The Tonka Report

Real News In A Changing World

Governments Want Global Authority To Geo-Engineer Entire Planet

with 2 comments

April 29, 2010: Steve Watson / Prisonplanet.com – April 29th, 2010

A recently published lengthy UK Government report suggests appointing a global body such as the UN to exclusively regulate world wide geoengineering of the planet in order to stave off man made global warming.

The House of Commons report, entitled The Regulation of Geoengineering, was compiled by the government’s Science and Technology Committee in collaboration with the U.S. House of Representatives Science and Technology Committee.

It demonstrates how seriously both governments are looking at the idea of manipulating the planet’s climate. “…we may need geoengineering as a ‘Plan B’ if, in the event of the failure of ‘Plan A’—the reduction of greenhouse gases—we are faced with highly disruptive climate change.” the report states. “If we start work now it will provide the opportunity to explore fully the technological, environmental, political and regulatory issues.” it continues. The report also notes that the idea of geoengineering should be made more mainstream and further integrated into the government’s climate change policies. “We recommend that the Government give greater priority to public engagement on geoengineering by, for example, showing how it relates to its policy on the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions.”

It describes several different proposed methods of geoengineering, including spraying sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect produced by volcanic eruptions, as well as placing mirrors in space to reflect the Sun’s rays away from the Earth, a technique known as Solar Radiation Management (SRM). The report notes that such methods “could substantially influence the climate within months” but may generate “serious unintended consequences”.

“SRM could produce droughts with severe implications for regional and global food production, and delay the recovery of the ozone layer by decades, while doing almost nothing to address ocean acidification,” the report states, quoting Dr Jason Blackstock of the Centre for International Governance Innovation in Canada. It calls for international mechanisms to be put into place to oversee research and deployment of geoengineering so that countries cannot “unilaterally” affect the climate. “The UN is the route by which, eventually, we envisage the regulatory framework operating but first the UK and other governments need to push geoengineering up the international agenda and get processes moving.” the report states.

The report draws heavily upon research and publications of The Royal Society, a 350 year old establishment outfit that has recently thrown its full weight behind the global warming movement, lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80%, a process that will devastate the global economy and drastically reduce living standards everywhere. The Royal Society has been even more vehement than national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050.

The society has conducted extensive research into geoengineering and continually lobbies the government to divert funding into it. One notable member of the Royal Society is James Lovelock, an eco-fascist who advocates ending democracy and instituting an authoritative elite to oversee global climate management. He is also a patron of the Optimum Population Institute, a notorious UK-based public policy group that campaigns for a gradual decline in the global human population to what it sees as a “sustainable” level.

Lovelock is also an ardent advocate of geoengineering the planet in the name of controlling the climate. In 2007 Lovelock proposed laying vast swathes of pipes under the world’s oceans in order to pump water from the bottom of the seas – rich in nutrients, but mostly dead – to the top. The idea being that the action would encourage algae to breed, absorb more carbon and release more dimethyl sulphide into the atmosphere, a chemical known to seed sunlight reflecting clouds. Such methods are also covered in the Commons report. “Our Report covering the regulation of geoengineering will now dovetail into a wider inquiry that the House of Representatives Committee is carrying out on geoengineering.” the document states.

As we covered in a previous in-depth report, numerous universities and government agencies have been conducting studies in the field of geoengineering for years, including active deployment in the form of chemtrail spraying.

Another prominent supporter of geoengineering proposals is none other than White House science czar John P. Holdren, a key Obama advisor who infamously co-authored a book in which he called for a “planetary regime” to enforce draconian population control measures such as forced abortion, infanticide and mandatory sterilization. In April last year, Holdren revealed that high-level talks had already taken place to explore the possibility of “geoengineering” the environment by “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays”.

“It’s got to be looked at,” Holdren was quoted as saying, “We don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the table.” The AP also reported that Holdren said he had raised the concept in administration discussions.

Such intense interest in exploring geoengineering, and implementing an overarching global authority on the matter mirrors publications penned by the ultra elite Council On Foreign Relations. In a document entitled Geoengineering: Workshop on Unilateral Planetary Scale Geoengineering, the CFR proposes different methods of “reflecting sunlight back into space,” which include adding “small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere,” adding “more clouds in the lower part of the atmosphere,” and placing “various kinds of reflecting objects in space either near the earth or at a stable location between the earth and the sun.”

Fred Singer, president of the Science Environmental Policy Project and a skeptic of man-made global warming theories, has warned that the consequences of tinkering with the planet’s delicate eco-system could have far-reaching dangers. “If you do this on a continuous basis, you would depress the ozone layer and cause all kinds of other problems that people would rather avoid,” said Singer.

Even Greenpeace’s chief UK scientist – a staunch advocate of the man-made global warming explanation – Doug Parr has slammed attempts to geo-engineer the planet as “outlandish” and “dangerous”.

Letting modern day eugenicists like James Lovelock and John Holdren mess with the planet would be like handing Dr. Josef Mengele control of the health care system. Holdren has proven himself to be a barbarian and a control freak, promoting a brand of bloodthirsty eugenics even more depraved than anything Hitler proposed in his drive for a super race.

Furthermore, granting UN affiliated climate scientists (who have been completely exposed as agenda-promoting quacks by the Climategate scandal) exclusive authority to experiment with the environment on a mass scale in the name of stopping the increasingly debunked premise of man-made global warming is absolute lunacy and should be stopped at all costs.

