italy was the hardest hit nation and, three days earlier, imposed a stay-at-home lockdown.
The WHO’s Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus of Ethiopia has a bias toward China with his praise of the dictatorial government, even as China was covering up the seriousness of the virus back in January.
The WHO’s deference to China is part of a pattern between international organizations and the Communist giant. Though China is not a major donor to the WHO or other UN agencies, it exerts influence by its geopolitical power with other nations in Southeast Asia and Africa with which it has substantial economic and military ties. China’s influence also comes from its role in the UN’s budget committees and its contributions in money and personnel to UN peacekeeping missions.
By contrast, the United States has diminished its role in the United Nations, including its withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, two corrupt bureaucracies. UNESCO has long been anti-Israel, while the Council routinely ignored human rights abuses by its member nations, even as it criticized the U.S. and the UN’s favorite villain, Israel.
Then there is the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC has long exaggerated the degree of warming of the planet and its effect, which it claims is all due to mankind’s use of fossil fuels, contrary to scientific evidence. The IPCC’s crying-wolf over its climate predictions is more a means to redistribute wealth from first world nations, starting with the U.S., to “change the economic model,” according to a senior UN climate official. In other words, the UN’s climate agenda, including its crown jewel, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, is less about the weather and all about a money-and-power grab.
The WHO’s negligent role in the Covid-19 crisis and its fawning over China during its cover-up calls into question yet another UN agency. The U.S. has wisely diminished its role in UN agencies inimical to its interests, even as it remains the UN’s largest financial contributor overall.
If the WHO leadership also cannot reform itself and become an objective force for global health, the U.S. should continue to redirect funding to other global health agents.