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: It’s been happening right above your heads since at least 1996… – SJH

Link to original article below…

http://www.prisonplanet.com/government-report-calls-for-global-authority-on-planetary-geo-engineering.html

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Glenn Beck claims science czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population
    Pants on Fire!
    Bookmark this story:
    Buzz up!
    ShareThis

    As evidence that the country is closer to socialist than capitalist these days, radio and talk show host Glenn Beck recently made this claim about John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy:

    “I mean, we’ve got czars now,” Beck said during his July 22, 2009, program. “Czars like John Holdren, who has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.”

    Political figures like Holdren, who are little-known by most Americans, make easy targets. And Beck’s biting quick hit on Holdren provides a healthy enough dose of outrage on which to hang his argument.

    But is it true?

    Beck’s allegation has its roots in a book Holdren co-authored with Paul and Annie Ehrlich more than three decades ago called Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment .

    Conservative bloggers have quoted the book extensively, and often out of context, to make the point that Holdren has advocated positions such as the ones Beck stated.

    We obtained the book to see exactly what Holdren, then a young man, wrote (or co-wrote). The book is just over 1,000 pages, and it clearly makes that case that an explosion in population presented a grave crisis. Although it is a textbook, the authors don’t shy away from presenting a point of view. As the preface states, “We have tried throughout the book to state clearly where we stand on various matters of controversy.”

    In a section on “Involuntary Fertility Control,” Holdren and the other authors discuss various “coercive” means of population control — including putting sterilants in the drinking water. But they stop well short of advocating such measures.

    Here’s a few excerpts:

    “The third approach to population limitation is that of involuntary fertility control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. …

    “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. …

    “Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children.”

    Later, the authors conclude, “Most of the population control measures beyond family planning discussed above have never been tried. Some are as yet technically impossible and others are and probably will remain unacceptable to most societies (although, of course, the potential effectiveness of those least acceptable measures may be great).

    “Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly against population growth, perhaps the need for the more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries.”

    And here’s the part that some have interpreted as Holdren advocating for forced abortions.

    “To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however.”

    This comes in a section discussing population law. The authors argue that compulsory abortions could potentially be allowed under U.S. law “if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” Again, that’s a far cry from advocating or proposing such a position.

    In the book, the authors certainly advocate making abortions readily accessible for women who want to get them. But they never advocate forced abortions. Big difference.

    In response to the comments from Beck and others, Holdren’s office issued this statement: “The quotations used to suggest that Dr. Holdren supports coercive approaches to limiting population growth were taken from a 1977 college textbook on environmental science and policy, of which he was the third author. The quoted material was from a section of the book that described different possible approaches to limiting population growth and then concluded that the authors’ own preference was to employ the noncoercive approaches before the environmental and social impacts of overpopulation led desperate societies to employ coercive ones. Dr. Holdren has never been an advocate of compulsory abortions or other repressive means of population limitation.”

    Holdren’s office also provided a statement from Annie and Paul Ehrlich, the co-authors: “We have been shocked at the serious mischaracterization of our views and those of John Holdren in blog posts based on misreadings of our jointly-authored 1000-page 1977 textbook, ECOSCIENCE. We were not then, never have been, and are not now ‘advocates’ of the Draconian measures for population limitation described — but not recommended — in the book’s 60-plus small-type pages cataloging the full spectrum of population policies that, at the time, had either been tried in some country or analyzed by some commentator.

    Under questioning by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., during his Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren said he “no longer thinks it’s productive to focus on optimum population for the United States. … I think the key thing today is that we need to work to improve the conditions that all of our citizens face economically, environmentally, and in other respects. And we need to aim for something that I have for years been calling ‘sustainable prosperity.'”

    Vitter continued with his line of question, asking directly, “Do you think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?”

    Said Holdren: “No, senator, I do not. … I think the proper role of government is to develop and deploy the policies with respect to economy, environment, security, that will ensure the well-being of the citizens we have.”

    But with regard to Beck’s claim that Holdren “has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population,” the text of the book clearly does not support that. We think a thorough reading shows that these were ideas presented as approaches that had been discussed. They were not posed as suggestions or proposals. In fact, the authors make clear that they did not support coercive means of population control. Certainly, nowhere in the book do the authors advocate for forced abortions.

    Some have argued that Holdren’s view of the imminent and grave global dangers posed by overpopulation should provide pause, given Holdren’s current view that global warming now presents imminent and grave global dangers. That’s a matter for reasoned debate.

    But in seeking to score points for a political argument, Beck seriously mischaracterizes Holdren’s positions. Holdren didn’t advocate those ideas then. And, when asked at a Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren said he did not support them now. We think it’s irresponsible to pluck a few lines from a 1,000-page, 30-year-old textbook, and then present them out of context to dismiss Holdren’s long and distinguished career. And we rate Beck’s claim Pants on Fire!

    Facts Not Rumors

    May 3, 2010 at 12:27 pm

  2. Facts Not Rumors,

    Albeit I am not a fan of the COINTELPRO agent and US traitor Glenn Beck, what the author of the previous comment is attempting to rationalize is pathetic and irresponsible. I suggest whomever wrote it, read and research a bit further in order to understand the full implications of Holdren’s “Draconian” authorship of Ecoscience. Also, he was not the third author, he was the lead author.

    Below is an archive of several articles that will completely debunk the author from Facts Not Rumors as not only ludicrous and misleading, but an outright lie!

    Pants On Fire!

    https://stevenjohnhibbs.wordpress.com/?s=holdren+ecoscience

    – SJH

    Steven John Hibbs

    May 4, 2010 at 3:31 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: