Page 1

12 May 2013 Secretary to the Aarhus Convention UN Economic Commission for Europe Environment and Human Settlement Division Room 332, Palais des Nations CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland CC: Bjørn Magnus Jacobsen Ihler Center 4 Free & Creative Expression Tel: +47 90951161 | www.tcfce.net Email: bjorn@bjornih.co.uk Ref: 22/07 AUF Utoya Survivor Bjorn Ihler’s Center for Free & Creative Expression: The Censorship-Terrorism Connection [para:#17-23]

T: +41 22 917 2384 | F: +41 22 917 0634 public.participation@unece.org www.unece.org/env/pp CC: Parties & Anders Breivik CC: Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn Former CIA Dir. James Woolsey Ref: Censorship-PopulationEnvironment-Terrorism Connection (Walking Sustainable Security – ScarcityConflict – Talk: ‘Procreate/Consume below carrying capacity’). [para:#24-28]

Dear Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, Request for Written Reasons: Re: Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee 26 April 2013 “manifestly unreasonable” ruling concerning compliance by Norway with provisions of the Convention in connection to ‘Scarcity & Conflict’ and ‘Environmental Complaints Policy’ access to information and access to justice (ACCC/C/2013/82). Background: On 11 March 2013, Communicant filed a Communication to the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, regarding the alleged Non-Compliance by Kingdom of Norway with the obligations under the Aarhus Convention: Denial of Request for Access to Environmental Information from (a) Newspaper Editors, and (b) Bar Association; by Norwegian Environment Appeals Committee and Parliamentary Ombudsman. The Environmental Information denied to Communicant, by Norwegian Newspaper Editors, the Environmental Appeals Board and Parliamentary Ombudsman, related


to the decision-making to censor the Media’s Environment-Population-TerrorismConnection during the Breivik trial: how Mainstream Access-to-Discourse Editors censorship of non-violent scarcity-conflict political grievances and problem solving activism1 facilitate a scarcity-conflict pressure cooker socio-political reality2 for their “If it Bleads, It Leads” corporate propaganda profits from the exploding terror of the socio-political scarcity-conflict pressure cooker. [See ACCC: Johnstone v. Norway3] The Environmental Information denied to Communicant, by Norwegian Bar Association, the Environmental Appeals Board and Parliamentary Ombudsman, related to the Bar Association’s refusal to justify their non-Environmental Complaints policy. [See ACCC: Johnstone v. Norway4] The UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters5 was adopted on 25th June 1998 in the Danish city of Aarhus at the Fourth Ministerial Conference in the 'Environment for Europe' process. The Convention: (A) Links environmental rights and human rights; (B) Acknowledges that we owe an obligation to future generations; (C) Establishes that sustainable development can be achieved only through the involvement of all stakeholders; (D) Links government accountability and environmental protection; (E) Focuses on interactions between the public and public authorities in a democratic context. It is not only an environmental agreement, it is also a Convention about government accountability, transparency and responsiveness. The Aarhus Convention grants the public rights and imposes on Parties and public authorities obligations regarding access to information and public participation and access to justice. The Convention provides for: 

the right of everyone to receive environmental information that is held by public authorities ("access to environmental information"). This can include information on the state of the environment, but also on policies or measures taken, or on the state of human health and safety where this can be affected by the state of the environment. Applicants are entitled to obtain this information within one month of the request and without having to say why they require it. In addition, public authorities are obliged, under the Convention, to actively disseminate environmental information in their possession; the right to participate in environmental decision-making. Arrangements are to be made by public authorities to enable the public affected and environmental

1 “The moderate blacks were not selling the papers. We were presenting a non-violent strategy, that did not say ‗Burn, baby Burn‘. A strategy that said people must come together and sit down around a negotiating table. And this is not sensational stuff; it does not sell the papers.” Rev. John Gogotya, ANC: VIP’s of Violence documentary 2 “For revolutionary groups, the more murderous the deed, the more certain the media coverage.” -- Nicholas Partridge, Presenter, ANC: VIP‘s of Violence. See: Transcript of ANC: VIP‘s of Violence 3 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/unece-aarhus-comp-comm.html 4 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/unece-aarhus-comp-comm.html 5 http://www.unece.org/env/pp/introduction.html

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

2


non-governmental organisations to comment on, for example, proposals for projects affecting the environment, or plans and programmes relating to the environment, these comments to be taken into due account in decision-making, and information to be provided on the final decisions and the reasons for it ("public participation in environmental decision-making");

the right to review procedures to challenge public decisions that have been made without respecting the two aforementioned rights or environmental law in general ("access to justice").

On 26 April 2013, the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee ruled that Communicants complaint was “manifestly unreasonable”, without providing any written reasons justifying their ruling of “manifestly unreasonable”.

Request for Written Reasons for Ruling of “Manifestly Unreasonable”   

Request transparent release of correspondence between Aarhus Convention and Norwegian parties: Media Editors and Bar Association.

04-05

Request for written reasons as to exactly how and why the Communication to the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC) was ‘manifestly unreasonable’.

05-06

Manifestly Reasonable: Terrorism Connection:

Media’s Censorship-Environment-Population-

06-29

o

Military Doctrine & Academic Theory: Scarcity-Conflict & Media Censorship of Population in Scarcity-Conflict equation is Manifestly Reasonable.

07-12

o

Military Doctrine & Academic Theory: Climate Change & National Security: Climate Change as a Scarcity and Conflict Threat Multiplier of oil, water and food resource wars and mass migration.

12-14

22/07 AUF Utoya Survivor Bjorn Ihler’s Center for Free and Creative Expression: The Censorship-Terrorism Connection

14-17

o

Admirals, Generals, Former CIA Director & News Editor: The Censorship-Population-Environment-Terrorism Connection

17-20

o

Manifestly Reasonable: Media Silence/Censorship/Non-coverage of Scientific study results advocating Sustainable Security (Walking the National Security – Scarcity & Conflict -- Talk to Support the Troops): ‘Procreate/Consume below carrying capacity’

20-29

Aarhus Convention Compliance Comm. failure to provide Written Reasons is a violation of Aarhus Convention Written Reason principles enunciated in Art. 4: 1.i; 2, 7; Art 6: 9; Art 9: 1; Annex II.1.

29-30

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

3

o


 

Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee’s history of providing written reasons to Neo-liberal communicants indicates possible Neo-liberal discrimination towards Anarcho-Primitivist communicant.

30-42

Update: Censorship by Norwegian Media Editors: Publishing that an Anarcho-Primitivist Feminist Application to the European Court of Human Rights alleging that the Oslo Court’s Breivik Necessity Judgement was Discriminatory & an Ineffective Remedy, met all the ECHR admissibility conditions required by the Registrar for processing; is not in the public interest of Norwegian citizens.

42-44

Supporting Documentation

44-46

[A] Request transparent release of correspondence between Aarhus Convention and Norwegian parties. [1] The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee Datasheet Summary of the Case incorrectly states “The communication alleges that the Party concerned has failed to comply with the provisions of the Convention on access to information … because the Bar Association did not collect and disseminate information (art. 3, para. 1 and art. 5, para. 1).” [2] The Communication never made any allegation against the Bar Association that they “did not collect and disseminate information.” [3] The Communication stated: “The Bar Association: Disciplinary Committee and Disciplinary Board for Advocates failure to provide the communicator with the requested environmental information (‘environmental decision-making’ for their complaints policy) was an act, by a public authority, of non-compliance to ‘Access to Environmental Information’ in terms of Article 4 (1), and their failure to provide the required justifications for their refusal to provide the required ‘environmental decision-making’ for their complaints policy was an act of non-compliance in terms of Article 4(7).” [4] It is unclear how exactly the Aarhus Convention Committee concluded that request to the Bar Association for their decision-making related to their ‘Complaints Policy’ was interpreted as an allegation that the Bar Association “did not collect and disseminate information.” [5] If the Aarhus Convention were confused by Communicator’s communication, they did not ask the Communicator any further questions. [6] Instead they either (a) incorrectly concluded this reason for some strange reason; or (b) they embarked on correspondence with Norwegian Bar Association (and if so, PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

4


perhaps also Media Editor) parties; and that it was Bar Association officials who made the allegation that Communicator’s complaint was “because the Bar Association did not collect and disseminate information.” [7]

Relief Requested: Consequently, communicator requests that:

[7.1] Aarhus Convention take notice that their interpretation of Communicator’s allegations is incorrect. [7.2] Aarhus Convention authorities clarify how or where they created this incorrect interpretation related to Communicator’s complaint. [7.3] If Aarhus Convention authorities conducted any correspondence with Norwegian Media and/or Bar Association parties, to provide Communicator a copy of this correspondence, and reasons why such correspondence were concealed from Communicator.

Request for written reasons as to exactly how and why the Communication was ‘manifestly unreasonable’. [8] Requests for Environmental Information to Media Editors and Bar Association were manifestly reasonable: [8.1] Information reasonable. A. [8.2]

requested

from

Bar

Association

is

manifestly

The ‘Environmental Complaints Policy” Information requested from the Bar Association is manifestly reasonable. [Comm: para 11,12] Media Corporations & Bar Association are Public Authorities:

A.

Media Corporations (Editors and Journalists) are Public Authority Corporations, and should be held to the same Aarhus convention standards as all other Public Authorities and corporations. [Comm: para 13-14]

B.

The Bar Association is a Public Authority in terms of the Aarhus Convention. [Comm: para 15]

[8.3] Information requested from Media & Bar Association fits Aarhus Convention definition of ‘environmental information’: A.

The information requested from the Media Corporations fit the definition of ‘environmental information’ [Comm: para.10, 24-33.]

B.

The information requested from the Bar Association fit the definition of “Environmental Information”: [Comm: para 16,17, 25-33]

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

5


[8.4] The Appeals to Environmental Appeal Board and Parliamentary Ombudsman were ‘manifestly reasonable’: A.

The Appeals to the Environmental Appeals Board and the Parliamentary Ombudsman were ‘manifestly reasonable’ [Comm: para 24-33]

[9] Anders Breivik: Scarcity-Conflict and Fraud of Psychiatry Information submitted to Oslo Court and Norwegian Media during the Trial was a manifestly reasonable matter of discourse by parties and of interest to the Media: [9.1] In a letter from Mr. Breivik6, dated 02 July 2012 he writes: “I also heard about your letter and email campaigns. They have played a part in the national discourse here and the media have observed it with interest. I cant say for sure how much of an impact it has played, the only thing for sure is that it has made an impact!”

Manifestly Reasonable: Media’s Censorship of Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection: [10] The Oslo & Utoya Attacks were a symptom of the Censorship-EnvironmentPopulation-Terrorism Connection: The “If It Bleads, It Leads :: Media Population-Terrorism Connection” report submitted to Media Editors argued that Mainstream Access-to-Discourse Editors censorship of non-violent political grievances and scarcity-conflict problem solving activism facilitate a pressure cooker socio-political reality for the media’s “If it Bleads, It Leads” corporate propaganda profits, by (1) censoring the Scarcity (due to Overpopulation and Overconsumption) causes of violent resource war conflict; (2) that media abuse their publicity power in terms of their censorship of Ecocentric arguments submitted to courts; and by abusing public discourse/free speech resources; by providing certain parties with preferential and special access to such public discourse, and severely restricting or denying others any access to such public discourse; (3) Mainstream media avoid addressing or enquiring into root causes of the scarcity-conflict socio-political problems they report upon as reported in Dr. Michael Maher’s report How and Why Journalists Avoid Population - Environment connection. Anders Breivik argued his terrorist acts were justified by the necessity to: (1) Resist Eurabia: foreign immigration enabled by a corrupt NeoLiberal Corporatist elite; (2) Gov & Media Censorship of debate and discussion of the consequences of Demographic / Immigration issues required Ultra violence to Access International Public Discourse.

6

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/breivik-letters.html

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

6


[11] Military Doctrine & Academic Theory: Scarcity-Conflict & Media Censorship of Population in Scarcity-Conflict equation is Manifestly Reasonable: [11.1] The ‘Scarcity as Root cause of Conflict’ and How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection, information submitted to Media Editors and Oslo District Court, during Breivik Trial, subsequently censored by the media editors, from their readers, was ‘manifestly reasonable’ environmental information. [11.2] Scarcity as Root Cause of Conflict: The Academic and Military doctrine documentation detailing the ‘manifestly reasonable’ argument, theory and practice that Scarcity is considered a Root Cause of Conflict is immense. In fact it is one of the primary foundations for the arguments about the national security dangers of climate change: namely that climate change will result in oil, food, and water shortages which will relate to a threat-multiplier effect on all other scarcity related conflict. See Communication para.5.2; as well as, to name but a few: A.

International Court of Justice: Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project7 (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206.

B.

Bundeswehr (Sep 2010): Peak Oil: Security Policy Implications of Scarce Resources8; Bundeswehr.

C.

Bush, GW Snr (1986/02): Public Report of the Vice-President’s Task Force on Combatting Terrorism9, United States Government

D.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service: Gizewski, Peter (Spring 1997): Environmental Scarcity and Conflict10, by Peter Gizewski, Project on Environment Population and Security, Peace and Conflict Studies Program, University of Toronto; Canadian Security Intelligence Service: Archived: Commentary No. 71.

E.

White House: National Security Council (1974/04/24): National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests11, Cover Letter by Henry Kissinger.

F.

White House: National Security Council (1974/12/10): National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 200): Implications of Worldwide Population

issuu.com/js-ror/docs/970925_icj-weeramantry_husl English: http://www.permaculture.org.au/files/Peak%20Oil_Study%20EN.pdf 9 http://www.population-security.org/bush_report_on_terrorism/bush_report_on_terrorism_3.htm 10 http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/pblctns/cmmntr/cm71-eng.asp 11 issuu.com/js-ror/docs/740424_wh-nssm200 7 8

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

7


Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests12, Washington, DC, 227 pp. (The Kissinger Report) G.

White House: National Security Council (1975/11/26): National Security Decision Memorandum 314: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests13, Washington, DC. 4 pp.; made public policy by Pres. Gerald Ford.

H.

White House: Nixon, R. (1969/07/18): Special Message to the Congress on Problems of Population Growth14, Public Papers of the Presidents, No. 271, p. 521, Office of the Federal Register, National Archives, Washington, DC, 1971

I.

White House: Nixon, R (1970/03/16): Remarks of President Nixon on Signing Bill Establishing the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future15, White House

J.

White House: Nixon, R. (1972/05/05): Statement About the Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future16, Public Papers for the Presidents, No. 142, p. 576, Office of Federal Register, National Archives, Washington, DC, 1974.

K.

White House: Rockefeller Commission Report (1972/03/27): Population and the American Future: The Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future17 (PDF18); a Signet Special Edition, W5219, The New American Library, Inc., 1301 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, March, 1972.

L.

United Nations: (1974/08): World Population Plan of Action19 (PDF20); Adopted by consensus of the 137 countries represented at the UN World Population Conference at Bucharest, August 1974

M.

United States Army: Department of the Army (December 1994): Field Manual 100-23, Peace Operations21. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army

N.

United States Army (2001): US Army Posture Statement - FY 200222.

issuu.com/js-ror/docs/740424_wh-nssm200 www.population-security.org/12-CH4.html 14 http://www.population-security.org/10-CH2.html 15 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=2911 16 http://www.population-security.org/10-CH2.html 17 www.population-security.org/rockefeller/001_population_growth_and_the_american_future.htm 18 issuu.com/js-ror/docs/720327_rock-pop 19 www.population-security.org/27-APP1.html 20 issuu.com/js-ror/docs/74_un-pop-actionplan 21 http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/fm100-23(94).pdf 22 http://www.army.mil/aps/01/default.htm 12 13

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

8


O.

United States Army: Murphy, R (2006/10/24): US Army Strategy of the Environment23, Office of the Dep. Asst. Sec. of the Army, Environment, Safety & Occup. Health: Assistant for Sustainability.

P.

United States Army & TRADOC (2012): US Army Unified Quest 2012 Fact Sheet24, Unified Quest 2012 is the Army Chief of Staff's annual Title 10 Future Study Plan (FSP).

Q.

United States Army Command and General Staff College: David, MAJ William E (April 1996): Environmental Scarcity as a Cause of Violent Conflict25, USA Military Intelligence, School of Advanced Military Studies; United States Army Command and General Staff College.

R.

United States Army War College: Butts, Kent (25 April 1994): Environmental Security: A DOD Partnership for Peace26; US Army War College.

S.

United States Army War College: Bush, Col BX (13 Mar 1997): Promoting Environmental Security during Contingency Operations27; US Army War College.

T.

United States Army War College: Peters, R (1996): The Culture of Future Conflict28, US Army War College: Parameters: Winter 1995-96, pp. 18-27.

U.

United States Army War College: Ubbelohde, LTC Kurt F. (10 April 2000): Freshwater Scarcity in the Nile River Basin29, US Army War College.

V.

United States Department of Defence: Department of Defense (Jan 2012): Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for the 21st Century Defense30

W.

United States Joint Forces Command (15 March 2010): Command releases report examining the future, FJCOM.

X.

United States Joint Forces Command (2010/02/18): The Joint Operating Environment - 201031 (The JOE – 2010).

Y.

U.S. Forest Service (Dec 2012): Report Predicts a Strain on Natural Resources Due to Rapid Population Growth32.

www.cecer.army.mil/techreports/ERDC-CERL_TR-07-9/Session%20I/RichardMurphy.pdf www.army.mil/article/68379/Unified_Quest_2012___Fact_Sheet/ 25 http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA314878 26 Butts, Kent Hughes (25 April 1994): Environmental Security: A DoD Partnership for Peace http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB339.pdf 27 http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA326869 28 http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/Articles/1995/peters.htm 29 http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA378148 30 http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf 31 www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/JOE_2010_o.pdf 32 http://www.fs.fed.us/news/2012/releases/12/report.shtml 23

24

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

9


Z.

Proposed Legal Principles for Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development, adopted by the WCED Experts Group on Environmental Law, WCED Our Common Future (1987) 348.

AA.

World Scientists Warning to Humanity, issued 18 November 1992, issued by 1700 leading scientists from 70 countries, including 102 Nobel Prize laureates in Science.

BB.

Chiarelli, Peter W General (6 Nov 2008): Prof Al Bernstein Lecture Series: School of Advanced International Studies33, Remarks by General Peter W Chiarelli.

CC.

Choucri, Nazli: Population & Conflict: New Dimensions of Population Dynamics; Population Dynamics and Local Conflict

DD.

Guillebaud, J (2007): YouthQuake: Population, fertility and environment in the 21st Century, Optimum Population Trust

EE.

Hardin, G (1968/12/13): Tragedy of the Commons34, Science.

FF.

Hardin, G (1986/08/10): Cultural Carrying Capacity35, AIBS Distinguished Service Award Acceptance Speech.

GG.

Hardin G (1991): Carrying Capacity and Quality of Life36, Environmental Science: Sustaining the Earth.

HH.

Heinberg, R (2006/04/30): Population, Resources, and Human Idealism, Energy Bulletin.

II.

Homer-Dixon, T (1991): On The Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict37.

JJ.

Homer-Dixon, T, & Boutwell, J, & Rathjens, G (1993): Environmental change and violent conflict: Growing scarcities of renewable resources can contribute to social instability and civil strife38. Scientific American, 268(2), pp. 38-45

KK.

Homer-Dixon, T (1994): Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence from Cases.

LL.

Homer-Dixon, T (June 1995): Strategies for Studying Causation in Complex Ecological Political Systems39.

http://www.army.mil/article/14199/Address_to_Alvin_Bernstein_Lecture_Series___Johns_Hopkins_University/ www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html 35 garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_cultural_carrying_capacity.html 36 www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles_pdf/cc_quality_of_life.pdf 37 http://www.homerdixon.com/projects/thresh/thresh1.htm 38 http://www.homerdixon.com/projects/evidence/evid1.htm 39 http://www.homerdixon.com/projects/evidence/evid1.htm

33

34

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

10


MM.

Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Gizewski, Peter (June 1995): “Urban Growth and Violence: Will the Future Resemble the Past?,”40 Environment, Population and Security.

NN.

Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Howard, Philip (June 1995), “Environmental Scarcity and Violent Conflict: The Case of Chiapas, Mexico,”41 Environment, Population and Security.

OO.

Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Kelly, Kimberley (June 1995): “Environmental Scarcity and Violent Conflict: The Case of Gaza,”42 Environment, Population and Security.

PP.

Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Percival, Valerie (June 1995): “Environmental Scarcity and Violent Conflict: The Case of Rwanda,”43 Environment, Population and Security.

QQ.

Homer-Dixon, T (Sep 1995): The Ingenuity Gap: Can Poor Countries Adapt to Resource Scarcity44.

RR.

Homer-Dixon & Percival (Oct 1995): Environmental Scarcity and Violent Conflict: Case of South Africa45.

SS.

Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Gizewski, Peter (April 1996): “Environmental Scarcity and Violent Conflict: The Case of Pakistan,”46 Environment, Population and Security.

TT.

Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Schwartz, Daniel; Deligiannis, Tom (Summer 2000): “The Environment and Violent Conflict: A Response to Gleditsch’s Critique and Suggestions for Future Research,”47 Environmental Change & Security Project Report: 77-93.

UU.

Koppel, T (2000): CIA and Pentagon on Overpopulation and Resource Wars48, Nightline.

VV.

Leahy, E & Engelman R & Vogel C & Haddock S & Preston T (2003): The Shape of Things to Come: Why Age Structure Matters to a Safer More Equitable World, Population Action Int’l

WW.

Parthemore, C & Nagl, J (2010/09/27): Fueling the Future Force: Preparing the Department of Defense for a Post-Petroleum Environment49, Center for a New American Security (CNAS).

http://www.homerdixon.com/projects/eps/urban/urban1.htm http://www.homerdixon.com/projects/eps/chiapas/chiapas1.htm 42 http://www.homerdixon.com/projects/eps/gaza/gaza1.htm 43 http://www.homerdixon.com/projects/eps/rwanda/rwanda1.htm 44 http://www.library.utoronto.ca/pcs/ingen/ingen.htm 45 http://www.homerdixon.com/projects/eps/south/sa1.htm 46 http://www.homerdixon.com/projects/eps/pakistan/pak1.htm 47 http://www.homerdixon.com/wp-content/uploads/2000/06/Response-to-Gleditsch.pdf 48 [1/2] youtu.be/7OJeUAx0y-g [2/2] youtu.be/s22yr-Fvl5Q 40 41

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

11


XX.

Simmons, M (2000/09/30): Revisiting the Limits to Growth: Could Club of Rome Have Been Correct, After All?50; Energy Bulletin.

[11.3] Military Doctrine & Academic Theory: Climate Change & National Security: Climate Change acts as a Scarcity and Conflict Threat Multiplier of oil, water and food resource wars and mass migration: A.

Global Military Advisory Council on Climate Change (GMACCC) Chairman: Major General Muniruzzaman (04 Apr 2013): Climate Change and Global Security51; America Security Now

B.

Military Advisory Board (MAB)(April 2007): National Security and Climate Change52, Center for Naval Analysis, CAN.

C.

Military Advisory Board (MAB)(May 2009): Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security53; Center for Naval Analysis, CAN

D.

Military Advisory Board (MAB)(July 2010): Powering America’s Economy: Energy Innovation at the Crossroads of National Security Challenges 54, Center for Naval Analysis, CAN.

E.

Military Advisory Board (MAB) (unknown): Energy, Climate Change, and the Military: Implications for National Security55; Woodrow Wilson Center for Environmental Security.

F.

Military Advisory Board (unknown): National Security and the Threat of Climate Change56, Woodrow Wilson Center for Environmental Security

G.

Lucka Kajfez-Bogataj (11 Dec 2009): Climate Change as a National and International Security Threat57; Good Planet Org.

H.

Clark Wesley General, McGinn Dennis rear Admiral, Boycott Rosy (18 Dec 2009): Climate Change is a Global Security Threat58; Global Observatory

I.

Climate Patriots (19 Feb 2010): Energy, Climate Change and American National Security: A Military Perspective59; Pew Climate Security.

J.

Titley, David, Rear Admiral, USN (19 Nov 2010): Climate Change and National Security60; TEDxPentagon

www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Fueling%20the%20Future%20Force_NaglParthemore.pdf www.clubofrome.org/?p=1869 51 http://youtu.be/JEtP0I-wwhM 52 www.cna.org/reports/climate AND http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCfRGN0YIwQ 53 http://www.cna.org/reports/energy 54 http://www.cna.org/reports/economy 55 http://youtu.be/w1FMeVH2AgI 56 http://youtu.be/8m3DReZxePQ 57 http://youtu.be/v9uAIQXZUks 58 http://youtu.be/tz9vRxCMZUw 59 http://youtu.be/kjS9pU0y_JU 49 50

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

12


K.

McGinn Dennis, Vice Admiral, Navy (26 Jan 2012): Energy, Climate Change and National Security: Challenges and Opportunities for America61; Purdue University

L.

Congressional Hearing: (06 June 2008): National Security and Climate Change62; Energy Environment TV

M.

Jarvis Lionel, Rear Admiral, Royal Navy (17 Oct 2011): Climate Change and Military Security63; One World TV

[11.4] Academic Theory: Media’s Censorship-Environment-PopulationTerrorism Connection: [11.5] How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection: The argument that journalists and editors consciously and unconsciously practice self-censorship of population-environment issues in the social conflict and environmental destruction stories they report upon is well documented in Dr. Maher’s thesis, How and Why Journalists Avoid the PopulationEnvironment Connection, which no media publication has disputed. A.

Maher, MT (1995): Media Framing and Salience of the Population Issue, PhD dissertation.

B.

Maher, MT (1997/03): How and Why Journalists Avoid the PopulationEnvironment Connection64, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Population and Environment, Volume 18, Number 4, March 1977; Reprinted in 1997 by the Carrying Capacity Network, Focus, 18 (2), 21-37.

C.

Paddock William (Jan 1998): Addendum on Journalists Noncoverage of Population; Population and Environment65; Vol 19, No 3, pp.221-224.

D.

Ehrlich, Paul and Anne (1998-89): Speaking Out on Population: A conspiracy of silence is limiting action on the world's most basic environmental problem, Issues in Science and Technology, Winter 1988-89, at 36-37.

E.

Wheeler Timothy (September 2003): Skirting the Population Issue: Why Journalists Need to Tackle Growth66; Environment Writer.

F.

Earth Focus Episode 36: National Security and Climate Change67; LinkTV reports on the National Security Journalism Initiative68 setup by Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism to educate journalists

http://youtu.be/7udNMqRmqV8 http://youtu.be/LjA5naFfcgk 62 http://youtu.be/vl3CRssxU7s 63 http://youtu.be/3neELnBCu5c 64 issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection 65 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27503579?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102201433171 66 http://www.environmentwriter.org/resources/articles/pop93a.htm 67 http://youtu.be/NtHLlanQ7-o 68 http://oilchangeproject.nationalsecurityzone.org/ 60 61

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

13


about how to integrate national security concerns of scarcity and conflict within its conventional social problem reporting.

22/07 AUF Utoya Survivor Bjorn Ihler’s Center for Free and Creative Expression: The Censorship-Terrorism Connection [12] Mr. Bjørn Magnus Jacobsen Ihler was an AUF student on Utoya on the day that Mr. Anders Breivik committed the Oslo bombing and Utoya Attacks. [13] Mr. Ihler does not agree with his Norwegian countrymen’s silent conspiracy to censor those they disagree with (left or right). [14] Mr. Ihler believes – like Prof Clark McCauley writes in When Does Political Anger Turn to Violence?69 ; and as argued in Communicator’s “If It Bleeds, it Leads: Media's Censorship Population Terrorism Connection” 70 Earth Day Report to Media Editors – that it is precisely when people or groups of people are silenced and censored and denied political solutions for their grievances, that they are left only one option for resolving their scarcity-conflict socio-political problems: violence and terrorism. [15] In an oped for RP-Online: “It is not over yet”71, he describes the betrayal of Prime Minister Stoltenberg’s promise of an open debate and the “Oppressive Political Correctness” practiced by Norwegians, including after Breivik attack and trial. (via Google translate) We need an open debate A few days after the assassination of prime minister stood before the people, he said, that love brings love, and we would fight this terrible act of terrorism, by providing greater openness and more democracy. That sounded to me then that we would conduct a lively public debate about it, it sounded then, that we would hear voices from all possible political camps, it sounded then, that my Prime Minister agreed with me.

69 “As long as there is some possibility of getting results by political means, the chances that any political group or individual will turn violent are truly radically small, or maybe vanishingly small” - Clark McCauley, Ph.D, Prof. of Psychology at Bryn Mawr College, in When Does Political Anger Turn to Violence?, by Benedict Carey, New York Times, March 26, 2010 70 Mainstream Access-to-Discourse Editors censorship1 of non-violent political grievances and problem solving activism facilitate a pressure cooker socio-political reality for their “If it Bleads, It Leads” corporate propaganda profits, in their knowledge application of: (A} Overpopulation colliding with resource scarcity is one of the main causes of terrorism: „As long as there is some possibility of getting results by political means, the chances that any political group or individual will turn violent are truly radically small, or maybe vanishingly small”; (B) “The exposure in the media is what gets people’s attention. People follow what is happening in the news, not what is happening in the courts”; (C) “[Editors] abuse of media power, by means of strategies whereby they abuse public discourse/free speech resources; by providing certain parties with preferential and special access to such public discourse, and severely restricting or denying others any access to such public discourse”; (D) ainstream media avoid addressing or enquiring into root causes of problems as reported in How and Why Journalists Avoid Population Environment connection; and censor non-violent root-cause problem solving activism. 71 http://www.rp-online.de/digitales/rp-plus/es-ist-noch-lange-nicht-vorbei-1.2973322

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

14


I firmly believe that an open debate is the means by which we can prevent further acts that are based on extremist views. This is connected with the theory that I "the echo chambers of extremism" call. These spaces are closed society of people who share the same extremist ideas. I want to scare anyone, but we know that these groups exist, we know they can be found all over the world, and we know that they are a threat. In these societies, extreme ideas can move freely, sometimes as a group trying to communicate their ideas to the world, but the world is busy taking care of other things, so the ideas usually stay in this closed society. Breivik said that the reason why his ideas did not come to the public, was censorship. More precisely: He spoke of selfcensorship. It seemed to him that the public had strict guidelines and would never listen to him nor reprint his views. One thinks in closed societies. What did the Prime Minister? This feeling of listening that nobody makes the effort, and the fact that there are ideas in which they all agree to ignore them, generates a high level of frustration. For some people this leads to frustration, which they feel they have to act. So terrorists can be created. As the Prime Minister said that openness is the means by which we should be fighting extremism, I believed that it was what he meant. It turned out that I was wrong. I still do not understand exactly what he meant, but the following happened: First detained most of the news sites in the country for a certain amount of their time commenting on anything that had to do with terrorism. This could have been an opportunity to hear potential supporters of the idea that was behind the act, and to argue against them. It could be a way to relieve a lot of pressure, which was created in the reverberation room, and to show people that others were interested and had good reasons for their ideas to be against it. Instead, they were locked out. Oppressive political correctness Secondly, began a massive public debate. Debates are usually a good thing, but the output seemed to be that the majority of the public had a clear view of what was politically correct, and that with views that were contrary to this political correctness, should not be possible for people to express their views to communicate. If they did it but they should at least be expressed in a correct language. It may be understandable that one represents this condition, but it is also important to remember that many people have other means in communicating around as the average newspaper columnist. Not

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

15


everyone is trained to write a letter to the editor or write at all. Therefore, we should be more open to people who use their own language, we should ignore bad grammar and spelling errors. The only thing we should consider not to accept, are direct threats and insults. All in all I think that this debate about debating with those who have ideas outside the political correct, the feeling has reinforced that we had to censor myself.

[16]

Mr. Ihler decided to found the Center for Free and Creative Expression72: After surviving the terror of the 22nd of July in Norway I’ve decided to devote my life to peoples fight for freedom, against violent extremism and for freedom of expression. I see this centre as what I hope can be my most valuable participation, and I hope you will help me. If you in any way feel you can help in finding otherwise, please do not hesitate to contact me.

[17]

funding

or

In Freedom of Expression in the fight against terror73, he writes: Sometimes it’s difficult to accept that other people have radically different ideas and views than you. It’s even more difficult to accept it when someone seems to have extremely different ideas and perspectives than what’s commonly accepted elsewhere in the society. This makes it difficult to be an extremism of any sort, right wing, islamic, christian or leftwing. Society strives towards the norm, towards a centre that most people seems to agree about. There might be various reasons why it’s difficult to get through whit a message that’s not commonly accepted or politically correct. By those having the extreme opinions some of this will be seen as unfair social censorship, while people other places are threatened by a more organized governmental censorship. In this post censorship refers to social censorship against what’s perceived to be politically incorrect and self-censorship of extremist ideas, even tho I realize the dangers of all forms of censorship. The most dangerous part of these forms of censorship is not that we don’t talk about stuff, but that we don’t get to, or won’t listen to certain ideas. This causes a feeling of injustice among those having these ideas. They feel that they don’t get through. And to some extent they don’t.

72 73

http://www.tcfce.net/2012/06/18/the-centre-for-free-and-creative-expression/ http://www.tcfce.net/2012/06/19/freedom-of-expression-in-the-fight-against-terror/

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

16


This creates small closed societies. Societies where the extremist ideas are shared, where the ideas bounce around, where they grow and amplify. This can go on until someone choses to do something about the idea. They might take to arms. They might go from being extremists to becoming terrorists. We have to avoid that. In order to avoid that we have to bring these societies into the light. We have to let them express their ideas, to get them to feel that we hear what they have to say. We have to let the pressure out of the closed societies. This we can do through communication and expression. We must invite to debates, we must show that we listen and we must argue against what we think is unjust. That’s how we, through freedom expression, can fight terrorism.

[18] What does it say about the subjective impartial problem solving professionalism of a Committee of alleged ‘Human Rights’ defenders, Neoliberal Editors and Bar Association Attorneys; when a young survivor of brutal psychological and physical terrorism, has a greater commitment to resolving the censorship to public discourse and access to political solutions, causes of terrorism, by making a concerned commitment to listen sincerely and refusal to censor, or endorse the censorship of, the ideas of his enemies, that he does not understand, and may disagree with?

Admirals, Generals, Former CIA Director & News Editor: Censorship-Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection. [19] Climate Change as a Scarcity and Conflict Threat Multiplier of oil, water and food resource wars and current problem of mass migration to Europe: “Climate Change will become a defense and security issue, for four major reasons. There will be water wars, there will be oil wars, there will be massive migration on a scale the world has never seen, and there will be massive food insecurity. The two things of importance to the United States and UK will be issues of migration, which we already have problems with in Europe and the US. It will get much much more extreme. .. So much of our food is derived from Africa and Central and South America, if that starts to fail .. there could be rioting. There is an expression which is called nine meals from anarchy.” – Rosie Boycott, Former Editor of the Independent; Climate Change and National Security74.

74

http://youtu.be/NfobHy0a9CU

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

17


[20] Walking the National Security – Scarcity & Conflict -- Talk to Support the Troops: Procreate and Consume below carrying capacity, to enable the avoidance of resource war conflict: [20.1] Vice Admiral Dennis V. McGinn, USN (Ret); Former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Requirements and Programs: Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security75; Center for Naval Analysis, CAN: “A yellow ribbon on a car or truck is a wonderful message of symbolic support for our troops. I’d like to see the American people take it several steps further. If you say a yellow ribbon is the ‘talk,’ then being energy efficient is the ‘walk’. A yellow ribbon on a big, gas-guzzling SUV is a mixed message. We need to make better energy choices in our homes, businesses and transportation, as well as to support our leaders in making policies that change the way we develop and use energy. If we Americans truly embrace this idea, it is a triple win: it reduces our dependence on foreign oil, it reduces our impact on the climate and it makes our nation much more secure.”

[20.2] Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn; Energy, Climate Change, and the Military: Implications for National Security76; Woodrow Wilson Center for Environmental Security: “Global climate change will pose serious threats to water supplies and agricultural production, leading to mass migration in some cases. At the same time we will see an increasing demand for a dwindling supply of fossil fuels. These factors mean and intense competition for key and vital resources, around the globe and that leads to conflict. “This report is different to many other reports, involving military leaders. That is because in it, we make a direct appeal to the American people. We talk in this report about the amazing sacrifices the American people made during World War II, planting victory gardens, cutting down on fuel use, saving scrap metal and old rubber, sacrifices, or maybe just examples of common sense and prudent lifestyle changes. Whatever you call them, the steps taken by the American people then, shortened the war and saved lives. And I believe the same can be said today about these challenges of energy security and climate security. There are individual steps that every American can take. Using less energy. Being more efficient with the energy that we do use. Supporting new policies to help our country take a new energy path. These are the steps that can help us avoid, or shorten wars in the future. Those wars over competition for vital resources. These are steps that can save lives. They may cost money yes, but if we don't spend the

75 76

http://www.cna.org/reports/energy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1FMeVH2AgI

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

18


money now, we will still pay, and we will pay much more later. In fact, we'll pay in American lives lost. American civilians played an important role in World War II because they understood the stakes and because they were asked to do so. General Wald made the stakes clear, and our report makes the stakes clear. Our current energy posture poses a significant and urgent threat to our national security, militarily, economically and diplomatically. Hopefully more Americans will understand these stakes, and that these consequences will affect them. Hopefully more Americans will hear the very direct request from our Commander in Chief and from this small group of a dozen retired Admirals and Generals. The American people, all of us, through our energy choices can contribute directly to the security of our nation. It is a triple win. It makes us energy independent. It reduces our effect on the environment, and it makes our nation very much more secure.”

[20.3] James Woolsey, Former CIA Director; Climate Change and National Security77: “I was testifying before a House Committee a few months ago and one of the members was very sceptical of climate change and was arguing with me, because I presented some of the reasons why I thought climate change was a serious problem, and I finally said "Congressman look, set aside climate change, do you realize that seven of the nine things that I've suggested will help us be allot more resilient against terrorism or oil cut-offs." And he said, "Oh if you are doing them for that reason, then its fine."”

[20.4] James Woolsey (19 October 2009): How your Gas Money Funds Terrorism78, American Jewish Committee, Washington DC.: “The author of the fine book The Looming Tower, about Al'Qaeda and 9/11, Laurence Wright, writes for the New Yorker, has a fascinating sentence in the Looming Tower. He says that with a little over 1% of the worlds Muslims, Saudi's control about 90% of the worlds Islamic Institutions. Now what does that mean to the rest of us? Wahaabi Islam, the religion of Saudi Arabia, if you read the Imam's Fatwa's, rather than what they say to us, the Fatwa's are somewhere between murderous and genocidal with respect to their discussion of Shiite Muslims, Jews, homosexuals and apostates. They are massively oppressive of women in many, many ways. They are focussed on the establishment of a worldwide Caliphate, a theocratic dictatorship. That is essentially Al'Qaeda's doctrine. There is no substantive difference between Al'Qaeda and the Wahaabi's of Saudi Arabia want to take us. The question is 'Who's in charge'? So its somewhat like the feud between the Trotskyites and the Stalinists in the 1920's and 30's. 77 78

http://youtu.be/NfobHy0a9CU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNDiQUBjR1o

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

19


Because the reach of Wahaabi Madrassas is so great, you have all over Pakistan, as well as the West Bank and in allot of other parts of the world, little boys being taught hatred essentially. Now that produces a situation in which by shelling out essentially a billion dollars a day at seventy dollars a barrel of oil, for imported oil, and since allot of that money goes to the Middle East, you and I shouldn't have any question about who is paying for the other side of this long war that we are in. If you want to know who is paying for those Madrassas in Pakistan or the West Bank to teach those little boys to hate, just next time you go to a filling station, before you get out to charge your gasoline and credit card, turn the rear-view mirror just a few inches, so you are looking into your own eyes. Now you know who is paying for those little boys to be taught to hate. The situation we have with the Wahaabi's of Saudi Arabia is not too far from what would be the case if Ferdinand and Isabella and Torquemada running the Spanish Inquisition were still around in Spain and Spain drilled down and found 25% of the worlds oil under Spain. Ferdinand and Isabella turn to Torquemada and they say "We know that you like to pick the pope and pick the head of the Lutherans and the Evangelicals and the President of Notre Dame and that’s all fine with us, here's six, seven, eight billion dollars a year, just go to it. That’s the kind of problem the world, would hypothetically have if Torquemada and the Inquisition were still around and that’s the kind of problem we've got with the Wahaabi's of Saudi Arabia.”

Manifestly Reasonable: Media Silence/Censorship/Non-coverage of Scientific study results advocating Sustainable Security (Walking the National Security – Scarcity & Conflict -- Talk to Support the Troops): ‘Procreate/Consume below carrying capacity’. [21] Media Censorship: Citizens are ignorant of how to contribute to Sustainable Security: Procreate and Consume below carrying capacity, to avoid scarcity induced resource war conflict. [21.1] Maher, Michael (1997/03): How and Why Journalists Avoid the PopulationEnvironment Connection79,: University of Southwestern Louisiana, Population and Environment, Volume 18, Number 4, March 1977; Reprinted in 1997 by the Carrying Capacity Network, Focus, 18 (2), 21-37. Population researchers Paul and Anne Ehrlich opened their book, The Population Explosion, with a chapter titled, "Why Isn't Everyone as Scared as We Are?" They acknowledged, "The average Maher, Michael (1997/03): How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection ,: University of Southwestern Louisiana, Population and Environment, Volume 18, Number 4, March 1977; Reprinted in 1997 by the Carrying Capacity Network, Focus, 18 (2), 21-37. issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection 79

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

20


person, even the average scientist, seldom makes the connection between [disparate environmental problems] and the population problem, and thus remains unworried" (1990, p. 21). But while they noted that the evening news almost never connects population growth to environmental problems, the Ehrlichs chiefly blamed social taboos fostered by the Catholic Church and "a colossal failure of education" (p. 32) for public indifference about population. Howell (1992) also minimized the role of the media in influencing public aptitude about science and the environment, and pointed instead to education: “The obvious starting point for the individual is the public schools .... Education proceeds into undergraduate programs, which can play more than one major role in enhancing scientific literacy (p. 160).� The Ehrlichs and Howell seem to assume that education is the chief factor driving public opinion about environmental causality. But in Tradeoffs: Imperatives of Choice in a High-Tech World, Wenk (1986) offered a more media-centric view of how the public learns: "Whatever literacy in science and technology the general public has reached is not from formal education. Rather, it is from the mass media. That responsibility of the press has been almost completely ignored" (p. 162). This study will examine press responsibility for the public's indifference to population growth by exploring two questions: * To what extent do press reports about population-driven environmental problems link those problems to population growth? * What reasons do reporters give for ignoring population growth in stories about environmental problems? [..] Why Journalists Avoid Mentioning Population As we have seen, both land development economists and environmental experts acknowledge population growth as a key source of environmental change. But journalists frame environmental causality differently. Why? Communication theory offers several possibilities. First is the hegemony-theory interpretation: reports omit any implication that population growth might produce negative effects, in order to purvey the ideology of elites who make money from population growth. As Molotch and Lester (1974) put it, media content can be viewed as reflecting "the practices of those having the power to determine the experience of others" (p. 120). Since real estate, construction and banking interests directly support the media through advertising purchases, this interpretation seems plausible. A number of media critics (e.g., Gandy, 1982; Altschull, 1984; Bennett, 1988) have suggested that media messages

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

21


reflect the values of powerful political and commercial interests. Burd (1972), Kaniss (1991) and others have pointed out that newspapers have traditionally promoted population growth in their cities through civic boosterism. Molotch (1976) even suggested that cities can best be understood as entities competing for population growth, with the city newspaper as chief cheerleader. Certainly most reporters would be incensed at the suggestion that they shade their reporting to placate commercial interests. But Breed’s classic study of social control in the newsroom (1955) showed that news managers’ values are transmissible to journalists through a variety of pressures: salaries, story assignments, layout treatment, editing, and a variety of other strategies that effectively shape news stories in ways acceptable to management. Another possible explanation for why journalists omit population growth from their story frame is simple ignorance of other explanations. Journalists who cover environmental issues may not be aware of any other possible ways to frame these stories, thus they derive their framing from other journalists. Journalists frequently read each other’s work and take cues for coverage from other reporters, particularly from the elite media (Reese & Danielian, 1989). Perhaps the pervasive predictability of the story frames examined in the Part I is another example of intermedia influence. On the other hand, it seems difficult to believe that journalists could be ignorant of the role population growth plays in environmental issues, because media coverage frequently ties population growth to housing starts and business expansion. Furthermore, "Why" is one of the five "W’s" taught in every Journalism 101 course. A public affairs reporting textbook, Interpreting Public Issues (Griffin, Molen, Schoenfeld, and Scotton, 1991), admonishes journalists: "A common journalistic mistake is simply to cover events —real or staged— and ignore underlying issues" (p.320). The book identified population trends as one of the "big trouble spots," and listed world population as the first of its "forefront issues in the ’90s" (p. 320). Hence, we cannot say that reporting basic causality is beyond the role that journalists ascribe for themselves. Indeed, a panel at the 1994 Society of Environmental Journalists discussed "Covering Population as a Local Story" (Wheeler, 1994). But ignorance remains a possible reason, for not all reporters have training in environmental issues. A third possible explanation comes from the "Spiral of Silence" theory by German scholar Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (1984): “The fear of isolation seems to be the force that sets the spiral of silence in motion. To run with the pack is a relatively happy

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

22


state of affairs; but if you can’t, because you won’t share publicly in what seems to be a universally acclaimed conviction, you can at least remain silent, as a second choice, so that others can put up with you. (p. 6)” [..] This study suggests that the working principles of journalistic storytelling create a vast causal dissociation when the news media report population-driven environmental problems. Local media can cover local environmental degradation, but cannot connect these problems to population growth because, in part, reporters and their sources feel that population growth can only addressed at the national level. National media can address the population issue, but national reporters can’t peg a story on population to local events that, from a national perspective, seem trivial. Why would Newsweek readers in Iowa or Oregon want to know about population-driven water rationing in a suburb of San Diego, or a protested land development north of Atlanta? And on the other hand, why would a borough of Boston want to address national population growth as an issue? From a systems theory perspective, the information feedback loop that connects the microcosm to the macrocosm is broken in the news we get. A spiral of silence also seems to affect journalists’ framing of population-driven environmental problems. Most journalists interviewed in this study knew population growth affects the environment they cover, but they were reluctant to mention population either in their stories or in the interviews that formed the basis for this chapter. Reporters know the controversial nature of population growth, and would rather avoid the issue than mention it —even in questioning sources for their stories. This study suggests that, from an agenda-setting perspective, the narrative imperative of newswriting keeps issues like population off the agenda. Frequency of mention by the media is the chief means by which an issue asserts itself into the public consciousness (McCombs and Shaw, 1977). But even though population growth causes or exacerbates uncountably frequent events that lower the quality of most Americans’ lives, reporters don’t mention this. They can’t connect event to ultimate cause in daily events reporting, and this effectively keeps the cause off the agenda and out of public consciousness. If, as one interviewed reporter suggested, reporters "cover fires" for six months, then write a single "trend story" that connects the events to causes, this pattern likely keeps population low on the agenda, because an

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

23


isolated trend story is unlikely to have much effect on public consciousness. McCombs and Shaw (1977) note that the media serve a useful function by setting the agenda: “Both by deliberate winnowing and by inadvertent agenda-setting the mass media help society achieve consensus on which concerns and interests should be translated into public issues and opinion. (pp. 151-152)� But the agenda-setting process seems useful only if we consider what the media do place on the agenda. This study shows that agenda-setting may have a dark side, when we consider what the media do not cover. To generalize from this study, it seems likely the media have a blind spot regarding the basic layers of multilayered causality. The deep causes that drive daily events remain off the agenda. Certainly this is the case with population growth, but such causal dissociation may keep many other deepseated causes of social problems off the agenda. Although scholars have not satisfactorily tied the media agenda and public opinion to the policy agenda (Borquez, 1993), many scholars have agreed that the media are very important for determining what does not get on the policy agenda. Spitzer (1993) noted: "The scope of the conflict determines the outcome...more than any other single force in national politics, the media control the scope of politics." In a similar vein Kingdon (1973) said: "In addition to noting how important the media are in bringing subjects, facts, and interpretations to congressmen, it is also important to mention that the media also play some part in determining which pieces of information will not be brought to congressmen." And indeed, recent U.S. policy on population is pronatalist (Abernethy, 1993). Although in 1996 Congress took measures to reduce immigration, it did so primarily for economic and social reasons, rather than out of concern for the environment. That same Congress dramatically reduced U.S. funding for worldwide family planning programs. Many environmentalists are frustrated by the low salience Americans give the population issue. Deploring the "primitive stage" of U.S. public opinion on population, Grant (1992, p. 231) characterizes U.S. political discourse as "the kingdom of the deaf" (p. 239). Part I of this study shows that the American public is not deaf; but in the news they read Americans simply have little to hear that explains the environmental costs of population growth. Well-known population researcher Paul Ehrlich has written that a "conspiracy of silence" keeps humanity from taking action on population (1989). Part II of this study shows that journalists are engaged in no conspiracy; they are simply keeping within the storytelling bounds of their craft, framing their coverage of environmental issues narrowly with regard to PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

24


space and time. Interviewed journalists feel that a limited newshole keeps them from connecting local environmental problems to global causes like population growth. They also know that reproductive matters are a hot button with some readers, and steer clear of the issue if they can. But population must become more salient if future generations are to enjoy the quality of life we now know. A number of scholars conversant with sustainable levels of agricultural and energy output recently estimated an optimum population for the United States (Pimentel and Pimentel, 1992; Costanza, 1992; Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1992; Werbos, 1992). The highest estimates were below current population levels; several low estimates were for a population of less than 100 million. Meanwhile the population of the United States is 265 million and is growing about 1 percent a year. Walter Lippmann (1922) distinguished news from truth: “The function of news is to signalize an event, the function of truth is to bring to light the hidden facts, to set them into relation with each other, and make a picture of reality on which men can act (p. 226).� This study shows how and why we are letting signalized events, rather than truth, set the agenda for our demographic and environmental future.

[21.2] A.

Articles: Wheeler Timothy (September 2003): Skirting the Population Issue: Why Journalists Need to Tackle Growth80; Environment Writer.

Why is it so hard for journalists covering the environment to address population? Do we lack the guts to tackle really tough, controversial issues? Or do we lack the smarts to sort out the complicated and oftenindirect role population growth plays in problems such as water shortages, declines in biodiversity and suburban sprawl? We've been talking for years about how population growth is one of the major under-reported stories on our beat. I remember sitting on a panel at a Society of Environmental Journalists conference in 1994, offering tips for "localizing" what many perceived then as a global issue. That wasn't the first, or last, how-to session. Yet we have succeeded as journalists so rarely in making the environment-population connection in print or on the air that it remains remarkable when someone does. Population was one of the environmental journalism "taboos" hashed over at SEJ's annual

80

http://www.environmentwriter.org/resources/articles/pop93a.htm

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

25


meeting last year in Baltimore. It's on SEJ's agenda again this year in New Orleans. [..] It doesn't help, either, that almost no environmental groups will talk about population growth. The Sierra Club engaged in a fierce debate in 1998 over immigration, but ultimately decided not to take a stand against it. No other major environmental group has touched it since. Recognizing how journalists crave facts that can give them a toehold on such slippery subjects, one population group, Numbers USA, has come out with a study that says only half the land gobbled up in the past decade can be blamed on sprawling development patterns. The rest of the land consumed went to house more people, contends Roy Beck, the group's executive director and another former environmental journalist. Many are uncomfortable with such calculations, and distinctly uncomfortable with some of the critics of the driving force in America's population growth these days. Beck and his group have been lumped in with "hate groups," after all, for advocating limits on immigration. I plead guilty to some of the same limitations facing other journalists: Last year, when I was editing The Baltimore Sun's environmental coverage, Tom Horton, our Chesapeake Bay columnist, told me he wanted to write a piece calling for limits on immigration because he believed population growth was a long-term threat to the Bay. "Do it while I'm on vacation," I grumbled. I didn’t relish getting calls from readers accusing us of xenophobia. If he was really serious about writing such a column, I told him, I wanted to see evidence that immigrants are somehow more environmentally damaging to the Bay than those folks who are moving into the region from other parts of the United States. Like many other journalists, I'd missed the proverbial forest for the trees. And I'd shied away from a controversial topic because of the "baggage" it came with. So maybe it's time to quit lecturing others and start figuring out how to talk reasonably about population again.

[21.3] A.

Google News Search: Your search - michael maher, population, environment, journalists - did not match any news results.

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

26


[22] Every Child Increases a Woman’s Carbon Footprint by a factor of 20: A woman can reduce her carbon footprint 19 times more by having one fewer child than by all other energy efficiency actions the E.P.A. suggests combined: [22.1] Paul A. Murtaugh, Michael G. Schlax (2009): Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals [PDF81]; Global Environmental Change, 19 (2009) pp. 14-20 Summary: There are many ways that each of us can reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses. One important choice is how many children we choose to have. While it is obvious that each child, grandchild, and their descendants will be a producer of carbon dioxide in their lifetimes, it is not obvious what those emissions might be, and how those amounts compare with the reduced emissions that might come from driving a more fuel efficient car, using energy-efficient light bulbs and the like. The assumption is that a person is responsible for the carbon emissions of his or her descendants, weighted by their relatedness. That is, a parent is responsible for 1/2 the emissions of their children, 1/4 the emissions of their grandchildren and so on. Of course you can't know for certain how many children your grandchildren will have, and you can't know how much carbon dioxide they will emit, but the authors make some estimations based on expected trends in different countries. For 11 countries, they estimate the number of descendants using the high, median and low U.N. estimates of how birthrates will change in each country. They then use three levels of how carbon emissions may change in the future: a low (optimistic) estimate that they will drop to 1/2 of Africa's current level, a medium estimate that they will remain constant at today's levels, and a a high estimate that they will continue to increase as they are now until 2100. The comparison of carbon dioxide savings are striking. If you live in the U.S. you can reduce your carbon dioxide emissions 19 times more by having one fewer child than by all other actions the E.P.A. suggests combined.

[22.2] A.

81 82

Related NGO Articles: Oregon State University: Murtaugh Paul (07/31/2009): Family Planning: A major Environmental Emphasis82; Oregon State

http://blog.oregonlive.com/environment_impact/2009/07/carbon%20legacy.pdf http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2009/jul/family-planning-major-environmental-emphasis

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

27


B. [22.3]

Institute for Population Studies (17 July 2009): Reproduction and the Carbon Legacies of Individuals83 News Articles:

A.

Oregonian (31 July 2009): Oregon State study says having fewer children is best way to reduce your carbon footprint84, by Eric Mortenson.

B.

Google News Result: “Your search - murtaugh, carbon, oregon - did not match any news results.”

[23] Only Civilization Collapse will prevent runaway global climate change: Industrial Civilization/Consumption Developmentism as Heat Engine Root cause of Scarcity-Conflict Climate Change-National Security Impending Near-term Extinction reality. [23.1] Timothy J. Garrett (Nov. 2009), Are there basic physical constraints on future anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide?85; Climatic Change [23.2] University of Utah (22 Nov 2009): Is Global Warming Unstoppable?: Theory also says Energy Conservation doesn't help86. [23.3] Dr. Guy McPherson; Former Professor Emeritus of Natural Resources and Ecology & Evolutionary Biology; University of Tucson, Arizona: Guy McPherson speaking in Middleville, Michigan, September 201187 (at 08:08): “An article in the refereed journal Climatic Change says that only Economic Collapse will prevent runaway global climate change. That was two years ago. This is among the most important papers I have ever seen and among the least cited in the scientific literature. I interviewed eight of the premier Post Doctoral in the world, last January, and of the eight, six said they were a climate scientist, that was their specialty. So I asked each of the six of them about this paper, and none of them had heard of it. These are the people who are at their best in terms of their knowledge of climate science, and none of them had heard of it. Only complete economic collapse will prevent runaway global climate change. .. It was rejected by several scientific journals first, because its just too dire, that can’t happen here, but then the prestigious journal Climatic Change says ‘Yeah, its bullet proof. There is nothing wrong with his analysis at all’.”

[23.4]

Google News Results:

http://www.howmany.org/News/2009-07-14_Carbon_Legacies_Of_Individuals.htm http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/07/oregon_state_researchers_concl.html 85 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-009-9717-9 86 http://unews.utah.edu/news_releases/is-global-warming-unstoppable/ 87 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOq2A_SGTYA 83 84

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

28


A.

“Your search - tim garrett, carbon, utah, anthropogenic - did not match any news results.”

B.

Your search - tim garrett, carbon, utah, "heat engine" - did not match any news results.

C.

Your search - tim garrett, carbon, utah, civilization - did not match any news results.

Aarhus Convention Compliance Comm. failure to provide Written Reasons is a violation of Aarhus Convention Written Reason principles enunciated in Art. 4: 1.i; 2, 7; Art 6: 9; Art 9: 1; Annex II.1 [24] I imagine, it would be ‘manifestly unreasonable’ to believe that the legislator’s of the Aarhus Convention would repeatedly require Corporations, Public Authorities and Appeal Tribunals, to abide by the recognized practice of providing applicants for Environmental Information, with written reasons for their decisions (Article 4: 1.i; 2, 7; Article 6: 9; Article 9: 1; Annex II.1); and to exclude Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee Members from this same standard of transparent decisionmaking. [25] It is further ‘manifestly discriminatory’ to provide communicants whose communications are accepted for hearing, with ‘long lists of written reasons why their communication was considered admissible’; but to deny those whose complaints are not deemed admissible, with the same written reasons justifying denying them access to adjudication of their Aarhus convention rights. [26] Consequently it appears that the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee’s failure to provide written reasons is in violation of communicant’s rights to be provided with written reasons when she is denied her rights to Access to Information, Access to Justice, by any process of Arbitration. [26.1] Article 4 (Access to Environmental Information): 1. In the form requested unless: (i) It is reasonable for the public authority to make it available in another form, in which case reasons shall be given for making it available in that form… [26.2] Article 4: 2. The environmental information referred to in paragraph 1 above shall be made available as soon as possible and at the latest within one month after the request has been submitted, unless the volume and the complexity of the information justify an extension of this period up to two months after the request. The applicant shall be informed of any extension and of the reasons justifying it.

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

29


[26.3] Article: 4: 7: A refusal of a request shall be in writing if the request was in writing or the applicant so requests. A refusal shall state the reasons for the refusal and give information on access to the review procedure provided for in accordance with article 9. The refusal shall be made as soon as possible and at the latest within one month, unless the complexity of the information justifies an extension of this period up to two months after the request. The applicant shall be informed of any extension and of the reasons justifying it. [26.4] Article. 6 (Public Participation): 9. Each Party shall ensure that, when the decision has been taken by the public authority, the public is promptly informed of the decision in accordance with the appropriate procedures. Each Party shall make accessible to the public the text of the decision along with the reasons and considerations on which the decision is based. [26.5] Article 9 (Access to Justice): 1. Final decisions under this paragraph 1 shall be binding on the public authority holding the information. Reasons shall be stated in writing, at least where access to information is refused under this paragraph. [26.6] Annex II Arbitration: 17. The award of the arbitral tribunal shall be accompanied by a statement of reasons. It shall be final and binding upon all parties to the dispute. The award will be transmitted by the arbitral tribunal to the parties to the dispute and to the secretariat. The secretariat will forward the information received to all Parties to this Convention.

Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee’s history of providing written reasons to Neo-liberal communicants, indicates possible Neoliberal discrimination towards Anarcho-Primitivist communicant. [27]

ACCC History of Providing Written Reasons:

[27.1] Twenty of the eighty-two communications submitted to the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee have been found inadmissible. [27.2] One was inadmissible due to being already under review by the committee (2008-25: Albania: Ardian Klosi, Sinan Hibro); and another due to the withdrawal of the communicant (2010-52: N. Ireland: Gary McGhee). [27.3] Two were found to be ‘inadmissible’ by the first Committee, without any reasons provided for such decision (2004/07: Poland: Antoni Zawislak and 2004-10: Kazakhstan: Sergey Kuratov). [27.4] A further two were inadmissible for “Insufficient use of domestic remedies” (2004-09: Armenia: Edik Baghdasaryan and 2007-19: UK: John Dall). PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

30


[27.5] Eight were inadmissible for ‘lacking corroborating information’ (2005-14: Poland: Antoni Zawislak; 2008-34: Spain: Maria Lopez Lax; 2009-42: Hungary; 201047: UK: Frances McCartney; 2010-49: UK: RM Buxton; 2012-74: UK: Frances McCartney; 2013-79: Italy: Rita D'Orsogna; and 2013-80: Croatia: Lucijan Mohorovich). One was inadmissible for “insufficient information” (2010-56: UK: T Ewing). [27.6] Only two were found inadmissible for reasons that they were ‘manifestly unreasonable’. A.

2012-75: UK: Terence Ewing was allegedly “manifestly unreasonable” because ‘the proceedings on the adoption of the plan were still ongoing and the content of the communication was very close to the content of communication ACCC/C/2011/61, which was currently under consideration by the Committee.”

B.

013-82: Norway: Lara Johnstone was simply ‘manifestly unreasonable’ without any ‘because …...’ reasons provided.

[28] ACC Committee are comprised of Neo-Liberal/Conservative Pacifist Compulsive Developmentism/Egoist Consumptionism Environmentalists: [28.1] Chairperson: Mr. Jonas Ebbesson (Sweden): Mr. Jonas Ebbesson is Professor of Environmental Law, Dean of the Faculty of Law, and Director of Stockholm Environmental Law and Policy Centre, at Stockholm University. [28.2] Vice-Chair: Mr. Alexander Kodjabashev (Bulgaria): Mr. Alexander Kodjabashev is a Senior Partner specializing in environmental law matters at Dobrev & Partners in Sofia, Bulgaria. [28.3] Mr. Pavel Černý (Czech Republic): Mr. Pavel Černý is a Senior Partner specializing in environmental, administrative and constitutional law at Šikola & Partners in Brno. [28.4] Mr. Ion Diaconu (Romania): Mr.Ion Diaconu is professor of international law, with a focus on human rights law, at universities in Bucharest. [28.5] Ms. Heghine Hakhverdyan (Armenia): Ms. Heghine Hakhverdyan is a lecturer of Environmental Law at the Faculty of Law, Yerevan State University (YSU). [28.6] Ms. Ellen Hey (Netherlands): Dr. Ellen Hey is the Head of the Public International Law Department at Erasmus School of Law in Rotterdam.

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

31


[28.7] Mr. Jerzy Jendrośka (Poland): Dr. Jerzy Jendrośka is the Managing Partner of Jendrośka Jerzmanski Bar & Partners, which is an environmental law firm based in Poland; and Adjunct Professor of European and International Law at Opole University, and of Environmental Law at Wroclaw University. [28.8] Mr. Gerhard Loibl (Austria): Dr. Gerhard Loibl is a Professor of International Law and Law of the European Union at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna. [28.9] Ms. Dana Zhandaeva (Kazakhstan) (as of 30 March 2012, replacing Ms. Kravchenko): Ms. Dana Zhandaeva is currently working as a free-lance, independent consultant on issues related to international law. [29] All Communications submitted to ACC Committee, except for Communicator’s Anarcho-Primitivist communication, were from NeoLiberal / Conservative Environmentalists: [29.1] All other Communicator’s appear to have been Neo-Liberal Mainstream Environmentalists; Communicator is the only Anarcho-Primitivist. [30] Unsustainable Patriarchal Pacifism Neo-Liberal ‘Compulsive Development’ Environmentalism vs. Sustainable Gender Balanced Voluntarism Anti-Civilization Anarcho-Primitivism: “Civilization, very fundamentally, is the history of the domination of nature and of women. Patriarchy means rule over women and nature.” – John Zerzan, Patriarchy, Civilization, And The Origins Of Gender. “Alas, still around to some degree, going through the motions and in some cases finding new ways to repackage the same old shit. The eternally superficial liberal-left “progressives” are as transparently averse to liberation as are the few surviving leninoids. [..] What all these left-leaners lack is a willingness to confront the basics of domination with the resolve and pointed questioning required if domination is to be erased.” – John Zerzan, The Left Today88 “The key component of the left is co-opting indigenous cultures; and breaking the resistance of indigenous cultures [to the cultural imperialism onslaught of industrial civilization’s compulsive Developmentism]; and that is what the left does.” John Zerzan: Pretensions of Modernity (at 00:38:35)89

88 89

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/john-zerzan-the-left-today http://youtu.be/tmSjMmqtF8g

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

32


“Cultural imperialism is the economic, technological and cultural hegemony of the industrialized nations, which determines the direction of both economic and social progress, defines cultural values, and standardizes the civilization and cultural environment throughout the world. [..] The ideology of the technological imperialists. To western man, culture is the antithesis of nature; it implies the subjugation of nature in order to build a technological, man-made world, in order to establish civilization, the acme of which is the metropolis. The ideology of the subjugation of nature has reached its climax in the conquest of outer space, but it has also supplied the moral justification for the white man's voyages of discovery, for colonialism, the slave trade, the unscrupulous exploitation of natural resources and the overseas aid plans of today: the purpose of these being to yoke all nations to the world trade network of the industrialized countries.” – Matti Sarmela; What is Cultural Imperialism?90

[30.1] Neo-Liberal Environmentalism fully endorses Industrial Civilization’s addiction to Compulsive Developmentism, which involves the (a) domination of women, primitives and nature; which consequently means it is (a) patriarchal pacifism: only the patriarch is entitled to violence, all resistance to the patriarch’s violence must be non-violent; and (b) unsustainable since it endorses the unsustainable use of finite resources. [30.2] Anarcho-Primitivism opposes Industrial Civilization, as well as all forms of domination against women, nature and primitives, including Technological domination, which consequently means it is (a) gender balanced voluntarism: all agreements, including non-violence, are entered into by fully informed voluntary mutual agreement, and if reneged by one party, the other party is not bound by the nullified agreement; and (b) sustainable since it only endorses the low tech/no tech sustainable use of renewable resources. [30.3]

Anonymous: What is Anarcho-Primitivism?91:

Anarcho-primitivists comprise a subculture and political movement that, generally, advocates hunting and gathering as the ideal human subsistence method (from the point of view of sustainable resource use) and the band as the ideal human social structure (for its features of egalitarianism). While the goal may seem improbable, a primitivist would contend that more modest goals are either undesirable or unachievable within the system. The past 10,000 years have after all been largely a history of “solutions” to the problems of an agricultural society. This critique of “civilization” inherently rejects less radical ideals and claims 90 91

http://www.kotikone.fi/matti.sarmela/culturimperialism.pdf http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-what-is-anarcho-primitivism

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

33


to go uniquely to the heart of all social discontent. It is multifaceted, drawing on several traditions of thought. These include the nineteenth century social speculators, anthropology of huntergatherers, situationism, anarchism, radical (deep) ecology, and anti-technological philosophy. The potential problem of implementation is largely solved by a growing consensus that an end to “economic growth” is fast approaching, making revolutionary change inevitable. The direction of that change is the focus of anarcho-primitivist interest. Anarcho-primitivism is subtly influencing society in several ways. The Unabomber’s “manifesto” enunciated many of the central tenets of anarcho-primitivism (e.g. rejection of liberalism and industrialism). Primitivists were among the protesters participating in window-smashing, spray-painting, and other vandalism at the Seattle WTO protests in December 1999. They are probably among those elusive “eco-terrorists” who carry out property destruction in the name of the Earth Liberation Front. The popular novel Fight Club (1996), which became a feature film, portrayed a group of alienated young men who reject consumerist culture and attempt to bring it to an end through massive sabotage. While anarcho-primitivism may not seem worthy of much thought or attention because it falls far outside the mainstream of political discourse, it ought not to be dismissed. It merits substantial attention solely on the basis of its harmonious integration of several historically disparate lines of thought. Aims: The prefix “anarcho” signifies the anarchist rejection of the state in favor of small-scale political structures. Additionally, as primitivist icon John Zerzan (2002:67–68) explains, “I would say Anarchism is the attempt to eradicate all forms of domination.” So a key distinction must be made between anarcho-primitivists and anarchists generally because, “[f]or example, some Anarchists don’t see the technological imperative as a category of domination.” In the most general terms, they reject “civilization” in favor of “wildness.” More specifically, they call for the abandonment or destruction of industrial (and possibly agricultural) technology in favor of subsistence that is not based on the industrial “forces of production” — hence, the adoption of the “primitive” label. This means that primitivists reject even forms of production based on collective management and ownership because any production exceeding immediate subsistence needs is seen as incompatible with long-term sustainability. [..] g. A final pillar supporting the primitivist ethos demonstrates the unsustainability of industrial society. This body of work refutes those arguments that claim science will provide the solutions necessary to sustain current First World living PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

34


standards in the face of massive resource degradation and depletion. It also provides anarcho-primitivists a safe, simple answer to the challenge, “How are you going to get there?” The 1972 book, Limits to Growth (LTG), was the first systematic assessment of the sustainability of modern society. More than a decade of environmentalism still had not popularly integrated ubiquitous environmental problems into a coherent message for public consumption. Earlier works like Erlich’s The Population Bomb and Carson’s Silent Spring had focused on specific bite-sized issues. LTG offered a satisfying, yet disturbing complete picture. It was the product of a research project commissioned by the Club of Rome, an international, informal group of “businessmen, statesmen, and scientists” (Meadows, et. al. 2004:ix) who wanted an assessment of the sustainability of the overall course of human society. The final report predicted that unless widespread measures were taken to reduce consumption and pollution sufficiently early, human society would overshoot global carrying capacity and ultimately face a collapse, defined as “an uncontrolled decline in both population and human welfare” (Meadows, et. al. 2004:xi). The research group reached this conclusion through the use of a computer model which was able to factor in multiple variables and the interaction between them. LTG was the first attempt to present the environmental crisis as a whole and show that it required a systematic response (Kassiola 1990:17). Resource shortages have become a serious concern in recent years among limits-to-growth theorists. [..] It must be added, few if any of the scholars who promote limits-to-growth critiques are excited about the end of “civilization” they foresee (most hope to avert it), but, for an anarcho-primitivist, their scenarios provide a near-panacea. [..] It should be clear, by now, that there is a reasonably solid canon of anarcho-primitivist philosophy available, which provides the seeds for what could potentially blossom into a movement. Several periodicals (Green Anarchy, Species Traitor, Green Anarchist, Fifth Estate, Live Wild or Die, The Final Days, Green Journal, Disorderly Conduct, Cracks in the Empire, Do or Die, and Quick!) are dedicated to anarcho-primitivist theory, and the most widely circulated American anarchist magazine, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, frequently features primitivist viewpoints (Zerzan 2002:3). The Federal Bureau of Investigation apparently sees the potential of a radical environmental movement, since it has deemed eco-terrorism the number one domestic terrorist threat. The small communities currently in existence may represent the budding of this movement or they may not. In either case, the arguments in favor of anarcho-primitivism should be evaluated

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

35


openly by mainstream society because, if its claims are valid, their implications are immediate and uncommonly far-reaching.

[30.4]

John Zerzan: Patriarchy, Civilization, And The Origins Of Gender92:

Civilization, very fundamentally, is the history of the domination of nature and of women. Patriarchy means rule over women and nature. Are the two institutions at base synonymous? Philosophy has mainly ignored the vast realm of suffering that has unfolded since it began, in division of labor, its long course. Hélène Cixous calls the history of philosophy a “chain of fathers.” Women are as absent from it as suffering, and are certainly the closest of kin. Camille Paglia, anti-feminist literary theorist, meditates thusly on civilization and women: “When I see a giant crane passing on a flatbed truck, I pause in awe and reverence, as one would for a church procession. What power of conception: what grandiosity: these cranes tie us to ancient Egypt, where monumental architecture was first imagined and achieved. If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.” [1] The “glories” of civilization and women’s disinterest in them. To some of us the “grass huts” represent not taking the wrong path, that of oppression and destructiveness. In light of the globally metastasizing death-drive of technological civilization, if only we still lived in grass huts! Women and nature are universally devalued by the dominant paradigm and who cannot see what this has wrought? Ursula Le Guin gives us a healthy corrective to Paglia’s dismissal of both: “Civilized Man says: I am Self, I am Master, all the rest is other — outside, below, underneath, subservient. I own, I use, I explore, I exploit, I control. What I do is what matters. What I want is what matter is for. I am that I am, and the rest is women and wilderness, to be used as I see fit.” [2] The general crisis of modernity has its roots in the imposition of gender. Separation and inequality begin here at the period when symbolic culture itself emerges, soon becoming definitive as domestication and civilization: patriarchy. The hierarchy of gender can no more be reformed than the class system or globalization. Without a deeply radical women’s liberation we are consigned to the deadly swindle and mutilation now dealing out a fearful toll everywhere. The wholeness of original genderlessness may be a prescription for our redemption. 92

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/john-zerzan-patriarchy-civilization-and-the-origins-of-gender

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

36


[30.5]

Uday Chandra: Liberalism and its Other: Primitivism93:

“Liberalism is widely regarded as a modern intellectual tradition that defends the rights and freedoms of autonomous individuals. Yet, in both colonial and postcolonial contexts, liberal theorists and lawmakers have struggled to defend the rights and freedoms of political subjects whom they regard as “primitive,” “backward,” or “indigenous.” Liberalism thus recurrently encounters its primitive other, a face-off that gives rise to a peculiar set of dilemmas and contradictions for political theory and law.” - Uday Chandra, Liberalism and Its Other: The Politics of Primitivism in Colonial and Postcolonial Indian Law; Law and Society Review

[30.6]

Primitives & Liberals view each other as the Wrong Kind of Green:

A.

Neo-Liberalism and the Defanging of Feminism94

B.

Pacifism as Pathology95.

C.

Ideological Motivations of Industrial Civilization96.

D.

Offsetting Resistance: The Effects of Foundation Funding97.

[31] Neoliberal White/Black Consumptionist Guilt’s Egotist Consumption; a.k.a. Idiot Compassion and Lifestyle Activism: [31.1] In First as Tragedy, then as Farce98, Communist Philosopher and Economist Slavoj Zizek shares his perspective on the problems of Neo-Liberalisms addiction to Cultural Imperialist Capitalism’s values of alleged ‘Ethical Consumption’: “Like Soros, in the morning he grabs the money; in the afternoon, he gives half of the money back to charity. In today's capitalism, more and more the tendency is to bring this tendency together. So when you buy something, your anti-consumerist duty is to do something for others, for the environment and so on, is already included in the price. If you think I am exaggerating, walk around the corner, into any Starbucks coffee, and you will see how they explicitly tell you, I quote "Its not just what you are buying, its what you are buying into. When you buy starbucks, whether you realize it or not, you are buying into something bigger than a cup of coffee. You are buying into a coffee ethics. Through our Starbucks Shared Planet Program we purchase more fair trade coffee Uday Chandra, Liberalism and Its Other: The Politics of Primitivism in Colonial and Postcolonial Indian Law; Law and Society Review, Volume 47, Issue 1, pg.135-168, March 2013 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lasr.12004/full 94 http://wrongkindofgreen.org/category/neo-liberalism-and-the-defanging-of-feminism/ 95 http://wrongkindofgreen.org/category/pacifism-as-pathology/ 96 http://wrongkindofgreen.org/wrong-kind-of-green-illuminates-the-ideological-manipulations-of-industrial-civilization/ 97 http://wrongkindofgreen.org/wrong-kind-of-green-illuminates-the-ideological-manipulations-of-industrial-civilization/ 98 http://youtu.be/hpAMbpQ8J7g 93

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

37


than anyone in the world, ensuring that the farmers who grow the coffee beans receive a fair price for their hard work.......” Its a good coffee karma. This is cultural capitalism at its purist. You don't just buy a coffee. In the very consumerist act, you buy your redemption from only being a consumerist. You do something for the environment, you do something for starving children in Guatamala. ..... For every act of consumerism, within the price you pay, you purchase your redemption. This generates almost a kind of semantic over investment or burden. Its not just buying a cup of coffee, you are fulfilling a whole series of ethical duties. This logic today is almost universalized. Why? It makes you feel warm, it makes you feel like you are doing something for … My point is that, this very interesting short circuit, where the very act of egotist consumption, already includes the price for its opposite.” [He proceeds to quote: Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism] “It is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering, than it is to have sympathy with thought. People find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, ugliness, and starvation. It is inevitable they would be strongly moved by this. Accordingly with admirable, but misdirected intentions, they very sentimentally set themselves the task of remedying the problems they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease, they merely prolong it. Indeed, they are part of the disease. They try to solve the problem of poverty, by keeping the poor alive, or in the case of an advanced school, by amusing the poor. But this is not a solution, it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. It is the altruistic virtues which have prevented the carrying out of this aim. The worst slave owners were those who were kind to their slaves. In doing so they prevented the core of the system to be realized by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it. Charity degrades and demoralizes.”

[31.2] Zizek refers to Egotist Consumptionism as Cultural Capitalism at its Purist: Where the very act of egotist consumption - buying 'free trade' coffee, going on an 'ecotourist' holiday -- already includes the price for its opposite. In the very consumerist act, you buy your redemption from only being a consumerist.’ [31.3] Idiot Compassion’s primary conscious or unconscious subjective purpose is to engage in public displays of fake ‘Charity Compassion’ to assert the individuals ‘Moral Superiority’; while doing absolutely nothing about the underlying root causes of the particular suffering they demand ‘charity compassion’ for. [31.4] Tibetan Buddhist Master Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche defined Idiot Compassion as “a slimy way of trying to fulfil your desire secretly;” the Karmayogini PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

38


journal as, “It is when you give people what they want as opposed to what they need, all in the name of being nice and compassionate [so that you can feel better yourself].” [31.5] In Idiot Compassion, Pema Chodron refers to idiot compassion as what in Psychology is referred to as enabling: “Idiot compassion … refers to something we all do a lot of and call it compassion. In some ways, it’s what’s called enabling. It’s the general tendency to give people what they want because you can’t bear to see them suffering. Basically, you’re not giving them what they need. You’re trying to get away from your feeling of I can’t bear to see them suffering. In other words, you’re doing it for yourself. You’re not really doing it for them.” [31.6] Soulseeds: Mindful Compassion and Idiot Compassion 99 explains Idiot Compassion as “When you try to help someone when they don’t want your help, or because you are really trying to help yourself, this may be idiot compassion. Its often the distinction between charity (giving TO someone) and empowerment (helping people help themselves) .. The Zen story about compassion with a rolled up umbrella makes the point. A woman was in India, riding with a friend in a rickshaw when they were attacked by a crazed man. He did no harm other than to frighten the women. However the woman was upset and asked her Zen teacher what the appropriate response to her attacker would be. The teacher said very simply, “You should have very mindfully and with great compassion whacked the attacker over the head with your umbrella.”” [31.7] Right Lifestyle, which refers to both Lifestyle Activism and Lifestyle Politics, avoids any examination of the consumptionist focus of the lifestyle, which involves maximizing physical, psychological social comfort and material acquisition, by getting involved in acts of Lifestyle Activism or Lifestyle Politics, as a feel good way to be involved in shallow activities which pretend to solve the worlds problems; while actively avoiding addressing any root causes of the problems, to implement social structural changes. [31.8] Open Left’s article: Self Delusion and the Lies of Lifestyle activism: Core Dilemmas of Community Organizing100 argues that much of lifestyle activism’s primary focus of public displays of Lifestyle Activism are to assert the relevant individuals ‘Moral Superiority’: “Most lifestyle activism seems to take the form it does because it allows (mostly middle-class professionals) to feel like they can make a difference in the world while at the same time purifying their lives . Every deposit of old food into the compost pile is a re-enactment of "who" they are, of how their life maintains its wholeness in a complicated, dirty, seemingly uncontrollable 99

http://www.soulseeds.com/grapevine/2012/10/mindful-compassion-and-idiot-compassion/ http://www.openleft.com/diary/13032/selfdelusion-and-the-lie-of-lifestyle-politics-core-dilemmas-of-community-organizing

100

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

39


world. .. At the same time, lifestyle activism is often an opportunity for display. Others can see your solar panel or wind turbine. You can brag about your compost pile and educate others about how to create one. Every time you drive your Prius around town, others can see how virtuous you are.” [31.9] In Part II, The Distortion of Lifestyle Politics101 OpenLeft provide an interesting case study of “the ways lifestyle activism and politics can have distorting effects on social change, drawing from a recent book by the sociologist Mary Pattillo. In Black on the Block102 she examines what happened when middle-class African Americans used lifestyle strategies in their effort to "reclaim" an impoverished central city neighborhood, North Kenwood-Oakland, in Chicago. This example is especially fascinating because it shows how class-based preferences for lifestyle activism functioned among a group of middle-class African Americans also grappling with racial inequality.” [32] Neo-Liberal ‘Compulsive Development’ Capital-Consumptionist Melting pot Multiculturalism vs. Voluntarist Anti-Civilization Anarcho-Primitivism Separatist Multiculturalism: [32.1] Neo-Liberal Multiculturalism fully endorses Industrial Civilization – and its driver Corporate Capitalism’s – addiction to Compulsive Developmentism, which involves the (a) destruction and cultural ‘sustainable development’ colonization of homogenous tribal, ethnic, cultural, racial and religious individual identities, to be replaced with a ‘Consumerist’ identity and the commodification and commercialization of their culture’s clothing, cuisine, etc. [32.2] Anarcho-Primitivism opposes Industrial Civilization, as well as all forms of Compulsive Developmentism and domination against women, nature and primitives, including Technological domination, which consequently means it supports and encourages all communities, cultures, ethnicities, races and religions to resist the destruction and Compulsive Developmentism cultural colonization of their homogenous ethnic, cultural and/or racial tribes. Separatist multiculturalism protects individuals to retain their culture, as their primary form of identity, protecting all culture’s purity hence protects authentic cultural diversity. [32.3] Communist Philosopher and Economist Slavoy Zizek argues in Multiculturalism: The Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism103, that Meltingpot/Non-Racial Multiculturalism, is the ideal Egotist Consumptionism cultural logic of Multinational Capitalism, intent on colonizing all cultures into http://www.openleft.com/diary/14295/part-ii-the-distortions-of-lifestyle-politics-core-dilemmas-of-community-organizing http://astore.amazon.com/whitrefu-20/detail//0226649326/ 103 Slavoj Žižek: Multiculturalism or the cultural logic of multinational capitalism, in: Razpol 10 - glasilo Freudovskega polja, Ljubljana 1997 http://www.soc.aau.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/kbm/VoF/ Kurser/2011/Multiculturalism/slavoj_zizek-multiculturalism-or-the-cultural-logic-of-multinational-capitalism.pdf 101

102

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

40


slaves to Egotist Consumptionism. Multinational Corporations wish to colonize all nations and their cultures, turning all culture’s primary cultural value into that of an egotist consumer, for the profits of multinational corporations. Multiculturalism: How, then, does the universe of Capital relate to the form of Nation State in our era of global capitalism? Perhaps, this relationship is best designated as ‘autocolonization’: with the direct multinational functioning of Capital, we are no longer dealing with the standard opposition between metropolis and colonized countries; a global company as it were cuts its umbilical cord with its mother-nation and treats its country of origins as simply another territory to be colonized. This is what disturbs so much the patriotically oriented rightwing populists, from Le Pen to Buchanan: the fact that the new multinationals have towards the French or American local population exactly the same attitude as towards the population of Mexico, Brazil or Taiwan. Is there not a kind of poetic justice in this self-referential turn? Today’s global capitalism is thus again a kind of ‘negation of negation’, after national capitalism and its internationalist/colonialist phase. At the beginning (ideally, of course), there is capitalism within the confines of a Nation-State, with the accompanying international trade (exchange between sovereign Nation-States); what follows is the relationship of colonization in which the colonizing country subordinates and exploits (economically, politically, culturally) the colonized country; the final moment of this process is the paradox of colonization in which there are only colonies, no colonizing countries—the colonizing power is no longer a Nation-State but directly the global company. In the long term, we shall all not only wear Banana Republic shirts but also live in banana republics. And, of course, the ideal form of ideology of this global capitalism is multiculturalism, the attitude which, from a kind of empty global position, treats each local culture the way the colonizer treats colonized people—as ‘natives’ whose mores are to be carefully studied and ‘respected’. That is to say, the relationship between traditional imperialist colonialism and global capitalist self-colonization is exactly the same as the relationship between Western cultural imperialism and multiculturalism: in the same way that global capitalism involves the paradox of colonization without the colonizing Nation-State metropole, multiculturalism involves patronizing Eurocentrist distance and/or respect for local cultures without roots in one’s own particular culture. In other words, multiculturalism is a disavowed, inverted, self-referential form of racism, a ‘racism with a distance’—it ‘respects’ the Other’s identity, conceiving the Other as a self-enclosed ‘authentic’ community towards which he, the multiculturalist, maintains a distance rendered possible by his privileged universal position.

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

41


Multiculturalism is a racism which empties its own position of all positive content (the multiculturalist is not a direct racist, he doesn’t oppose to the Other the particular values of his own culture), but nonetheless retains this position as the privileged empty point of universality from which one is able to appreciate (and depreciate) properly other particular cultures—the multiculturalist respect for the Other’s specificity is the very form of asserting one’s own superiority.

[33] In 'The one measure of true love is: you can insult the other'104; Slavoj Zizek writes that fake two faced tolerance, is the worst form of intolerance and cultural bigotry or racism, which treats other cultures as children, and unworthy of honesty and sincerity; whereas brutal honesty is the highest form of sincere multicultural tolerance: Another thing that bothers me about this multiculturalism is when people ask me: 'How can you be sure that you are not a racist?' My answer is that there is only one way. If I can exchange insults, brutal jokes, dirty jokes, with a member of a different race and we both know it's not meant in a racist way. If, on the other hand, we play this politically correct game - 'Oh, I respect you, how interesting your customs are' - this is inverted racism, and it is disgusting. In the Yugoslav army where we were all of mixed nationalities, how did I become friends with Albanians? When we started to exchange obscenities, sexual innuendo, jokes. This is why this politically correct respect is just, as Freud put it, 'zielgehemmt'. You still have the aggression towards the other. You cannot do the game of erotic seduction in politically correct terms. For me there is one measure of true love: you can insult the other. Like in that horrible German comedy film from 1943 where Marika Röck treats her fiancé very brutally. This fiancé is a rich, important person, so her father asks her why are you treating him like that. And she gives the right answer. She says: 'But I love him, and since I love him, I can do with him whatever I want.' That's the truth of it. If there is true love, you can say horrible things and anything goes. When multiculturalists tell you to respect the others, I always have this uncanny association that this is dangerously close to how we treat our children: the idea that we should respect them, even when we know that what they believe is not true. We should not destroy their illusions. No, I think that others deserve better - not to be treated like children.

104

http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000002D2C4.htm

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

42


Update: Censorship by Norwegian Media Editors: Publishing that an Anarcho-Primitivist Feminist Application to the European Court of Human Rights alleging that the Oslo Court’s Breivik Necessity Judgement was Discriminatory & an Ineffective Remedy, met all the ECHR admissibility conditions required by the Registrar for processing; is not in the public interest of Norwegian citizens. [34]

11 January 2013: Application to the European Court of Human Rights:

[34.1] On 11 January 2013, allegations of discrimination and violations of an Effective Remedy, were filed against the Supreme Court Secretary General and Parliamentary Ombudsman at the European Court of Human Rights105: “The (i) 10 September 2012, administrative decision of Norway Supreme Court Secretary General Gunnar Bergby, denying Applicant Access to Court by refusing to process her 27 August 2012, Application for Review of the Oslo District Court: ‘Breivik Judgement’; and (ii) the 15 November 2012 ruling by Parliamentary Ombudsman, that Secretary General’s Gunnar Bergby’s administrative decision, was a ‘judgement/decision by a court of law’, thereby justifying his refusal to order Secretary General Bergby to process Applicants Application for Review; were (iii) violations of applicants right to an Effective Remedy and (iv) were motivated acts of ideological discrimination against the ‘right wing’ or ‘cultural conservatives’, and against anyone – particularly anyone who is not ‘right wing’ -- who opposes, or objects to Ideological Discrimination against ‘right wing’ (cultural conservatives).” [35] The Application to the European Court of Human Rights clearly identifies the Applicant (and her arguments she attempted to submit to the Oslo Courts) as: [35.1] an EcoFeminist with an Ecological Biocentric worldview (para.14.11-14.19), who prescribes to the Sustainable Security: Scarcity and Conflict or (I=PAT) worldview that reducing conflict (I: Impact), requires reducing procreation (P: Population) and reducing consumption (A: Affluence), and [35.2] An Anarcho-Primitivist (aka libertarian socialist) who opposes not only Marxist/Socialist Communists endorsement of Industrial Civilization’s war against nature; but also both the left wing (socialists, etc) and the right wing (conservatives) involvement in the ‘left’ vs ‘right’ wing polarization of society, for their socio-political status benefits, while ignoring the ecological root causes of conflict. Applicant is interested in root cause problem solving, not left or right wing polarization and sociopolitical status parasitism.

105

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/eu-court-human-rights.html

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

43


[36] On 05 March 2013, the ECHR Registrar: Legal Secretary: Ragna Bjarnadottir, acknowledged receipt of my complaint for processing: Application no. 16325/13: Johnstone v. Norway. [37]

Transparency Notices to Norwegian Government & Media:

[38] On 07 April 2013 Transparency Notices were sent to Anders Breivik & Geir Lippestad; 22 Juli Victim Families; c/o Hallgren, Elgesem & Larsen; Pros Svein Holden & Inga Engh, c/o NO Police; Min Foreign Aff: Mr. Espen Eide; Min of Justice: Grete Faremo; Supreme Court: Sec. Gen. Gunnar Bergby; Supreme Court: Justice Tore Schei; Oslo Dist Court: Judge Arntzen; Oslo Dist Court: Judge Nina Opsahl; Parl Ombudsman: Arne Fliflet; Den Rettsmedisinske Kommisjon: Psych Husby & Sorheim; Supv. Comm for Judges: Espen Eiken; Env. App. Board: Ms. Strom. [38.1] Political Parties: Fremskrittspartiet: Ms. Siv Jensen; Miljøpartiet De Grønne: Marcussen & Nissen; Hoyre: Erna Solberg; KRF: Knut Arild Hareide; KSP: Ørnulf Nandrup; Arbeiderpartiet: Jens Stoltenberg; AUF: Eskil Pedersen; PensionerParty: Einar Lonstad; Rodt: Bjornar Moxnes; SV: Audun Lysbakken; Venstre: Trine Skei Grande. [38.2] Norwegian Media Editors: Addresseavisen: Arne Blix; Aftenposten: Ed. Haugsgjerd; Bergens Tidende: Ed Eilertsen; Dagbladet: Ed. Markussen; NRK: Ed: Hans Bjerkaas; TV2: Ed: Alf Hildrum; VG: Ed: Torry Pedersen; Jærbladet: Ed: Anne Hatlem; JarlsbergAvis: Redaksjonen; IJ: Editor; Journalisten; Journalistlag: Gunhild Mohn; Klassekampen: Ed: Bjorgulv Braanen; Kvinnheringen; Laagendalsposten: Sentralbord; LokalRadio: Post; Morgenbladet: Ed; Moss Avis: Ed: Sigrid Holmsen; Medietilsynet: Dir: Tom Thoresen; Nettavisen: Ed: Gunnar Stavrum; NewsEnglish: Nina Burgland; Nordlys: Ed: Anders Opdahl; Rana Blad: Ed; Redaktorforening: Nordland: Jan-Eirik Hanssen; Redaktorforening: Oslo: Kjersti Løken Stavrum; Redaktorforening: Vestafjelske: Jan Inge Fardal; Redaktorforening: Nils Oy: General Secretary; Redaktorforening: Romsdal: Hallstein Vemøy; Redaktorforening: Rogaland: Tom Hetland; NRK: Frode Nielsen; Ny Tid: Ed; Nye Troms: Ed; OA: Ed; OstlandestBlad: Ed: Siri Zachariassen; OstlandsPosten: Terje Svendsen; Ostlendingen: Ed: Nils Kristian Myhre; Radio 102; RadioDager: Morten Scott Janssen; Redaktorforening: VeTeBu: Jan Roaldset; Redaktorforening: Arne Jensen: Ass. Gen. Sec; Redaktorforening: Oplandenes: Torbjørn Moen; Redaktorforening: Trondelag: Tor Røed; Redaktorforening: Ostfold: Øivind Lågbu; Ringblad: Ed: Oyvind Lien; TidensKrav: Ed; TonsbergBlad: Ed: Kristin Monstad Lund; TromsFolkeblad: Raymond Larsen; Tromso: Editor: Mortenr Albertsen; TronderAvisa: Ed: Heidi Stiklestad; TV2; Varden: Editorial; Varingen: Ed; Vartland: HQ; VG'; 'PolEd: Hanne Skartveit; Strandbuen: Ed; Sunnmorsposten: Ed; SarpsborgA: Eirik Moe; SognAvis: Ed: Eli Grotle; RogalandAvis: Anne-Marie Nygaard; RomerikesBlad: Ed; RomsdalsB: Per Tveeikrem; SandefjordsBlad: Ed: Jan Roaldset; RingsakerBlad: Ed.

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

44


[38.3] Foreign Correspondents in Norway: CH Broad. Co: B Kaufmann; Cihan: Zaman: A Ramazan; DE-Financial Times: C Bomsdorf; DevTod: AD Usher; DevTod: BJ Amland; DiWelt: HJ Schilde; Ecologico: AZ Gunneng; FL: Christopher Olsson; Xinhua: Min Liu; ZDF: H Buller; SVT Nyheter: A Lindqvist; TSF Radio: F Helder; TV Azteca: S Jahnsen; Uruk: W Alazawi; US-FL: I MacDougall; Stat: S Huseinovic; Sudan FL: M Elzain; AFP: Pierre-Henry Deshayes; NFPA Bazger Tariq; Aargauer Zeitung: T Hug; AlArabiya: MMastou; AlBaghdadia: M Majeed; AlJazeera: AAlHamdan; AlJazeera: SShatara; AP: NMyklebost; Arabic: TMahadi; Xinhua: Li Guorong; ArabicFL: SSeifiddin; Arbeidsliv: B Kvam; BBC: L Bevanger; Bloomberg: J Kremer; Bloomberg: JBergman; CA G&M: W Stoichevski; FL: J Hughes; FL: V Criscione; FL: W Conradie; FL: W. Gibbs; Free Media: N Sarawanan; Gazeta Wyborcza: K Malewski; HimalayanTimes: TB Giri; Reuters: K Pedersen; Reuters: V Klesty; MENA: T Mahmoud; NL: GDP: W Kester; Norway News: N Sethurupan; PAP: Z Kuczynski; Politika: R Pavlovic; Polska Times: H Malinowski; Radio France: G Tervel; Ice:FL: H Sigurgrímsdóttír; IndNS: C da Silva; Irish Times: A Andersen; ItarTass: A Naydionov; KulturKompasset: T Bagackas; Lietuvos Rytas: D Bogdaniene; LloydsList: R Joshi; Reuters: A Doyle; Reuters: B Koranyi; Reuters: G Fouche; RNE: D Fernandez-Garcia; RTV: D Osman; RUV-R: G Kristjánson; SE-FL: G Wallin; SE-FL: J Sandeberg; SR-FL: S Dimitrijevic. [38.4] The Local (English News in Europe): TheLocal: Ed: Paul O'Mahony; TheLocal: William Koichevski. [39]

Norwegian Media Response: Not in the Norwegian Public Interest:

[39.1] Publishing that an Anarcho-Primitivist Feminist Application to the European Court of Human Rights alleging that the Oslo Court’s Breivik Necessity Judgement was Discriminatory & an Ineffective Remedy, met all the ECHR admissibility conditions required by the Registrar for processing; is not in the public interest of Norwegian citizens.

[40]

Supporting Documentation:

A.

List of Aarhus Convention Inadmissible Rulings.

B.

ECHR: 16325/13: Johnstone v. Norway: Oslo District Court’s Breivik Necessity Judgement was Discriminatory & Ineffective Remedy.

106 107

a.

05 March 2013: ECHR: Registrar: Ragna Bjarnadottir: Application no. 16325/13: Johnstone v. Norway (PDF106).

b.

11 Jan 2013: European Court of Human Rights Application107 (PDF108)

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/13-04-07_echr_16325-13_johnstone-v-norway.pdf http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/eu-court-human-rights.html

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

45


C.

Media Censorship: Citizens are ignorant of how to contribute to Sustainable Security: Procreate and Consume below carrying capacity, to avoid scarcity induced resource war conflict. a.

D.

Every Child Increases a Woman’s Carbon Footprint by a factor of 20: A woman can reduce her carbon footprint 19 times more by having one fewer child than by all other energy efficiency actions the E.P.A. suggests combined: a.

E.

Maher, Michael (1997/03): How and Why Journalists Avoid the PopulationEnvironment Connection109,: University of Southwestern Louisiana, Population and Environment, Volume 18, Number 4, March 1977; Reprinted in 1997 by the Carrying Capacity Network, Focus, 18 (2), 21-37.

Paul A. Murtaugh, Michael G. Schlax (2009): Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals; Global Environmental Change, 19 (2009) pp. 14-20

Only Civilization Collapse will prevent runaway global climate change: Industrial Civilization/Consumption Developmentism as Heat Engine Root cause of Scarcity-Conflict Climate Change-National Security Impending Near-term Extinction reality. a.

University of Utah (22 Nov 2009): Is Global Warming Unstoppable?: Theory also says Energy Conservation doesn't help110.

b.

Timothy J. Garrett (Nov. 2009), Are there basic physical constraints on future anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide?111; Climatic Change

Dated at George, South Africa, Pale Blue Dot: 11 May 2013

Lara Johnstone Radical Honoursty Culture Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party CommonSism: Common Sense Laws for a Sustainable Commons Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence: Equal & Balanced Eco/Anthropocentric Law

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/130110_echr_lj-v-no Maher, Michael (1997/03): How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection ,: University of Southwestern Louisiana, Population and Environment, Volume 18, Number 4, March 1977; Reprinted in 1997 by the Carrying Capacity Network, Focus, 18 (2), 21-37. issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection 110 http://unews.utah.edu/news_releases/is-global-warming-unstoppable/ 111 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-009-9717-9 108 109

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

46


Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee Communication ACCC/C/2013/82: Johnstone v. Norway1

Annexure “A” List of Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee ‘Inadmissible’ Rulings: [1]

2004/07: Poland: Antoni Zawislak: A.

[2]

2004-09: Armenia: Edik Baghdasaryan: A.

[3]

“Postponed subject to additional information requested from the communicant. No response received. Determined inadmissible at the 11th meeting of the Committee (para. 23 of the report of the 11th meeting (ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2006/2)”

2007-19: UK: John Dall: A.

1

“Not admissible (7th meeting, 16-18.03.2005)”

2005-14: Poland: Antoni Zawislak: A.

[5]

“While the communication fulfilled all the admissibility criteria set out in paragraph 20 of the annex to decision I/7, it was submitted without the communicant having made sufficient use of available domestic remedies. Having regard to paragraph 21, the Committee will not therefore consider it further at this stage. (24.09.2004)”

2004-10: Kazakhstan: Sergey Kuratov: A.

[4]

“Not admissible, (5th meeting of the Committee, 23-24.09.2004)”

Not admissible. The Committee, having considered the communication at its sixteenth meeting (13-15 June 2007), noted that the information contained in the communication indicated that the decision in question was now subject to an independent inquiry and as such was still pending. It also noted that although the communication might meet the

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/unece-aarhus-comp-comm.html


formal admissibility criteria set out in paragraph 20 of the annex to decision I/7 of the Meeting of the Parties, it provided no information on the use of available domestic remedies. Paragraph 21 of the annex to decision I/7 requires the Committee to take into account at all relevant stages any available domestic remedy unless the application of the remedy is unreasonably prolonged or obviously does not provide an effective and sufficient means of redress. In this regard the Committee took note of information on the website of the Tameside Council concerning some of the available appeals procedures, including information on the Complaints System (http://public.tameside.gov.uk/forms/comp_public.asp) and information on the Local Government Ombudsman (http://www.lgo.org.uk/complain.htm).

[6]

B.

Taking into account the pending status of the decision and the lack of information on the use made of domestic remedies, the Committee agreed not to proceed for the time being with the preliminary determination on admissibility pending further clarification from the communicant with regard to the use made of available domestic remedies.

C.

A letter to this effect was sent to the communicant and copied for information to the Party concerned on 22 June 2007.

D.

For technical reasons a verification was requested from the communicant by the secretariat in September 2007 as to whether any information had been sent by the communicant in the period of JuneSeptember 2007. In response to this an email was received from the communicant on 28.09.2007 with regard to the ongoing procedure referred to in the communication.

E.

At its 18th meeting, the Committee, on the basis of information available to in, determined that the communication was not admissible.

F.

The Committee agreed that although it considered that the criteria of paragraph 20 of the annex to decision I/7 were met, it would exercise the discretion given to it under paragraph 21 of the annex to decision I/7 not to consider the communication further, as the matter was subject to an ongoing inquiry

2008-25: Albania: Ardian Klosi, Sinan Hibro: A.

Committee decided not to proceed with the review of the communication as the issues raised in the communication were already considered by it under the review of communication ACCC/C/2005/12, and would


therefore also be considered by Albania in the course of implementation of recommendations of the Committee made in connection with that communication (ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2008/4) [7]

2008-34: Spain: Maria Lopez Lax: A.

[8]

2009-42: Hungary: A.

[9]

No. The Committee noted that no further correspondence had been received from the communicant. It decided that the case was not admissible for the reasons that had been given to the communicant in January and due to the absence of the corroborating information required under paragraph 19 of the annex to decision I/7.

No, at CC-27 (16-19 March 2010). At the request of the communicant, at CC-26 the Committee decided to agree to defer a preliminary determination on the admissibility of the case until a public version of the communication and English translations of the documentation relating to the communication be transmitted. At CC-27, the Committee noted that no further correspondence had been received from the communicant. Due to the absence of corroborating information required under paragraph 19 of the annex to decision I/7 and of collaboration from the communicant in dealing with the issue of confidentiality, the Committee decided that the communication was not admissible.

2010-46: UK: Gareth Clubb: A.

No at CC-27 (16-19 March 2010). In light of the admissibility criteria set out in paragraph 20 of the annex to decision I/7 as developed through its practice, the Committee considered that the communication was not admissible, because the communicant’s allegations concerning non-compliance with article 6 of the Convention only related to the fact that some documents relevant for public participation had not been available in a timely manner in the Welsh language. Specifically, the Committee found that while the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of citizenship, nationality or domicile was explicit in article 3, paragraph 9, of the Convention, the provision was silent on matters of discrimination on the basis of language. While the lack of availability of documentation in a particular language might under certain circumstances present an impediment to correct implementation of the Convention, nothing in the present communication suggested that such circumstances pertained. In addition, the Committee was not convinced that the possibility for domestic administrative and, in particular, judicial review had been adequately used by the communicant.


[10]

2010-47: UK: Frances McCartney: A.

[11]

2010-49: UK: RM Buxton: A.

[12]

At CC-31 (22-25 February 2011) the Committee found that the information submitted was not sufficient and there were no clear allegations of non-compliance with specific provisions of the Convention. The Committee determined the communication inadmissible, as incompatible with the provisions of the annex to decision I/7 that require a communication to be supported by corroborating information (paragraph 20 (d) in conjunction with paragraph 19 of the annex to decision I/7).

2012-73: UK: Ian McNeil Cooke: A.

[15]

At CC-30 (14-17 December 2010), the Committee determined that the communication would not be considered and the file would be closed. The decision was based on the request from the communicant on 8 December 2010 to revert to the Committee on completion of these proceedings as the communicant had applied for and successfully obtained leave to judicially review decisions in relation to the matter of the communication.

2010-56: UK: T Ewing: A.

[14]

At CC-29 (21-24 September 2010). The Committee determined that the communication would not be considered and the file would be closed, since it could not proceed due to lack of corroborating information, as required by paragraph 19 of decision I/7.

2010-52: N. Ireland: Gary McGhee: A.

[13]

At CC-28 (15-18 June 2010). The Committee determined that the communication would not be considered and the file would be closed, since it could not proceed due to lack of corroborating information, as required by paragraph 19 of decision I/7.

Determination on admissibility deferred twice in order to seek information from the communicant to clarify some aspects of the communication. At CC-38 (25-28 September 2012) the Committee determined that the communication was not admissible on the basis of paragraph 20 (d), in conjunction with paragraph 19, of the annex to decision I/7, because the communicant had failed to provide information that the main events of the decision-making had taken place after the Convention had entered into force for the Party concerned.

2012-74: UK: Frances McCartney:


A.

[15.2] A.

[16]

Determination on admissibility deferred once in order to seek information from the communicant to clarify some aspects of the communication. At CC-38 (25-28 September 2012) the Committee determined that the communication was manifestly unreasonable on the basis of paragraph 20 (c) of the annex to decision I/7, because the proceedings on the adoption of the plan were still ongoing and the content of the communication was very close to the content of communication ACCC/C/2011/61, which was currently under consideration by the Committee.

At CC-40 (25-28 March 2013) the Committee determined that the communication was not admissible for lack of corroborating information on the basis of paragraph 20 (d) in conjunction with paragraph 19 of annex to decision I/7.

2013-80: Croatia: Lucijan Mohorovich: A.

[18]

2012-75: UK: Terence Ewing v. UK:

2013-79: Italy: Rita D'Orsogna: A.

[17]

Determination on admissibility deferred twice in order to seek information from the communicant to clarify some aspects of the communication. At CC-38 (25-28 September 2012) the Committee determined that the communication was not admissible on the basis of paragraph 20 (d) and 19 of the annex to decision I/7, because the communicant had failed to provide corroborating information in support of its allegations, despite the repeated requests of the Committee.

At CC-40 (25-28 March 2013) the Committee determined that the communication was not admissible for lack of corroborating information on the basis of paragraph 20 (d) in conjunction with paragraph 19 of the annex to decision I/7.

2013-82: Norway: Lara Johnstone: A.

At CC-40 (25-28 March 2013) the Committee determined the communication inadmissible, as manifestly unreasonable (paragraph 20 (c) of the annex to decision I/7).


Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee Communication ACCC/C/2013/82: Johnstone v. Norway1

Annexure “B” ECHR: 16325/13: Johnstone v. Norway: Oslo District Court’s Breivik Necessity Judgement was Discriminatory & Ineffective Remedy. 05 March 2013: ECHR: Registrar: Ragna Bjarnadottir: Application no. 16325/13: Johnstone v. Norway (PDF2). 11 Jan 2013: European Court of Human Rights: Johnstone v. Norway Application3 (PDF4)

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/unece-aarhus-comp-comm.html http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/13-04-07_echr_16325-13_johnstone-v-norway.pdf 3 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/eu-court-human-rights.html 4 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/130110_echr_lj-v-no 1 2


EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COUR EUROPEENNE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME

Lara JOHNSTONE 16 Taaibos Ave George 6529 SOUTH AFRICA ECHR-LE 1.1R SCP/RBJ/osu Application no. 16325/13 Johnstone v. Norway _Date ojlodgiDgJQ)anualJ:'

5 March 2013

2013_

Dear Sir, I acknowledge receipt of your submissions concerning the above application. Your file has been given the above number. You must refer to it in any further correspondence relating to this case. In order to process your application more efficiently, please find enclosed a set of 10 barcode labels for your use exclusively in this case. If you send the Registry a letter or any other correspondence, please stick one of the barcode labels on the top right-hand corner of the first page of the correspondence. The Court will deal with the case as soon as practicable on the basis of the information and documents submitted by you. Please note that if you wish to send any documents in addition to your application, you should not send original documents as they will not be returned to you by the Court. The proceedings are primarily in writing and you will only be required to appear in person if the Comi invites you to do so. You will be informed of any decision taken by the Court. You should inform me of any change in your address. Furthermore, you should, of your own motion, inform the Court about any major developments regarding the above case, and submit any further relevant decisions of the domestic authorities. Please note that no acknowledgment will be made as to the receipt of subsequent correspondence. No telephone enquiries either please. If you wish to be assured that your letter is actually received by the Court then you should send it by recorded delivery with a prepaid acknowledgment of receipt form. Yours faithfully, For the Registrar

~~~ Ragna Bjarnadottir Legal Secretary Ene: Barcode labels ADRESSE

I ADDRESS

COUNCIL 67075

I

OF EUROPE I CONSEIL DE L'EUROPE

STRASBOURG Cedex, France

I

/.9

COIJNOl OfE\.J"OF'E

"7

CO'.~EJ. o;;l'EU'IO?E

I

TI+33(0)388412018 F I +33 (0)3 88412730 www.echr.coe.lnt


Voir Notice See Notes

Numéro de dossier File number

Requête Application

présentée en application de l’article 34 de la Convention européenne des Droits de l’Homme, ainsi que des articles 45 et 47 du règlement de la Cour under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Rules 45 and 47 of the Rules of Court

IMPORTANT:

La présente requête est un document juridique et peut affecter vos droits et obligations. This application is a formal legal document and may affect your rights and obligations.


I. The Parties A. The Applicant 1. Surname:

Johnstone

2. First Name(s):

Lara

Sex:

Female

3. Nationality:

South African

4. Occupation:

Worm Farmer (Vermicomposter)

5. Date and place of birth:

04 December 1966 : Volksrust, RSA

6. Permanent address:

16 Taaibos Ave, George, 6529, RSA

7. Tel no.:

+27-44-870 7239 [Cel: +27-71-170 1954]

8. Present address:

As Above

9. Name of representative:

Self

10. Occupation of representative:

Worm Farmer (Paralegal)

11. Address of representative:

As Above

12. Tel no.:

As Above

Fax no.:

+27-44-870 7239

B. The High Contracting Party Kingdom of Norway

II. Statement of the Facts 14.1 Overview: Violations of Right to an Effective Remedy, by Supreme Court Secretary General and Parliamentary Ombudsman: A. The (i) 10 September 2012, administrative decision of Norway Supreme Court Secretary General Gunnar Bergby, denying Applicant Access to Court by refusing to process her 27 August 2012, Application for Review of the Oslo District Court: ‘Breivik Judgement’; and (ii) the 15 November 2012 ruling by Parliamentary Ombudsman, that Secretary General’s Gunnar Bergby’s administrative decision, was a ‘judgement/decision by a court of law’, thereby justifying his refusal to order 2


Secretary General Bergby to process Applicants Application for Review; were (iii) violations of applicants right to an Effective Remedy and (iv) were motivated acts of ideological discrimination against the ‘right wing’ or ‘cultural conservatives’, and against anyone – particularly anyone who is not ‘right wing’ -- who opposes, or objects to Ideological Discrimination against ‘right wing’ (cultural conservatives). 14.2

Overview: Discrimination and Right to an Effective Remedy:

14.3 The Norwegian government has no justification to discriminate against an accused, by denying the accused his Right to a Free and Fair Trial (an effective remedy), simply because an accused is an ‘extreme right wing conservative’. 14.4 The Norwegian government has no justification to discriminate against a ‘right wing’ accused, whose primary objective is to profit from such ‘liberal left wing’ discrimination against him, to attain ‘right wing’ martyr and victimhood status, thereby to emotionally outrage right wing conservatives, and contribute to greater polarisation of the public into left vs. right wing camps. 14.5 The Norwegian government has no justification to discriminate against a ‘right wing’ accused, for the covert purposes of profiting from such left vs right wing polarisation consequences of denying a right wing accused his right to a free and fair trial. 14.6 The Norwegian government has no justification to politically profit from denying a ‘hated’ accused their right to a free and fair trial, simply because the public is emotionally outraged and on a ‘right wing extremist witch hunt’ and obtain schadenfreude satisfaction from observing the judicial system discriminate against such ‘hated’ individual. 14.7 The Norwegian government has no justification to discriminate against any individual who does not share the ‘right wing’ accused’s ideology, nor the public’s rabid emotional ‘right wing witch hunt’ hysteria for revenge and denial of the rule of law to the ‘right wing’ accused, who endorses the ‘right wing’ accused’s right to a free and fair trial. 14.8 Anthropocentrically speaking: Right wing extremist terrorist Anders Breivik deserves a free and fair trial, and an objective and subjective enquiry into his political necessity evidence; by the Left wing extremist Norwegian Government; upon the same Norwegian rule of law due process principles; as left wing extremist terrorist Nelson Mandela deserved a free and fair trial, and an impartial objective and subjective enquiry into the evidence for his defence; by the Right wing extremist South African Apartheid government. 14.9 ‘Norway’s Politically Correct Discrimination & Censorship of Cultural Conservatives, by Feminists and Multiculturalists justified the Violent ‘Necessity’ of 22 July 2011 Attacks’ – Anders Breivik 3


A. On 22 July 2011, a fertilizer truck bomb exploded in Oslo within Regjeringskvartalet, in front of the office of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, at 15:25:22 (CEST), killing eight and injuring at least 209; and ninety minutes later, a mass shooting occurred at a summer camp organized by the AUF, the youth division of the ruling Norwegian Labour Party (AP) on the island of Utøya in Tyrifjorden, Buskerud, by a gunman dressed in a homemade police uniform, killing 69, and injuring at least 110. B. The Norwegian Police arrested Anders Behring Breivik, born 13 February 1979, on Utøya island and charged him with both attacks. Breivik admitted to having carried out the actions he was accused of, but denied criminal guilt and claimed the defence of necessity (jus necessitatis). Breivik’s necessity justification – as detailed in his Manifesto: 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence and simplistically referred to as “Titanic Europe is on a demographic/immigration collision course with Islam Iceberg” -- was two-pronged: (1) Resist Eurabia: He believes Islam and cultural Marxism are involved in a ‘Eurabian’ demographic colonisation and ethnic cleansing of indigenous Norwegians and Europeans, and that it is a matter of necessity to resist “Eurabia”, to preserve European Christendom; (2) Gov & Media Censorship required Ultra violence to Access International Publicity: Non-violent resistance is futile, as democracy is no longer functioning in Norway, due to politically correct discrimination and exclusion – by means of censorship and persecution – of cultural conservatives by the left wing extremist Norwegian government and media. C.

D. According to Oslo Organized Crime Police Investigation Report: “Explanation of 22 July 2011, doc 08,01”: “[Breivik] emphasizes that if he had not been censored by the media all his life, he would not have had to do what he did. He believes the media have the main responsibility for what has happened because they did not publish his opinions.... The low-intensity civil war that he had already described, had lasted until now with ideological struggle and censorship of cultural conservatives...... He explains that this is the worst day of his life and that he has dreaded this for 2 years. He has been censored for years. He mentions Dagbladet and Aftenposten as those who among other things have censored him..... He says that he also wrote “essays” that he tried to publish via the usual channels, but that they were all censored..... The subject summarizes: As long as more than twelve were executed, the operation will still be a success. The experts ask how the number twelve comes into consideration. Twelve dead are needed to penetrate the censorship wall, he explains..... About his thoughts on the Utøya killings now, the subject says: The goal was to execute as many as possible. At least 30. It was horrible, but the number had to be assessed based on the global censorship limit. Utøya was a martyrdom, and I am very proud of it..... He believes he had to kill at least twelve, because there is a censorship-wall preventing an open debate about 4


what is happening in the country..... So I knew I had to cross a certain threshold to exceed the censorship-wall of the international media.” E.

As argued in Anders Breivik 22 June 2012 Closing Statement:

a. “Mullah Krekar [a Kurdish Islamic refugee in Norway] .. calls himself a Kurdish religious leader. He is one of the few Muslim leaders who are honest about Islam’s takeover of Europe. Krekar said, “In Denmark they printed drawings, but the result was that support of Islam increased. I, and all Muslims, are evidence. You have not managed to change us. It is we who are changing you. Look at the changes in the population of Europe, where Muslims reproduce like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in Europe has 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries gives birth to 3.5 children.” b. “One of the most influential people in Norway, Arne Strand [a print and broadcast journalist and former member of Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland's cabinet] in Dagsavisen [the daily newspaper Strand edits, until 1999 the official organ of the Labor Party, now independent] has issued many statements about press subsidies. He proposes that everyone on the right, to the right of Carl I. Hagen [former Vice President of the Storting (Norwegian Parliament) and exchairman of the Progress Party], should be censored, and excluded from the democratic process. He says straight out that government press subsidies [to the Left, denied to the right] are necessary to preserve the current political hegemony. We must protect hegemony, we must not allow people the right to express themselves. The system of press subsidies ensures that Norway will never be a democracy, because those on the far right are excluded.” c. “This trial should be about finding the truth. The documentation of my claims—are they true? If they are true, how can what I did be illegal? Norwegian academics and journalists work together and make use of [..] methods to deconstruct Norwegian identity, Christianity, and the Norwegian nation. How can it be illegal to engage in armed resistance against this? The prosecution wondered who gave me a mandate to do what I did. [..] I have answered this before, but will do so again. Universal human rights, international law, and the right to selfdefense provided the mandate to carry out this self-defense. Everything has been triggered by the actions of those who consciously and unconsciously are destroying our country. Responsible Norwegians and Europeans who feel even a trace of moral obligation are not going to sit by and watch as we are made into minorities in our own lands. We are going to fight. The attacks on July 22 were preventive attacks in defense of my ethnic group, the Norwegian indigenous people. I therefore cannot acknowledge guilt. I acted from necessity (nødrett) on behalf of my people, my religion and my country.”

5


14.10 Norwegian Prosecutors did not embark on legal proceedings to dispute and negate the evidence of Breivik’s ‘Necessity’ evidence, by means of a Political Necessity ‘Right Wing’ Terrorism trial, wherein Breivik’s Necessity evidence was proven unjustified, in accordance to the required Objective and Subjective test; but chose instead to proceed with a Stalinesque Political Psychiatry show trial, where Breivik was alleged to be ‘insane’, and was forced to prove his sanity. Once his sanity was proven, the matter of an impartial free and fair Terrorism Necessity trial, to determine his guilt or innocence, was ignored, as irrelevant. 14.11 Applicant’s EcoFeminist Political Necessity Activism and Social Science Enquiry Ecological Biocentric worldview: 14.12 Applicant is neither anthropocentrically liberal nor conservative, but an EcoFeminist Guerrylla Law1 Sustainable Security2 Radical Honoursty Transparency Primitivist and paralegal interested and active in Political Necessity civil disobedience activism. 14.13 She is the founder of the unregistered Guerrylla Law Radical Honoursty Party, the aim of which is to establish a Green License to Vote, to elect a Green President, to transition South Africa into a Sustainable Voluntaryist (Honourable Free Society of Men and Women capable of ruling themselves) Green Republic. The Guerrylla Law Radical Honoursty Party, is founded on the Guerrylla Law Radical Honoursty Social Contract which include, among others, the following principles: 14.14

A. Radical Honoursty Problem Solving Communicator Status: Any individual who desires this ‘status’ is required to follow the Radical Honoursty Problem Solving Communicator communication principles. All written communication for such members attention must be (a) acknowledged as received, (b) honestly A guerrilla law regulates human procreation and/or resource utilization behaviour, to ensure sustainability. It is a subdivision of Wild Law, which is a new legal theory and growing social movement. It proposes that we rethink our legal, political, economic and governance systems so that they support, rather than undermine, the integrity and health of the Earth. www.wildlaw.org.au 2 “There is no security without sustainability”[1]: In the absence of an international new moral order[2] where Ecocentric laws are implemented to regulate and reduce human procreation and resource utilization behaviour, towards a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm; “overpopulation[3] and resource scarcity[4] will result in conflict and war”[5] (perhaps nuclear ) confronting regions at an accelerated pace[7], resulting in the “collapse of the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy”[8] by 2050. [1] Murphy, R (2006/10/24): US Army Strategy of the Environment, Office of the Dep. Asst. Sec. of the Army, Environment, Safety & Occup. Health: Assistant for Sustainability; Linkola, P (2009): Can Life Prevail? A Radical Approach to the Environmental Crisis (Integral Tradition Publishing); [2] Hardin, G (1968/12/13): Tragedy of the Commons, Science; Peters, R (1996): The Culture of Future Conflict, US Army War College: Parameters: Winter 1995-96, pp. 18-27; [3] Hardin G (1991): Carrying Capacity and Quality of Life, Environmental Science: Sustaining the Earth; Simmons, M (2000/09/30): Revisiting the Limits to Growth: Could the Club of Rome Have Been Correct, After All?; [4] Koppel, T (2000): CIA and Pentagon on Overpopulation and Resource Wars, Nightline; United States Joint Forces Command (2010/02/18): The Joint Operating Environment - 2010 (The JOE – 2010); Parthemore, C & Nagl, J (2010/09/27): Fueling the Future Force: Preparing the Department of Defense for a Post-Petroleum Environment, Center for a New American Security (CNAS); United States Army & TRADOC (2012): US Army Unified Quest 2012 Fact Sheet, Unified Quest 2012 is the Army Chief of Staff's annual Title 10 Future Study Plan (FSP); Peters (1996)’ [5] Peters (1996); Bush, GW Snr (1986/02): Public Report of the Vice-President’s Task Force on Combatting Terrorism; Homer-Dixon, T, & Boutwell, J, & Rathjens, G (1993): Environmental change and violent conflict: Growing scarcities of renewable resources can contribute to social instability and civil strife. Scientific American, 268(2), pp. 38-45; [6] Hardin (1968/12/13), [7] United States Army & TRADOC (2012); [8] Schultz, S (2010/09/01): [German] Military Study Warns of Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis, Der Spiegel; [9] Clugston, C (2012): Scarcity: Humanity’s Final Chapter (Booklocker.com Inc): Preface, pg. ix 1

6


answered or the questioner to be notified of a ‘by when’ date, when honest answers shall be provided. (c) Brutal honesty is considered honourable respect; sycophancy or PR is considered passive aggressive, manipulative and insulting. (d) In any disagreement or misunderstanding with another member, to commit to remain in discussion, with each other, until it is resolved. (e) Any member who ignores or evades another member’s attempts to resolve a disagreement, or to answer a question, will be put on the ‘Dishonourable Hit List’ for Party assassination after two final warning notices to the member, from the party to either: (a) resign, or (b) resolve the disagreement, by a specific date, in accordance to their Radical Honoursty Problem Solving Communicator Status oath. B. Sustainability: A Sustainable3 society regulates human procreation and/or resource utilization behaviour4, to ensure sustainability. C. Sustainable Rights: Laws of Nature determine that Environmental or ecological rights and responsibilities are the sine qua non5 foundation for all other Rights6. D. Sustainable Security: ‘There is no security without sustainability’7 : In the absence of an international new moral order8 where Ecocentric Guerrylla laws are implemented to regulate and reduce human procreation and resource utilization behaviour, towards a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm; “overpopulation9 and resource scarcity10 will result in conflict and war”11 (perhaps Sustainability requires living within the regenerative capacity of the biosphere. The human economy depends on the planet’s natural capital, which provides all ecological services and natural resources. Drawing on natural capital beyond its regenerative capacity results in depletion of the capital stock. 4 Bartlett (1994/09): Reflections on Sustainability, Population Growth, and the Environment, Population & Environment, Vol. 16, No. 1, Sep 1994, pp. 5-35; Clugston, C (2009): Sustainability Defined (WakeUpAmerika): “Sustainable natural resource utilization behaviour involves the utilization of renewable natural resources—water, cropland, pastureland, forests, and wildlife—exclusively, which can be depleted only at levels less than or equal to the levels at which they are replenished by Nature. The utilization of non-renewable natural resources—fossil fuels, metals, and minerals— at any level, is not sustainable.” 5 “Environmental Protection as a Principle of International Law : The protection of the environment is likewise a vital part of contemporary human rights doctrine, for it is a sine qua non for numerous human rights such as the right to health and the right to life itself. It is scarcely necessary to elaborate on this, as damage to the environment can impair and undermine all; the human rights spoken of in the Universal Declaration and other human rights instruments.” -Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206. 6 Democracy Cannot Survive Overpopulation, Al Bartlett, Ph.D., Population & Environment, Vol. 22, No. 1, Sep 2000, pgs. 6371; Bartlett (1994/09): Reflections on Sustainability, Population Growth, and the Environment, Population & Environment, Vol. 16, No. 1, Sep 1994, pp. 5-35; Clugston, C (2009): Sustainability Defined (WakeUpAmerika) 7 Murphy, R (2006/10/24): US Army Strategy of the Environment, Office of the Dep. Asst. Sec. of the Army, Environment, Safety & Occup. Health: Assistant for Sustainability; Linkola, P (2009): Can Life Prevail? A Radical Approach to the Environmental Crisis (Integral Tradition Publishing) 8 Hardin, G (1968/12/13): Tragedy of the Commons, Science; Peters, R (1996): The Culture of Future Conflict, US Army War College: Parameters: Winter 1995-96, pp. 18-27 9 Hardin G (1991): Carrying Capacity and Quality of Life, Environmental Science: Sustaining the Earth; Simmons, M (2000/09/30): Revisiting the Limits to Growth: Could the Club of Rome Have Been Correct, After All? 10 Koppel, T (2000): CIA and Pentagon on Overpopulation and Resource Wars, Nightline; United States Joint Forces Command (2010/02/18): The Joint Operating Environment - 2010 (The JOE – 2010); Parthemore, C & Nagl, J (2010/09/27): Fueling the Future Force: Preparing the Department of Defense for a Post-Petroleum Environment, Center for a New American Security (CNAS); United States Army & TRADOC (2012): US Army Unified Quest 2012 Fact Sheet, Unified Quest 2012 is the Army Chief of Staff's annual Title 10 Future Study Plan (FSP); Brent, JG (2012): Humans: An Endangered Species Jason Brent; Heinberg, R (2006/04/30): Population, Resources, and Human Idealism, Energy Bulletin; Peters (1996) 11 Peters (1996); Bush, GW Snr (1986/02): Public Report of the Vice-President’s Task Force on Combatting Terrorism; HomerDixon, T, & Boutwell, J, & Rathjens, G (1993): Environmental change and violent conflict: Growing scarcities of renewable resources can contribute to social instability and civil strife. Scientific American, 268(2), pp. 38-45 3

7


nuclear12) confronting regions at an accelerated pace 13, resulting in the “collapse of the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy”14 by 205015. E. Guerrylla Laws: define the procreation and consumption behaviour of an individual as an Eco-Innocent16 (sustainable) or Scarcity-Combatant17 (unsustainable), based upon (A) a sustainable bio-capacity of 1 global hectare (gha)18 (60 % of 1.8 gha19) in accordance with the proactive conservation policies of Bhutan20; and (B) the Oregon University study that concludes that every child increases a parents’ eco-footprint by a factor of 2021. F. A Green Voter is an individual whose procreation and consumption behaviour is sustainable, as defined by Guerrylla laws, as an Eco-Innocent22. G. Only Green Voters can elect the Green President, whose general duty is to (A) protect the Constitution from the Tragedy of the Commons material greed and psychological and political dishonour of the nations Scarcity (breeding and consumption) combatants, who wish to exploit the country’s resources for shortterm political and socio-economic profits, and (B) transition South Africa to a Sustainable Voluntaryist Green Republic. H. The Green President’s sustainable security legislative duty is to veto all legislation that obstructs, or fails to reduce, the nation’s Scarcity combatant’s procreation and/or consumption path to sustainability, based upon Guerrylla law sustainable rights and sustainable security principles. I. The Green Presidents sustainable security executive duty is to protect the Constitution, root out all corruption, by taking over the duty of executive supervision of the Ministry of Police and Ministry of Justice, including the appointment of all Magistrates and Justices. Magistrates and Judges shall be required to ascertain, verify, and transparently declare – as part of the court record Hardin (1968/12/13) United States Army & TRADOC (2012) 14 Schultz, S (2010/09/01): [German] Military Study Warns of Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis, Der Spiege 15 Clugston, C (2012): Scarcity: Humanity’s Final Chapter (Booklocker.com Inc): Preface, pg. ix 16 Eco-Innocent: * 0 children, consumption < 20 gha ((1 gha) x 20) | * 1 child, consumption < 1 gha ((1 gha (2007)) * 2 children, consumption < 0.05 gha (1 gha ÷ 20) | * 3 children, consumption < 0.025 gha (1 gha ÷ 40) 17 Scarcity Combatant: * 0 children, consumption > 20 gha ((1 gha) x 20) | * 1 child, consumption > 1 gha ((1 gha (2007)) * 2 children, consumption > 0.05 gha (1 gha ÷ 20) | * 3 children, consumption > 0.025 gha (1 gha ÷ 40) 18 A biocapacity of 1 gha assumes that 40% of land is set aside for other species. 19 In 2006, the average biologically productive area (biocapacity) per person worldwide was approximately 1.8 global hectares (gha) per capita, which assumes that no land is set aside for other species. 20 Bhutan is seen as a model for proactive conservation initiatives. The Kingdom has received international acclaim for its commitment to the maintenance of its biodiversity. This is reflected in the decision to maintain at least sixty percent of the land area under forest cover, to designate more than 40% of its territory as national parks, reserves and other protected areas, and most recently to identify a further nine percent of land area as biodiversity corridors linking the protected areas. Environmental conservation has been placed at the core of the nation's development strategy, the middle path. It is not treated as a sector but rather as a set of concerns that must be mainstreamed in Bhutan's overall approach to development planning and to be buttressed by the force of law. - "Parks of Bhutan". Bhutan Trust Fund for Environmental Conservation online. Bhutan Trust Fund. Retrieved 2011-03-26. 21 Murtaugh Paul (31 July 2009): Family Planning: A Major Environmental Emphasis, Oregon University http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2009/jul/family-planning-major-environmental-emphasis 22 * 0 children, consumption < 20 gha ((1 gha) x 20) | * 1 child, consumption < 1 gha ((1 gha (2007)) * 2 children, consumption < 0.05 gha (1 gha ÷ 20) | * 3 children, consumption < 0.025 gha (1 gha ÷ 40) 12 13

8


- the Eco-Innocent23 (sustainable) or Scarcity-Combatant24 (unsustainable) status of all parties (including the Judge, legal representatives and State Representatives) to any court proceeding; including consideration of such status, where relevant to the legal proceedings. Any Eco-Innocent is entitled to be tried by an Eco-Innocent Prosecutor and Judge, and in any dispute with a Scarcity Combatant, may require the court to take notice of Scarcity Combatants behaviour as a relevant 25 aggravating factor to Scarcity related socio-political problems, such as: crime, violence, unemployment, poverty, food shortages, inflation, political instability, loss of civil rights, conformism, political correctness, vanishing species, pollution, urban sprawl, toxic waste, energy depletion. J. An individual can only run for Green President, as (A) an Independent or from a Political Party, which practices 100% transparency disclosure of all campaign contributions, and (B) whose procreation and consumption lifestyle qualifies them as an Eco-Innocent26. 14.15 Applicant consequently partially agrees with Breivik, that not only Europe, but the World is at War, but considers the economic, political and military war between the Political Left and Right to be a deliberate distraction, from the real war that is being waged by both the Left and Right’s support for the Ind:Civ:F(x) world war27 against nature. 14.16 Ind:Civ:F(x) World War: Industrial Civilization’s Exponential Economic Growth Breeding and Consumption War Scarcity combatant humans are at war with each other (Left v Right), Eco-Innocents, all other species for their preferential access to , and control of, nature’s finite resources. 14.17 Applicant’s terrorism default working hypothesis is that much of terrorism – whether left or right -- is a result of Mainstream Access-to-Discourse Gatekeeper editor’s censorship of dissenter’s attempts at non-violent problem solving, creating a socio-political pressure cooker environment, where activists are forced to resort to violence for publicity, which benefits the media corporations ‘If It Bleeds, it Leads’ editorial policies and corporate profits. 14.18 Applicant endorses everyone from the extreme left to right’s right to access to impartial courts. Applicant decided to test whether Breiviks allegations of Eco-Innocent: * 0 children, consumption < 20 gha ((1 gha) x 20) | * 1 child, consumption < 1 gha ((1 gha (2007)) * 2 children, consumption < 0.05 gha (1 gha ÷ 20) | * 3 children, consumption < 0.025 gha (1 gha ÷ 40) 24 Scarcity Combatant: * 0 children, consumption > 20 gha ((1 gha) x 20) | * 1 child, consumption > 1 gha ((1 gha (2007)) * 2 children, consumption > 0.05 gha (1 gha ÷ 20) | * 3 children, consumption > 0.025 gha (1 gha ÷ 40) 25 Population Policy: http://sqswans.weebly.com/population-policy.html Scarcity and Conflict: http://sqswans.weebly.com/scarcity--conflict1.html 26 * 0 children, consumption < 20 gha ((1 gha) x 20) | * 1 child, consumption < 1 gha ((1 gha (2007)) * 2 children, consumption < 0.05 gha (1 gha ÷ 20) | * 3 children, consumption < 0.025 gha (1 gha ÷ 40) 27 Clugston, C (2012): Scarcity: Humanity’s Final Chapter (Booklocker.com Inc); Jensen, Derrick: Endgame: The Problem of Civilization; Jensen, Derrick: End:Civ: Resist or Die (documentary); Kaczynski Theodore: Technological Slavery: The Collected Writings of Theodore J. Kaczynski, a.k.a. "The Unabomber" (2010); Linkola, P (2009): Can Life Prevail? A Radical Approach to the Environmental Crisis (Integral Tradition Publishing); Unabomber: The Unabomber Manifesto: Industrial Society and its Future (2008); Zerzan, John: Against Civilization: Readings and Reflections (2005); Zerzan, John: Running on Emptiness: The Pathology of Civilization (2008); Zerzan, John: Twilight of the Machines (2008) 23

9


Norway’s discrimination against and censorship of cultural conservatives was true, by means of embarking on a social science test to determine how Left Wing Norwegian Officials and media and right wing Breivik, would react to an EcoFeminist, supporting Breivik’s right to a free and fair trial. 14.19 Applicant was particularly motivated to test Breivik’s allegations of discrimination against right wing / cultural conservatives, considering his EcoInnocent status. 14.20 Anders Breivik: ‘Peacenik Innocent’ in Scarcity Combatants Ind.Civ.F(x) World War on Nature Theory: A. Dr. Jack Alpert28 defines Peace and Conflict not as descriptions of behaviour between nations, but as trends describing social conditions. Put differently: Conflict is not defined as the violence between neighbours and nations, but as the unwanted intrusion of one person’s existence and consumption behaviour upon another person. B. There are two kinds of conflict: Direct: he took my car, he enslaved me, he beat me, he raped me, he killed me; and Indirect. Indirect intrusions are the byproduct of other people's behaviour. ‘All the trees on our island were consumed by our grandparents,’ is an indirect intrusion of a past generation on a present one. ‘The rich people raised the price of gasoline and we can't afford it,’ and ‘The government is offering people welfare to breed more children’ are current economic and demographic intrusions by one present group on another present group. C. System conflict is the sum of intrusions experienced by each constituent, summed over all the constituents. A measure of the existing global conflict is the sum of six billion sets of intrusions. A measure of Europe’s conflict is the sum of 740 million sets of intrusions. D. Using this definition of conflict, Dr. Alpert establishes that to move Earth’s socio-economic and political system toward peace – in terms of procreation - would require the implementation of a one child per family policy29. In the absence of such rapid population policy, civilization shall collapse30. E. Consequently, as a result of Breivik’s ‘no children’ status, if his consumption footprint was below 20 global hectares, his status in the Ind.Civ.F(x) world war would be that of an Eco-Innocent. 14.21 Social Science Enquiry into Breivik’s ‘Discrimination’ and ‘Censorship’ Allegations: 30 November 2011: Ecofeminist Application for Writ of Habeus Mentem and Review of Husby/Sorheim Psych Evaluation Report to Oslo District Court of Judge Nina Opsahl: http://sqswans.weebly.com/dr-jack-alpert.html Human Predicament: Better Common Sense Required http://sqswans.weebly.com/human-predicament.html 30 Rapid Population Decline or Civilization Collapse http://sqswans.weebly.com/rapid-population-decline.html 28 29

10


A. On 30 November 2011, applicant filed an Application (PDF31) for a [I] writ of Habeus Mentem on behalf of Anders Breivik psycho-cultural integrity right to a free and fair trial; and [II] writ of Certiorari/Review of the Psychiatric Evaluation Report of Psychiatrists: Synne Sorheim and Torgeir Husby as to the Mens Rea political necessity criminal liability of Anders Breivik terrorist acts, on 22 July 2011. The application was filed electronically to the Oslo District Court Registrar. B. Notifications of the Application were sent to: 680 EU Members of Parliament32 on 04 December; 330 Norwegian Government Officials33 on 05 December; and 1,283 Norwegian Editors and Journalists34 on 07 December 2011. The Norwegian media did not consider an EcoFeminists (Breiviks enemy) legal support for Breivik to receive a free and fair trial, to be worthy of publicity; preferring the narrative that only the extreme right wing supported a free and fair trial for Breivik. C. On 15 December 2011 applicant requested the Registrar to “confirm: (1) the date my application is to be submitted to Judge Opsahl, or the relevant Judge, for their consideration, (2) the date the said Judge intends to provide me with their ruling on the matter.” There was no response from the Clerk of the Court. 14.22 Social Science Enquiry into Breivik’s ‘Discrimination’ and ‘Censorship’ Allegations: 15 April 2012: Ecofeminist Application to Proceed as Amicus Curiae, to Oslo District Court of Judge Wenche Arntzen: A. On 15 April 2012, Applicant filed an Application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae (PDF35), to the Oslo District Court Registrar. B. Notifications were sent to 1,384 Norwegian Editors and Journalists36 on 16 April 2012. Again the media did not consider an EcoFeminists (Breiviks enemy) legal support for Breivik to receive a free and fair trial, to be worthy of publicity; preferring the narrative that only the extreme right wing supported a free and fair trial for Breivik. C. On 26 April 2012, Applicant requested the court to confirm “(1) The date my application is to be submitted to Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, or the relevant Judge, for her/their consideration. (2) The date the said Judge intends to provide me with their ruling approving or denying my application.” There was no response from the Clerk of the Court.

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/111130_breivik-habeus http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2011/12/111204_habmentem_680-eu-mps.html 33 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2011/12/111205_330polhabmentem.html 34 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2011/12/111207_habeusmedia.html 35 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120414_amicus 36 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/04/120416_amicus_1384media.html 31 32

11


14.23 Social Science Enquiry into Breivik’s ‘Discrimination’ and ‘Censorship’ Allegations: 10 May 2012: Ecofeminist Application for Review to Norway Supreme Court of Justice Tore Schei: A. On 10 May 2012, Applicant filed an Application to Review the Oslo District Court failure to act in accordance of due process to the Norway Supreme Court Registrar. B. On 11 May 2012 Applicant requested the Registrar to “kindly clarify when the Registrar shall issue a Case Number; or whether you require additional documentation or information?” C. On 15 May 2012, Deputy Secretary General Kjersti Buun Nygaard responded37 with: “Please be advised that the Supreme Court of Norway only handles appeals against judgments given by the lower courts and can consequently not deal with the issue mentioned in your e-mails. Further inquiries from you regarding the above issue can not be expected to be answered.” D.

On 15 May 2012, Applicant responded38 (PDF39) detailing the Error in

Supreme Court: Deputy Secretary General: Kjersti Buun Nygaard Response to SHARP Application to Supreme Court for Declaratory Orders and Review of Oslo District Court’s Decisions. There was no response from Ms. Nygaard or any other Supreme Court official. 14.24 Social Science Enquiry into Breivik’s ‘Discrimination’ and ‘Censorship’ Allegations: Complaints against Judge Opsahl, Arentzen and Schei to Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges: A. On 30 May 2012, three complaints of Violation of Ethical Principles of Norwegian Judges, were submitted to Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges: against Judge Nina Opsahl (PDF40), Judge Wenche Arentzen (PDF41), and Justice Tore Schei (PDF42). The essence of the Oslo District Court complaints being that the Oslo District Court registrar refuses to process the applications, and refusal to provide any reasons for their refusal, clarifying for example, possible errors which require correction, were judicial ethics violations, and a failure of applicants right to due process, and an effective remedy. B. Two complaints of slow case processing – on 04 July 2012 (PDF43) and 02 September 2012 (PDF44) -- had to be filed against the Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges with the Parliamentary Ombudsman (Case 2012-1943), http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/05/120515_nsc-nygaard.html http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/05/120515_sharp-nsc.html 39 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120515_nsc-nygaard 40 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120530_tilsynsutvalget_opsahl 41 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120530_tilsynsutvalget_arntzen 42 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120530_tilsynsutvalget_schei 43 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120704_ombud_sscj 44 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120902_po-sscj 37 38

12


before the Secretariat issued Case Numbers: 12-071 (Opsahl), 12-072 (Arntzen) and 12-073 (Schei), on 03 September 2012, and informed the Applicant that “If a party have given a statement in the case, these will be provided the complainant. The Supervisory Committee has not received statements from the other parties involved.” C. On 23 October 2012, the Supervisory Committee for Judges changed their minds and decided they were not going to process the complaints in accordance to their ‘standard procedures’, of receiving a statement from the respective Judges, but were going to issue rulings in Norwegian, that all the complaint were ‘obviously unfounded’ (Google Translation). [Opsahl (PDF45), Arntzen (PDF46), and Schei (PDF47)] D. Repeated requests for an English Translation of the ruling have been refused, including reasons why applicant was not informed, as part of ‘standard procedures’ that the ruling to her English complaint, would be issued in Norwegian. E.

On 31 December 2012 , a complaint of Language Discrimination and Lack

of Clear Principles by Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges Norwegian Language Rulings, in response to English Language complaints in Case 12-071: Judge Nina Opsahl, 12-072: Judge Wenche Arntzen, 12-073: Judge Tore Schei.” (PDF48), was submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. As of date, no response has yet been received. 14.25 Social Science Enquiry into Breivik’s ‘Discrimination’ and ‘Censorship’ Allegations: 19 June 2012: Appeal to Norway’s Environmental Appeals Board: Media Censorship of Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection: A.

From 24 April to 14 May copies of the 22 April 2012: Earth Day report:

Acquittal or Firing Squad: If it Bleeds, it Leads, Media's Population Terrorism Connection (PDF49) were distributed to: 677 EU Members of Parliament50 on 24 April; 863 UK Lords and Members of Parliament51 on 25 April; and on 14 May: 1,230 University of Oslo Law Professors and Lecturers 52, 482 Law Professors and Lawyers53, 1,278 Norwegian Editors and Journalists54, PM Jens Stoltenberg and 1676 Norwegian Government Officials55, 104 NGO Officials56 and 258 Psychologists57. Again the media did not consider an EcoFeminists (Breiviks http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121023_ninaopsahl http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121003_warntzen 47 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121023_toreschei 48 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/12-12-31_po-cf_ssc4j_disc-amb_encl-comp-abc 49 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120422_bleads-leads 50 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/04/120424_677-eu-mp.html 51 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/04/120425_863-uk-mps-lords.html 52 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/05/120514_1230-uio.html 53 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/05/120514_482nolaw.html 54 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/05/120514_1278media.html 55 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/05/120514_1676pol1.html 56 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/05/120514_104ngo.html 57 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/05/120522_258-psykfor.html 45 46

13


enemy) legal support for Breivik to receive a free and fair trial, to be worthy of publicity; preferring the narrative that only the extreme right wing supported a free and fair trial for Breivik. B. The “If It Bleads, It Leads :: Media Population-Terrorism Connection”, Report (PDF58) argued that Mainstream Access-to-Discourse Editors censorship of non-violent political grievances and problem solving activism facilitate a pressure cooker socio-political reality for their “If it Bleads, It Leads” corporate propaganda profits, by (1) censoring the Scarcity (due to Overpopulation and Overconsumption) causes of violent resource war conflict; (2) that media abuse their publicity power in terms of their censorship of Ecocentric arguments submitted to courts; (3) Editors abuse their publicity power, by abusing public discourse/free speech resources; by providing certain parties with preferential and special access to such public discourse, and severely restricting or denying others any access to such public discourse; (4) Mainstream media avoid addressing or enquiring into root causes of problems as reported in Dr. Michael Maher’s report How and Why Journalists Avoid Population - Environment connection (PDF59); and censor non-violent rootcause problem solving activism. C. The report also included evidence that (i) 1,283 Norwegian Editors and Journalists had been Informed of the December 2011 Application to the Oslo District Court of Judge Nina Opsahl, all of whom had censored it from their readers; and (ii) 1,384 Norwegian Editors and Journalists had been informed of the April 2012 EcoFeminist Application to the Disctrict Court of Judge Wenche Arntzen, all of whom had censored it from their readers. D. On 25 May 2012, correspondence was submitted to: Adresseavisen: Editor: Arne Blix (PDF60); Aftenposten: Editor: Hilde Haugsgjerd (PDF61); Bergens Tidende: Editor: Trine Eilertsen (PDF62); Dagbladet: Editor: John Arne Markussen (PDF63); NRK: Editor: Hans Tore Bjerkaas (PDF64); TV2: Editor: Alf Hildrum (PDF65); VG: Editor: Torry Pedersen (PDF66); requesting the Editors to clarify their editorial decision-making to censor information about the Media’s EnvironmentPopulation-Terrorism Connection, during a Norwegian Terrorism trial being publicized by international media on the international stage; and their decisionmaking to censor information regarding the EcoFeminist Applications to the Oslo District Court on behalf of a free and fair trial, for the Feminist hating ‘right wing’

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120422_bleads-leads http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection 60 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_adresseavisen 61 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_aftenposten 62 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_bergenstidende 63 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_dagbladet 64 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_nrk 65 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_tv2 66 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120522_vg 58 59

14


terrorist, from their readers. The editors refused to provide the requested information. E. On 19 June 2012, an Appeal (PDF67) was submitted to the Environmental Appeals Board: Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in

terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) RE: Censorship in Norway’s Media: (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny. 14.26 Social Science Enquiry into Breivik’s ‘Discrimination’ and ‘Censorship’ Allegations: 10 September 2012: Environmental Appeal Board Ruling on Media Censorship: A. Initially Applicant’s media censorship complaint was deleted by the Environmental Appeals Board without reason. Upon complaint to Ministry of Environment68, it was given a Reference number69, with no apology for the deletion, implying the deletion was intentional and appropriate. On 04 July 2012, a complaint of Slow Case Processing (PDF70) was filed to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The Environment Appeals Board refused to simply answer questions, delaying the complaint until ‘after summer’71, and refusing72 to say when the end of summer would be73. Then promising it would be dealt with in August74, only to do nothing75 in August767778. B. On 10 September 2012, the Secretariat of the Environmental Appeals Board issued a ruling79 (PDF80) – in violation of due process principles, without having received any statements from any media, or Bar Association parties – that Applicant’s Appeal was ‘unjustified’. C. On 11 September 2012, Applicant requested81 reasons for the Environmental Appeals Boards violations of general procedures of impartial enquiry and due process. D. On 18 September 2012, the Environmental Appeals Board responded that they violated general procedures of impartial enquiry and due process, because the Appeals ‘clearly had to be denied’.

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/180612_env-app-brd http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/06/120625_minenv.html 69 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/06/120625_eab_12-708.html 70 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120704_ombud_eab 71 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/06/120628_eab-1045.html 72 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/06/120629_eab-mjustice.html 73 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/06/120628_eab-1315.html 74 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/07/120703_eab-1021.html 75 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/07/120703_mjus-eab-1100.html 76 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/07/120704_po_eab.html 77 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/120831_eab-mcensor.html 78 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/09/120902_po-eab.html 79 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/09/120910_eab-ba-media1.html 80 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-11-06_envappbrd_decision.pdf 81 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/09/120911_eab.html 67 68

15


E. On 08 October 2012, Applicant responded that it was not clear why her Appeals ‘clearly had to be denied’, unless the Environmental Appeals board was massively corrupt. Applicant requested clarification of the Environmental Appeals Board’s ‘Environment’ definitions, and provided evidence how her appeals were both justified in accordance to the Aarhus convention’s definition of ‘environmental information’. F. On 03 November 2012, Applicant submitted an official written request (PDF82) to the Environmental Appeals Board in terms of Public Administration Act (PAA), Section 23, 24, 25 and Freedom of Information Act, Section 22, requesting clarification of the factual and legal grounds upon which the Environmental Appeals Board justified their ruling of ‘clearly had to be denied’, “including clarifying exactly how my complaints do not fit the definition of Environment as clarified by the Aarhus convention and LAW 2003-05-09 # 31: Act concerning the right to information and participation in public decision-making processes relating to the environment (environmental law)”. G. On 06 November 2012, the Environmental Appeals Board notified Applicant her request for factual and legal grounds for her denied Appeal, had been denied83. H. On 11 November 2012, Applicant filed an Appeal (PDF84) to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: Erroneous Decision by Environment Appeals Board in

Environmental Information Appeals re: [I] Editorial Decision-Making: Censorship of Media’s ‘Population-Environment-Terrorism’ Connection; [II] Bar Association: Anti-Environmental Complaints Policy. I. The Parliamentary Ombudsman Appeal against the Media Censorship Ruling argued (i) It was an Irregular Violation of Due Process: Irregular failure of Impartial Arbitration due process procedures; (ii) the Environmental Appeals Board failed to justify how the requested Population Growth and Consumptionism information requested from the Media is not ‘Environmental Information’: Population Growth and Corporate Advocacy of Consumptionism are primary factors in Resource Scarcity, Species Extinction and Environmental Degradation, and (iii) the Editor’s and Environmental Appeals Board’s Refusal of Access to Information from Media Respondents is Contrary to Provisions of Freedom of Information Act, Right to Environmental Information Act and Aarhus Convention. J. On 27 November 2012, the Parliamentary Ombudsman ruled (PDF85) that “The Ombudsman has reviewed your complaint and the enclosed documents, and

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121103_eab http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/11/121106_eab1.html 84 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121112_po-eab 85 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-11-27_2012-1987_env_appeals_board.pdf 82 83

16


your complaint does not give reasons to initiate further investigations regarding the Appeals Board case processing or decision.” 14.27 Social Science Enquiry into Breivik’s ‘Discrimination’ and ‘Censorship’ Allegations 27 August 2012: Application to Norway Supreme Court, for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement ruling of 24 August:

A.

On 27 August 2012, an Application (PDF86) was submitted to Norway Supreme Court for Review of Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement Necessity87 Ruling, which states that “As regards this submission, the Court briefly notes that neither the provisions of the Penal Code concerning necessity nor international human rights, which the defendant also invokes, allow the murder of government employees, politically active youth or others, to further extreme political goals. It is evident that this submission cannot be accepted.”88 B.

Review Orders Requested:

a. Set Aside the Judgements ‘Necessity (Nødrett) Ruling’ (pg.6789) b. Set Aside Defendant’s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. C.

Grounds for Review:

a. The application for review is based on the grounds of (A) Irregularities & Illegalities in the Proceedings before the Oslo District Court: in terms of (1) A Failure of Justice and Failure of a True and Correct Interpretation of the Facts; (2) Judicially Un-Investigated Facts; (3) Failure of Application of Mind and (4) Rejection of Admissible or Competent Evidence: (i) Prosecutor & Judges failure to examine objective and subjective necessity test; and (ii) Courts denial of due process to applicants Habeus Mentem and Amicus Curiae applications90. b. [A.1.a] Necessity Judgement fails to provide any necessity criminal provisions that prohibit killing of Government Officials in case of Necessity 91 c. [A.1.b] Necessity Judgement Ignores that Criminal Necessity provisions do not prohibit the killing of Government Officials in case of objective and subjective Necessity. http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-08-27_no-breivik_supremecrt_review_fs-nom-affidpos.pdf 87 “As regards this submission, the Court briefly notes that neither the provisions of the Penal Code concerning necessity nor international human rights, which the defendant also invokes, allow the murder of government employees, politically active youth or others, to further extreme political goals. It is evident that this submission cannot be accepted.” - Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) – Judgment. Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) TOSLO–2011–188627–24E (11–188627MED–OTIR/05). 88 Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) – Judgment. Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) TOSLO–2011–188627–24E (11– 188627MED–OTIR/05) 89 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120824_nvb-judmnt 90 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/oslo-district-court.html 91 LAW-1998-03-20-10-§ 5: Forskrift om sikkerhetsadministrasjon | Regulations relating to security management allows for “security breaches without criminal liability if the terms of the principle of necessity or self defence in criminal law law § 47 or § 48 is met.” 86

17


d. [A.1.c] Necessity Judgement’s Erroneous interpretation of Necessity related criminal law provisions and international necessity related human rights law. e. [A.1.d] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Failure to conduct required Objective and Subjective Tests for Defendant’s Necessity Defence f. [A.1.e] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Inadequate g. [A.1.f] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Clarification Upon which party the Onus of Proof lies in a Case of Necessity; and how or why their evidence was insufficient renders the Judgements Conclusions inadequate. h. [A.1.g] Necessity and Guilt Judgement’s Absence of Objective and Subjective Test Enquiry and Conclusions Renders it Discriminatory Precedent i. [A.1.h] Necessity Judgements ‘Extreme Political Objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test j. [A.1.i] Necessity Judgements ‘Extreme Political Objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the Absence of Objective and Subjective Necessity Test D.

Failure of Justice: Judicially Un-Investigated Facts: Necessity and Guilt:

a. No reference was made during court proceedings by any party alleging that any Norwegian or International specific necessity criminal statute specifically prohibits the killing of government or politically active young people, in the event of objective and subjective reasonably determined necessity. b. No International or Norwegian specific necessity criminal statute specifically prohibits the killing of government or politically active young people, in the event of objective and subjective reasonably determined necessity. c. Necessity criminal statutes do not specifically allow or disallow the killing of government or politically active young people, but provide for an objective and subjective test that examines each alleged criminal act to objectively and subjectively determine whether necessity existed, or the defendant honestly believed it existed, within the particular criminal act‘s relevant circumstances. d. The court, prosecution and defence counsel failed to conduct the required subjective and objective tests to examine the evidence for the Defendant‘s necessity motivations to determine (I) objectively whether the defendant‘s claims – simplistically rephrased as – “Titanic Europe is on a demographic/immigration collision course with Islam Iceberg”; and (II) secondly whether the defendant subjectively perceived the Titanic Europe/Islam Iceberg circumstances this way. e. The Judgement fails to disclose Norwegian law‘s Onus of Proof requirements in a case of necessity: i.e. upon which party – Defendant or State 18


does the Onus of Proof lie in case of Necessity? In South Africa, the proof in a defense of necessity, ruling out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity, lies on the State. In the absence of the State ruling out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity, the accused claim of necessity stands. f. It is clear that the Court's statement of reasons does not show the results of the courts objective and subjective enquiry into the Defendant‘s claim of necessity. Thus, it is also clear that the Court's statement of reasons for its “necessity finding of guilt”, are inadequate. Hence the finding of guilt needs to be set aside for further evidence to objectively and subjective evaluate the defendants necessity defence. g. Finally if the Courts statement of reasons remain uncorrected, they would set a bad precedent, encouraging other courts to deny necessity defendants their rights to an objective and subjective test of their necessity defence, including denying the defendant information clarifying upon whom the Onus of Proof in a defence of necessity lies. E.

Oslo Court: Breivik Defence of Necessity:

a. On 17 April 2012, the Oslo Court tweeted92 to Journalists attending the Breivik trial: “Wrong translation in the 22-7 trial yesterday: Breivik said "nodrett", Correct translation: "Principle of Necessity", not "self defence".” b. The principle of Necessity is enshrined in Norwegian Law in Section 47 of the Penal Code93: "No person may be punished for any act that he has committed in order to save someone's person or property from an otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the damage that might be caused by his act."

Prosecutor Engh and Holden “Refuse to touch Breivik’s Principle of Necessity”: F.

a. According to Document.NO94, NRK95, VG96, NRK97, the transcripts Prosecutor Engh and Holden violated their duty of objectivity in terms of (a) impartially enquiring into and/or responding to the Accuseds‘ Defence; and (b) providing the court with the Prosecution‘s evaluation and conclusion of the evidence for and against Breivik‘s invocation of his Necessity Defence.

https://twitter.com/#!/Oslotingrett/status/192198581803945984 http://www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/lov-19020522-010-eng.pdf 94 Document.NO: Inga Bejer Engh Procedure Part.I (Inga Bejer Engh Procedure Part.I) http://www.document.no/2012/06/inga-bejer-engh-prosedyre-del-i/ 95 NRK: Rettssaken - dag 42 (The trial - day 42) at 12:15 http://nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/rettssaken---dag-42-1.8216159 96 VG: Ord-for-ord - dag 42 prosedyren til aktoratet (Word-for-word - day 42 procedure for prosecutors) http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/22-juli/rettssaken/artikkel.php?artid=10066042 97 NRK: Rettssaken - dag 43 (The Trial – Day 43), AT 09:10, 09:29, 10:21, 11:28, 14:45, 14:51, http://nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/rettssaken---dag-43-1.8218343 92 93

19


b. In her closing statement, Prosecutor Engh acknowledges that: (A) Norwegian prosecutors have a duty to conduct their investigation with objectivity; (B) Norwegian law allows for an accused to plead to necessity and/or self defence, (C) Where an accused does invoke necessity, it is the court and prosecutor‘s duty to investigate the accused‘s necessity defence arguments and evidence; (D) If an accused successfully invokes a necessity defence, this can and must result in either mitigation of sentence and/or a verdict of innocence; (E) Breivik invoked the defence of necessity; (F) Despite the fact that Breivik invoked the necessity defence, both Prosecutor Engh and Holden “refuse to touch the principle of necessity”. G.

Necessity in Norwegian Law:

a. LAW-2005-05-20-28: Lov om straff (straffeloven). | Act on Punishment (Penal Code)98, (Google Translation) says: § 17 Necessity: “An action that would otherwise be criminal, is legal when a) it is being undertaken to save lives, health, property or any interest from the danger of injury that can not be averted in any other reasonable manner, and b) the risk of injury is far greater than the risk of injury by the action.” b. LAW-1998-03-20-10-§

5: Forskrift om sikkerhetsadministrasjon | Regulations relating to security management99 allows for “security breaches without criminal liability if the terms of the principle of necessity or self defence in criminal law law § 47 or § 48 is met.” H.

Norwegian Law Necessity Judgement: Subjective and Objective Test:

a. In LE-2012-76983 Eidsivating Appeal – Judgment100 of 29 May 2012, an Eritrean man was accused of several Perjury related Immigration offences to help his sister to come to Norway. He admitted the facts, but claimed necessity. In court he was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to 90 days' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal suspended the appeal to test his conviction on one point (whether the court a quo had seriously enquired into his necessity defence). b. The Norwegian Court of Appeal agreed with the Defendant‘s argument that asserted that the court a quo had not considered the circumstances that were invoked as the basis for the existence of a principle of necessity situation. The judgement stated that it is clear that “the courts statement of reasons does not show that the court has considered this argument. Thus it is also clear that the Court‘s statement of reasons in so far are inadequate.” I.

Necessity Defence: International and Foreign Law:

http://www.lovdata.no/cgi-wift/wiftldles?doc=/app/gratis/www/docroot/ltavd1/filer/nl-20050520028.html&emne=n%F8drett*&#17 99 http://www.lovdata.no/cgi-wift/wiftldles?doc=/app/gratis/www/docroot/ltavd1/filer/sf-200106290723.html&emne=n%F8drett*& 100 http://www.lovdata.no/cgi-wift/wiftldles?doc=/app/gratis/www/docroot/lr/lre/le-2012-076983.html&emne=n%F8drett*& 98

20


a. The rationale of the necessity defense is not that a person, when faced with the pressure of circumstances of nature, lacks the mental element which the crime in question requires. Rather, it is this reason of public policy: the law ought to promote the achievement of higher values at the expense of lesser values, and sometimes the greater good for society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law.101 b. The principle of the necessity defence is rooted in common law and any accused pleading to necessity argues that their actions were justified or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants who plead to necessity – whether common law necessity, political necessity (civil disobedience) or military necessity argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as being criminal, because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm. As argued in The Necessity Defense in Civil Disobedience Cases: Bring in the Jury, by William P. Quigley: J.

a. [..] The doctrine of necessity, with its inevitable weighing of choices of evil, holds that certain conduct, though it violates the law and produces harm, is justified because it averts a greater evil and hence produces a net social gain or benefit to society.102 b. Glanville Williams expressed the necessity doctrine this way: “[S]ome acts that would otherwise be wrong are rendered rightful by a good purpose, or by the necessity of choosing the lesser of two evils.”103 He offers this example: “Suppose that a dike threatens to give way, and the actor is faced with the choice of either making a breach in the dike, which he knows will result in one or two people being drowned, or doing nothing, in which case he knows that the dike will burst at another point involving a whole town in sudden destruction. In such a situation, where there is an unhappy choice between the destruction of one life and the destruction of many, utilitarian philosophy would certainly justify the actor in preferring the lesser evil.”104 K. In Nuclear War, Citizen Intervention, and the Necessity Defense105, Robert Aldridge and Virginia Stark, document numerous cases of Common Law and Civil Disobedience Necessity Defence Cases which resulted in Innocence verdicts or severe Mitigation of Sentencing.

Common Law Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing: L.

WAYNE R. LAFAVE, CRIMINAL LAW, § 5.4, at 477 (3d ed. 2000). See Joseph J. Simeone, “Survivors” of the Eternal Sea: A Short True Story, 45 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 1123, 1141 (2001). 103 GLANVILLE WILLIAMS, THE SANCTITY OF LIFE AND THE CRIMINAL LAW 198 (1957). 104 Glanvill Williams, The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law 198 (1957). At 199-200 105 http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1887&context=lawreview 101 102

21


a. In Regina v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273, three crew members and a cabin boy escaped a shipwreck to spend eighteen days on a boat, over 1,000 miles from land, with no water and only two one pound tins of turnips. After four days, they caught and ate a small turtle. That was the only food that they had eaten prior to the twentieth day of being lost at sea. Ultimately, two of the crew members killed the ailing cabin boy and “fed upon the body and blood of the boy for four days.” Four days later, they were rescued. Two of the men were charged with murder. The court found that the cabin boy would likely have died by the time they were rescued and that the crew members, but for their conduct, would probably have died as well. The Queen's Bench Division Judges held that the defendants were guilty of murder in killing the cabin boy and stated that their obvious necessity was no defence. The defendants were sentenced to death, but this was subsequently commuted to six months' imprisonment. b. In Spakes v. State, 913 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), the Texas Criminal Appeals Court allowed the jury to be instructed on the necessity defense before deliberating the verdict for an inmate whose three cellmates had planned an escape and threatened to slit his throat if he did not accompany them. The defendant inmate argued that because of the terribly violent crimes of which his cellmates had been convicted (one had bragged about chopping his girlfriend up with an ax), it was a necessity that he break the law, by accompanying them in their escape. c. In United States v. Ashton, 24 F. Cas. 873, 873-74 (C.C.D. Mass 1834) (No. 14,470), sailors prosecuted for mutiny were found not guilty, after arguing the necessity for their mutiny based upon the dangerously leaky ship and that this danger had been concealed from them until after they left port. Circuit Justice Story found them not guilty of mutiny. d. In United States v. Holmes, 26 F. Cas. 360 (E.D. Pa. 1842) (No. 15,383), Holmes was involved in a shipwreck, where the crew were charged with manslaughter for throwing sixteen passengers overboard in a frantic attempt to lighten a sinking lifeboat. The Prosecutor argued the passengers should be protected at all costs, whereas the Defence placed the jurors in the sinking lifeboat with the defendant. The Defendant was found guilty, but the jurors requested leniency, to which the court complied by sentencing the defendant to six months in prison and a fine of twenty dollars. e. In the 1919 Arizona decision of State v. Wooten, commonly referred to as the Bisbee Deportation case, Professor Morris106 describes the acquittal of a Sherrif based upon the “necessity” for committing Kidnapping.

Norval Morris, The Verswami Story, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 948, 989 (1985); see also The Law of Necessity as Applied in the Bisbee Deportation Case. 106

22


f. In Surocco v. Geary, 3 Cal. 69 (1853), a large fire threatened the unburned half of the then small town of San Francisco. A public officer ordered the destruction of houses to create a firebreak and was subsequently sued by one of the owners. On appeal, the California Supreme Court held that the action was proper because: â&#x20AC;&#x153;The right to destroy property, to prevent the spread of a conflagration, has been traced to the highest law of necessity, and the natural rights of man, independent of society and the civil government. "It is referred by moralists and jurists as the same great principle which justifies the exclusive appropriation of a plank in a shipwreck, though the life of another be sacrificed; with the throwing overboard goods in a tempest, for the safety of the vessel; with the trespassing upon the lands of another, to escape death by an enemy. It rests upon the maxim, Necessitas inducit privilegium quod jura private." [Necessity leads to privileges because of private justice].â&#x20AC;?

Civil Disobedience Political Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing: M.

a. In the United States, 23 cases of left wing/liberal political protestors necessity defence cases have resulted in innocence or severe mitigation of sentencing, whereas only 1 case of right wing/conservative political protestors cases have resulted in innocence or severe mitigation of sentencing. b. Left Wing/Liberal: Anti Nuclear (10): State v. Mouer (Columbia Co. Dist. Ct., Dec. 12-16, 1977), People v. Brown (Lake County, Jan. 1979); People v. Block (Galt Judicial Dist., Sacramento Co. Mun. Ct., Aug. 14, 1979); California v. Lemnitzer, No. 27106E (Pleasanton-Livermore Mun. Ct. Feb. 1, 1982); State v. McMillan, No. D 00518 (San Luis Obispo Jud. Dist. Mun. Ct., Cal. Oct. 13, 1987); Massachusetts v. Schaeffer-Duffy (Worcester Dist. Ct. 1989); West Valley City v. Hirshi, No. 891003031-3 MC (Salt Lake County, Ut. Cir. Ct., W. Valley Dept. 1990); Washington v. Brown, No. 85-1295N (Kitsap County Dist. Ct. N. 1985); California v. Jerome, Nos. 5450895, 5451038, 5516177, 5516159 (Livermore-Pleasanton Mun. Ct., Alameda County, Traffic Div. 1987); Washington v. Karon, No. J85-1136-39 (Benton County Dist. Ct. 1985) Left Wing/Liberal: Anti US Central American Foreign Policy (3); Vermont v. Keller, No. 1372-4-84-CNCR (Vt. Dist. Ct. Nov. 17, 1984); People v. Jarka, Nos. 002170, 002196-002212, 00214, 00236, 00238 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Apr. 15, 1985); Colorado v. Bock (Denver County Ct. June 12, 1985) c.

d. Left Wing/Liberal: Anti-Military Industrial Complex (4): Michigan v. Jones et al., Nos. 83-101194-101228 (Oakland County Dist. Ct. 1984); Michigan v. Largrou, Nos. 85-000098, 99, 100, 102 (Oakland County Dist. Ct. 1985); Massachusetts v. Carter, No. 86-45 CR 7475 (Hampshire Dist. Ct. 1987); Illinois v. Fish (Skokie Cir. Ct. Aug. 1987) 23


e. Left Wing/Liberal: Anti-Apartheid (3): Chicago v. Streeter, Nos. 85108644, 48, 49, 51, 52, 120323, 26, 27 (Cir. Ct., Cook County Ill. May 1985); Washington v. Heller (Seattle Mun. Ct. 1985); Washington v. Bass, Nos. 4750-038, 395 to -400 (Thurston County Dist. Ct. April 8, 1987) f. Left Wing/Liberal: Pro-Environment/Cycling (1): People v. Gray, 571 N.Y.S.2d 851, 861-62 (N.Y. Crim. Ct.1991) g. Left Wing/Liberal: AIDS: Clean Needles Campaign (2) California v. Halem, No. 135842 (Berkeley Mun. Ct. 1991); In 1993, a jury acquitted a Chicago AIDS activist charged with illegally supplying clean needles because of the necessity defense.107 h. Right Wing/Conservative: Anti-Abortion (1): In 1990, in Omaha, Nebraska, a jury acquitted seventeen anti-abortion protestors because of the necessity defense. The trial judge relied on the defense to overturn the trespassing convictions of an additional eighteen defendants.108 i. Neutral: Anti-Corruption (1): In 1988, a North Carolina court acquitted two Tuscarora Indians of charges in connection with their taking of twenty hostages at the office of a local newspaper to protest the alleged corruption of county officials.109 j. Neutral: Anti-Alcohol Advertising (1): In 1991, a Chicago jury acquitted a Catholic priest of criminal charges for damage to the inner-city neighborhood where he was pastor after he admitted painting over three tobacco- and alcohol-related billboards. The defendant argued he should not be convicted because of the necessity defense. The jury deliberated ninety minutes before acquitting the defendant.110 k. Military Necessity and International Humanitarian Law: l. Crimes of War111 and Diakona112 define military necessity as: â&#x20AC;&#x153;a legal concept used in international humanitarian law (IHL) as part of the legal justification for attacks on legitimate military targets that may have adverse, even terrible, consequences for civilians and civilian objects. It means that military forces in planning military actions are permitted to take into account the practical requirements of a military situation at any given moment and the imperatives of winning. The concept of military necessity acknowledges that even under the laws

Andrew Fegelman, AIDS Activist Found Innocent of Charges in Needle Exchange, CHI. TRIB., Jan. 28, 1993, at 4. Judge Says Actions of Anti-abortionists at Clinic Justified, OMAHA WORLD-HERALD, July 17, 1990. In a seventeen-page order discussing necessity and the priority of life over property rights, District Judge Robert Burkard reversed the convictions for trespassing. An additional seventeen abortion protestors were acquitted by a jury on similar grounds in June 2000. 109 Two Carolina Indians Acquitted in Hostage Taking, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 15, 1988, at 9. 110 Terry Wilson, Acquittal Answers Pflegerâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s Prayers, CHI. TRIB., July 3, 1991, at 3. 111 http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/military-necessity/ 112 http://www.diakonia.se/sa/node.asp?node=888 107 108

24


of war, winning the war or battle is a legitimate consideration, though it must be put alongside other considerations of IHL.” m. Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, investigated allegations of War Crimes during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and published an open letter113 containing his findings. In a section titled "Allegations concerning War Crimes" he did not call it military necessity but summed up the term: “Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).” N.

Military Necessity Justifies use of Nuclear Weapons for Self-Preservation:

a. In the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion of 8 July 1996, on The legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons114, the final paragraph states “that such threat or use would generally be contrary to international humanitarian law. The opinion went on to state, however, that the court “cannot lose sight of the fundamental right of every State to survival, and thus its right to resort to selfdefence . . . when its survival is at stake.” The court held, by seven votes to seven, with its president‘s casting vote, that it “cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self defence in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.” O.

Military Necessity in Nuremberg German High Command Trial:

a. In the Trial of Wilhelm von Leeb and Thirteen Others: United States Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 30th December, 1947 – 28 the October, 1948115 b. Wilhelm von Leeb and the other thirteen accused in this case were former high-ranking officers in the German Army and Navy, and officers holding high positions in the German High Command (OKW) were charged with Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity and with Conspiracy to commit such crimes. The War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity charged against them included murder and ill-treatment of prisoners of war and of the civilian population http://www2.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/F596D08D-D810-43A2-99BBB899B9C5BCD2/277422/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf 114 http://www.un.org/law/icjsum/9623.htm 115 http://www.worldcourts.com/imt/eng/decisions/1948.10.28_United_States_v_von_Leeb.pdf 113

25


in the occupied territories and their use in prohibited work; discrimination against and persecution and execution of Jews and other sections of the population by the Wehrmacht in co-operation with the Einsatzgruppen and Sonderkommandos of the SD, SIPO and the Secret Field Police; plunder and spoliation and the enforcement of the slave labour programme of the Reich. c. They were acquitted of some of the charges, where it was ascertained that military necessity existed objectively and/or subjectively in the particular circumstances. d. The Tribunal argued that “The devastation prohibited by the Hague Rules and the usages of war is that not warranted by military necessity. This rule is clear enough but the factual determination as to what constitutes military necessity is difficult. Defendants in this case were in many instances in retreat under arduous conditions wherein their commands were in serious danger of being cut off. Under such circumstances, a commander must necessarily make quick decisions to meet the particular situation of his command. A great deal of latitude must be accorded to him under such circumstances. What constitutes devastation beyond military necessity in these situations requires detailed proof of an operational and tactical nature. We do not feel that in this case the proof is ample to establish the guilt of any defendant herein on this charge.” e. Thus, in dealing with Reinhardt's alleged responsibility for plunder and spoliation, the Tribunal said: “The evidence on the matter of plunder and spoliation shows great ruthlessness, but we are not satisfied that it shows beyond a reasonable doubt, acts that were not justified by military necessity.” P.

Military Necessity: The Rendulic Rule: Importance of the Subjective Test:

a. In The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, Gary D Solis provides an overview of the Rendulic Rule116 in evaluation of the subjective test in evaluating a defence of Military Necessity: b. “In October 1944, Generaloberst Lothar Rendulic was Armed Forces Commander North, which included command of Nazi Forces in Norway. (Between World Wars I and II, Rendulic had practiced law in his native Austria.) Following World War II, he was prosecuted for, among other charges, issuing an order “for the complete destruction of all shelter and means of existence in, and the total evacuation of the entire civilian population of the northern Norwegian province of Finmark...” Entire villages were destroyed, bridges and highways bombed, and port installations wrecked. Tried by an American military commission, Rendulic's defence was military necessity. He presented evidence that the Norwegian population would not voluntarily evacuate and that rapidly approaching Russian The Hostages Trial: Trial of Wilhelm List and Others; United States Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 8 July 1947 - 19 February 1948 116

26


forces would use existing housing as shelter and exploit the local population's knowledge of the area to the detriment of retreating German forces. The Tribunal acquitted Rendulic of the charge, finding reasonable his belief that military necessity mandated his orders. His case offers one of the few adjudicated views of what constitutes military necessity. c.

From the Tribunals opinion:

d. “Military necessity has been invoked by the defendant's as justifying.. the destruction of villages and towns in an occupied territory... The destruction of property to be lawful must be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war... There must be some reasonable connection between the destruction of property and the overcoming of the enemy forces. It is lawful to destroy railways, lines of communication, or any other property that might be utilized by the enemy. Private homes and churches even may be destroyed if necessary for military operations. It does not admit the wanton devastation of a district or the wilful infliction of suffering upon its inhabitants for the sake of suffering alone... e. “The evidence shows that the Russians had very excellent troops in pursuit of the Germans. Two or three land routes were open to them as well as landings by sea behind German lines... The information obtained concerning the intentions of the Russians was limited.. It was with this situation confronting him that he carried out the "scorched earth" policy in the Norwegian province of Finmark.. The destruction was as complete as an efficient army could do it... f. “There is evidence in the record that there was no military necessity for this destruction and devastation. An examination of the facts in retrospect can well sustain this conclusion. But we are obliged to judge the situation as it appeared to the defendant at the time. If the facts were such as would justify the action by the exercise of judgement, after giving consideration to all the factors and existing possibilities, even though the conclusion reached may have been faulty, it cannot be said to be criminal. After giving careful consideration to all the evidence on the subject, we are convinced that the defendant cannot be held criminally responsible although when viewed in retrospect, the danger did not actually exist.... g. “..... We are not called upon to determine whether urgent military necessity for the devastation and destruction in the province of Finmark actually existed. We are concerned with the question whether the defendant at the time of its occurrence acted within the limits of honest judgement on the basis of the conditions prevailing at the time. The course of a military operation by the enemy is loaded with uncertainties... It is our considered opinion that the conditions, as they appeared to the defendant at the time, were sufficient upon which he could honestly conclude that urgent military necessity warranted the decision made. This

27


being true, the defendant may have erred in the exercise of his judgement but he was guilty of no criminal act. We find the defendant not guilty of the charge. h. The Rendulic standard remains unchanged. Fifty-four years later, in 2003, the ICTY wrote: “In determining whether an attack was proportionate it is necessary to examine whether a reasonably well-informed person in the circumstances of the actual perpetrator, making reasonable use of the information available to him or her, could have expected excessive civilian casualties to result from the attack.”117 Q.

Military Necessity: Rendulic Rule: Subjective Honesty in current Military

Doctrine: a. In Unexpected Consequences From Knock-On Effects: A Different Standard for Computer Network Operations?118, Eric Talbot Jensen writes: b. “The standard the Court held General Rendulic to was the requirement to give "consideration to all factors and existing possibilities" as they "appeared to the defendant at the time."” c. “Note that the requirement to give consideration to all factors and existing possibilities is balanced with the overarching constraint of taking facts as they appear at the time of the decision. Must the commander remain in inaction until he feels he has turned over every stone in search of that last shred of information concerning all factors and possibilities that might affect his decision? The answer must be "no." Instead, he must act in good faith and, in accordance with GPI, do everything feasible to get this information.” R.

Onus of Proof: Norwegian State or Breivik to Prove Necessity?:

a. In South African law the Onus of Proof lies on the State in a defence of necessity, to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity. b. In S v Pretorius 1975 (2) SA 85 (SWA) Judge AJ Le Grange found that “The onus of proof in a defence of necessity as in self-defence rests on the State to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity. It is not for the accused to satisfy the court that she acted from necessity (p 293). .. (proceed) by gathering an objective view of the circumstances from the evidence itself, and the magistrate‘s finding whether the prevailing circumstances were “alarming” if viewed objectively…. Viewed objectively… was the accused confronted with a situation that …… lives were in danger…. c. “[90] [If the evidence gives a picture of threatening danger and fear, which gave rise to necessity and which would have justified the accused‘s conduct, The Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galic - Case No. IT-98-29-T, 05 December 2003 http://www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/jud_supplement/supp46-e/galic.htm 118 http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1208&context=auilr 117

28


provided the accused did not exceed the limits of necessity…. Proceed to consider whether the proven circumstances satisfy the tests for necessity set out by B & Hunt at p. 285 of their work: (a) the threatening disaster endangered the accused‘s legal interests. This in fact gave rise to a duty to act. (b) the danger was threatening and imminent. The fact that symptoms relating to the danger may only appear later does not detract from the situation… if it cannot immediately be ascertained whether or not the symptoms are dangerous, necessity arises… (d) the chances that harm would have resulted and it would have been of a serious nature.. the greater the harm, the greater the necessity…” d. If Norwegian law also places the Onus of Proof to lie on the State in a defence of necessity, to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity; it would appear that the Prosecutor‘s decision to “refuse to touch the principle of necessity” should weigh heavily in the Defendant‘s favour. 14.28 28 August – 06 September 2012: No Response from the Norwegian Supreme Court: A. On 28 August 2012, I contacted the Supreme Court Registrar with a request for a Case Number for my application for Review of the Oslo District Court’s Brievik Judgement. B. On 31 August 2012, I again contacted the Supreme Court Registrar with a request for a Case Number for my application for Review of the Oslo District Court’s Brievik Judgement. 14.29 02 September 2012: Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow Case Processing by Supreme Court Registrar: A. On 02 September 2012, I submitted a complaint (PDF119) to the Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow Case Processing / Failure to Provide Case

Processing by Supreme Court Registrar; to Application for Review of ‘Breivik Judgement’. B. 10 September 2012: Response from Supreme Court Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby: No Legal Standing: a. On 11 September 2012, I was informed of the decision by Supreme Court of Norway: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby in: Application for review of Oslo District Court Judgement of 24 August 2012 (2011-188627-24). b. Secretary General Bergby implied that my application was an ‘Appeal’, and stated that I lacked legal standing, because I was not a ‘party to the case’. Mr. Anders Behring Breivik and the prosecution authority “are the only parties in the specific case mentioned above, and the right of appeal is constricted to these”. 119

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120902_po-scr?mode=window&viewMode=singlePage

29


14.30

11 Sep 2012: Response to Supreme Court: Secretary General:

A. On 11 September 2012, applicant responded (PDF120) to Secretary General Gunnar Bergby. Applicant requested the Secretary General to provide her with the relevant statute in Norway that provides the Secretary General the authority to refuse to process a case, citing lack of locus standi/legal standing; thereby denying such applicant due process access to be heard by an impartial court? B. Applicant argued that it was for the court to decide the matter of locus standi, not the Secretary General; citing Scottish Salmon Growers Association Limited v. EFTA Surveillance Authority121 (Case E-2/94); Private Barnehagers

Landsforbund v EFTA Surveillance Authority, supported by Kingdom of Norway (Case E-5/07)122; and Hans Chr. Bugge, Professor of Environmental Law at the Department of Public and International Law, University of Oslo, in his article: General background: Legal remedies and locus standi in Norwegian law123: “There is no clear definition or delimitation of the concept. Whether a person has "legal interest" is decided discretionary in each case, and depends on individual circumstances.” C. Applicant clarified her application was not an ‘Appeal’, which ‘locus standi’ was restricted to the ‘parties in the specific case’, but one of Certiorari/Review, where her locus standi/legal standing was based upon her being a member of a group of activists: known as political necessity activists, who have ‘legal interest’ in the judgement, due to its violations of ECHR Article 13 and 14, and its necessity ruling was not sufficiently precise, as required in Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom124, in order to allow Political Necessity Activists to regulate their activism in accordance with the law.

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-09-11_resp_nsc_secgen_gunnarbergby_decision-dated09-09-12_encl.pdf 121 “The Court finds that this principle must also apply when considering … whether a measure is reviewable and who has locus standi to bring an action for annulment of a decision.” (11) http://www.eftacourt.int/images/uploads/E-2-94_Judgment.pdf 122 The court finds…. “In Husbanken I, it was sufficient for the association whose complaint had been at the origin of the case to show that the legitimate interests of its members were affected by the decision, by affecting their position on the market; and that in this case, where the decision was a decision not to object to State aid, locus standi could even arise alone from the facts that the association was, as a representative of its members, at the origin of the complaint, that it was heard in the procedure and that information was gathered from the State in question” (66) http://www.eftacourt.int/images/uploads/E5_07_Report_for_the_Hearing_FINAL_revised.pdf 123 “The general criterion for locus standi in civil court cases in Norway is that the plaintiff must have "legal interest" in the case.( Art. 54 of the Civil Proceedings Act.) The dispute must be a live controversy, and the plaintiff must have a sufficiently close connection to the subject matter so as to justify the court's treatment of the dispute. There is no clear definition or delimitation of the concept. Whether a person has "legal interest" is decided discretionary in each case, and depends on individual circumstances. The core question to ask is whether the person has reasonable grounds for having the issue tried by a court. To have "legal interest" to have a matter tried by the courts, the plaintiff must be affected by the matter to such an extent that it justifies the use of the court system. Interests which are only based on public or common rights, such as the public right of way, may be accepted if they are strong enough.” http://www-user.unibremen.de/~avosetta/buggeaccessnorw02.pdf 124 The rule of law requires legislation (or judgements or court officials decision-making) to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom). Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ECHR,,GBR,3ae6b7230,0.html 120

30


D. The Oslo District Courts ‘Breivik Judgement’, discriminated against Breivik, by denying him a Free and Fair Subjective and Objective Test Enquiry into his Necessity evidence; and set a discriminatory legal precedent against future Norwegian Political Necessity activists, and furthermore due to the international prominence of the trial on the world stage, the Judgement sent a publicity message that a Court could deny an Accused pleading to Necessity, a Free and Fair Subjective and Objective Test Enquiry into their Necessity evidence, on the world stage. E. Denying Mr. Breivik his right to an objective and subjective test of his necessity evidence, set a legal precedent where environmental, immigrant, religious or other necessity activists are also denied their right to an objective and subjective examination of their necessity evidence (or can due to ignorance from the Breivik trial’s publicity, deny themselves, by lacking the knowledge to assert their right thereto). F. Applicants was consequently demanding her Article 13 Right to an Effective Remedy, and in terms of Article 14: to Prohibit this Discriminatory Erroneous Necessity Ruling against Breivik, herself and other Necessity Activists. G. The applicant confirmed that the principle of an Application for Review existed in Norwegian courts, as documented by (1) Former President of Norwegian Supreme Court Justice Carsten Smith125, (2) Chief Justice of the Norway Supreme Court: Tore Schei126; and (3) Supreme Court Justice: Karen Bruzelius127. H. Applicant requested that her Application be interpreted in terms of Article 13 ECHR read in conjunction with Protocol 7 ECHR and the EFTA Courts Judicial Review Posten Norge Judgement128; effectively interpreted as the Right to Judicial Review of an Administrative Decision or a Court Order. 14.31 A.

08 October 2012, 2nd Request to Secretary General Gunnar Bergby: Applicant sent a reminder request to Secretary General Bergby.

Judicial Review of Parliamentary Legislation: Norway as a European pioneer" (Amicus Curiae, Issue 32, November 2000) 4 October 2007 letter to President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, Justice Schei discusses how “... we will give a brief overview of the system of judicial review in Norway.." 127 Supreme Court Justice: Karen Bruzelius's letter to the Council of Europe, Venice Commission, where she elucidates on "Judicial Review within a Unified Court System" 128 The EFTA court at Luxembourg (interpreting the Agreement on the European Economic Area with regard to the EFTA States party to the Agreement: presently Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) Posten Norge Judgement9 (Case E-15/10), ruled on the application of judicial review in competition law. It concluded that the criminal provisions providing for guarantee of judicial review are greater than for competition law (83). The established case law of the European Union courts on judicial review of competition decisions is compatible with guarantees laid down by Article 6(1) ECHR, which limits competition law judicial reviews to complex matters (83). In a courts review of a complex matter, it is sufficient for the court to establish whether the evidence put forward for appraisal of the complex matter is factually accurate, reliable, consistent, and contains all the relevant data that must be taken into consideration in appraising the complex situation, and is capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it (83). Not only must the court determine whether the evidence relied upon is factually accurate, reliable and consistent, but also whether that evidence contains all the information which must be taken into account in order to assess a complex situation and whether it is capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it (99). http://www.eftacourt.int/images/uploads/15_10_JUDGMENT.pdf 125 126

31


14.32 03 November 2012: Parliamentary Ombudsman: Complaint of Supreme Crt Registrar Slow Case Processing: A. On 03 November 2012, applicant filed a complaint (PDF129) of Slow Case Processing by Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby. 14.33 15 November 2012: Parliamentary Ombudsman Rules that Norway Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby’s ‘Administrative Decision’ is a “Decision of a Court of Law’: A.

On 15 November 2012, the Parliamentary Ombudsman responded to Complaint on Supreme Court of Norway (PDF130), declining to investigate it, because “the Storting's Ombudsman for Public Administration, section 4, first paragraph, litra c), decisions of the courts of law can not be handled by the Ombudsman”.

Contradictions between Parliamentary Ombudsman’s “Slow Case Processing” by Courts Administrative Officials of (a) 11 July 2012 Supervisory Committee for Judges: Secretariat: Espen Eiken, and (b) 15 November 2012: Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby. 14.34

In the 11 July 2012 Parliamentary Ombudsman ruling: Lack of Response from the Supervisory Committee for Judges; in response to a complaint of Slow case processing from the Supervisory Committee for Judges, the Ombudsman’s directions were to “submit "a written request to Tilsynsutvalget for dommere, where you call for answers to your applications. If you do not receive a response to this request within a reasonable time, you can contact the Ombudsman, with an enclosed copy of the last request to Tilsynsutvalget for dommere."” A.

B. The Parliamentary Ombudsman clearly believed they had the authority to require the Supreme Court Administration: Supervisory Committee for Judges: Secretariat, to provide the applicant with due process, processing of her complaints against Judges Opsahl, Arntzen and Schei. C.

In the 15 November 2012 the Parliamentary Ombudsman responded to Complaint on Supreme Court of Norway; in response to a complaint of “Slow Case

Processing by Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby: Re: Request for Statute Granting Sec Gen Authority to make ruling on Legal Standing ”; the Ombudsman’s directions are that “decisions of the courts of law can not be handled by the Ombudsman.” D. Here the Parliamentary Ombudsman, chose to interpret the erroneous ‘locus standi’ administrative decision by Secretary General Gunnar Bergby, as a “decision of a court of law”, and hence to deny themselves the authority to require 129 130

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121103_po-nsc http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-11-15_2012-1943_supreme_court_of_norway.pdf

32


Secretary General Gunnar Bergby to provide Applicant with a response to her question requesting the Statute granting a Secretary General the authority to make a ruling on legal standing.

III. Statement of alleged violation(s) of the Convention and/or Protocols and of relevant arguments 15.1

Discrimination: Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement:

15.2 The Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement Ruling, by Judge’s Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, Arne Lyng; and Lay Judges Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo and Anne Elisabeth Wisloff, delivered on 24 August 2012, violates Article 14 Prohibition of Discrimination and Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial. 15.3 The Necessity ruling states that necessity statutes ‘prohibit the killing of government or politically active young people’; irrespective of the fact that: A. No reference was made during court proceedings by any party alleging that any Norwegian or International specific necessity criminal statute specifically prohibits the killing of government or politically active young people, in the event of objective and subjective reasonably determined necessity; and B. The Necessity Judgement ruling fails to cite any International or Norwegian specific necessity criminal statute specifically prohibiting the killing of government or politically active young people, in the event of objective and subjective reasonably determined necessity. C. Necessity criminal statutes do not specifically allow or disallow the killing of government or politically active young people, but provide for an objective and subjective test that examines each alleged criminal act to objectively and subjectively determine whether necessity existed, or the defendant honestly believed it existed, within the particular criminal act‘s relevant circumstances. 14.35 The Necessity Judgement endorses the court, prosecution and defence counsel failure to conduct the required subjective and objective tests to examine the evidence for the Defendant‘s necessity motivations to determine (I) objectively whether the defendant‘s Necessity claims – simplistically rephrased as – “Titanic Europe is on a demographic/immigration collision course with Islam Iceberg” were reasonable; and (II) secondly whether the defendant subjectively sincerely perceived the Titanic Europe/Islam Iceberg circumstances this way, in accordance to the Military Necessity Rendulic Rule.

33


14.36 The Judgement fails to disclose Norwegian law‘s Onus of Proof requirements in a case of necessity: i.e. upon which party – Defendant or State does the Onus of Proof lie in case of Necessity? If the proof in a defense of necessity, ruling out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity, lies on the State, and the State failed to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity, the accused claim of necessity stands. 14.37 It is clear that the Court's statement of reasons does not show the results of the courts objective and subjective enquiry into the Defendant‘s claim of necessity. Thus, it is also clear that the Court's statement of reasons for its “necessity finding of guilt”, are inadequate. Hence the finding of guilt needs to be set aside for further evidence to objectively and subjective evaluate the defendants necessity defence. 14.38 Finally if the Courts statement of reasons remain uncorrected, they would set a bad precedent, encouraging other courts to deny necessity defendants their rights to an objective and subjective test of their necessity defence, including denying the defendant information clarifying upon whom the Onus of Proof in a defence of necessity lies. 14.39 The discriminatory ‘Necessity ruling’, in response to Prosecutor Engh and Holden’s refusal to “touch Breivik’s Principle of Necessity” sets a Norwegian legal precedent, which if upheld will set a legal precedent denying future necessity activists, a right to a fair trial, since it is based on two unequivocal legal falsehoods: (a) necessity activists have no right to an objective and subjective enquiry into their necessity defense evidence; and (b) necessity statutory provisions prohibit the killing of government officials or civilians. 14.40 The Necessity ruling, also sets an international intellectual and psychological precedent, due to the international publicity it received, by publicizing these legal ‘Necessity’ trial falsehoods, as allegedly true and correct, and thereby educating citizens and future necessity activists that (a) they have no right to an objective and subjective enquiry into their necessity defense evidence; and (b) necessity statutory provisions prohibit the killing of government officials or civilians. 14.41 The Necessity ruling – particularly as a result of the international uncritical publicity it received -- creates confusion and obfuscation by contradicting all other necessity precedents, but providing no legal precedent justifications for its conclusions; thereby the most well known necessity precedent for the average layperson, is the one based upon falsehoods and totally lacking in legal justifications. This is a violation of the Right to an Effective: clear, succinct, legally justified precedent, to enable laypersons and necessity activists to respectively effectively understand, plan and regulate their activism in accordance with the law. 34


15.4

Denied Right to an Effective Remedy by Supreme Court Sec. Gen. Bergby:

15.5 The 10 September 2012 administrative decision of Norway Supreme Court Secretary General Gunnar Bergby, denying Applicant Access to Court by refusing to process her 27 August 2012, Application for Review of the Oslo District Court: ‘Breivik Judgement were violations of applicants right to an Effective Remedy. 15.6 Secretary General Bergby’s refusal to process my Application for Review, in the absence of a due process impartial enquiry into the merits of the application; by (1) pretending not to understand the difference between an Appeal and a Review, and (2) pretending that I had no locus standi (legal standing) to file an Application for Review, while refusing to provide me with the relevant Norwegian statute that provides the Secretary General the authority to refuse to process a case, citing lack of locus standi/legal standing; thereby denying such applicant due process access to be heard by an impartial court were violations of applicants right to an Effective Remedy. 15.7

Discrimination by Supreme Court Sec Gen. Bergby:

15.8 Secretary General Gunnar Bergby’s decisions and actions to refuse to process Applicants Application for Review, denying Applicant her right to an effective remedy to address the errors and irregularities regarding the Courts ‘Necessity’ judgement, were motivated acts of ideological discrimination against the ‘right wing’ or ‘cultural conservatives’, and against anyone – particularly anyone who is not ‘right wing’ -- who opposes, or objects to Ideological Discrimination against anyone, including Cultural Conservatives. 15.9 Everyone, irrespective of their extreme left or extreme right ideology, who pleads to necessity should be entitled to an objective and subjective test of their respective necessity evidence. It is blatant discrimination for a Prosecutor and a Judge to publicly endorse the denial of a ‘right wing’ accused’s ‘necessity’ evidence to be subjectively and objectively examined. 15.10 When a court sets such a discriminatory irregular and erroneous legal precedent, such a precedent can be used to deny other necessity activists their due process rights to an objective and subjective test of their necessity evidence. 15.11 I subsequently filed a Complaint of Slow Case Processing to the Parliamentary Ombudsman 15.12

Denied Right to an Effective Remedy by Parliamentary Ombudsman:

15.13 The 15 November 2012 ruling by Parliamentary Ombudsman, that Secretary General’s Gunnar Bergby’s administrative decision denying Applicant’s access to the court and an effective remedy, was an official ‘judgement/decision by a court of law’, was a violations of applicants right to an Effective Remedy. 35


15.14 Secretary General Bergby’s 10 September 2012 administrative decision to refuse to process Applicants application, due to alleged lack of ‘locus standi’; and subsequent refusal to provide any statutory authority granting him the right to deny applicant access to a court for a full due process impartial enquiry into the merits of her legal standing; was made without a full impartial due process enquiry into the merits of the application, therefore denying applicant an effective remedy to her application. 15.15 The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s decision to refuse to order Secretary General Bergby to either (a) process applicants application, or (b) provide applicant with the relevant statutory authority granting him the authority to deny applicants application based upon an un-investigated allegation of lack of legal standing; denies applicant access to a court, and an effective remedy to impartially determine (a) the status of applicants legal standing, and if so (b) her allegations of irregularity regarding the Oslo Courts ‘Necessity’ judgement. 15.16

Discrimination by Parliamentary Ombudsman:

15.17 The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s (a) ruling of 11 July 2012, in the complaint of ‘Slow Case Processing’ by Courts Administration Official: Supervisory Committee for Judges: Secretariat: Espen Eiken, contradicts the (b) ruling of 15 November 2012, in the complaint of ‘Slow Case Processing’ by Courts Administration Official: Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby. 15.18 In the 11 July 2012 Parliamentary Ombudsman ruling they believed they had the authority to remedy slow case processing administrative decision making by the Supreme Court Administration: Supervisory Committee for Judges: Secretariat, yet in the 15 November 2012 the Parliamentary Ombudsman ruling they now believed that they did not have the authority to remedy slow case processing administrative decision making by the Supreme Court Administration. 15.19 It is alleged the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s 15 November 2012 decision to refuse to address Applicants Slow Case Processing complaint by ordering Director General Bergby to either (a) process applicants application, or (b) provide applicant with the relevant statutory authority granting him the authority to deny applicants application based upon an un-investigated allegation of lack of legal standing; were motivated acts of ideological discrimination against the ‘right wing’ or ‘cultural conservatives’, and against anyone – particularly anyone who is not ‘right wing’ -- who opposes, or objects to Ideological Discrimination against anyone, including Cultural Conservatives.

Prohibition of Discrimination: Motive for Denial of Effective Remedy’s: Political & Ideological Discrimination: 15.20

36


15.21 Applicant asserts that Supreme Court, Deputy Secretary General Nygaard, Secretary General Bergby, the Supervisory Committee for Judges and the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s legal gymnastics decision-making are motivated by either their (A) own personal Liberal/Left Wing prejudice towards Breivik / right wing cultural conservatives, as alleged by Breivik, (B) their -- lack of intellectual backbone - inability to withstand Liberal/Left Wing Politically Correct Peer Pressure endorsing political, media, and legal discrimination against right wing conservatives, and anyone who speaks up for the rights of extreme right wing conservatives (Norway, Pakistan, India, Malaysia and South Korea are culturally the strictest conformists, with the least resistance to cultural and political or ideological peer pressure131). 15.22 It is possible their discriminatory decision-making towards denying Applicant the ability to support the rule of law and a free and fair trial for a right wing conservative terrorist, are a result of their paranoid fear of impartially objectively and subjective investigating the evidence of Breivik’s necessity defense, (a) fearing that some of Breivik’s allegations may in fact be found to be factually correct; and/or (b) their knowledge that some of Breivik’s allegations are in fact factually correct, and/or (c) their conformist inability to resist the Norwegian Politically Correct narrative, and (d) hence the need to obediently conform and deny any investigation of Breivik’s allegations, which would expose these realities. 15.23 If Norwegian Officials sincerely believed that Breivik’s Resist Eurabia ideology, discrimination against, and censorship of cultural conservatives allegations were an absolute bunch of nonsense, totally and utterly without any factual basis, their would be no need to fear an objective and subjective test of Breivik’s necessity defense evidence, since it would be exposed as erroneous and unjustified.

IV. Statement relative to article 35 § 1 of the Convention [16.]

Final decision (date, court or authority and nature of decision)

16.1 10 September 2012: Norway Supreme Court: Secretary General Gunnar Bergby: Refusal to process Applicants 27 August 2012, Application for Review of the Oslo District Court: ‘Breivik Judgement, citing lack of ‘locus standi’ and subsequent refusal to provide statutory authority for ‘locus standi’ decision-making authority. (Appealed to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Slow Case Processing)

Norwegians give each other little room for manoeuvre http://paraplyen.nhh.no/paraplyen/arkiv/2011/juni/norwegians/ 131

37


[17.] 17. Other decisions (list in chronological order, giving date, court or authority and nature of decision for each of them) 17.1 15 May 2012: Norway Supreme Court: Deputy Secretary General Kjersti Buun Nygaard: Refusal to process Applicants 10 May 2012 Application for Review. (Appealed to Supervisory Committee for Judges) 17.2 24 August 2012: Oslo District Court: Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, Arne Lyng; and Lay Judges Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo and Anne Elisabeth Wisloff: Breivik Judgement: Finding of Guilt in absence of Objective and Subjective Test examination of Breivik’s Necessity evidence. 17.3 10 September 2012: Environmental Appeals Board: Hans Chr. Bugge, Morten Hugo Berger, Andreas Pihlstrom, Karl Kristensen, Cecilie Skarning, Ina Lindahl Nyrud: Denial of Request for Access to Environment Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) from (A) 7 Media Publications Editors: RE: Censorship in Norway’s Media: (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny, and (B) Bar Association: RE: Norwegian Bar Association’s Anti-Environmental Printed Complaints Policy 17.4 23 October 2012: Supervisory Committee for Judges: Bjorn Hubert Senum: Ruling of ‘obviously unfounded’ in Norwegian – in the absence of any due process impartial enquiry into the merits of the complaint. 17.5 15 November 2012: Parliamentary Ombudsman: Head of Division: Berit Sollie: Finding that Secretary General’s Gunnar Bergby’s administrative decision denying Applicant’s access to the court and an effective remedy, was an official ‘judgement/decision by a court of law’. 17.6 27 November 2012: Parliamentary Ombudsman: Head of Division: Annette Dahl: Finding that “The Ombudsman has reviewed your complaint and the enclosed documents, and your complaint does not give reasons to initiate further investigations regarding the Appeals Board case processing or decision.”

[18.] 18. Is there or was there any other appeal or other remedy available to you which you have not used? If so, explain why you have not used it. 18.1 Appealed the Norway Supreme Court: Deputy Secretary General Kjersti Buun Nygaard 15 May 2012 refusal to process Applicants 10 May 2012 Application for Review, to the Supervisory Committee for Judges, on the grounds of failure of Judicial Ethics by Chief Justice Tore Schei (authorising Nygaard’s decision). 18.2 Appealed the Norway Supreme Court: Secretary General Gunnar Bergby 10 September 2012 refusal to process Applicants 27 August 2012, Application for

38


Review of the Oslo District Court: ‘Breivik Judgement, citing lack of ‘locus standi’ and subsequent refusal to provide statutory authority for ‘locus standi’ decisionmaking authority, to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, on the grounds of slow case processing and obstruction to case processing.

V. Statement of the object of the application [19.] The Oslo District Courts 24 August 2012 Breivik Judgement Discriminatory Necessity ruling: 19.1 sets a Norwegian legal precedent, which if upheld will set a legal precedent denying future necessity activists, a right to a fair trial, since it is based on two unequivocal legal falsehoods: (a) necessity activists have no right to an objective and subjective enquiry into their necessity defense evidence; and (b) necessity statutory provisions prohibit the killing of government officials or civilians. 19.2 creates confusion and obfuscation by contradicting all other International legally justified necessity precedents, but providing no legal precedent justifications for its conclusions – as a result of the international uncritical publicity it received -therefore the most well known Internationally necessity precedent for the average layperson, is the one based upon falsehoods and totally lacking in legal justifications. 19.3 sets an international intellectual and psychological Discriminatory precedent against all Political Necessity activists, due to the uncritical international publicity it received, by publicizing these legal ‘Necessity’ trial falsehoods, as allegedly true and correct, and thereby implying that necessity activists of any ideological, political, religious or cultural persuasion (a) have no right to an objective and subjective enquiry into their necessity defense evidence; and (b) and if, or where such necessity actions involve the killing of government officials or civilians, that International Human Rights law necessity statutory provisions prohibit the killing of government officials or civilians. 19.4 The Norwegian Necessity Judgement – and its international publicity – discriminates against Necessity Activists, by denying them the Right to an Effective: clear, succinct, legally justified precedent, to enable laypersons and

39


necessity activists to respectively effectively understand, plan and regulate their Necessity activism in accordance with accurate necessity jurisprudence132. 19.5

Consequently, Applicant requests the following Declaratory Orders Relief:

19.6 The Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement Necessity Ruling133, by Judge’s Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, Arne Lyng; and Lay Judges Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo and Anne Elisabeth Wisloff, delivered on 24 August 2012, violates Article 14 Prohibition of Discrimination and Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial, and consequently to: A. Set Aside the Judgements Discriminatory Irregular ‘Necessity (Nødrett) Ruling’134 (pg.67135) for (i) failing to provide any necessity criminal provisions that prohibit killing of Government Officials in case of Necessity; (ii) Erroneous interpretation of Necessity related criminal law provisions and international necessity related human rights law, (iii) Failure to conduct the required Objective and Subjective Tests of Defendant’s Necessity Defence evidence, renders it a (iv) Discriminatory Necessity Precedent for other Necessity activists to be denied the required Objective and Subjective tests of their necessity evidence, (v) Failure to Clarify upon which party the Onus of Proof lies in a Case of Necessity; and how or why their evidence was sufficient/insufficient; and (vi) ‘Extreme Political objectives’ conclusion is unsupported in the absence of an objective and subjective necessity test of the defendants necessity evidence. B. Set Aside Defendant’s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) for remittance to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. C. Alternatively, a Non-Precedent Setting Ruling: If Defendant Breivik prefers to abide by, and socio-politically profit from (as a political martyr), the Oslo District Courts discriminatory Necessity ruling against him, a declaratory order that the Defendant’s failure to uphold his demand that the court objectively and subjectively test his necessity defence evidence, that the Oslo courts discriminatory ‘Necessity Ruling’ is not to be deemed ‘Necessity precedent’, whereby other political

132

In Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom , the European Court of Human Rights held that the rule of law requires provisions of legislation to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law: “110. As regards the phrase "subject to the conditions provided for by law", it requires in the first place the existence of and compliance with adequately accessible and sufficiently precise domestic legal provisions (see, amongst other authorities, the alone judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, pp. 31-33, paras. 66-68).” Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 | Lithgow and Others v. The United Kingdom, 9006/80; 9262/81; 9263/81; 9265/81; 9266/81; 9313/81; 9405/81 , Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 24 June 1986 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-57526 “As regards this submission, the Court briefly notes that neither the provisions of the Penal Code concerning necessity nor international human rights, which the defendant also invokes, allow the murder of government employees, politically active youth or others, to further extreme political goals. It is evident that this submission cannot be accepted.” - Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) – Judgment. Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) TOSLO–2011–188627–24E (11–188627MED–OTIR/05). 134 Ibid Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) – Judgment. 135 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120824_nvb-judmnt 133

40


activists can be denied their necessity rights for a court to objectively and subjectively test their necessity evidence. D. Furthermore, the (i) 10 September 2012, administrative decision of Norway Supreme Court Secretary General Gunnar Bergby, denying Applicant Access to Court by refusing to process her 27 August 2012, Application for Review of the Oslo District Court: ‘Breivik Judgement’; and (ii) the 15 November 2012 ruling by Parliamentary Ombudsman, that Secretary General’s Gunnar Bergby’s administrative decision, was a ‘judgement/decision by a court of law’, thereby justifying his refusal to order Secretary General Bergby to process Applicants Application for Review; were (iii) violations of applicants right to an Effective Remedy and an obstruction to the execution of a final judicial decision on the merits of her application, and (iv) were motivated by ideological prejudice towards people who are ‘right wing’, and/or against anyone – particularly anyone who is not ‘right wing’ -- who opposes, or objects to Ideological Discrimination against anyone, including Cultural Conservatives.

VI. Statement concerning other international proceedings [20.] Have you submitted the above complaints to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement? If so, give full details. 20.1

NO.

VII. List of documents [21.]

List of Documents:

A. 15 May 2012: Norway Supreme Court: Deputy Secretary General Kjersti Buun Nygaard: Refusal to process 10 May 2012 Application for Review (pp.03). B. 24 August 2012: Oslo District Court: Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, Arne Lyng; and Lay Judges Ernst Henning Eielsen, Diana Patricia Fynbo and Anne Elisabeth Wisloff: Breivik Judgement: Finding of Guilt in absence of Objective and Subjective Test examination of Breivik’s Necessity evidence. (pp.78) C. 27 August 2012: Applicants Application for Review: Notice of Motion (pp.11) and Founding Affidavit to Supreme Court (pp.35) (pp.46)

41


D. 10 September 2012: Norway Supreme Court: Secretary General Gunnar Bergby: Refusal to process 27 August 2012, Application for Review. (pp.01) E. 10 September 2012: Environmental Appeals Board: Hans Chr. Bugge, Morten Hugo Berger, Andreas Pihlstrom, Karl Kristensen, Cecilie Skarning, Ina Lindahl Nyrud: Denial of Request for Access to Environment Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) (pp.02) F. 11 September 2012: Response to Secretary General Bergby: Request for Statutory Authority granting authority to refuse application on locus standi (pp.08) G. 23 October 2012: Supervisory Committee for Judges: Bjorn Hubert Senum: Rulings of ‘obviously unfounded’ in Norwegian – in the absence of any due process impartial enquiry into the merits of the complaint. (pp.03 x 3=09) H. 15 November 2012: Parliamentary Ombudsman: Head of Division: Berit Sollie: Finding that Secretary General’s Gunnar Bergby’s administrative decision denying Applicant’s access to the court and an effective remedy, was an official ‘judgement/decision by a court of law’. (pp.01) I. 27 November 2012: Parliamentary Ombudsman: Head of Division: Annette Dahl: Finding that “The Ombudsman has reviewed your complaint and the enclosed documents, and your complaint does not give reasons to initiate further investigations regarding the Appeals Board case processing or decision.” (pp.01)

VIII. Declaration and signature I hereby declare that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information I have given in the present application form is correct. Place: GEORGE, SOUTH AFRICA

Date: 10 JANUARY 2013

______________________________________________ Signature of Applicant: Lara Johnstone

42


Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee Communication ACCC/C/2013/82: Johnstone v. Norway1

Annexure â&#x20AC;&#x153;Câ&#x20AC;? Media Censorship: Citizens are ignorant of how to contribute to Sustainable Security: Procreate and Consume below carrying capacity, to avoid scarcity induced resource war conflict. Maher, Michael (1997/03): How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection2,: University of Southwestern Louisiana, Population and Environment, Volume 18, Number 4, March 1977; Reprinted in 1997 by the Carrying Capacity Network, Focus, 18 (2), 21-37.

1

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/unece-aarhus-comp-comm.html Maher, Michael (1997/03): How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection ,: University of Southwestern Louisiana, Population and Environment, Volume 18, Number 4, March 1977; Reprinted in 1997 by the Carrying Capacity Network, Focus, 18 (2), 21-37. issuu.com/jsror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection 2


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population – Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

How and Why Journalists Avoid The Population – Environment Connection T. Michael Maher March 1997

Abstract Introduction Agenda-Setting and Media Framing Theory How Experts Frame Environmental Causality Part I: How Reporters Frame Environmental Problems Results Table 1. Endangered Species Table 2. Urban Sprawl Table 3. Water Shortages Table 4. Solutions presented in sample Figure 1. Summary of sample of interviewed journalists Discussion Part II: Why Journalists Avoid Mentioning Population Method Interview format Results The narrative imperative and causal dissociation Discussion References

Abstract Recent surveys show that Americans are less concerned about population than they were 25 years ago, and they aren’t connecting environmental degradation to population growth. News coverage is a significant variable affecting public opinion, and how reporters frame a problem frequently signals what is causing the problem. Using a random sample of 150 stories about urban sprawl, endangered species and water shortages, Part I of this study shows that only about one story in 10 framed population growth as a source of the problem. Further, only one story in the entire sample mentioned population stability among the realm of possible solutions. Part II presents the results of interviews with 25 journalists whose stories on local environmental problems omitted the causal role of population growth. It shows that journalists are aware of the controversial nature of the population issue, and prefer to avoid it if possible. Most interviewees said that a national phenomenon like population growth as beyond the scope of what they could write as local reporters.

Introduction In 1992 the National Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Society issued a joint statement urging world leaders to brake population growth before it is too late (Royal Society, 1992). That same year, 1,600 scientists (including 99 Nobel laureates) issued a

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population – Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

statement warning all humanity that it must soon stabilize population and halt environmental destruction (Detjen, 1992). That same year, a Gallup poll showed that Americans were less concerned about population than they had been 20 years before (Newport & Saad, 1992). That same year, world leaders ignored population growth at the largest environmental summit in history, the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro. Why are the American public and political leaders so indifferent about this issue that so concerns the world’s leading scientists and environmentalists? Not because Americans are anti-environment: Another recent Gallup Poll (Hueber, 1991), showed that 78 percent of Americans considered themselves environmentalists and 71 percent favored strong environmental protection, even at the expense of economic growth. How can Americans express strong concern about the environment, yet a diminishing concern about population growth, which many environmental experts consider the ultimate environmental problem? It seems likely that Americans are not connecting population growth to environmental problems. In addition to the above-cited Gallup poll, a series of nationwide focus groups conducted for the Pew Global Stewardship Initiative confirmed this. The study sought to determine attitudes on population among 10 different voting groups, among them Catholic Anglos, mainstream Protestants, Jewish groups, and environmentalists. The focus group summary report noted, "The issue of population is not invisible but most often it is a weak blip on the radar screens for most of the voting groups —with the exception of the committed environmentalists and internationalists" (Pew, 1993, p. 22). Focus groups are ideal for getting beneath the surface of public opinion, for finding out why people think what they think. And most tellingly, when the Pew-sponsored focus groups were evaluated on whether respondents could connect population growth with environmental degradation, environmentalists and some of the internationalists and Jewish men's groups could make the connection, "but overall most of the others do not make any direct, unaided connections between population and environment;" the 1993 Pew report stated (p. 26, italics in the original report). But why is the American public not making the connection? This paper explores the possibility that news stories, from which Americans may infer causality of environmental problems, may keep them from making the connection between population growth and the problems it causes. Population researchers Paul and Anne Ehrlich opened their book, The Population Explosion, with a chapter titled, "Why Isn't Everyone as Scared as We Are?" They acknowledged, "The average person, even the average scientist, seldom makes the connection between [disparate environmental problems] and the population problem, and thus remains unworried" (1990, p. 21). But while they noted that the evening news almost never connects population growth to environmental problems, the Ehrlichs chiefly blamed social taboos fostered by the Catholic Church and "a colossal failure of education" (p. 32) for public indifference about population. Howell (1992) also minimized the role of the media in influencing public aptitude about science and the environment, and pointed instead to education: The obvious starting point for the individual is the public schools .... Education proceeds into undergraduate programs, which can play more than one major role in enhancing scientific literacy (p. 160).

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population – Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

The Ehrlichs and Howell seem to assume that education is the chief factor driving public opinion about environmental causality. But in Tradeoffs: Imperatives of Choice in a HighTech World, Wenk (1986) offered a more media-centric view of how the public learns: "Whatever literacy in science and technology the general public has reached is not from formal education. Rather, it is from the mass media. That responsibility of the press has been almost completely ignored" (p. 162). This study will examine press responsibility for the public's indifference to population growth by exploring two questions:  

To what extent do press reports about population-driven environmental problems link those problems to population growth? What reasons do reporters give for ignoring population growth in stories about environmental problems?

Before discussing method and findings, however, we must first review the theoretical basis for the media's role in molding public opinion.

Agenda-Setting and Media Framing Theory Wenk's point that the media are prime movers of public opinion aligns well with recent mass communication scholarship. Scholarly estimation of the power of the media has fluctuated widely during the twentieth century. In the early decades, the mass media seemed to wield great power, as evidenced by the success of the Creel Committee in selling billions in war bonds during World War I, and by the nationwide panic Orson Welles created in his 1938 Halloween hoax broadcast of invasion from Mars. But scholarly estimation of media influence plummeted when The People's Choice study showed media stories had little influence on a panel of voters during the 1940 presidential election (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet, 1968), and when experiments showed that motivational films had little effect in changing soldiers' attitudes in preparation for fighting World War II (Hovland, Lumsdaine, & Sheffield, 1965). The scholarly stock exchange remained bearish on media influence until 1972, when McCombs and Shaw published the first quantitative agenda-setting study. They showed very high correlations between those issues that received the most media coverage over time, and those issues that a sample of the public identified as most important. Since then more than 200 agenda-setting studies have been published (Rogers, Dearing & Bregman, 1993). These studies have generally affirmed Cohen's oft-quoted dictum that the media may not tell the public what to think, but they are spectacularly successful in telling the public what to think about (1963). Recent scholarship has added a corollary to Cohen: media messages may also succeed in telling the public how to think about an issue (McCombs & Shaw, 1993). The study of media framing suggests that reality is practically infinite, and that in reducing reality into a story a reporter must select some facts and ignore others. Further, the reporter must make some facts more salient than others in the story by giving them more space or by offering them early in the story. Unlike agenda-setting, which captures only the transfer of issue salience from the news media to the public, media framing theory provides a means of examining how news stories portray the causes of a given public issue. Recent scholarship (Entman, 1993; Pan & Kosicki, 1993; Edelman, 1993) has linked framing with causal reasoning, and Iyengar's studies (1989; 1991) have similarly dealt with news framing and public perception of responsibility for social problems.

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

Rephrased within a media-framing perspective, this paper seeks to determine how and why reporters diverge from experts in framing causality for environmental problems. But we should establish experts' consensus that population matters in environmental issues.

How Experts Frame Environmental Causality A recent EPA publication lamented, "At present, there is a deplorable lack of research that assesses the impacts of demographic change within the U.S. on environmental problems at all levels" (Orians & Skumanich, 1995, p. 67). Nevertheless, many scholars have implicated population growth when they discuss base-level causality for environmental problems. Ward and Dubos (1972), Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1990), Commoner (1990) and Harrison (1992) argued that environmental impact results from three primary determinants: population, consumption level (sometimes expressed as economic level or affluence) and technology (or resources). This is usually expressed as a formula I=PAT; that is, environmental impact is the product of population, affluence and technology factors. Bailey (1990) reported additional models, POET and PISTOL, which add social organization, information and standard of living to the basic I=PAT model. With specific reference to habitat loss, Sears (1956), Jackson (1981), Myers (1991), Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1990), Harrison (1992) and many others have shown that population growth pushes people into relatively pristine, natural environments. Endangered species problems are frequently the flip side of this coin: when people convert wildlife habitat to their own habitat, they bulldoze trees, introduce chemicals, channelize streams, build dams, alter the water table, and disrupt habitat in numerous other ways. While it is well known that environmental experts connect environmental degradation to population growth, it is less well known that land developers are equally straightforward in implicating population growth as a causal agent for turning wildlife habitat and farmland into subdivisions. The how-to manuals for real estate development are very explicit about the critical role of population growth: The two primary determinants of the need for home and commercial construction are population growth and the demolition and retirement of existing facilities ... Growth in population creates a need not only for housing but also for supporting real estate facilities such as shopping centers, service stations, medical clinics, school, office buildings, and so on (Goodkin, 1974, p. 14). The main idea to keep in mind as you search for rewarding corporate realty investments is that in general land prices are the resultants of population. As more people come on a given section of land, whether to build homes, to work in stores, office buildings, factories, financial institutions, or supermarkets, they create a demand for living space, land and structures. This demand, except during a recession, seems likely to expand indefinitely (Cobleigh, 1971, p. 10). Demand for real estate at the national level is influenced by national population growth and demographic change, coupled with expanding employment opportunities and rising per capita incomes (McMahan, 1976, p. 76). Naturally, they frame the results with different language: what land developers might call conversion of raw land to happy communities is often the same phenomenon that environmentalists would call loss of critical wildlife habitat. But both environmentalists and developers agree that population growth is a chief force driving the process of land

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

conversion. Land conversion, in turn, is frequently associated with species decline and urban sprawl, two issues whose news coverage this study examines. A third is sue studied in this research, water shortages, is also exacerbated by population growth, according to Postel (1993), Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1990), the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future (1972), Homer Dixon, Boutwell and Rathjens (1993), Orians and Skumanich (1995) and many other writers. We should acknowledge that the cornucopian economists (for example, Simon, 1981; 1990; Bailey, 1993) dispute the notion that population growth has produced any adverse environmental effects. However, their arguments have had much greater predictive power with regard to the short-term price and availability of nonrenewable resources. The cornucopians have failed to explain away the continuing net loss of wildlife habitat, and the growing incidence of water shortages and declining water quality. In general, there is good consensus among the experts that population growth is a significant variable that affects land and water use. But do media reports reflect this? This is a two-part study. Part I uses content analysis to determine the extent to which reporters include the causal role of population growth in framing stories about the environment. Part II is a follow-up to Part I. It employs depth interviews to discover why reporters ignore the connection between population growth and environmental problems. Since Part I provides the premise for Part II, its methods and results will be discussed separately.

Part I: How Reporters Frame Environmental Problems To measure media framing of environmental stories, Part I uses a randomized sample of 50 articles each for three common population-influenced environmental problems: endangered species, urban sprawl, and water shortages. Articles were downloaded from Lexis-Nexis, the world's largest database of full-text news stories. At the time of the study the Nexis library included 170 newspapers, 330 magazines, as well as wire services. Within Nexis, the CURRNT file limited the search to stories dated 1991 or later. Using the connector "w/2" (e.g., "endangered w/2 species") produced only stories in which the search terms appeared within two words of each other. The search produced 1,349 water shortage stories, 1,942 urban sprawl stories, and 6,001 endangered species stories. These were sampled by using a random number table. Selected stories were limited to newspaper, magazine and wire stories from U.S. and Canadian sources. To be considered for coding, the story had to describe a population-driven environmental conflict. (It is now common for various grievance groups to call themselves an endangered species. Such stories were discarded.) All stories were coded whether or not population growth was mentioned as a cause of the problem described in the story. A second coder read 30% of the stories from each of the three issues as a reliability check. Coder reliability was 100% because coding news stories for the presence or absence of a reference to population growth is much more reliable than coding stories into abstract, overlapping content categories.

Results Of the 150-article sample, 16 (less than 11%) mentioned population growth as a cause of the environmental problem described in the story. Population growth appeared in eight urban

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

sprawl stories, seven water shortage stories, and one story on endangered species. Results are presented in Tables, 1, 2, and 3. Tables 1,2, and 3 also list solutions mentioned in each story. These solutions are numerically summarized in Table 4. As noted earlier, many experts agree that environmental impact is a product of three primary determinants: population, affluence and technology. If these factors serve as causes, addressing them could serve as solutions. Table 4 analyzes how solutions are framed within the sample of stories. Tables 1-3 show that population growth is mentioned as a cause in only 10.7% of environmental - problem stories. But population is even more unpopular as an environmental solution: Table 4 shows that from a sample of 150, only one story mentions that a stable population might be a possible solution to environmental problems. Table 4 suggests that reducing consumption is the favored remedy in stories about endangered species and urban sprawl; but for water shortage problems, technological remedies are higher on the media agenda. In other words, most endangered-species preservation measures entail forbidding consumption of some rare creature's habitat (e.g., ancient forests or springs or desert lands). Likewise, many urban sprawl stories present zoning - legal measures to limit consumption of land - as the chief measure to constrain development of a city perimeter. Such a solution simply dumps the population problem on some other community. But water shortage stories present technological fixes (e.g., new dams, new wells, new pipelines, desalination of sea water) 56% more frequently than reducing consumption.

Table 1. Endangered Species Stories that mention human population growth are listed in bold face; all others do not mention population. Species

Story Source

Cause of Species Decline

Solution

1

All endangered species

Inside Energy

habitat loss

National Biological Survey

2

Spotted Owl

Reuter's

habitat loss

Clinton compromise timber plan

3

Spotted Owl

Seattle Times

habitat loss

Lujan proposal

4

Salmon, waterfowl

San Francisco Chronicle

habitat loss

amend Endangered Species Act to allow more water for rice

5

Alabama Sturgeon

States News Service

habitat loss

none; jobs versus environment

6

Slender-Horned Spineflower

L.A. Times

habitat loss to golf course

invoke Endangered Species Act

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population – Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

7

California Condor

UPI

habitat loss

captive breeding

8

Black Bear

U.S. Newswire

habitat loss

invoke Endangered Species Act

9

All endangered species

CongressDaily

protection comes too late

amend Endangered Species Act

10

Delta smelt

Business Wire

habitat loss

business interests oppose listing as endangered species

11

Pacific salmon

L.A. Times

urbanization, logging, agriculture

close salmon season

12

Waterfowl

Sacramento Bee

habitat loss

enhance wetland habitat

13

Several fish species

San Diego UnionTribune

habitat loss

change water management in Sacramento River Valley

14

California Gray Whale

Atlanta Constitution

overharvest

protection from hunting

15

Spotted Owl

Reuter’s

habitat loss

injunctions to prevent logging

16

Mexican Thick-Billed Parrots, Black-Footed Ferrets

Chicago Tribune

captive breeding usually fails

protect habitat

17

Salmon

Gannett News Service

habitat loss

manipulate water levels

18

All endangered species

U.S. Newswire

habitat loss, overharvest

strengthen protective laws

19

Spotted Owl Marbled Murrulet, Pacific Salmon

USA Today

habitat loss

jobs vs. environment stalemate

20

Chinook Salmon

Seattle Times

development

listing as threatened species

21

Spotted Owl

Reuter’s

habitat destruction

endangered species listing

22

Three species of frogs

Seattle Times

mysterious decline in numbers

unknown

23

Spotted Owl

States News Service

loss of habitat

Clinton compromise plan

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

24

Marsh rabbits

UPI

loss of habitat

purchase new habitat

25

Salamanders and plants

Texas Lawyer

pumping from aquifer degrades habitat

limit pumping

26

Manatees

St. Petersburg Times

people kill them

regulate boating

27

Ninety-eight rare or endangered species

Buffalo News

habitat loss

habitat setaside by Nature Conservancy

28

Mexican Spotted Owl

PR Newswire

habitat loss

Forest & Paper Assoc. opposes endangered species listing

29

Polar Bears

Dallas Morning News

proximity to people in Churchill, Canada

put bears in "bear jail"

30

Dusky Seaside Sparrow

States News Service

habitat loss, pesticides

too late to save; officially extinct

31

Cactus Wren

L.A. Times

habitat loss

endangered species listing

32

Many endangered species

Newsday

none

advances in radio telemetry will aid research

33

Five endangered species

L.A. Times

planned Bolsa Chica development

oppose development

34

Coho Salmon

Seattle Times

habitat destruction, overharvest

close fishing altogether

35

Black-Footed Ferret

Christian Science Monitor

animals bred in captivity canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t adapt to the wild

create "halfway house" to teach them how to fend for themselves

36

California Red-Legged Frog

L.A. Times

habitat loss, drought, acid rain floods, disease

endangered species listing

37

Desert Tortoise

The Energy Daily

hazardous waste dump

waste dump opposed

38

Sperm Whale

Toronto Star

beach strandings

additional research

39

Mexican Spotted Owl

Greenwire

habitat loss

threatened species listing

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population – Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

40

Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers

UPI

habitat loss

protection at Eglin A. F. Base

41

Spotted Owl, California Gnatcatcher

Investor’s Business Daily

habitat loss

business interests question cost of Endangered Species Act

42

Many endangered species

L.A. Times

43

Spotted Owl

Business Wire

habitat loss

business interests react to Greenpeace criticism of "God Squad"

44

California Condors

Washington Times

removed from wild for captive breeding

captive-bred animals to be returned to the wild

45

California Gnatcatcher

L.A. Times

habitat loss

endangered species listing

46

Many bat species

Cleveland Plain Dealer

habitat loss

support for Bat Conservation Int’l

47

Western Pond Turtle

Seattle Times

an "unknown pathogen caused pneumonia"

habitat purchase

48

Rare prairie habitat

Orlando Sentinel Tribune

gravel mine disruption

two acres of plants transplanted

49

Attwater Prairie Chicken

Houston Chronicle

habitat loss, floods, predators

captive breeding, land mgmnt., pesticide restrictions

50

Endangered plants

Atlanta Constitution

development

volunteers move plants away from the path of development

preserve endangered species in zoos by captive breeding

Table 2. Urban Sprawl Stories that mention human population growth are listed in bold face; all others do not mention population. Affected Town or Area

Source

Specific Problem

Solution

1

General

Chicago Tribune

urban sprawl & agriculture

plant rare species in back yard

2

General

PR Newswire

urban sprawl, pollution

limit immigration, advocate replacement-

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

level fertility 3

Petaluma, Cal.

San Francisco Chronicle

factory outlet mall signs, infrastructure

candidates urge slow growth

4

Lake County, Fla.

Orlando Sentinel Tribune

developers defy arbitration over growth management plan

environmentalist-developer impasse

5

Atlanta, Ga.

Atlanta Constitution

airport not wanted

800 residents oppose airport

6

Everglades

Greenwire

water management plan

officials say water project will not harm environment

7

State Road 60, Fla.

St. Petersburg Times

signs, ugliness, parking lots

task force creates plan to limit developers

8

General

Business Wire

urban sprawl, traffic, smog

students compete in regional planning competition

9

Edgewood, Fla.

Orlando Sentinel Tribune

urban sprawl

development plan filed with state

10

Ontario, Canada

Toronto Star

urban sprawl

regional planning

11

Toronto, Canada

Toronto Star

urban sprawl

funnel population growth to the central city

12

Ventura County, Cal.

L.A. Times

urban sprawl

citizen group backs antisprawl candidates for county office

13

Canada

Financial Post

urban sprawl

public transit powered by alternative fuels

14

Tucson, Ariz.

Arizona Business Gazette

urban sprawl

tax breaks to developers for inner-city development

15

Toronto, Canada

Toronto Star

urban sprawl

many oppose inner-city development; want a yard

16

Ventura County, Cal.

L.A. Times

urban sprawl onto farmland

farmers sell development rights (but few takers)

17

Toronto, Canada

Toronto Star

urban sprawl

Ataratiri planned community (rejected by authorities)

18

New York

Newsday

rare plants being lost

preservation in botanical gardens (but cutbacks threaten gardens)

19

Corona, Cal.

L.A. Times

mining clashes with suburbs

compromise seems unlikely

20

Banff, Canada

Calgary Herald

expansion limited by national park

no easy solution

21

Los Angeles, Cal.

L.A. Times

ugliness along highways

put art on billboards

22

Toronto area

Toronto Star

urban sprawl

regional growth plan

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

23

Toronto area

Toronto Star

urban sprawl

concentrate growth in Metro

24

Volusia, Fla.

Orlando Sentinel Tribune

urban sprawl

impact fees

25

Sacramento, Cal.

The Business Journal

urban sprawl

eliminate tract housing; build village-style development

26

Tampa, Fla.

St. Petersburg Times

mass transit problems

land-use planning to discourage urban sprawl

27

Orange County, Cal.

Chicago Tribune

urban sprawl

build more highways, mass transit

28

San Diego, Cal.

San Diego UnionTribune

hunting, fishing area consumed by urban sprawl

build a shooting range

29

Los Angeles area

L.A. Times

sheep ranches lost to urban sprawl

none

30

Lake Calumet, Ill.

Chicago Tribune

location of new airport

Lake Calumet would produce less sprawl than rural sites

31

Napa, Sonoma Valleys

San Francisco Chronicle

loss of farmland

zoning, land trusts

32

North Carolina

Engineering NewsRecord

development of river valleys

management agency caves in to developers, environmentalists say

33

California farmland

San Francisco Chronicle

loss of farmland

strengthen zoning laws

34

Canada

Toronto Star

auto emissions, urban sprawl

consider alternatives to cars

35

Simi Valley, Cal.

L.A. Times, 6/18/92

urban sprawl

city approves development over environmentalistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; objections

36

San Diego County

San Diego UnionTribune

urban sprawl

managed growth turned out to be poorly managed

37

Philadelphia

UPI

urban sprawl, pollution

mass transit

38

Phoenix, Ariz.

Phoenix Gazette

urban sprawl

preserve 5,000 acre wilderness

39

Montreal, Canada

Montreal Gazette

Montreal foots bill for services used by outlying towns

Montreal gets tax dollars from other provincial towns

40

Half Moon Bay, Cal.

San Francisco Chronicle

urban sprawl

city to sue commission for violating growth mgmn't plan

41

King County, Wash.

Seattle Times

growth management plan creates problems for

agricultural zoning is problematic for homeowner refinancing

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population – Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

residents 42

Windermere, Fla.

Orlando Sentinel Tribune

growth management plan disallows mobile homes

conflict between town and regional planners; unresolved

43

New Town, Ariz.

Phoenix Gazette

urban sprawl

city to annex 12,000 acres

44

Greater Toronto

Toronto Star

urban sprawl

student planners propose using bicycles

45

Toronto

Toronto Star

urban sprawl

school construction costs added to home prices, developers angry

46

Seattle, Wash.

Seattle Times

urban sprawl

direct growth into city center

47

New York-New Jersey Highlands

Gannett News Service

woods lost to suburbs

purchase forest land

48

Sudbury, Mass.

Christian Science Monitor

wetlands loss

preservation through land trust

49

Stockton, Cal.

Gannett News Service

urban sprawl

develop 18,000 acres of farmland into five new or expanded cities

50

Seattle, Wash.

Seattle Times

urban sprawl

urban planning

Table 3. Water Shortages Stories that mention human population growth are listed in bold face; all others do not mention population. Affected Town or Area

Source

Solution

1

California

San Francisco Chronicle

free market deregulation

2

Seattle

Seattle Times

new pipeline to Green River

3

Seattle

Seattle Times

possible return of "water police"

4

California

U.S. Newswire

build water pipeline from Alaska

5

Lewiston, Idaho

Lewiston Morning Tribune

invest in water system

6

Ventura, Cal.

L.A. Times

developers want new pipeline

7

California

Reuter’s

establish water bank

8

Tampa, Fla.

St. Petersburg Times

voluntary conservation

9

Pinellas County, Fla.

St. Petersburg Times

tight regulations, $200,000 awareness campaign

10

California

L.A. Times

Sect’y of Interior says limit growth (but not specifically population growth)

11

California coast

PR Newswire

new desalination technology

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

12

Pennsylvania

UPI

water rationing

13

Naperville, Ill.

Chicago Tribune

bring Lake Michigan water to city

14

Brockton, Mass.

Boston Globe

new pipeline to Taunton River

15

Bellevue, Wash.

Seattle Times

conservation measures: low-flow toilets, recycle water

16

Vancouver, Canada

Vancouver Sun

continue conservation

17

Tampa, Fla.

St. Petersburg Times

voluntary conservation

18

New York City

Newsday

three-minute showers

19

Southern California

L.A. Times

desalination of sea water (shown as fraught with environmental problems)

20

Nevada

Greenwire

limit wild horse populations to avert disaster

21

California

UPI

$1.75 billion in bond money for desalination plants

22

Lewiston, Idaho

Lewiston Morning Tribune

conflict between people and salmon for water

23

Sacramento, Cal.

Sacramento Bee

farmers being cut out of water supplies

24

San Diego

San Diego Daily Transcript

desalination

25

Seattle

Seattle Times

landscapers seek exemption from water limits

26

Orange County, Cal.

Orange County Business Journal

use underground water supplies

27

Contra Costa, Cal.

San Francisco Chronicle

rationing

28

California

UPI

link groundwater basins to surface water systems, water bank, water transfers, new water facilities

29

California

Business Wire

new reservoirs, develop water market, planning

30

New York City

New York Times

rationing

31

Central Valley, Cal.

San Francisco Chronicle

better water management

32

California

UPI

new dams

33

Seattle

Seattle Times

"nearly inexhaustible" water may be underground

34

Western U.S.

States News Service

water markets allow farmers to sell water rights

35

Washington, D.C.

Washington Post

xeriscaping

36

California

L.A. Times

Imperial Valley growers asked to cut water use 7%, send to cities

37

Woodsfield, Ohio

PR Newswire

pump out of area lake

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

38

Seattle

Seattle Times

take water from nearby Renton, Wash.

39

Two Florida counties

St. Petersburg Times

media blitz urges voluntary conservation

40

Western U.S.

UPI

House approves $41 million in drought aid

41

California

Orlando Sentinel Tribune

additional storage of recent rain

42

Atlanta

Atlanta Constitution

additional treatment plant allows for more growth

43

Seattle

Seattle Times

mismanagement alleged; more storage and earlier conservation

44

California

Christian Science Monitor

new management plan reapportions water

45

Central Florida

St. Petersburg Times

drought blamed for dropping lake levels

46

Seattle

Seattle Times

water rates to go up, to help renovate system

47

Sacramento

L.A. Times

study blames "gambling" by state and federal officials for water shortage

48

San Diego

San Diego Daily Transcript

better lawn management needed, says sod industry

49

California

Business Wire

water use cutbacks of 30% by industry, employees

50

Northwestern U.S.

UPI

"brown is beautiful, green is greedy" is new motto; shortage blamed on light snowfall

Table 4. Solutions presented in sample I = PAT* solutions presented in Lexis-Nexis sample of environmental coverage. Listed is the number of stories within each problem category that suggests population, consumption or technology solutions. These numbers are followed by strategies typical of each solution category. Solutions Population:

Endangered Species

Urban Sprawl

Water Shortage

Total

0

1

0

1

stabilize population

stabilize population

stabilize population

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

Affluence (consumption):

32 protection by Endangered Species Act, habitat setasides, regulate hunting or fishing or logging

Technology

14 captive breeding, further scientific study, habitat enhancement, regulate pesticides

No solution

4

27 zoning, arbitration, preservation areas, slow-growth regulations

18

77

conserve water by rationing or other means, reallocate water from other sources

14

28

build more highways, mass transit, alternative fuels, new modes of housing

build new dams, wells, pipelines; desalinate sea water; low-flow toilets, recycle water

8

4

56

16

*Environmental Impact (I) = the product of population (P), affluence or consumption level (A), and technology choices (T) [see Ehrlich & Ehrlich (1990), pp. 58-59].

Figure 1. Summary of sample of interviewed journalists

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

b. Problem described in reportage that led to the interview, by region Urban Sprawl

Endangered Species

Water Shortage

Southeast

5

1

1

Northeast

3

0

2

Midwest

0

1

1

Northwest

2

1

2

Southwest

1

4

1

c. Summary of interviewed reportersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; newspapers by circulation size Circulation

Number of interviewed reporters

1. Less than 250,000

9

2. 250,00-500,000

10

3. Greater than 500,000

6

Discussion Although many scientific groups, environmental scientists and even land development experts agree that population growth is a basic cause of environmental change, media framing diverges widely from expert framing. Just over 10% of a Lexis-Nexis sample of environmental news stories links human population growth to the environmental problems it affects. Even more significantly, only one story in a sample of 150 presents the view that limiting population growth might be a solution to environmental problems. From the standpoint of Americans' environmental future, the most damaging stories might be those that mention population growth as a cause of the problem, while ignoring population stability as a solution. Such stories effectively tell the reader: population growth affects environmental degradation, but population stability is too outlandish even to be mentioned as a policy option. Ignoring that a stable population might be a long-term solution to environmental problems, news stories instead direct the public's attention to palliative solutions: build new dams to supply water, zone to prevent urban sprawl, set aside land for endangered species. Given reporters' penchant for proclaiming to "tell both sides," to render all news that's fit to print, to answer who? what? where? when? and why?, this leads naturally to the question: Why do reporters avoid the population issue so steadfastly?

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population – Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

Part II: Why Journalists Avoid Mentioning Population As we have seen, both land development economists and environmental experts acknowledge population growth as a key source of environmental change. But journalists frame environmental causality differently. Why? Communication theory offers several possibilities. First is the hegemony-theory interpretation: reports omit any implication that population growth might produce negative effects, in order to purvey the ideology of elites who make money from population growth. As Molotch and Lester (1974) put it, media content can be viewed as reflecting "the practices of those having the power to determine the experience of others" (p. 120). Since real estate, construction and banking interests directly support the media through advertising purchases, this interpretation seems plausible. A number of media critics (e.g., Gandy, 1982; Altschull, 1984; Bennett, 1988) have suggested that media messages reflect the values of powerful political and commercial interests. Burd (1972), Kaniss (1991) and others have pointed out that newspapers have traditionally promoted population growth in their cities through civic boosterism. Molotch (1976) even suggested that cities can best be understood as entities competing for population growth, with the city newspaper as chief cheerleader. Certainly most reporters would be incensed at the suggestion that they shade their reporting to placate commercial interests. But Breed’s classic study of social control in the newsroom (1955) showed that news managers’ values are transmissible to journalists through a variety of pressures: salaries, story assignments, layout treatment, editing, and a variety of other strategies that effectively shape news stories in ways acceptable to management. Another possible explanation for why journalists omit population growth from their story frame is simple ignorance of other explanations. Journalists who cover environmental issues may not be aware of any other possible ways to frame these stories, thus they derive their framing from other journalists. Journalists frequently read each other’s work and take cues for coverage from other reporters, particularly from the elite media (Reese & Danielian, 1989). Perhaps the pervasive predictability of the story frames examined in the Part I is another example of intermedia influence. On the other hand, it seems difficult to believe that journalists could be ignorant of the role population growth plays in environmental issues, because media coverage frequently ties population growth to housing starts and business expansion. Furthermore, "Why" is one of the five "W’s" taught in every Journalism 101 course. A public affairs reporting textbook, Interpreting Public Issues (Griffin, Molen, Schoenfeld, and Scotton, 1991), admonishes journalists: "A common journalistic mistake is simply to cover events —real or staged— and ignore underlying issues" (p.320). The book identified population trends as one of the "big trouble spots," and listed world population as the first of its "forefront issues in the ’90s" (p. 320). Hence, we cannot say that reporting basic causality is beyond the role that journalists ascribe for themselves. Indeed, a panel at the 1994 Society of Environmental Journalists discussed "Covering Population as a Local Story" (Wheeler, 1994). But ignorance remains a possible reason, for not all reporters have training in environmental issues. A third possible explanation comes from the "Spiral of Silence" theory by German scholar Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (1984):

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population – Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

The fear of isolation seems to be the force that sets the spiral of silence in motion. To run with the pack is a relatively happy state of affairs; but if you can’t, because you won’t share publicly in what seems to be a universally acclaimed conviction, you can at least remain silent, as a second choice, so that others can put up with you. (p. 6) According to Noelle-Neumann, "the media influence the individual perception of what can be said or done without danger of isolation" (p. 156). Media coverage legitimates a given perspective. Lack of media coverage —omitting a perspective consistently from media stories— makes the expression of that perspective socially dangerous. Noelle-Neumann also suggested that the media serve an articulation function: "The media provide people with the words and phrases they can use to defend a point of view. If people find no current, frequently repeated expressions for their point of view, they lapse into silence; they become effectively mute" (p. 173). This description fits the national sample of news stories discussed in Part I of this study. These stories often show a double layer of causal myopia. Not only did the journalists not tell readers that population growth was causing the problem; the people in the stories themselves —the sources quoted by the journalists— seemed unaware that their predicament was exacerbated by expanding population. Both the reporters and their subjects seemed to be spiraling in silence. But why would reporters so consistently avoid mentioning population as a causal factor of environmental degradation? After all, journalists are not engaged in some misanthropic conspiracy to dupe the public. But Americans are extremely sensitive to issues involving reproduction, as the continuing furor over abortion demonstrates. Perhaps journalists consider population growth a taboo topic. Journalists’ sources, taking their cues from media silence about population, steer clear of the issue themselves. In How Do Journalists Think?, Stocking and Gross (1989) offer a cognitive psychology model that suggests that journalists construct hypotheses in pursuing news stories, but that reporters tend to indulge in a host of causal attribution errors. Among these are the tendency to oversimplify, to prefer anecdotal information over more valid statistical information, and the "fundamental attribution error" —the "tendency to weigh personal causal variables more than situational variables" (p.47). Since population growth is a situational force, this model suggests why journalists might attribute urban sprawl to developers rather than to population growth. The shallowness of media coverage has attracted scholarly comment as early as Lippmann (1922), who pointed out that journalists must deal in stereotypes because of deadline pressures and readers’ preference for simplicity. Many other scholars have commented on the shallow, episodic nature of the news. "The news we are given is not fit for a democracy; it is superficial, narrow, stereotypical, propaganda-laden, of little explanatory value, and not geared for critical debate or citizen action," Bennett (1988, p. 9) wrote. Linsky (1988) noted, "The event-orientation of news is a particular problem, for it steers coverage away from ideas and context and does nothing to encourage the drawing of connections between stories" (p. 216). Entman (1989) identified three production biases common to media stories: 1. simplification —audiences prefer the simple to the complex; 2. personalization —individuals cause events rather than institutional, historical or other abstract forces; 3. symbolization —audiences want dramatic action, intriguing personality, and stirring slogans, and the media provide them. Bennett (1988) offered a similar list of weaknesses in media content: emphasis on

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population – Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

people rather than process, and on crisis rather than continuity; isolation of stories from each other, and official assurances of normalcy. In sum, many existing theories can explain the consistent tendency by journalists to avoid mentioning population growth as a source of the problems they cover. Without further evidence, we really cannot tell. Graber has called for more study on the etiology of content: "Why are particular events selected from the large number of events that might be publicized and why are events cast into particular story frames that supply the interpretive background by which the story is judged?" (1989, p. 146). That is the point of Part II of this study: to find out why journalists neglect the causal role of population growth in framing their articles.

Method The researcher conducted telephone depth interviews with 25 journalists at their work site to determine why they had omitted the causal role of population growth from recent stories they had written. These interviews included several questions asked of all respondents, but also asked the interviewees in an open-ended fashion to comment on the role of journalism in providing information about causality in environmental stories. The journalists interviewed represented a purposive sample: writers from U.S. newspapers who had done articles accessible in Lexis-Nexis using the same keyword searches used in Part I of this study (endangered w/2 species, water w/2 shortage, urban w/2 sprawl). All interviewees had written the stories under discussion within the preceding six weeks, and all interviewees had omitted population growth from the story frame. A purposive sample was chosen for several reasons: 

It was necessary to call journalists who had written recently about environmental problems. Journalists are unlikely to be willing or able to discuss details of stories they wrote 18 months ago. Even the current-news library within Lexis-Nexis contains articles so many months old that their details would have been long forgotten by the journalists who produced them. The researcher sought a geographic diversity of reporters. Because California (population 31 million) produces so many stories about environmental degradation, and because California newspapers are well-represented in Lexis-Nexis, a randomized sample would likely have yielded a preponderance of California reporters. A purposive geographic selection of journalists produced a more diverse set of perspectives, since the interviewed reporters should represent different educational backgrounds, social circles and within-state political perspectives. A summary of the geographic origin of the interviewed journalists is provided in Figure 1. This study does not seek to generalize from the sample to the overall population of reporters, as a probability-sample survey would. It seeks psychological depth rather than sociological breadth, by seeking patterns to reporters’ comments about the nature of their work.

As Wimmer and Dominick (1983) suggest in their book on research methods, depth interviews frequently use small purposive samples and nonstandardized interview format. Hence they lack generalizability. But this chapter seeks to glean information about sensitive subjects —possibly, journalistic taboos— and for that purpose depth interviews are ideal.

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population – Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

Interview format In opening the discussion, the researcher identified himself and stated the study was about how journalists depict causality in environmental stories. The researcher assured the journalists that they would not be identified in any report resulting from the study. After mentioning that he had obtained their stories and bylines through a Lexis-Nexis scan, the researcher recounted a few details of each writer’s story to establish common ground with the respondent. The researcher then asked an open-ended question: "What would you say was the cause of [the problem discussed in your story]?" If this answer produced no mention of population, the researcher asked a second open-ended question: "Can you think of any other causes? Perhaps at a deeper level of causation?" If two open-ended questions produced nothing about the causal role of population growth, the researcher volunteered it by saying: "Many environmental writers say that population growth is one of the ultimate causes of environmental problems like [the problem discussed in the story]. Do you think that’s true in your story?" If the journalist agreed that population growth was indeed a causal factor (but had not volunteered such information unaided), this offered two possible interpretations: either the journalist was not well attuned to the environmental effects of population growth, or the journalist felt the subject was too controversial to broach (a spiral of silence effect). Further questioning sought to clarify how the writer stood on the issue. If the writer showed familiarity with the population issue, this was taken as evidence of a spiral of silence effect. If the journalist seemed unaware of a connection between population growth and environmental problems, this was interpreted as lack of knowledge. If the respondent implicated population growth in either open-ended question, or in agreement with the researcher’s suggestion, the researcher then asked: "Would it have been out of place to have mentioned this in your story?" The researcher then sought to determine why the reporter had omitted population growth in framing the story. The researcher also sought the respondent’s views on the populationenvironment connection, and the role of journalism in informing the public of causality in reporting environmental problems. One other standard question for each interview was: "If you had interviewed a source for the story in question, and that source had implicated population growth as a source of the problem, would you have used that quote?"

Results The interviews produced little support for the "ignorance hypothesis" —the possibility that journalists are unaware of the causal role of population growth in precipitating local environmental problems. In response to an open-ended question, eight volunteered that population growth was a source of the problems they wrote about. Eleven more agreed that population was a likely cause, when the researcher offered the idea. These 11 had the benefit of aided recall, but only two of them seemed to be unfamiliar with the populationenvironment connection. Six interviewees discounted that population was a major factor in the problem they had described in their stories —and they were possibly correct, within their immediate environmental context and time frame. Areas with stable or even declining populations can still experience pressure on land and water resources through increased consumption; for example, a large cohort of baby boomers might attain affluence sufficient to build new homes on larger lots or buy second homes.

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population – Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

Generally, though, the surveyed reporters seemed aware of the role that population growth played in precipitating environmental problems. The interviews gave little evidence of any Hegemony Theory effect. That is, reporters made no mention of being influenced by real estate advertisers or other powerful interests. But this is to be expected, since Hegemony Theory postulates that reporters’ obeisance to the dominant ideology is unconscious and unexamined. A study of this nature, which relies on self-reportage of motives, would be unlikely to reveal hegemonic effects. The interviews show some evidence for the "spiral of silence" explanation: many interviewed reporters felt that population is a hot issue, better left unmentioned. Several reporters volunteered this in conversation. One recalled the controversy that ensued when the Philadelphia Enquirer advocated Norplant as a solution for local teen pregnancy, which created charges of racism by area black people. Another reporter admitted of population, "It’s such an incendiary issue. If you say, ‘It all comes down to too many people,’ you’ll have everybody from Operation Rescue to the Catholic Church calling you." Another said, "We as journalists are nervous to discuss population." Another admitted, "Most of us [reporters] wait until somebody says it." In other words, the reporter felt he could not broach the issue in an interview without recriminations. This last statement implies that a spiral of silence is at work. Many journalists interviewed for this study felt the population issue was too controversial for them to bring up in an interview. The media are commonly acknowledged to serve as legitimizers for what can be said safely (Berger and Luckmann, 1966; Gans, 1979; Noelle-Neumann, 1984). But these interviews suggest that reporters themselves are affected by possible negative repercussions from pressure groups. Thus a spiral of silence about population growth may be maintained by determined pronatalists and intimidated journalists. Further evidence of a spiral of silence is the fact that several reporters who did not volunteer population growth as a cause of local problems in response to open-ended questions subsequently admitted deep concern about population. After the researcher broke the silence and mentioned that some environmental writers feel population growth drives environmental problems, many interviewees who had not volunteered such a perspective in an open-ended format voiced similar feelings. One woman reporter mentioned that she had chosen not to have children in part from environmental concerns —yet she did not mention population as an environmental variable when asked an open-ended question. Two other journalists who avoided mentioning population in response to open-ended questions later said they address population every few months in stories. Both were quite familiar with details of the issue. But they didn’t initially volunteer that familiarity to the interviewer. Finally, of course, none of the interviewees had mentioned population in the stories they wrote. Such a discrepancy indicates that reporters aren’t putting all they know about causality into their story frame. As Noelle-Neumann put it, it’s easier to remain silent and run with the pack. But the taboo nature of population growth was not the chief reason journalists mentioned for avoiding the issue in their reportage. Instead, most said population was simply beyond the bounds of their story.

The narrative imperative and causal dissociation

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population – Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

The reason journalists most consistently mentioned for avoiding the population issue was not anticipated in the researcher’s initial series of questions. That is, when asked to comment on why they had omitted population growth from their story, most interviewed journalists said that population growth simply didn’t fit within the event frame that served as their news peg. Many writers (Bennett, 1988; Entman, 1989; Hart, 1987; Gans, 1979) have commented on journalists’ preference for the dramatic over the explanatory, the personal over the situational. Many others have commented on the need for journalism to compress complex reality into narrative form (Darnton, 1975; Paletz, Reichert & McIntyre, 1971). In her study of the sociology of newswork, Tuchman (1978) focused on organizational forces as prime mover of the news product, but she admitted that story forms have considerable power to shape the news: Attributing to news narratives the power to raise certain questions and to ignore others may seem to digress from this book’s argument. Rather than demonstrate that news is a product of specific ways of organizing newswork, it suggests that the formal characteristics of the product of newswork guide inquiry. The power of forms cannot be dismissed. (p. 104) McCartney (1987) even applied a centuries-old typology of fictional conflict situations to journalistic stories, and discovered that many classic conflict forms could be discovered in modern journalistic stories. McCombs, Einsiedel and Weaver (1991) suggested that news is shaped by journalists’ training, by bureaucracies of news organizations, and also by "the traditions of journalism as a genre of mass communication" (p. 26). They added that structural biases "arise from the very nature of journalistic reporting and writing. The narrative styles of journalism shape the configuration of facts reported in the news" (p. 30). They added, "To a considerable degree, what each reporter sees is framed by the genre in which he or she writes" (p. 34). This narrative imperative of news pushes an invisible, slow, impersonal social force like population growth out of the story frame. If they ascribe blame for, say, urban sprawl, journalists tend to blame visible, personal causes —e.g., land developers— without ever questioning the social and economic forces that make it profitable for land developers to replace forest with suburb. If they ascribe blame for water shortages, journalists tend to blame Mother Nature: when will the drought end? The working principles of storytelling create causal myopia in news stories. Daily events reporting must have a news peg, an event that gives the writer premise for writing the story. In terms of space and time, the story must be framed fairly tightly around the event. Reporters cannot "go global" with a local story, for their space is limited in column inches to tell the story. Many of the interviewed reporters commented on this limitation when discussing their role as local journalists. Each of the following comments is from a different journalist: 

"When you come to something like population growth, it’s difficult for a community to say, ‘We want to take on population growth.’ I was staying close to the event. If it were a big feature on what [my area] is going through, then it would make sense to discuss population." "My story was more of a historical piece [on how a small community had changed]. For that approach [a discussion of population growth] wouldn’t have worked."

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population – Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

    

 

  

"Often daily journalism doesn’t include the broad context; you find that in the op-ed pages. Journalists are self-conscious about appearing intellectual; they don’t want to appear self-indulgent." "It’s difficult to think you’re going to have a forum as a local reporter to talk about a global issue like population." "The press tends to be crisis-oriented and has a hard time getting a handle on issues that are big." "I don’t think globally when I write a story; I think, ‘what do the people in this town want to know about?’" "It’s not journalists who are the problem [for omitting causality]. It’s the editors. They don’t want us to challenge the reader with unpopular ideas." "It is the role of journalists to include population growth as a source of problems. But on a daily story, you can practically never do that. On a daily story, it’s almost impossible. If I were to try, my editor would probably want me to spend more time defining terms, and we don’t have space for that." "Population doesn’t ring a bell with me in the realm of causality. Maybe on the global picture, but in terms of a developer putting in a golf course, no." "I’ve got 20 inches to explain why a garter snake is endangered. There’s no room for population growth in the story. Sometimes I write about population in general terms." "Population is beyond this story as far as I have learned. We sometimes address the population issue on its own terms." "The global perspective is not out of line, it’s just not what got me into this story. This was more about politics than the environment." "[Mentioning population] probably requires a look at the bigger picture, a more national scope. As [newspaper] space becomes constricted overnight and editors were looking for places to cut, [population] would be the first thing to go." "The immediate problem was the drought. They [local officials] were just waiting to see what happened. Population didn’t play into that story. We cover fires, basically. You come back later on —about once every six months— and say, here’s the trend. But you’ve got so many other topics." "Population as a topic is not a taboo; we have done stories on population in the past. It is a matter of stopping to think about it when you write a story. This [story in question] was written in about an hour on a laptop in my kitchen about 10 p. m., and it’s not one of my best efforts." "I don’t know that you can get [population] into the story. There are space limitations and the conventions of journalism are such that you have to keep your paragraphs germane to one another. If you’re talking about wildlife habitat and then all of a sudden you’re talking about world population growth, you’ve gotta explain to an editor how you got there and use a lot of paragraphs to do that." "Maybe Americans have a reluctance to talk about [population]. I don’t know when, if ever, they’ll be ready. Maybe the next generation will actually bring up population as a topic for discussion."

The implications are clear from these quotes. Local journalism cannot easily connect community events to slow, impersonal national or global causes. Even those interviewed journalists who were very savvy on environmental issues, who were very aware of the effects of population growth, admitted that including it in event-driven stories is frequently impossible. Space limitations are always a concern, and editors don’t tolerate journalists’ straying too far from the story line.

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population – Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

Although depth interviews lack generalizability, they are indeed useful in exploring sensitive issues of journalists’ motivation and intention. Naturally, self-reporting cannot capture all of journalists’ reasons for why they frame stories in a given manner. People cannot verbalize every motive for what they do. But the interviewed journalists showed considerable consensus in suggesting that population growth is too broad to fit in a story framed tightly around a local environmental problem. Most respondents were acutely aware of the boundaries separating local and national reporting, and what this means for the work they do. Taking a national perspective on a controversy over a local land development would be seen as egotistical, intellectual, and beyond the journalist’s job description. However, despite the forces constraining journalists from mentioning population growth, environmentalists may have an opportunity to affect causal framing of environmental problems. When asked whether they would use a quote connecting environmental problems to population growth, if their sources offered such a perspective, 16 journalists interviewed for this study indicated they would. Five said they would probably not include such a perspective, and four were unsure, allowing that their framing would depend on the context of the story. This means that environmentalists have the opportunity to break the media’s silence about population and help connect population growth to the problems it causes, if they will take the initiative to raise the subject with journalists who cover local environmental issues. Environmentalists should understand that most reporters do not consider it their role to broach the population issue. As one interviewed journalist admitted of the population connection, "Most of us [reporters] wait until somebody says it." Another reporter said, "If someone were intelligent enough to mention population, I would mention it [in the story]." Yet another comment was, "Unless the journalist runs across the right expert who says, ‘It’s population,’ the tendency is not to put it in [the story], unless you’ve been assigned to write a major series." However, as one interviewed reporter commented, "No one ever mentions population growth as a source of the problem." Another said, "No one has talked about limiting demand [for housing]. Officials in these small towns are pretty shortsighted."

Discussion In thousands of communities across America, population growth is wreaking changes: a mobile home park displaces an orchard, a farmer loses his water rights to a city hundreds of miles away, an endangered reptile’s last known habitat is threatened by a subdivision. These and countless other population-influenced disruptions reduce wildlife habitat, rural solitude, water availability, and many other environmental qualities. But this study shows that only one news story in 10 connects these events to population growth. This study suggests that the working principles of journalistic storytelling create a vast causal dissociation when the news media report population-driven environmental problems. Local media can cover local environmental degradation, but cannot connect these problems to population growth because, in part, reporters and their sources feel that population growth can only addressed at the national level. National media can address the population issue, but national reporters can’t peg a story on population to local events that, from a national perspective, seem trivial. Why would Newsweek readers in Iowa or Oregon want to know about population-driven water rationing

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population – Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

in a suburb of San Diego, or a protested land development north of Atlanta? And on the other hand, why would a borough of Boston want to address national population growth as an issue? From a systems theory perspective, the information feedback loop that connects the microcosm to the macrocosm is broken in the news we get. A spiral of silence also seems to affect journalists’ framing of population-driven environmental problems. Most journalists interviewed in this study knew population growth affects the environment they cover, but they were reluctant to mention population either in their stories or in the interviews that formed the basis for this chapter. Reporters know the controversial nature of population growth, and would rather avoid the issue than mention it —even in questioning sources for their stories. This study suggests that, from an agenda-setting perspective, the narrative imperative of newswriting keeps issues like population off the agenda. Frequency of mention by the media is the chief means by which an issue asserts itself into the public consciousness (McCombs and Shaw, 1977). But even though population growth causes or exacerbates uncountably frequent events that lower the quality of most Americans’ lives, reporters don’t mention this. They can’t connect event to ultimate cause in daily events reporting, and this effectively keeps the cause off the agenda and out of public consciousness. If, as one interviewed reporter suggested, reporters "cover fires" for six months, then write a single "trend story" that connects the events to causes, this pattern likely keeps population low on the agenda, because an isolated trend story is unlikely to have much effect on public consciousness. McCombs and Shaw (1977) note that the media serve a useful function by setting the agenda: Both by deliberate winnowing and by inadvertent agenda-setting the mass media help society achieve consensus on which concerns and interests should be translated into public issues and opinion. (pp. 151-152) But the agenda-setting process seems useful only if we consider what the media do place on the agenda. This study shows that agenda-setting may have a dark side, when we consider what the media do not cover. To generalize from this study, it seems likely the media have a blind spot regarding the basic layers of multilayered causality. The deep causes that drive daily events remain off the agenda. Certainly this is the case with population growth, but such causal dissociation may keep many other deep-seated causes of social problems off the agenda. Although scholars have not satisfactorily tied the media agenda and public opinion to the policy agenda (Borquez, 1993), many scholars have agreed that the media are very important for determining what does not get on the policy agenda. Spitzer (1993) noted: "The scope of the conflict determines the outcome...more than any other single force in national politics, the media control the scope of politics." In a similar vein Kingdon (1973) said: "In addition to noting how important the media are in bringing subjects, facts, and interpretations to congressmen, it is also important to mention that the media also play some part in determining which pieces of information will not be brought to congressmen." And indeed, recent U.S. policy on population is pronatalist (Abernethy, 1993). Although in 1996 Congress took measures to reduce immigration, it did so primarily for economic and social reasons, rather than out of concern for the environment. That same Congress dramatically reduced U.S. funding for worldwide family planning programs.

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population – Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

Many environmentalists are frustrated by the low salience Americans give the population issue. Deploring the "primitive stage" of U.S. public opinion on population, Grant (1992, p. 231) characterizes U.S. political discourse as "the kingdom of the deaf" (p. 239). Part I of this study shows that the American public is not deaf; but in the news they read Americans simply have little to hear that explains the environmental costs of population growth. Wellknown population researcher Paul Ehrlich has written that a "conspiracy of silence" keeps humanity from taking action on population (1989). Part II of this study shows that journalists are engaged in no conspiracy; they are simply keeping within the storytelling bounds of their craft, framing their coverage of environmental issues narrowly with regard to space and time. Interviewed journalists feel that a limited newshole keeps them from connecting local environmental problems to global causes like population growth. They also know that reproductive matters are a hot button with some readers, and steer clear of the issue if they can. But population must become more salient if future generations are to enjoy the quality of life we now know. A number of scholars conversant with sustainable levels of agricultural and energy output recently estimated an optimum population for the United States (Pimentel and Pimentel, 1992; Costanza, 1992; Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1992; Werbos, 1992). The highest estimates were below current population levels; several low estimates were for a population of less than 100 million. Meanwhile the population of the United States is 265 million and is growing about 1 percent a year. Walter Lippmann (1922) distinguished news from truth: The function of news is to signalize an event, the function of truth is to bring to light the hidden facts, to set them into relation with each other, and make a picture of reality on which men can act (p. 226). This study shows how and why we are letting signalized events, rather than truth, set the agenda for our demographic and environmental future. References Abernethy, V. (1993). Population politics: The choices that shape our future. New York: Plenum Press. Altschull, J. H. (1984). Agents of power: The role of the news media in human affairs. New York: Longman. Bailey, K. D. (1990). From Poet to Pistol: Reflections on the ecological complex. Sociological Inquiry 60 (4): 386-394. Bailey, R. (1993). Eco-Scam: The false prophets of ecological apocalypse. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Bennett, W. L. (1988). News: The politics of illusion. New York: Longman. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Anchor Books. Borquez, J. (1993). Newsmaking and policymaking: Steps toward a dialogue. In R. Spitzer (Ed.), Media and public policy. Westport, CT: Praeger. Breed, W. (1955, May). Social control in the newsroom. Social Forces, 326-335. Burd, G. (1972, April-May). The civic superlative: We’re no. 1. The press as civic cheerleader. Twin Cities Journalism Review 1. Cobleigh, I. (1971). All about investing in real estate securities. New York: Weybright and Talley. Cohen, B. C. (1963). The press and foreign policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. (1972). Population and the American future. New York: New American Library.

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population – Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

Commoner, B. (1990). Making peace with the planet. New York: Pantheon Books. Costanza, R.(1992). Balancing humans in the biosphere. In L. Grant (Ed.), Elephants in the Volkswagen: Facing tough questions about our overcrowded country (pp. 50-59). New York: W. H. Freeman. Council on Environmental Quality. (1976). Environmental Quality–1976. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Quoted in R. Jackson. (1981). Land use in America (p. 129). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Crossette, B. (1995, February 5). U.N. meeting plans to discuss crisis in world food supply. The New York Times, p. 12. Darnton, R. (1975). Writing news and telling stories. Daedalus, 104 (2), 175-194. Detjen, J. (1992, Nov. 19). Scientists: Earth near danger level. Knight-Ridder News Service, quoted in Austin American Statesman, p. A6. Edelman, M. J. (1993). Contestable categories and public opinion. Political Communication, 10 (3), 231242. Ehrlich, P. (1968). The population bomb. New York: Ballantine Books. Ehrlich, P. (1989, Winter). Speaking out on overpopulation: A conspiracy of silence is limiting action on the world’s most basic environmental problem. Issues in Science and Technology, 5 (2), 36-37. Ehrlich, P., & Ehrlich, A. (1990). The population explosion. New York: Simon & Schuster. Ehrlich, P., & Ehrlich, A. (1992). The most overpopulated nation. In L. Grant (Ed.), Elephants in the Volkswagen: Facing tough questions about our overcrowded country (pp. 125-133). New York: W. H. Freeman. Entman, R. (1989). Democracy without citizens. New York: Oxford University Press. Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43 (4), 51-58. Gans, H. (1979). Deciding what’s news. New York: Vintage Books. Gandy, O. (1982). Beyond agenda-setting. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Goodkin, L. (1974). When real estate and home building become big business: Mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures. Boston: Cahners Books. Graber, D. (1989). Content and meaning: What’s it all about? American Behavioral Scientist, 33 (2), 144152. Griffin, R., & Molen, D., & Schoenfeld, C., & Scotton, J. (1991). Interpreting public issues. Ames: University of Iowa Press. Harrison, P. (1992). The third revolution. London: I. B. Tauris. Hart, R. (1987). The sound of leadership: Presidential communication in the modern age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Homer-Dixon, T., & Boutwell, J., & Rathjens, G. (1993). Environmental change and violent conflict: Growing scarcities of renewable resources can contribute to social instability and civil strife. Scientific American, 268 (2), pp. 38-45. Hovland, C. I., & Lumsdaine, A. A., & Sheffield, F. D. (1965). Experiments on mass communication. New York: Hohn Wiley. Howell, D. (1992). Scientific literacy and environmental policy: The missing prerequisite for sound decision making. New York: Quorum Books. Hueber, G. (1991, April). Americans report high levels of environmental concern, activity. The Gallup Poll Monthly, pp. 6-7. Iyengar, S. (1989). How citizens think about national issues: A matter of responsibility. American Journal of Political Science, 33 (4), 878-900. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jackson, R. (1981). Land use in America. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population – Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

Kaniss, P. (1991). Making local news. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kingdon, J. (1973). Congressmen’s voting decisions. New York: Harper & Row. Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1968). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. (3rd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. Linsky, M. (1988). The media and public deliberation. In R. Reich (Ed.), The power of public ideas (pp. 205-228). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Macmillan. McCartney, H. (1987, Spring). Applying fiction conflict situations to analysis of news stories. Journalism Quarterly, 64, 163-170. McCombs, M., & Einsiedel, E. & Weaver, D. (1991). Contemporary public opinion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, pp. 176-185. McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1977). Agenda-setting and the political process. In D. Shaw & M. McCombs (Eds.), The emergence of American political issues: The agenda-setting function of the press (pp. 149156). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing. McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1993). The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication, 43(2), 58-68. McMahan, J. (1976). Property development: Effective decision making in uncertain times. New York: McGraw-Hill. Molotch, H. (1976). The city as growth machine: Toward a political economy of place. American Journal of Sociology, 82 (2), 309-332. Molotch, H., & Lester, W. (1974). News as purposive behavior. American Sociological Review, 39, 101-122. Myers, N. (1991). Population, resources, and the environment: The critical challenges. New York: United Nations Population Fund. Newport, F., & Saad, L. (1992, May). Public support mixed for U.S. efforts to curb world overpopulation. The Gallup Poll Monthly, 320, 34-41. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1984). The spiral of silence : Public opinion, our social skin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Orians, C. E., & Skumanich, M. (1995). The population-environment connection :What does it mean for environmental policy? (Report issued under contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830). Washington, DC: Futures Studies Unit, Environmental Protection Agency. Paletz, D., & Reichert, P., & McIntyre, B. (1971). How the media support local governmental authority. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80-92. Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. (1993, January-March). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10 (1), 55-75. Pew Global Stewardship Initiative. (1993). Report of findings from focus groups on population, consumption, and the environment. Washington, DC: Belden & Russonello Research and Communications. Pimentel, D., & Pimentel, M. (1992). Land, energy, and water: The constraints governing ideal U.S. population size. In L. Grant (Ed.), Elephants in the Volkswagen: Facing tough questions about our overcrowded country (pp. 18-31). New York: W. H. Freeman. Postel, S. (1993). Facing water scarcity. In L. Starke (Ed.), State of the world, 1993 (pp. 22-41). New York: W.W. Norton. Reese, S., & Danielian, L. (1989). Intermedia influence and the drug issue: Converging on cocaine. In P. Shoemaker (Ed.), Communication campaigns about drugs. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rogers, E., & Dearing, J., & Bregman, D. (1993). The anatomy of agenda-setting research. Journal of Communication, 43 (2), 68-85. Royal Society and National Academy of Sciences. (1992). The Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences on population growth and sustainability. Population and Development Review 18 (2), 375-378. Sears, P. (1956). The process of environmental change by man. Originally published in W. E. Thomas (Ed.),

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher

Manâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role in changing the face of the Earth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reprinted in R. L. Smith (Ed.). (1972). The ecology of man: An ecosystems approach (pp. 129-138). New York: Harper & Row. Simon, J. (1981). The ultimate resource. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Simon, J. (1990). Population matters. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Spitzer, R. (Ed.). (1993). Media and public policy. Westport, CT: Praeger. Stocking, H., & P. Gross, (1989). How do journalists think? A proposal for the study of cognitive bias in newsmaking. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills. Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: The Free Press. Ward, B., & Dubos, R. (1972). Only one Earth. New York: W. W. Norton. Wenk, Jr., E. (1986). Tradeoffs: Imperatives of choice in a high-tech world. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Werbos, P. (1992). Energy and population: Transitional issues and eventual limits. In L. Grant (Ed.), Elephants in the Volkswagen: Facing tough questions about our overcrowded country (pp. 32-49). New York: W. H. Freeman. Wheeler, T. (Speaker/Moderator). (1994). Covering population as a local story (Cassette tape 5, Society of Environmental Journalists Fourth National Conference). Sylva, NC: Goodkind of Sound. Wimmer, R., & Dominick, J. (1983). Mass media research: An introduction (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Source: www.mnforsustain.org/maher_michael_t_how_and_why_journalists_avoid_pop.htm


Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee Communication ACCC/C/2013/82: Johnstone v. Norway1

Annexure “D” Every Child Increases a Woman’s Carbon Footprint by a factor of 20: A woman can reduce her carbon footprint 19 times more by having one fewer child than by all other energy efficiency actions the E.P.A. suggests combined: Paul A. Murtaugh, Michael G. Schlax (2009): Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals2; Global Environmental Change, 19 (2009) pp. 14-20

1 2

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/unece-aarhus-comp-comm.html http://blog.oregonlive.com/environment_impact/2009/07/carbon%20legacy.pdf


Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 14–20

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Environmental Change journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha

Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals Paul A. Murtaugh a,*, Michael G. Schlax b a b

Department of Statistics, Oregon State University, 44 Kidder Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 23 April 2008 Received in revised form 16 October 2008 Accepted 30 October 2008

Much attention has been paid to the ways that people’s home energy use, travel, food choices and other routine activities affect their emissions of carbon dioxide and, ultimately, their contributions to global warming. However, the reproductive choices of an individual are rarely incorporated into calculations of his personal impact on the environment. Here we estimate the extra emissions of fossil carbon dioxide that an average individual causes when he or she chooses to have children. The summed emissions of a person’s descendants, weighted by their relatedness to him, may far exceed the lifetime emissions produced by the original parent. Under current conditions in the United States, for example, each child adds about 9441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average female, which is 5.7 times her lifetime emissions. A person’s reproductive choices must be considered along with his day-today activities when assessing his ultimate impact on the global environment. ß 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Carbon dioxide emissions Carbon footprint Demography Fertility Global climate change

1. Introduction Much attention has been paid to the ways that people’s home energy use, travel, food choices and other routine activities affect their personal emissions of carbon dioxide and, ultimately, their potential contributions to global warming (O’Neill and Chen, 2002; Bastianoni et al., 2004; Bin and Dowlatabadi, 2005; Vandenbergh and Steinemann, 2007; Wei et al., 2007). For example, a variety of ‘‘carbon calculators’’ allows individuals to estimate their lifetime emissions of greenhouse gases (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007). While population growth is obviously a key component of projections of carbon emissions at a global level (Dyson, 2005; Harte, 2007; IPCC, 2007), there has been relatively little emphasis on the environmental consequences of the reproductive choices of an individual person. Obviously, the choice to reproduce contributes to future environmental impacts. There are the immediate effects caused by each offspring over his or her lifetime (Hall et al., 1994), but, should the offspring reproduce, additional impacts could potentially accrue over many future generations. Some authors have discussed the ‘‘externalities’’ of childbearing (i.e., the consequences of an individual’s reproduction that are borne by society, rather than the individual himself), focusing on the costs of abatement of the impacts caused by the individual’s descendants (Cline, 1992; O’Neill et al., 2001). For example, O’Neill and Wexler (2000) consider emission scenarios that lead to

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 541 207 8255; fax: +1 541 737 3489. E-mail address: murtaugh@science.oregonstate.edu (P.A. Murtaugh). 0959-3780/$ – see front matter ß 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.007

particular stabilization concentrations of CO2, and they model the abatement costs incurred by the addition of a single individual (and his or her descendants) to the population. We explore the effects of an individual’s reproductive behavior by tracing a single female’s genetic contribution to future generations and weighting her descendants’ impacts by their relatedness to her. We apply this approach to emissions of fossil carbon dioxide with the goal of quantifying the carbon legacy of an individual and examining how it is affected by the individual’s reproductive choices. 2. The carbon legacy of an individual Our basic premise is that a person is responsible for the carbon emissions of his descendants, weighted by their relatedness to him. For a descendant that is n generations removed from the focal individual, the weight is ð1=2Þn . So, for example, a mother and father are each responsible for one half of the emissions of their offspring, and 1/4 of the emissions of their grandchildren. Fig. 1 illustrates this simple idea. We will refer to the weights that indicate the relatedness of a descendant to the initial parent as ‘‘genetic units’’. The fractional genetic unit represented by a particular descendant can be thought of as the proportion of the ancestor’s genes (or alleles) that are shared with the descendant, or the ‘‘percentage of blood’’ that the two have in common (Lush, 1994). At any calendar date, the persistence of a lineage can be quantified as the number of genetic units represented by members of the lineage who are alive at that time. If we integrate the number of genetic units over time, we obtain an estimate of the total


P.A. Murtaugh, M.G. Schlax / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 14–20

15

3. Approaches to estimating the carbon legacy We calculated trajectories of genetic units vs. time for genetic lineages of in each of the 11 most populous countries in the world, listed in Table 1. We used two approaches, one based on a simple analytical model and one involving numerical simulation. 3.1. Analytical model

Fig. 1. Illustration of the propagation of genetic units in a family tree. Circles indicate females, and squares indicate males. The original female has one daughter and one son, each of whom also has one daughter and one son. The blackened areas indicate the number of genetic units (a total of 1 in each generation in this example).

number of person years that are traceable to the original parent (see Fig. 2). If we integrate the product of the number of genetic units and the per-capita rate of carbon emissions over time, we obtain an estimate of the total emissions attributable to the ancestor, or her carbon legacy. Our goal is to quantify the consequences of the childbearing decisions of an individual. The appeal of our weighting scheme is that it provides an accounting of the extent to which a parent’s genetic material propagates through subsequent generations, and it allows the emissions of any individual to be unambiguously traced back and ‘‘assigned’’ to ancestors from any preceding generation. For example, the responsibility for the rightmost male in the bottom line of Fig. 1 lies, in 1/4 portions, with his maternal and paternal grandparents (only one of which, the maternal grandmother, is shown in the figure). Depending on one’s view of whether, and how, future environmental impacts of an individual’s descendants should be discounted, other weighting schemes are possible. O’Neill and Wexler (2000), for example, quantify the expected effect of one additional birth by following his or her descendants, but without adjusting for relatedness (see their Equation A22).

We first develop a simple model of the propagation of family trees that provides a conceptual basis for the simulations that we used to generate the numerical results presented here. The model is developed fully in Appendix A.1; an abbreviated explanation follows. We start with a single female born at time t 0 ¼ 0 (generation 0), and assume that all reproduction occurs in pulses at times t 1 , t 2 , t 3 , where t k  t k1 ¼ t 1 is the generation time, i.e., the mean of the ages at which females give birth. If we assume that males and females are born at the same rate (see Appendix A.1.1), then the expected number of children produced per female at time t k is 2  Rðt k Þ, where Rðt k Þ is the net reproductive rate, i.e., the average number of daughters a woman would be expected to have if she were subject to the fertility and mortality rates prevailing in the population. We assume that all members of the family tree, male and female, pair with members of the opposite sex from outside the tree, so that the reproductive rate of 2  Rðt k Þ is applied to males as well as females within the tree. As explained earlier, an individual of generation k, born at time t k , represents ð1=2Þk genetic units, reflecting his relatedness to the ancestral female. We assume further that the survival of all individuals follows a distribution characterized by the survivor function, SðtÞ, defined as the probability that an individual lives to at least age t. It can then be shown (Appendix A.1) that the expected number of genetic units alive at time tk is 0 1 k i X Y @ Sðt k  t i Þ  Rðt j ÞA; E½Gðt k Þ ¼ E½Bðt 0 Þ  Sðt k  t 0 Þ þ E½Bðt 0 Þ  i¼1

j¼1

(1) where E½Bðt 0 Þ is the expected number of births at time t 0 , equal to one (the ancestral female). Following the pulse of births at time t k , mortality erodes the number of individuals, and genetic units, until the next pulse of

Table 1 Average person years associated with lineages in the world’s eleven most populous countries, using medium-variant fertility projections. The initial parent contributes the number of years constituting his life expectancy. The last column is an estimate of the person years added to the ancestor’s legacy for each child that he has, assuming his descendants survive and reproduce at the rates prevailing in the country. Fertility values are for 2005 (United Nations Population Division, 2007). The countries are listed in order of 2005 population; the abbreviations are as used in Fig. 7.

Fig. 2. Calculating person years for a genetic lineage. Upper: a hypothetical lineage starting with an individual born at time 0, who has two children and one grandchild (dots represent birth times, X’s indicate death times). Lower: the number of genetic units alive vs. time. The grey area gives the total person years attributable to the ancestral individual.

Country (abbreviation)

Fertility (children woman1)

Average person years Ancestor’s life

Added per child

China (C) India (Ia) United States (US) Indonesia (Io) Brazil (Br) Pakistan (P) Bangladesh (Ba) Russia (R) Nigeria (N) Japan (J) Mexico (M)

1.73 2.81 2.05 2.18 2.25 3.52 2.83 1.34 5.32 1.27 2.21

74.9 63.8 80.2 68.6 74.8 63.4 62.8 72.9 48.8 85.6 76.3

341 161 470 244 373 268 201 212 136 211 332


16

P.A. Murtaugh, M.G. Schlax / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 14–20

reproduction, at time t kþ1 . Appendix A.1 gives expressions for a piecewise-linear model of this jagged trajectory of E½GðtÞ vs t. The area under a plot of E½GðtÞ vs. t gives an estimate of the total person years attributable to the ancestral female. If HðtÞ is the percapita rate of carbon emissions at time t (mass per person per year), the area under a plot of E½GðtÞ  HðtÞ vs. t provides an estimate of the total carbon emissions for which the ancestor is responsible.

2007). These projections assume a convergence of fertility in all countries to 1.85 children per woman by 2050. In 2005, world emissions of CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels were 28.1 billion metric tons, or 4.31 metric tons (t) per person per year, assuming a global population of 6.51 billion (Energy Information Administration, 2008). Three scenarios of future carbon emissions were considered for the 11 countries focused on in this paper:

3.2. Simulations

1. Optimistic: Each country’s per capita emission rate changes linearly from its 2005 value to a global target of 0.5 t CO2 per person per year by 2100, and emissions continue at that rate indefinitely. A set of aggressive emission-reduction scenarios summarized by the IPCC (2007; Category III in Fig. 3.17) shows, on average, about an 85% reduction in global emissions between 2000 and 2100. Adjusting for a projected population size of 9.1 billion in 2100 (United Nations, 2004), this translates into a reduction in per capita emissions from 4.31 t CO2 in 2005 to about 0.5 t CO2 per person per year in 2100. This is an extremely ambitious target: emissions in Africa, which includes 34 of the 50 ‘‘least developed’’ countries in the world (United Nations Population Division, 2007), were roughly 1.2 t CO2 per person per year in 2005. 2. Constant: Per capita emission rates remain indefinitely at their 2005 values. This scenario does not capture what most experts believe will be an increase in worldwide emissions in the first part of the twenty-first century (IPCC, 2007; van Vuuren et al., 2007; Energy Information Administration, 2008), and it posits long-term emission rates that are probably not sustainable, at least for the more developed countries. Nevertheless, we often use the constant-emission scenario as a reference, since it is intermediate between the other two scenarios. 3. Pessimistic: Each country’s per capita emission rate increases linearly from its 2005 value to 1.5 times its 2005 value by 2100, and emissions continue at that rate indefinitely. The median global emission rate in a set of ‘‘business as usual’’ scenarios summarized by the IPCC (2007; Fig. 3.8) was 60 Gt CO2 per year in 2100. Assuming a world population of 9.1 billion in 2100, this translates into a roughly 50% increase in the global per capita emission rate between 2000 and 2100.

The simulations expand on the analytical model by allowing the births and deaths of individuals to be stochastic, i.e., to occur at other than set time points. This allows more realistic modeling of carbon legacies and gives an idea of how variable those legacies are among individuals. Following lineages that include both males and females is computationally prohibitive. It turns out that the number of genetic units (of both sexes) attributable to an ancestral female is, on average, simply the number of females comprising an unbroken lineage of females descending from the ancestor (see Appendix A.2 for details). If we integrate the number of living females over time, we obtain an estimate of the total number of person years, male and female, that are traceable to the ancestral female. Lineages were simulated with the following steps, implemented as a recursive algorithm in R (R Development Core Team, 2005): 1. Each lineage starts with a single female whose death time is chosen randomly, based on life tables for her home country (World Health Organization, 2007). A potential number of children is generated randomly from a Poisson distribution having a mean equal to the total fertility. Age-specific fertility schedules for the country (United Nations Population Division, 2007) are then used to generate the birth times and sexes of the potential children. Finally, these birth times are compared to the female’s death time to determine how many (if any) births are actually attributed to her. 2. If there are female offspring, each daughter’s lifetime and reproduction are simulated as done for the original female. 3. This continues until the lineage dies out, i.e., until all of the females having a direct path of female progenitors tracing back to the ancestor have perished. Some lineages persist indefinitely, in which case a pre-specified time limit terminates the simulation. 4. Each lineage is summarized as a trajectory of genetic units vs. time. As explained earlier, the number of genetic units at a particular time is estimated as the number of descendants alive at that time, assuming we are following females only. Integration of the number of genetic units over time gives the person years attributable to the ancestor. If the number of genetic units at each time is multiplied by the prevailing percapita rate of CO2 emissions, the integral of that quantity vs. time gives an estimate of the total CO2 emissions attributable to the ancestral female.

Each set of simulations followed 10,000 female-only lineages subject to particular schedules of fertility and per-capita rates of carbon emissions, described in the next section. 3.3. Demographic and carbon-emission scenarios The United Nations’ ‘‘medium variant’’ projections of total fertility were used throughout (United Nations Population Division,

For Bangladesh, with an extremely low per capita emission rate in 2005 (0.27 t person1 year1), the optimistic limit was set at 0.27 and the pessimistic limit at 0.5 t person1 year1. 4. Results and discussion 4.1. Genetic units and person years Fig. 3 shows trajectories of average genetic units vs. time for lineages under scenarios of constant fertility (fixed at the 2005 value of 2.05 children per woman) and medium-variant fertility in the United States. As in the example of the U.S., any country having net reproductive rate exceeding one daughter per woman (roughly corresponding to fertility exceeding two) will have lineages with exponentially increasing person years, unless fertility decreases in the future. Even under the medium-fertility variant, with fertility decreasing to 1.85 children per woman by 2025, the average lineage still has nearly one genetic unit alive four centuries after the birth of the ancestral individual (Fig. 3). As shown in Fig. 4, the distributions of both the duration and number of person years associated with simulated lineages can be extremely skewed. For the United States, under the scenario of medium-variant fertility, the median duration of female-only lineages is 111 years, and the mean is 168 years. The median


P.A. Murtaugh, M.G. Schlax / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 14–20

Fig. 3. For the United States, average number of genetic units vs. year, under constant and medium-variant fertility assumptions, in 10,000 simulated lineages. The starting individual’s number of children is generated from the 2005 fertility rate.

number of person years per lineage (171) is less than 20% of the mean (921). Fig. 5 shows trajectories of person years vs. time in the United States, for ancestral females that are constrained to have exactly 0, 1, 2 or 3 children, with all descendants then reproducing according to the medium-variant fertility scenario. A female bearing no children contributes, on average, a number of person years equal to the life expectancy of females in that country — this is the area under the curve corresponding to no children. Each child adds to the total person years attributable to the original female, manifested in increasing heights and skewness of the trajectories in Fig. 5.

17

Fig. 5. Persistence of genetic lineages in the United States as a function of number of children produced by the initial parent, assuming that reproduction of descendants follows medium-variant projections of fertility. Each curve represents averaged results from 10,000 simulated lineages; the curves are labeled by the number of children. The area under each curve, extended to infinity, is the average number of person years attributable to an ancestor having the corresponding number of children.

Table 1 summarizes demographic characteristics of family trees simulated for the world’s 11 most populous countries, including the United States, assuming that the initial parent has exactly one child. That child, and all of his descendants, then reproduce according to the medium-variant fertility schedule for the home country. The single child adds from 136 (Nigeria) to 470 (U.S.) person years to the ancestor’s legacy. The ratios of the additional person years to the life expectancy of the ancestor (fourth divided by third columns) range from 2.5 (Japan) to 5.9 (United States). 4.2. Carbon emissions Fig. 6 shows trajectories of average emission rates for lineages in the United States under the three different emission scenarios. The choice of scenario has an enormous effect, leading to a wide range of projected carbon contributions. This is dissatisfying, but it reflects the large variability and volatility of projections of the world’s emissions, even over the next century (IPCC, 2007).

Fig. 4. For 10,000 simulations for the United States with medium-variant fertility, distributions of the durations of lineages (upper) and the total person years associated with lineages (lower). About 0.8% of the durations exceeded 1000 years, and 7% of the areas exceeded 3000 person years.

Fig. 6. For the United States with medium-variant fertility rates, average CO2 emission rates attributable to the initial parent, under optimistic, constant and optimistic projections of per capita emissions. The area under each curve, extended to infinity, is the average mass of CO2 for which the ancestor is responsible. The number of children borne by the initial parent follows the 2005 fertility rate.


P.A. Murtaugh, M.G. Schlax / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 14–20

18

Table 3 For the United States, lifetime emissions of CO2 that are saved by different actions, based on the EPA’s Personal Emissions Calculator (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007), and average emissions caused by having one additional child, from Table 2. Totals were obtained by multiplying the EPA’s annual figures by 80, the current life expectancy of a female in the United States. Action

Fig. 7. Average carbon legacies (log scale) with medium-variant fertility rates for the constant-emission scenario (+), with a vertical line connecting the estimates for the optimistic and pessimistic emission scenarios. The number of children borne by the ancestral female follows the 2005 fertility rate in her home country.

Fig. 7 presents average carbon legacies for the 11 most populous countries in the world, with ranges corresponding to the different emission scenarios. Each legacy is the sum of the lifetime emissions of the ancestral female subject to the 2005 fertility rate, plus the weighted emissions of her descendants, assuming all future reproduction follows the medium-variant projection of fertility for her home country. The range of values is enormous: under the constant-emission scenario, the legacy of a United States female (18,500 t) is two orders of magnitude greater that of a female from Bangladesh (136 t). From the point of view of this paper, which focuses on the consequences of an individual’s reproductive behavior, it is useful to compare the carbon emissions added per child, rather than the emissions of females having the average number of children, among the different countries. Table 2 summarizes this metric for the 11 countries, assuming medium-variant fertility projections. Under the constant-emission scenario, the average emissions added by having a single child range from 56 t (Bangladesh) to 9441 t (United States). The ratios of the added emissions per child to the ancestor’s expected emissions range from 2.4 (Japan) to 5.7 (United States). 4.3. General discussion Table 3 compares the emissions attributable to an individual’s reproduction to the emissions that are avoidable through changes Table 2 Per capita emissions of fossil CO2, average emissions for an individual born in 2005, and average emissions added to the individual’s carbon legacy for each child produced. Estimates are from simulations assuming medium-variant fertility projections and the constant emission scenario (per capita rates fixed at their 2005 values). In parentheses are estimates based on the optimistic and pessimistic projections of per capita emissions. Country (abbreviation)

Per capita emissions (t person1 year1)

Average emissions (t) Ancestor’s life

Added per child

China (C) India (Ia) United States (US) Indonesia (Io) Brazil (Br) Pakistan (P) Bangladesh (Ba) Russia (R) Nigeria (N) Japan (J) Mexico (M)

3.62 1.05 20.18 1.29 1.83 0.67 0.27 11.70 0.75 9.91 3.67

311 (183, 383) 70 (52, 85) 1644 (883, 2030) 110 (76, 135) 148 (97, 182) 50 (42, 61) 18 (18, 24) 883 (492, 1082) 41 (34, 51) 840 (453, 1047) 291 (172, 360)

1384 (228, 2023) 171 (87, 231) 9441 (562, 12730) 380 (143, 627) 721 (207, 1006) 205 (128, 273) 56 (56, 94) 2498 (295, 3497) 110 (73, 157) 2026 (233, 2829) 1241 (222, 1800)

Increase car’s fuel economy from 20 to 30 mpg Reduce miles driven from 231 to 155 per week Replace single-glazed windows with energy-efficient windows Replace ten 75-w incandescent bulbs with 25-w energy-efficient lights Replace old refrigerator with energy-efficient model Recycle newspaper, magazines, glass, plastic, aluminum, and steel cans Reduce number of children by one Constant-emission scenario Optimistic scenario Pessimistic scenario a

CO2 saved (metric tons a) 148 147 121 36 19 17

9,441 562 12,730

One metric ton equals 2205 pounds.

in household activities and transportation during the individual’s lifetime. Clearly, the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle. For example, a woman in the United States who adopted the six non-reproductive changes in Table 3 would save about 486 tons of CO2 emissions during her lifetime, but, if she were to have two children, this would eventually add nearly 40 times that amount of CO2 (18,882 t) to the earth’s atmosphere. This is not to say that lifestyle changes are unimportant; in fact, they are essential, since immediate reductions in emissions worldwide are needed to limit the damaging effects of climate change that are already being documented (Kerr, 2007; Moriarty and Honnery, 2008). The amplifying effect of an individual’s reproduction documented here implies that such lifestyle changes must propagate through future generations in order to be fully effective, and that enormous future benefits can be gained by immediate changes in reproductive behavior. It is important to remember that these analyses focus on the carbon legacies of individuals, not populations. For example, under the constant-emission scenario, an extra child born to a woman in the United States ultimately increases her carbon legacy by an amount (9441 metric tons) that is nearly seven times the analagous quantity for a woman in China (1384 tons), but, because of China’s enormous population size, its total carbon emissions currently exceed those of the United States (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2008). Clearly, an individual’s reproductive choices can have a dramatic effect on the total carbon emissions ultimately attributable to his or her genetic lineage. Understanding the ways that an individual’s daily activities influence emissions and explain the huge disparities in per capita emissions among countries (Table 1) is obviously essential, but ignoring the consequences of reproduction can lead to serious underestimation of an individual’s long-term impact on the global environment. Acknowledgments We are grateful to three anonymous reviewers who identified a key shortcoming of an earlier version of our paper and offered many constructive suggestions for improvements. M.S. was supported by NASA through contract 1206715 administered by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.


P.A. Murtaugh, M.G. Schlax / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 14–20

Appendix A

Then

A.1. The analytical model

E½Nðt k Þ ¼

k k X X E½N ki  ¼ E½Bðt i Þ  Sðt k  t i Þ ¼ E½Bðt 0 Þ  Sðt k  t 0 Þ i¼0

A.1.1. General assumptions We start with a single female born at time t 0 ¼ 0, and assume that all reproduction occurs in pulses at multiples of the generation time, t 1 (the mean of the ages at which females give birth), so that the members of generation k are born at time t k and t k  t k1 ¼ t 1 . In the tree of relatives descending from the ancestral female, assume that each descendant pairs with a person from outside the tree. We express reproduction in terms of RðtÞ, the net reproductive rate at calendar time t, i.e., the average number of daughters produced per woman, assuming she is subject to the prevailing fertility and mortality rates. Since each male in the tree is paired with a female from outside the tree, RðtÞ in this context can be thought of as the average number of daughters per member of the tree, male or female. Because data on age-specific fertility obviously pertain to females, we use data on survivorship and life expectancy for females only. We assume a 1:1 sex ratio at birth, even though there is in fact a slight excess of male births worldwide (James, 1987). Error introduced by this assumption is small when compared to the uncertainty in estimates of other key demographic parameters and considered in the context of the simplified models used in our analyses. A.1.2. Births Assume that the only births in generation k are to parents born in generation k  1. Let Y ki denote the random variable for the number of children (of both sexes) born to parent i in generation k. The expected value of Y ki is 2  Rðt k Þ. Let Bðt k Þ denote the number of births in generation k. We have Bðt 0 Þ ¼ 1 (the ancestral female), and Bðt k Þ ¼

Bðt k1 Þ X

Y ki

for k  1:

i¼1

The conditional expected value is E½Bðt k Þ j Bðt k1 Þ ¼ bðt k1 Þ ¼

bðt k1 Þ X

EðY ki Þ ¼ bðt k1 Þ  2Rðt k Þ:

This in turn has expectation for k  1:

Expanding this recursive relationship, we obtain k Y Rðt i Þ E½Bðt k Þ ¼ E½Bðt 0 Þ  2k 

for k  1:

(2)

A.1.3. Survival To calculate Nðt k Þ, the total number of individuals alive at time t k , we need to model the survival of individuals born at times t k1 ; t k2 ; . . . Let N ki be the number of individuals born at t i who survive to time t k (k > i). Then k X Nðt k Þ ¼ Nki : i¼0

Nki can be thought of as the number of ‘‘successes’’ (survival to time t k ) out of Bðt i Þ ‘‘trials’’ (individuals born at time t i ). Given a particular value of Bðt i Þ, Nki has a binomial distribution with probability Sðt k  t i Þ, where SðtÞ is the survivor function at t, i.e., the probability that an individual survives to at least age t:

E½Nki j Bðt i Þ ¼ bðt i Þ ¼ bðt i Þ  Sðt k  t i Þ E½Nki  ¼ E½Bðt i Þ  Sðt k  t i Þ:

i¼1

(4)

j¼1

using Eq. (2). A.1.4. Genetic units and carbon emissions Since each member of generation i represents ð1=2Þi genetic units, the expected number of genetic units alive at time t k is  i k X 1 E½Gðt k Þ ¼ E½Bðt 0 Þ  Sðt k  t 0 Þ þ E½Bðt 0 Þ  Sðt k  t i Þ   2i  2 i¼1 0 1 i k Y X @ Rðt j ÞA ¼ E½Bðt 0 Þ  Sðt k  t 0 Þ þ E½Bðt 0 Þ  Sðt k  t i Þ 0 @

j¼1

i¼1

1

i Y Rðt j ÞA:

(5)

j¼1

Eq. (5) gives the expected number of genetic units alive immediately after the pulse of births at time t k . Just before t k , we have  k 1 ; E½Gðtk Þ ¼ E½Gðt k Þ  E½Bðt k Þ  2 where E½Bðt k Þ is obtained from Eq. (2). This yields a jagged trajectory of E½GðtÞvs. t, reflecting discrete pulses of reproduction followed by periods of gradual mortality. If we integrate under a piecewise linear plot of E½GðtÞ vs t, for t ¼ t 0 ; t1 ; t 1 ; t2 ; t 2 ; . . ., we obtain an estimate of the total person years attributable to the ancestral individual. If we integrate under a plot of E½GðtÞ  HðtÞ, where HðtÞ is the per-capita rate of carbon emissions at time t (mass per person per year), we obtain an estimate of the total carbon emissions for which the ancestor is ‘‘responsible’’.

A.2. Female-only lineages: a shortcut for the simulations

i¼1

½Nki j Bðt i Þ ¼ bðt i Þ  Binomial ½bðt i Þ; Sðt k  t i Þ

i¼0

0 1 k i Y X i@ E½Bðt 0 Þ  2 Rðt j ÞASðt k  t i Þ; þ

This analytical model gives numerical results that are very close to those obtained from the simulations. For example, for the constantemission values presented in Fig. 7, the mean absolute deviation of the model predictions from the simulation-based results is 1.9% (range 0.3–6.4%).

i¼1

E½Bðt k Þ ¼ 2Rðt k Þ  E½Bðt k1 Þ

19

so that

and (3)

Suppose we follow only female descendants, denoting the number of females at time t k as N f ðt k Þ. The expected number of daughters per female is the net reproductive rate, Rðt k Þ. Following the same logic that led to Eq. (4), but replacing 2Rðt j Þ by Rðt j Þ, we can write: 0 1 k i X Y E½N f ðt k Þ ¼ E½Bðt 0 Þ  Sðt k  t 0 Þ þ E½Bðt 0 Þ  Sðt k  t i Þ  @ Rðt j ÞA; i¼1

j¼1

(6) which is identical to the expression in Eq. (5) for E½Gðt k Þ, the expected number of genetic units alive at t k . Consequently, in simulations we can greatly reduce the number of computations by following female-only lineages, yet still obtain an unbiased estimate of the number of genetic units of both sexes that are alive at any time. References Bastianoni, S., Pulselli, F.M., Tiezzi, E., 2004. The problem of assigning responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions. Ecological Economics 49, 253–257. Bin, S., Dowlatabadi, H., 2005. Consumer lifestyle approach to US energy use and the related CO2 emissions. Energy Policy 33, 197–208.


20

P.A. Murtaugh, M.G. Schlax / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 14–20

Cline, W.R., 1992. The Economics of Global Warming. Institute for International Economics, Washington, D.C. Dyson, T., 2005. On development, demography and climate change: the end of the world as we know it? Population and Environment 27, 117–149. Energy Information Administration, 2008. International Energy Outlook 2008. Report #DOE/EIA-0484(2008). Available from: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ ieo/index.html. Hall, C.A.S., Pontius, R.G., Coleman, L., Ko Jr., J.-Y., 1994. The environmental consequences of having a baby in the United States. Population and Environment 15, 505–524. Harte, J., 2007. Human population as a dynamic factor in environmental degradation. Population and Environment 28, 223–236. IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation; Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Available from: http:// www.ipcc.ch. James, W.H., 1987. The human sex ratio. Part 1. A review of the literature. Human Biology 59, 721–752. Kerr, R.A., 2007. How urgent is climate change? Science 318, 1230–1231. Lush, J.L., 1994. The Genetics of Populations. Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, College of Agriculture, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. Moriarty, P., Honnery, D., 2008. Mitigating greenhouse: limited time, limited options. Energy Policy 36, 1251–1256. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2008. Global CO2 emissions: increase continued in 2007. Technical Report, Den Hague, Netherlands. Available from: http://www.mnp.nl/en/publications/2008/GlobalCO2emis sionsthrough2007.html. O’Neill, B.C., Chen, B.S., 2002. Demographic determinants of household energy use in the United States. In: Population and Environment, Methods of Analysis. Population and Development Review 28(Suppl.), 53–88.

O’Neill, B.C., MacKellar, F.L., Lutz, W., 2001. Population and Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. O’Neill, B.C., Wexler, L., 2000. The greenhouse externality to childbearing: a sensitivity analysis. Climatic Change 47, 283–324. R Development Core Team, 2005. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available from: http://www.R-project.org, ISBN 3-900051-07-0. United Nations, 2004. World population to 2300. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, United Nations, N.Y. Available from: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300fi nal.pdf. United Nations Population Division, 2007. World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision. Available from: http://www.un.org/popin/functional/popula tion.html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. Climate Change – Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Individual Emissions. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/climate change/emissions/individual.html. Vandenbergh, M.P., Steinemann, A.C., December 2007. The carbon-neutral individual. New York University Law Review 82 . van Vuuren, D.P., den Elzen, M.G.J., Lucas, P.L., Eickhout, B., Strengers, B.J., van Ruijven, B., Wonink, S., van Houdt, R., 2007. Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Climatic Change 81, 119–159. Wei, Y.-M., Liu, L.-C., Fan, Y., Wu, G., 2007. The impact of lifestyle on energy use and CO2 emission: An empirical analysis of China’s residents. Energy Policy 35, 247–257. World Health Organization, 2007. Data and Statistics. Available from: http:// www.who.int/research/en.


Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee Communication ACCC/C/2013/82: Johnstone v. Norway1

Annexure “E” Only Civilization Collapse will prevent runaway global climate change: Industrial Civilization/Consumption Developmentism as ‘Heat Engine’ Root cause of Scarcity-Conflict Climate Change-National Security Impending Near-term Extinction reality. University of Utah (22 Nov 2009): Is Global Warming Unstoppable?: Theory also says Energy Conservation doesn't help2. Timothy J. Garrett (Nov. 2009), Are there basic physical constraints on future anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide?3; Climatic Change

1

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/unece-aarhus-comp-comm.html http://unews.utah.edu/news_releases/is-global-warming-unstoppable/ 3 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-009-9717-9 2


A-Z Index Directory Map Events Employment search SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

HOME

BUSINESS & SOCIETY

LAW & POLITICS

ARTS & HUMANITIES

HEALTH & MEDICINE

CAMPUS LIFE

FOR MEDIA

Campus Life from the U

Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

Join the Conversation

THEORY ALSO SAYS ENERGY CONSERVATION DOESN&#38;#039;T HELP Like

Share

61 people like this. Sign Up to see what your friends like.

Media Contacts

Search the Archives

Tweet

Nov. 22, 2009 – In a provocative new study, a University of Utah scientist argues that rising carbon dioxide emissions – the major cause of global warming – cannot be stabilized unless the world’s economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day.

type keywords Year Category

Month Submit

“It looks unlikely that there will be any substantial near-term departure from recently observed acceleration in carbon dioxide emission rates,” says the new paper by Tim Garrett, an associate professor of atmospheric sciences. Garrett’s study was panned by some economists and rejected by several journals before acceptance by Climatic Change, a journal edited by renowned Stanford University climate scientist Stephen Schneider. The study will be published online this week. The study – which is based on the concept that physics can be used to characterize the evolution of civilization – indicates: Energy conservation or efficiency doesn’t really save energy, but instead spurs economic growth and accelerated energy consumption. Throughout history, a simple physical “constant” – an unchanging mathematical value – links global energy use to the world’s accumulated economic productivity, adjusted for inflation. So it isn’t necessary to consider population growth and standard of living in predicting society’s future energy consumption and resulting carbon dioxide emissions. “Stabilization of carbon dioxide emissions at current rates will require approximately 300 gigawatts of new non-carbon-dioxide-emitting power production capacity annually – approximately one new nuclear power plant (or equivalent) per day,” Garrett says. “Physically, there are no other options without killing the economy.” Getting Heat for Viewing Civilization as a “Heat Engine” Garrett says colleagues generally support his theory, while some economists are critical. One economist, who reviewed the study, wrote: “I am afraid the author will need to study harder before he can contribute.” “I’m not an economist, and I am approaching the economy as a physics problem,” Garrett says. “I end up with a global economic growth model different than they have.” Garrett treats civilization like a “heat engine” that “consumes energy and does ‘work’ in the form of economic production, which then spurs it to consume more energy,” he says. “If society consumed no energy, civilization would be worthless,” he adds. “It is only by consuming energy that civilization is able to maintain the activities that give it economic value. This means that if we ever start to run out of energy, then the value of civilization is going to fall and even collapse absent discovery of new energy sources.” Garrett says his study’s key finding “is that accumulated economic production over the course of history has been tied to the rate of energy consumption at a global level through a constant factor.” That “constant” is 9.7 (plus or minus 0.3) milliwatts per inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar. So if you look at economic and energy production at any specific time in history, “each inflationadjusted 1990 dollar would be supported by 9.7 milliwatts of primary energy consumption,” Garrett says. Garrett tested his theory and found this constant relationship between energy use and economic production at any given time by using United Nations statistics for global GDP (gross domestic product), U.S. Department of Energy data on global energy consumption during1970-2005, and previous studies that estimated global economic production as long as converted by Web2PDFConvert.com


during1970-2005, and previous studies that estimated global economic production as long as 2,000 years ago. Then he investigated the implications for carbon dioxide emissions. “Economists think you need population and standard of living to estimate productivity,” he says. “In my model, all you need to know is how fast energy consumption is rising. The reason why is because there is this link between the economy and rates of energy consumption, and it’s just a constant factor.” Garrett adds: “By finding this constant factor, the problem of [forecasting] global economic growth is dramatically simpler. There is no need to consider population growth and changes in standard of living because they are marching to the tune of the availability of energy supplies.” To Garrett, that means the acceleration of carbon dioxide emissions is unlikely to change soon because our energy use today is tied to society’s past economic productivity. “Viewed from this perspective, civilization evolves in a spontaneous feedback loop maintained only by energy consumption and incorporation of environmental matter,” Garrett says. It is like a child that “grows by consuming food, and when the child grows, it is able to consume more food, which enables it to grow more.” Is Meaningful Energy Conservation Impossible? Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett’s theory is that conserving energy doesn’t reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use. “Making civilization more energy efficient simply allows it to grow faster and consume more energy,” says Garrett. He says the idea that resource conservation accelerates resource consumption – known as Jevons paradox – was proposed in the 1865 book “The Coal Question” by William Stanley Jevons, who noted that coal prices fell and coal consumption soared after improvements in steam engine efficiency. So is Garrett arguing that conserving energy doesn’t matter? “I’m just saying it’s not really possible to conserve energy in a meaningful way because the current rate of energy consumption is determined by the unchangeable past of economic production. If it feels good to conserve energy, that is fine, but there shouldn’t be any pretense that it will make a difference.” Yet, Garrett says his findings contradict his own previously held beliefs about conservation, and he continues to ride a bike or bus to work, line dry family clothing and use a push lawnmower. An Inevitable Future for Carbon Dioxide Emissions? Garrett says often-discussed strategies for slowing carbon dioxide emissions and global warming include mention increased energy efficiency, reduced population growth and a switch to power sources that don’t emit carbon dioxide, including nuclear, wind and solar energy and underground storage of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning. Another strategy is rarely mentioned: a decreased standard of living, which would occur if energy supplies ran short and the economy collapsed, he adds. “Fundamentally, I believe the system is deterministic,” says Garrett. “Changes in population and standard of living are only a function of the current energy efficiency. That leaves only switching to a non-carbon-dioxide-emitting power source as an available option.” “The problem is that, in order to stabilize emissions, not even reduce them, we have to switch to non-carbonized energy sources at a rate about 2.1 percent per year. That comes out to almost one new nuclear power plant per day.” “If society invests sufficient resources into alternative and new, non-carbon energy supplies, then perhaps it can continue growing without increasing global warming,” Garrett says. Does Garrett fear global warming deniers will use his work to justify inaction? “No,” he says. “Ultimately, it’s not clear that policy decisions have the capacity to change the future course of civilization.”

Media Contacts For This Story Tim Garrett associate professor of atmospheric sciences

Office Phone: (801) 581-5768 Email address: tim.garrett@utah.edu

Lee J. Siegel science news specialist, University of Utah Communications

Office Phone: 801-581-8993 Cell Phone: 801-244-5399 Email address: lee.siegel@utah.edu

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com


Previous Story

U News Archives

Social Media

Next Story

Campus Information

News from the U on Twitter

Community Forum

The University of Utah on Twitter

FYI Faculty/Staff Newsletter

Events at the U on Twitter

EVENTS May 13 | Summer Institute on Teaching Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Students

KUED

May 13 | Critical Infrastructure Town Hall Meeting

KUER

May 14 | Summer Institute on Teaching Linguistically and Culturally Diverse

RedThread: The U's blog

K-UTE

Students

The University of Utah on Facebook

The Daily Utah Chronicle

May 14 | Non-Credit Letterpress

The University of Utah on YouTube

U of U Facts Veterans Day Commemoration

The University of Utah on Vimeo

VISIT EVENTS WEBSITE

University Marketing & Communications

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH PUBLIC RELATIONS

201 PRESIDENTS CIRCLE ROOM 308, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84112

Š2013 THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH

CONTACT

DISCLAIMER

801-585-9244

FAX 801-585-3350

PRIVACY

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com


Climatic Change (2011) 104:437–455 DOI 10.1007/s10584-009-9717-9

Are there basic physical constraints on future anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide? Timothy J. Garrett

Received: 12 November 2008 / Accepted: 27 August 2009 / Published online: 21 November 2009 © The Author(s) 2009. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract Global Circulation Models (GCMs) provide projections for future climate warming using a wide variety of highly sophisticated anthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios as input, each based on the evolution of four emissions “drivers”: population p, standard of living g, energy productivity (or efficiency) f and energy carbonization c (IPCC WG III 2007). The range of scenarios considered is extremely broad, however, and this is a primary source of forecast uncertainty (Stott and Kettleborough, Nature 416:723–725, 2002). Here, it is shown both theoretically and observationally how the evolution of the human system can be considered from a surprisingly simple thermodynamic perspective in which it is unnecessary to explicitly model two of the emissions drivers: population and standard of living. Specifically, the human system grows through a self-perpetuating feedback loop in which the consumption rate of primary energy resources stays tied to the historical accumulation of global economic production—or p × g—through a time-independent factor of 9.7 ± 0.3 mW per inflation-adjusted 1990 US dollar. This important constraint, and the fact that f and c have historically varied rather slowly, points towards substantially narrowed visions of future emissions scenarios for implementation in GCMs.

1 Introduction GCM projections of 21st century climate change use prognostic trajectories for carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emission fluxes developed by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (IPCC WG

T. J. Garrett (B) Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA e-mail: tim.garrett@utah.edu


438

Climatic Change (2011) 104:437–455

III 2007). These provide a range of timelines, each designed to show how a given set of decisions might correspond to a particular atmospheric CO2 trajectory. SRES models are highly sophisticated, and contain numerous interactive components, each designed to reflect a realistic range of societal dynamic behavior. For tractability, IPCC SRES models express the primary drivers of growth in CO2 emissions E in terms of human population p, rates of primary energy consumption a and real (or inflation-adjusted) economic production P through E = p × g × i × c where g = P/ p represents the real economic production per person and i = 1/ f = a/P represents the “energy intensity” of real economic production, or alternatively, the inverse of its “energy productivity” f , and c = E/a the carbonization of the energy supply (Nakicenovic 2004). Expressed in a prognostic form, emissions grow at a rate given by (Nakicenovic 2004; Raupach et al. 2007) d ln E d ln p d ln g d ln f d ln c = + − + dt dt dt dt dt

(1)

Differences among SRES emissions trajectories depend on how society is assumed to manage such issues as population control, energy efficiency, and a switch to nonCO2 emitting energy resources. Currently, the range of possible futures considered is extremely broad. In fact, uncertainty in the degree of surface warming over the next century is determined as much by the range of SRES scenarios as by climate physics itself (Stott and Kettleborough 2002). In this paper I propose that by using a straight-forward thermodynamic approach it may be possible to substantially constrain plausible timelines for future anthropogenic CO2 emission rates.

2 A thermodynamic growth model 2.1 A heat engine The starting point is recognition that general thermodynamic laws require that all systems, even those that are living, evolve through a spontaneous conversion of environmental potential energy into some less available form, often termed “heat” (Schrödinger 1944; de Groot and Mazur 1984; Vermeij 1995; Kleidon 2004). Specifically, consider a system drawn in Fig. 1 consisting of some entity and its environment, separated by some arbitrarily defined permeable interface at a fixed temperature Ts and pressure p (i.e., at constant energy density or an isentrope). As a whole, the system is in contact (through radiation, convection or conduction) with colder, lower energy density surroundings at temperature T < Ts . The interface between the entity and the environment represents a “step”, with its height represented by a Gibbs energy potential G. Available potential energy in the environment is converted at rate a = αG into some unavailable form through the transfer of matter across the interface. The system-specific constant coefficient α is an intensive quantity that defines the particular physics of “availability” for the system.1

take an electrostatic analogue, G is a voltage difference, a a current, and 1/α is the resistance, in which case the relevant physics defining “availability” of energy is the material’s conductivity.

1 To


Climatic Change (2011) 104:437–455

439

Fig. 1 Illustration of an evolving system bounding some entity and its environment, as separated by a permeable interface at constant temperature and pressure. The interface maintains an energy potential G (Ts , p) so that the system as a whole is able to convert available energy at rate a into work w with efficiency ε = w/a, and “heat” at rate a − w. Heat is voided to the system’s colder surroundings; work grows the interface at rate w = d(G)/dt. Because the interface potential is related to energy consumption through a = αG, where α is an engine specific constant coefficient, what is defined is a positive feedback loop in which, through work, a and G evolve logarithmically at rate d ln a/dt = d ln (G) /dt = η = εα. Here η can be considered a feedback efficiency or rate of return

Effectively, the system operates as a form of “heat engine”. The familiar textbook heat engine has the engine consume energy at rate a to do “work” at rate w to contribute to the potential of some outside agency while releasing waste “heat” at rate a − w (Zemanksy and Dittman 1997). While the definition of work is clear for an industrial steam engine raising the gravitational potential of a steel beam, for example, the choice of what qualifies as work is quite subjective. In fact, all energy transfers a act to increase the potential of something. Work is simply the raised potential of interest. Heat is the remainder. With reference to Fig. 1, work is subjectively defined with respect to the internal energy potential G of the interface separating the environment and the entity. Thus, through consumption of available energy at rate a, the value of G evolves at rate w = dG/dt with heat engine efficiency ε = w/a. Meanwhile, heat is lost spontaneously to the colder surroundings at rate a − w. The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires that heat production a − w > 0, in which case ε must be less than unity. Thus, the existence of a potential difference G between the entity and its environment entails decay of the available potential of the universe as a whole (or equivalently, an increase in its entropy) (Zemanksy and Dittman 1997). The advantage of the above thermodynamic setup is that it allows for spontaneous evolution of the entity, and, as will be shown, it can be applied more specifically to the evolution of civilization. Because work is internal, a feedback loop causes the interface to exponentially grow or decay: the existence of G requires energy consumption at rate a = αG; in turn, this corresponds to work being done at rate w = εa, which then adds to the internal potential at rate dG/dt = w, closing the loop. If work increases the magnitude of G, then the interface separating the entity


440

Climatic Change (2011) 104:437–455

and its environment bootstraps itself to a higher level. Then the system as a whole evolves to higher levels of energy consumption a through d(G) da =α = αw = αεa ≡ ηa dt dt

(2)

where η is effectively a “rate of return” representing the efficiency of the feedback on energy consumption a. Note that, perhaps counter-intuitively, higher energy efficiency ε corresponds to higher values of η, and therefore more rapidly exponential evolution of energy consumption a and heat production a − w. In Appendix A, the nature of the feedback efficiency η is defined more precisely. It is shown that the interface G can be separated into n˘ material units, each associated with the same potential energy at fixed temperature and pressure of μ. G results in a flow of material across the interface at rate dn/dt = a/μ. If the net flow is from the environment to the entity, a portion of material that diffuses across the interface at rate dn/dt then contributes to interface growth at ˘ rate dn/dt. The feedback efficiency η is the logarithmic form for this material rate of growth η=

d ln n˘ dt

(3)

A concrete example that might be particularly easy to relate to is the growth of a young child. As an entity, the child consumes the accessible energy contained in food from the environment in proportion to some measure of the child’s size. This rate of consumption a = αG—perhaps about 50 W—enables the child to do “work” at rate w = dG/dt with energy efficiency ε = w/a, incorporating the water and nutrients contained in food into its structure in order to extend the material interface n˘ separating it from its environment. The child maintains homeostasis because “heat” can eventually radiate to space at rate a − w at a relatively cold planetary blackbody temperature of about 255 K. Material waste is also produced once the useful chemical potential of the nutrition has been extracted, for example as carbohydrates are converted to exhaled CO2 . Through a feedback loop, if w > 0, the child and its energy consumption grow logarithmically at a rate η = d ln a/dt. Of course, in an energy poor environment there might not be sufficient nutrition, in which case w < 0 and the feedback efficiency η is negative. But, assuming the child reaches adulthood, growth tends towards a balance between energy consumption and heat production, and η tends to zero.

3 Analog for the economic growth of civilization and its CO2 emissions The argument now is that the thermodynamic growth model described above, just as it can be applied to a child’s growth, can also be extended to the human system in its entirety, as defined by civilization and its known environmental reservoirs. As with the child, an interface potential G between civilization and its primary energy resources enables energy to be consumed at rate a. This allows work to be done with efficiency ε and at rate w to grow the interface potential G through incorporation of environmental matter (e.g., biomass and minerals). Simultaneously, through convection and radiation, heat is lost to space at rate a − w at the


Climatic Change (2011) 104:437–455

441

planetary blackbody temperature. Also, unused material waste accumulates in the environment. Of course, for civilization, “food” includes the chemical and nuclear bonds in oil, coal and uranium, combined with mineral matter from the Earth’s crust. These build structures that include not just human bones, flesh, blood and nerves, but cities, roads, shipping and telecommunications. However, insofar as the thermodynamics is concerned, the difference between the child and civilization is really only a matter of complexity and scale. In either case, as part of a single energy-consuming organism, all organism elements contribute to an interface with environmental reservoirs that enables net available energy transfer to the organism at rate a. While a precise definition of civilization is arbitrary, civilization is most commonly quantified in purely fiscal terms. Thus, the goal here is to examine whether it is possible to link fiscal quantities to the more thermodynamic model defined above. To this end, an argument can be made that, if what physically distinguishes civilization from its environment is some thermodynamic potential G at constant temperature and pressure, civilization implicitly assigns inflation-adjusted (or real) monetary value to what G enables—the total rate of energy consumption a. To borrow a phrase, “money is power” because, if all current exothermic processes supporting civilization were to suddenly cease such that a equalled zero, all civilization would become worthless; it would no longer be associated with a non-equilibrium level of potential energy G = a/α. Simply, there would be no definable material interface n˘ between civilization and its environment. As an example, the potential energy in oil combustion is valuable, but only to the extent it that it can interact with the interface separating civilization from its environment. It has zero value if it burns wastefully in the desert, and zero value in its unavailable chemical and nuclear bonds. From society’s perspective, any societal element, whether living or synthetic, only has value to the extent it is able to operate in synergy with all other elements to define an interface with environmental available energy. An unavailable road from nowhere to nowhere is just pavement on the ground. But the same road between two cities is part of a larger organism that works collectively at net rate w to grow access to the primary energy supplies that civilization requires. The mathematical expression of the above argument is that global primary energy consumption a is related to global value C through a constant factor λ a = λC

(4)

Thus, the economic representation of the evolving heat engine given by Eq. 2 is dC 1 da α d(G) α η = = = w= a dt λ dt λ dt λ λ

(5)

or in purely economic terms P≡

dC = ηC dt

(6)

where, C (units real economic value) grows through the real (inflation-adjusted) economic production rate P (units real economic value per year). The thermodynamic feedback efficiency η is an economic rate of return on C.


442

Climatic Change (2011) 104:437–455

Equation 5 implies that real economic production P is, perhaps rather intuitively, only a measure of thermodynamic work w through coefficient α/λ. Expressed in integral form   t    α t    C (t) = P t dt = w t dt (7) λ 0 0 Thus, this growth model is a statement that the rate of return (or feedback efficiency) η = αε on economic value C is a consequence of doing thermodynamic work w with efficiency ε to grow the interface between civilization and environmental resources. By growing the interface, civilization is able to draw more energy a, and do more work w, thereby closing the loop. Now, returning to frameworks for CO2 emissions forecasts, the SRES definition for energy productivity f = P/a can be understood in light of the above. If Eq. 2 is combined with Eqs. 5 and 6, this yields the basic relations η = P/C = αε = λ f

(8)

Therefore, energy productivity f = P/a is related to the heat engine thermodynamic efficiency ε = w/a and a fiscal expression for the feedback efficiency η = P/C through the fixed, intrinsic quantities α and λ. A schematic illustrating the economic growth model is shown in Fig. 2. A discussion of how it relates to more orthodox economic approaches is contained in Appendix B, where it is shown how such traditional economic concepts as inflation, savings and capital depreciation can be interpreted within a thermodynamic context. A straightforward consequence of Eqs. 5 and 6 is that the rate of growth of the global economy obeys the simple relation d ln P d ln η =η+ dt dt

(9)

Fig. 2 Schematic extending Fig. 1 to relate the rate of energy consumption a by the human system to economic value C and CO2 emissions E. Black arrows point in the direction of the product, red arrows in the direction of the integral over time. Work is done at rate w to enable energy consumption a to grow at rate da/dt = ηa, where η is the feedback efficiency of a heat engine representing the system. The economy has a fixed relationship to energy consumption through a = λC, where C is civilization’s historical accumulation of real (inflation-adjusted) economic production of economic value P = dC/dt (units currency), and λ is an intrinsic constant of proportionality. Thus, CO2 t   emissions are related to economic production through E = λc 0 P t dt , where c is the carbon content of energy in the fuel supply


Climatic Change (2011) 104:437–455

443

Interestingly, the approach is of identical mathematical form to one often used to successfully model growth of vegetation, where vegetative “value” C refers not to money but instead to biomass, and P to the net primary productivity (Thornley and Johnson 1990; Montieth 2000). Presumably, biological organisms must also maintain a high potential interface with respect to their environment, enabling them to consume energy, produce heat and waste, and do work to incorporate the matter that enables them to grow (Vermeij 1995). Thermodynamic laws are fully general. A difference between plants and civilization is that plant waste includes CO2 that is recyclable, whereas the global economy creates most CO2 from fossil-carbon, much of which accumulates in the atmosphere. From Fig. 2, CO2 emissions can be represented simply through  t   E (t) = λcC = λc P t dt (10) 0

Present-day emissions are determined by past accumulation of real economic production and the current carbonization of the energy supply. Current emissions growth rates are given by d ln c d ln E =η+ dt dt

(11)

Equation 11 is more simple and physical than the expression for drivers in SRES forecasts given by Eq. 1.

4 Evaluation The preceding discussion argues for a direct theoretical link between anthropogenic emissions and basic thermodynamics. But is the argument observationally supported? The expression for emissions growth, Eq. 11, rests on the premise that there exists an intrinsic quantity λ representing how the historical accumulation of economic production C is supported by a rate of energy consumption a (Eq. 4). If λ is not constant with time, then the thermodynamic framework is false. I examine this proposition now using statistics for the combination of world energy production a (Annual Energy Review 2006) and real global economic production P (United Nations 2007) (expressed here in fixed 1990 US dollars) for the 36 year interval between 1970 to 2005 for which these statistics are available.  t currently   The time series for accumulated global economic value C = 0 P t dt is estimated using sporadic calculations of P that have been ascertained for select years over the past two millennia (Maddison 2003) in combination with more recent annual records (United Nations 2007) to create a two-millennia yearly time-series in P (see Appendix C). Estimates of P and C and their ratio η = P/C are shown in Fig. 3. Figure 3 shows that, over a period between 1970 and 2005, the ratio λ (t) = a/C maintained a nearly constant value of 0.306 exajoules per trillion 1990 US dollars per year, or alternatively 9.7 mW per 1990 dollar. Corrected for autocorrelation in the time-series, the observational uncertainty at the 95% confidence level is just ±0.3 mW per 1990 dollar. The simplest interpretation is that this result supports the cornerstone hypothesis given by Eq. 4: the historical accumulation of real economic value through real economic production is maintained by continuous primary energy


444

Climatic Change (2011) 104:437–455

Fig. 3 Estimates of gross world product P in market exchange rate, 1990 US dollars and economic value C, defined by P = dC/dt. Also shown are recent global primary energy consumption a, the ratio λ = a/C, and the feedback efficiency η = P/C. Dashed lines correspond to extrapolations based on assuming λ = 9.7 mW per 1990 US dollar

10

1

1.82 %/yr

0.1

1 1.87 %/yr

0.01 1700

0.1 1970

1750

1800

1850 Year

1980

1900

1990

1950

2000

2000

consumption; the relationship between value and rates of energy consumption is a constant parameter. Of course it is possible that this observed result only holds over the 36-year period for which global energy consumption statistics are available, but it is expected theoretically; the period examined covers over half of total historical growth in a and C, and two thirds of P; and, the observational uncertainty is small enough to plausibly reflect errors or noise in historical data. For example, new primary energy production (what has been measured) only reflects new primary energy consumption (what is theoretically relevant) in the average, not the instant.

5 Drivers of emissions growth The existence of a fixed relationship between energy production and accumulated real economic production simplifies the number of drivers required for CO2 emissions forecasts. To see how, the SRES emissions growth equation (Eq. 1) can be equated with the more thermodynamic expression given by Eq. 11. Since both expressions rely on exogenous expressions for carbonization growth d ln c/dt, this is effectively a comparison of expressions for growth in energy consumption d ln a/dt d ln p d ln g d ln f + − = η ≡ λf dt dt dt

(12)

SRES models consider population p and standard of living g and energy productivity f as the key “drivers” of energy consumption growth, but the “driver” concept can be misleading when, at a very basic level, feedback determines how p, g, and f are inter-related. Equation 12 demonstrates that growth in p and g is fundamentally constrained by the sum of the current state of the feedback efficiency η ≡ λ f and its rate of change d ln f/dt. Therefore, knowledge of the behavior of only one parameter, f , is required for forecasts of energy consumption growth, rather than each of f , p and g.


Climatic Change (2011) 104:437–455 1.5

Observed (%/yr)

1

Predicted

Fig. 4 Difference between predicted and actual growth rates in global energy consumption a, based on predictions derived using persistence in trends (red) and the zeroth-order model presented here (green). Trend persistence is calculated using the prior 10 years as a basis; the zeroth-order model is based only on current year calculations of the feedback efficiency η. Hind-casts are compared with actual observed rates for a period covering the following 15 years

445

0.5

0 _ 0.5 _1 _1.5 1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

Year

So, perhaps surprisingly, changes in population and standard of living might best be considered as only a response to energy efficiency. As part of a heat engine, creating people and their lifestyles requires energy consumption. Doing so efficiently merely serves to bootstrap civilization into a more consumptive (and productive) state. Likely, society has traditionally praised energy efficiency gains for precisely this reason. As summarized by Eq. 2, energy efficiency gains accelerate rather than slow energy consumption (Jevons 1865; Sorrell 2007), contrary to what is commonly assumed (Pacala and Socolow 2004). This does not mean that consideration of population and standard of living in SRES models is invalid, of course, only that their evolution must be consistent with thermodynamic constraints (Eq. 12). Figure 4 shows a time-series comparing 15year hind-casts with observations, evaluated for both sides of Eq. 12, in each of the years 1980 to 1990. Hind-casts based on growth of p, g and f apply straight-forward persistence in trends from the prior 10 years, i.e., d ln a/dt = d ln p/dt + d ln g/dt − d ln f/dt. For comparison, hind-casts based on the zeroth-order thermodynamic expression for economic growth need only employ evaluations of the current-year state of η = P/C. Since both approaches reflect already realized thermodynamic constraints, both “persistence” and a thermodynamic model give hind-casts that reproduce observed trends with comparable accuracy. Notably, the thermodynamic model provides a hind-cast for average growth between 1990 and 2005 that is within just 0.1%/year of observed growth rates. A prior study found that this level of accuracy was only attained by a particular “worst–case” SRES model for this particular time period (Raupach et al. 2007). What is important here is that, for the purpose of future forecasts, the thermodynamic approach is accurate while being both simpler and more physical than using persistence or sophisticated SRES models. 6 Considerations for modeling future emissions scenarios An advantage of appealing to energy efficiency in forecasts of CO2 emissions is that η = λ f tends to vary rather slowly. Since 1970, growth of η = P/C has climbed from


446

Climatic Change (2011) 104:437–455

1.4% per year to 2.1% per year in 2005 (Fig. 3), corresponding to an e-folding timescale τη = 1/(d ln η/dt) of approximately 100 years. Expressed in terms of time-series analysis, η is highly “reddened”, because it is an integrator of dη/dt. Alternatively, and in more fiscal terms, global economic value C (and hence energy consumption a = λC) varies slowly because it is an integrator of economic production P = dC/dt (Fig. 3). The present and future are influenced by even the most distant past, and the past cannot be erased. The carbonization of the energy supply c, is changing even more slowly (see Appendix D) with a time scale of about 300 years. What this means is that future emissions rates for CO2 are most strongly influenced by the current state of η. As a zeroth-order assumption, it is reasonable to assume persistence in η, meaning that over time-scales much less than τη , future emissions are unlikely to depart substantially from the recent growth rate of 2.1% per year. More accurate forecasts of energy consumption and CO2 emissions rates will require an understanding of how η itself evolves. Assuming c is a constant, positive values of d ln η/dt imply super-exponential growth2 of CO2 emissions E (c.f. Pielke et al. 2008). The solution for Eq. 11, starting at some time ti , is    E = Ei exp ηi τη et/τη − 1

(13)

Note, that growth condenses to the single exponential form in the limit of t  τη . However, in the long-term, even assuming persistence in d ln η/dt is an oversimplification since τη itself evolves. History shows bursts in efficiency growth, notably around 1880 and 1950, perhaps when important new discoveries of energy reservoirs made the past less relevant (Fig. 3). But, in both cases, the initial burst in η eventually tapered. After 1950, the time-scale τη , changed from just 30 years between 1950 and 1970, to 67 years between 1970 and 1990, and 120 years between 1990 and 2005. Plausibly, 1/τη = d ln η/dt will eventually cross zero and turn negative, implying sub-exponential growth in emissions E (Eq. 13). Unfortunately, if −d ln η/dt is ever greater than η over the long term, while emissions growth may be significantly slowed, what is implied is a real global economy that is shrinking (Eq. 9). Robust multi-decadal forecasts of emissions E, and its relationship to economic production P, require a first principles thermodynamic model for how η changes with time. Assuming 1880 and 1950 were indeed associated with discovery of new energy reservoirs, this would suggest the problem is fundamentally geological, and that higher-order moments of η reflect rates of reservoir discovery and depletion. Understood thermodynamically, the transfer of energy at rate a across the interface between energy reservoirs and civilization reflects a balance. On one hand, the transfer grows civilization, and increases the physical size of the interface G. At the same time, however, it depletes the reservoirs, and this decreases G. The sign and magnitude of the rate of work w = dG/dt, and therefore η, depends on the relative strengths of these two forces.

2 Similar

super-exponential growth behavior has been observed previously at a more local level, in the characteristics of cities (Bettencourt et al. 2007).


Climatic Change (2011) 104:437–455

447

7 Mitigation The premise behind mitigation is that there are “drivers” of emissions rates that can be meaningfully controlled through policy. As shown above, it is not clear that the driver concept is in fact meaningful. Rather, it appears that drivers in the Kaya Identity are merely a thermodynamic response to the current value of η. At least this appears to be true for population p and standard of living g. It is not yet clear whether it applies to the current carbonization of the economy c. An interesting result that can be derived from Eq. 10 using the values for λ in Fig. 3 and c in Fig. 5 (Appendix D) is that the “carbon footprint” of civilization in recent decades reflects a simple relationship between the rate of global carbon emissions E and the accumulation over history of real global value C. The coefficient is λc = 5.2 ± 0.2 MtC per year, per trillion 1990 US dollars of global economic value. To take the result further, Eq. 11 points towards a non-dimensional number S=

−d ln c/dt η

(14)

representing the relationship between the global economy’s rate of de-carbonization, −d ln c/dt, and its rate of return, η = λ f . If S ≥ 1, d ln E/dt ≤ 0, and emissions are stabilized or declining. To reach stabilization, what is required is decarbonization that is at least as fast as the economy’s rate of return. Taking the 2005 value for η of 2.1% per year, stabilization of emissions would require an equivalent or greater rate of decarbonization. 2.1% of current annual energy production corresponds to an annual addition of approximately 300 GW of new non-carbon emitting power capacity—approximately one new nuclear power plant per day.

4

P (10 1 3 $/yr) E (ppmv/yr)

10 9 8 7 6

1.56 %/yr

3

−0.29 %/yr

1.01 %/yr

5

2.88 %/yr

4

2

3 1.05 %/yr 2

c = E a (10

21

ppmv/J)

f = P a (10 8 $/J) = P C (% yr )

1

1 1970

1975

1980

1985 1990 Year

1995

2000

2005 1970

1975

1980

1985 1990 Year

1995

2000

2005

Fig. 5 For the period 1970 to 2005, trajectories in real global world production P and carbon dioxide emissions E (left), and feedback efficiency η = P/C and the carbon dioxide emission intensity of energy c = E/a (right). Here, c represents the increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 E, per unit primary energy consumption a, that would be expected in a well-mixed atmosphere in the absence of terrestrial sink and source terms (1 ppmv CO2 = 2.13 Gt emitted carbon (Trenberth 1981)). Dashed lines represent a least-squares first-order fit. Theoretical relationships between parameters are summarized in Table 1


448

Climatic Change (2011) 104:437–455

Table 1 Mean observed and modeled rates for the period 1970 to 2005 Parameter

Model dependence

Observed mean (%/year)

Model mean (%/year)

Energy efficiency growth Carbonization growth

1.05 −0.29

– –

Feedback efficiency

d ln η/dt d ln c/dt  ln η η = ηi exp d dt t

Energy productivity growth Energy consumption growth Economic value growth Economic production growth CO2 emissions growth

d ln f/dt d ln a/dt = η d ln C/dt = η d ln P/dt = η + d ln η/dt d ln E/dt = η + d ln c/dt

1.84

1.01 1.87 1.82 2.88 1.56

1.05 1.84 1.84 2.89 1.55

8 Conclusions The physics incorporated into GCM representations of the land, oceans and atmosphere is required to adhere to universal thermodynamic laws. Ideally, the CO2 emissions models meant for implementation in GCM projections of climate change should do so as well. Fortunately, it appears that appealing to thermodynamic principles may lead to a substantially constrained range of possible emissions scenarios. If civilization is considered at a global level, it turns out there is no explicit need to consider people or their lifestyles in order to forecast future energy consumption. At civilization’s core there is a single constant factor, λ = 9.7 ± 0.3 mW per inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar, that ties the global economy to simple physical principles. Viewed from this perspective, civilization evolves in a spontaneous feedback loop maintained only by energy consumption and incorporation of environmental matter. Because the current state of the system, by nature, is tied to its unchangeable past, it looks unlikely that there will be any substantial near-term departure from recently observed acceleration in CO2 emission rates. For predictions over the longer term, however, what is required is thermodynamically based models for how rates of carbonization and energy efficiency evolve. To this end, these rates are almost certainly constrained by the size and availability of environmental resource reservoirs. Previously, such factors have been shown to be primary constraints in the evolution of species (Vermeij 1995, 2004). Extending these principles to civilization, emissions models might be simplified further yet.

Acknowledgements This work was enabled by financial support from the NOAA Office of Global Programs and a NASA New Investigator Program award. The author is grateful for helpful feedback from Steven Sherwood, Geerat Vermeij, Claudio Holzner, Axel Kleidon, Clinton Schmidt, and Christopher Garrett.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.


Climatic Change (2011) 104:437–455

449

Appendix A material transfer To understand the details of the heat engine described in this article in a bit more detail, it is helpful to look more explicitly at what constitutes available energy and

work for this case. The Gibbs energy potential of matter can be expressed as i ni μi (T, p), where ni refers to the number of the species i with specific chemical potential μi (T, p) (Zemanksy and Dittman 1997; Job and Hermann 2006) (the “chemical” potential, rather confusingly, can always be generalized where relevant to incorporate the potential exothermic energy in nuclear bonds). The interface separating the entity and its environment may be composed of matter in many forms. However, a simplifying argument can be made that the potential difference G can be split up into n˘ arbitrary units of matter, each unit carrying an identical available potential of μ (Ts , p) ˘ G = nμ (Ts , p)

(15)

Likewise, the net flux of material between the environment and the entity at rate dn/dt requires energy consumption by the system as a whole at rate a=

dn μ (Ts , p) dt

(16)

But, since a = αG, it also holds that ˘ a = α nμ (Ts , p)

(17)

Combined, Eqs. 16 and 17, imply that the intensive quantity α = 1/n˘ (dn/dt) is determined by the particular physics relating the amount of high potential matter along the interface to the flux of matter across it.3 . The evolution of energy consumption by the system, da/dt, is related to its rate of doing work through αw (Eq. 2), but more specifically to the interface’s material growth. Since work is defined by w = d (G) /dt, and the interface temperature and pressure are fixed, it follows that the potential defining the interface between the entity and its environment evolves at rate w=

dn˘ μ (Ts , p) dt

(18)

Work is positive if the material interface grows. Expressed in terms of the rate of energy consumption, w=

3 It

1 d ln n˘ 1 da dn˘ a= a= dn α dt α dt

(19)

is straightforward to show that for the special case of Maxwellian diffusion along a concentration gradient to, for example, a cloud droplet or snow flake (Pruppacher and Klett 1997), evolution of a and n˘ is determined not by the surface area of the interface (as might initially seem more intuitive) but rather by a length dimension. In this case, α is determined by the product of the diffusivity of vapor in air and the area density of vapor at saturation.


450

Climatic Change (2011) 104:437–455

Because the heat engine efficiency is given by ε = w/a, this leads to the result that ˘ ε = dn/dn =

1 d ln n˘ α dt

(20)

As a feedback loop, Eqs. 2 and 20 can be combined to show that the feedback efficiency η is η=

d ln n˘ dt

(21)

Thus, η expresses the logarithmic growth of the number of elements defining the interface between the entity and its environment. If the net flow is from the environment to the entity, the portion of material that diffuses across the interface and does not contribute to interface growth is returned to the environment as waste. B Comparison with traditional economic models Economic studies normally separate production into two components: a fraction s representing a savings, or investment; and a fraction (1 − s) representing private and government “consumption”. Models represent the nominal growth in “capital” K (units currency) as the difference between the portion s of production P (units currency per time) that is a savings or investment, and capital depreciation at rate γ dK = (P − W) − γ K = sP − γ K dt

(22)

where individual and government consumption is represented by W = (1 − s) P. In return, according to some functional form, labor L (units worker hours) employs capital K (units currency) to generate further production P (units currency per time). For the sake of illustration, a commonly used representation is the CobbDouglas production function P = AKα L1−α

(23)

where A, the “total factor productivity”, is a compensating factor designed to account for any residual unaccounted for by K and L. The exponent α is empirically determined. The Solow Growth Model (Solow 1957) expresses the prognostic form for Eq. 23 as d ln P d ln A d ln K d ln L = +α + (1 − α) dt dt dt dt

(24)

Commonly, the term d ln A/dt is interpreted to represent technological progress. There have been criticisms raised of the Solow Model because it makes no explicit reference to natural resources (Georgescu-Roegen 1993; Ayres et al. 2003). One suggested remedy has been to incorporate primary energy consumption into Eq. 23 as a complement to labor or capital (Saunders 1992, 2000), in which case P = (A K K)α (A L L)β (Aa a)1−α−β

(25)

where, again, a is energy consumption, α and β are empirically determined, and the subscripts for A refer to respective technological progress. Now, by comparison, in the thermodynamic economic growth model introduced here, real (inflation-adjusted) economic production P (units currency per time)


Climatic Change (2011) 104:437–455

451

and global value C (units currency) are, respectively, fiscal representations of net thermodynamic work and the rate of consumption of available primary energy resources. The economic growth model described by Eqs. 5 and 6 is given by the value production function P = ηC

(26)

where η is the feedback efficiency representing a rate of return due to thermodynamic work by the system on the system. The equation for growth of value is dC/dt = P

(27)

Note that while C is analogous to capital K in Eq. 22, since C = a/λ, it is a more explicitly thermodynamic expression of value. So, to put the above in context of standard economic production functions, Eq. 26 can be considered to be a simplification of Eq. 25. The representation of economic value C employed here is a substitution of the combination of traditionally defined capital K and labor L in Eq. 25, such that α = 1 and β = 0, and A K = η. Alternatively, since C is itself only a monetary representation of the rate of primary energy consumption a through a = λC, it could equally be stated that α = β = 0, and Aa = η/λ. Note that the thermodynamic production function (Eq. 26), unlike more standard formulations (Eq. 23), has the mathematical advantage of being dimensionally selfconsistent, as it does not need to appeal to non-integer exponents α and β of dimensional terms (such as L and K), as fitted to a specific set of circumstances, and with no certain application to different economic regimes. It might be argued, however, that the model introduced here fails by leaving no room for either consumption W or depreciation γ K, two central components of the standard economic growth equation (Eq. 22). Offhand, this seems reasonable because, certainly, some portion of economic production must be consumed, at least in order to maintain economic capital against depreciation or decay: buildings crumble; bodies must be maintained; old technology becomes obsolete; as does past acquisition of human skills and knowledge. But these concerns can be resolved once it is recognized that the equations derived for this study are intended to apply only to real, inflation-adjusted production P, and ˆ To demonstrate, assume inflation is positive, in which case not nominal production P. nominal value Cˆ grows faster than real value by some fractional rate of real value, γ dCˆ dC = + γC dt dt

(28)

Since it has been argued here that dC/dt = P, this leads to dC = Pˆ − γ C dt

(29)

in which case, the source of real value is nominal production, and the corresponding sink for real value occurs at rate γ . So, in fact, Eq. 29 illustrates that Eq. 27 does account for depreciation through the term γ C, and is thus similar to the depreciation term γ K in the standard growth equation for capital (Eq. 22). While depreciation is implicit when the growth equations are expressed in real, inflation-adjusted terms, depreciation is explicit when they are expressed in nominal terms.


452

Climatic Change (2011) 104:437–455

In fact, it is interesting to see what the value decay rate γ represents. Again, because dC/dt = P, this means Eq. 27 leads to the statement Pˆ − P = γ C. Alternatively, when nominal production is expressed in energy consumption co-ordinates through substitution of the expression a = λC γ Pˆ − P = γ C = a λ

(30)

Compare this to an equivalent expression derived for real production P = (η/λ)a (Eq. 5). The implication here is that economic inflation, the difference between nominal and real production, is a consequence of the spontaneous decay or depreciation of total economic value C at rate γ C. Put another way, since P = ηC, the ratio γ /(γ + η) is the fraction of nominal production Pˆ that, unlike P, does not return itself as a real addition to total value C. In thermodynamic terms, value depreciation γ C is an energy barrier that must first be crossed for real production to occur. If it is not, the perspective of civilization is that nominal production may be positive, but real production is negative. Net work w is done on civilization by the environment, rather than the reverse. Whenever this occurs, the interface between civilization and its environment G decays. There is also a consumption term in the traditional expression for capital growth (Eq. 22) that is not present in the thermodynamic expression for total value growth (Eq. 27). As it is normally defined, consumption is the portion of economic production that does not represent an investment or savings in traditional representations of capital K. By contrast, in the thermodynamic model, effectively all real production is an “investment” in total economic value C. While a portion of nominal production or nominal work may merely serve to offset depreciation of C as described above, all of the remainder adds to the total. Real production is net production. To illustrate, the construction of coal mines and power plants clearly represents an investment in economic value in either framework. A less obvious, although functionally equivalent example, is food consumption. In standard representations, food would be “consumed” by households and not contribute to their value. However, the available chemical potential in food consumption dn/dtμ (Eq. 16) also maintains and improves that household’s capacity to further consume energy and do work by supporting its internal potential energy G (Eq. 1). Of course, the consumption of an ordinary sandwich may only offset a body and mind against decay from “heat” loss, maintaining its internal potential such that it can continue to consume energy at the same rate it has in the past (in which case the real production rate P and net work rate w is zero since Pˆ = γ C). The added value of a really good, if more expensive, sandwich is its capacity to facilitate real production and new energy consumption above and beyond decay (in which case real production is greater than zero and Pˆ > γ C). The addition to total global value C (and internal potential G) may derive from a heightened sense of personal well-being and an increased desire to productively interact with the rest of civilization in order to afford such sandwiches. It is worth noting that a primary conclusion of this paper, that feedback loops in the economic system mean that increases in energy efficiency correspond to greater energy consumption, has been reached previously by some economists, albeit in a less explicitly physical form than presented here (Ayres et al. 2003; Saunders 1992, 2000; Khazzoom 1980; Brookes 1990; Alcott 2005; Polimeni and Iorgulescu Polimeni 2006; Dimitropoulos 2007; Herring and Roy 2007). Although the concept was first


Climatic Change (2011) 104:437–455

453

introduced by W. Stanley Jevons over a century ago (Jevons 1865), the extent of energy efficiency “rebound” or “backfire” remains disputed (Sorrell 2007), with no consensus among economists on how it should be quantified on the global scales relevant to forecasts of climate change from anthropogenic CO2 . C Materials and methods for time series estimates US Department of Energy statistics for global primary energy production (Annual Energy Review 2006) include fossil fuel, hydroelectric, nuclear, geothermal, wind, solar, and biomass sources. It is assumed here that production and consumption rates are, at least on average, equivalent. United Nations time series for world economic production (United Nations 2007) represent the total gross domestic product of all countries, adjusted for inflation and market exchange rates to fixed 1990 US dollars. Statistics for CO2 emissions are obtained from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (Marland et al. 2007). Rather than looking at nations or sectors, only global quantities are considered here because, at this level, atmospheric CO2 is well-mixed, and international markets make details in economic trade unimportant. Gross World Product estimates in 1990 market exchange rate dollars are available for each year since 1970 (United Nations 2007). Long-term but intermittent historical estimates are available for the years 1 to 1992 CE (Maddison 2003). The latter data set is expressed in Geary Khamis purchasing power parity (PPP) 1990 US dollars. In general, the motivation for expressing valuation in PPP instead of exchange rate dollars is to account for disparities in product valuation that exist between countries. In PPP dollars, product valuation is equalized according to its apparent contribution to standard of living. Countries with a low standard of living tend to have a relatively high gross domestic product when expressed in PPP rather than market exchange rate dollars because equivalent products and services tend to be less expensive. However, because the focus of this study is energy production and associated CO2 emissions, rather than national standard of living, it is historical records of market exchange rate valuations that are used. Exchange rate measures of production P are assumed to most accurately reflect the total energy costs associated with manifesting products and services in the respective nations where they are consumed. To account for any discrepancy between PPP and exchange rate estimates in historical records for economic production P, market exchange rate data from 1970 onwards is used to devise a time-dependent correction factor π to be applied to PPP records such that π = PPP/exchange rate. For the period 1970 to 1992, during which both PPP and market exchange rate estimates of P are available, the fitted value   for π is π = 1 + 0.258 exp (t − 1998) /73 . This correction factor can be extrapolated and applied to all PPP data between the years 0 and 1969. For the period from 1970 onwards, measured exchange rate values are used. Because the historical estimates of P in PPP dollars are increasingly sparse with distance back in time (e.g. there are only three data points for the period 1 to 1500 CE), the corrected dataset for P is mapped to a yearly distribution using a cubic spline fit. Estimates of economic value C represent an accumulation of economic production   t P over time since 1 CE, i.e., C (t) = C (1) + 1 P t dt . To estimate a value for C (1), it is assumed that the ratio of population to economic value in 1 CE. is equivalent to the average value between 1 CE and the threshold of the industrial revolution circa 1700 CE. From historical population statistics (Maddison 2003), the associated


454

Climatic Change (2011) 104:437–455

iterative solution for C (1) is 120 trillion 1990 U.S. dollars. For comparison, the estimated value of C in 2005 CE is 1580 trillion 1990 US dollars (Fig. 3). Although, off-hand, this value for C (1) seems surprisingly high, it is still very small compared to current day values, so the derived value of λ presented in this paper is relatively insensitive to errors in its estimate. D Summary of observed growth rates between 1970 and 2005 A summary of observed growth rates in global world real production P, carbon dioxide emission rates E, feedback efficiency η and carbon dioxide emission intensity c between 1970 and 2005 is provided in Fig. 5 and in Table 1, along with relevant equations based on the thermodynamic economic growth model described here.

References Alcott B (2005) Jevons’ paradox. Ecol Econ 54:9–21. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.020 Annual Energy Review (2006) Tech. Rep. DOE/EIA-0384(2006). Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. www.eia.doe.gov/aer/inter.html Ayres RU, Ayres LW, Warr B (2003) Exergy, power and work in the US economy, 1900–1998. Energy 28:219–273. doi:10.1016/S0360-5442(02)00089-0 Bettencourt LMA, Lobo J, Helbing D, Kühnert C, West GB (2007) Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:7301–7306 Brookes LG (1990) The greenhouse effect: the fallacies in the energy efficiency solution. Energy Policy 18:199–201 de Groot SR, Mazur P (1984) Non-equilibrium thermodynamics. Courier Dover, New York Dimitropoulos J (2007) Energy productivity improvements and the rebound effect: an overview of the state of knowledge. Energy Policy 35:6354–6363 Georgescu-Roegen N (1993) Valuing the Earth: economics, ecology, ethics, chap. The entropy law and the economic problem. MIT, Cambridge, pp 75–88 Herring H, Roy R (2007) Technological innovation, energy efficiency design and the rebound effect. Technovation 27:194–203 IPCC WG III (2007) Climate change 2007: mitigation of climate change. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA Jevons WS (1865) The coal question. Macmillan, New York Job G, Hermann F (2006) Chemical potential—A quantity in search of recognition. Eur J Phys 27:353–371. doi:10.1088/0143-0807/27/2/018 Khazzoom JD (1980) Economic implications of mandated efficiency in standards for household appliances. Energy J 1:21–40 Kleidon A (2004) Beyond Gaia: thermodynamics of life and earth system functioning. Clim Change 66:271–319 Maddison A (2003) The world economy: historical statistics. OECD Marland G, Boden TA, Andres RJ (2007) Trends: a compendium of data on global change, chap. Global, regional, and national CO2 emissions. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Montieth JL (2000) Fundamental equations for growth in uniform stands of vegetation. Agric For Meteorol 104:5–11 Nakicenovic N (2004) Socioeconomic driving forces of emissions scenarios. In: Field CB, Raupach MR (eds) The global carbon cycle. Island, Montague, pp 225–239 Pacala S, Socolow R (2004) Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305:968–972. doi:10.1126/science.1100103 Pielke R Jr, Wigley T, Green C (2008) Dangerous assumptions. Nature 452:531–532 Polimeni JM, Iorgulescu Polimeni R (2006) Jevon’s paradox and the myth of technological liberation. Ecol Complex 3:344–353. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.02.008


Climatic Change (2011) 104:437–455

455

Pruppacher HR, Klett JD (1997) Microphysics of clouds and precipitation, 2nd rev. edn. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht Raupach MR, Marland G, Ciais P, Le Quéré C, Canadell JG, Klepper G, Field C (2007) Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. doi:10.1073/ pnas.0700609104 Saunders HD (1992) The Khazzoom-Brookes postulate and neoclassical growth. Energy J 13:131– 148 Saunders HD (2000) A view from the macro side: rebound, backfire, and Khazzoom-Brookes. Energy Policy 28:439–449 Schrödinger E (1944) What is life? The physical aspect of the living cell. The University Press, Berkeley Solow RM (1957) Technical change and the aggregate production function. Rev Econ Stat 39:312– 320 Sorrell S (2007) The rebound effect. Tech. rep., UKERC Stott PA, Kettleborough JA (2002) Origins and estimates of uncertainty in predictions of twenty-first century temperature rise. Nature 416:723–725 Thornley JT, Johnson IR (1990) Plant and crop modelling. Clarendon Press, Clarendon Trenberth KE (1981) Seasonal variations in global sea level pressure and the total mass of the atmosphere. J Geophys Res 86:5238–5246 United Nations (2007) United Nations statistical databases. unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama Vermeij G (1995) Economics, volcanoes, and Phanerozoic revolutions. Paleobiology 21:125–152 Vermeij GJ (2004) Nature: an economic history. Princeton University Press, Princeton Zemanksy MW, Dittman RH (1997) Heat and thermodynamics, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

Profile for Andrea Muhrrteyn

13-05-12: ACCC-82: Johnstone v Norway: Request Written Reasons  

ACCC/C/2013/82: Johnstone v. Norway: Re: 'Manifestly Unreasonable' Req for ‘Scarcity & Conflict’ & ‘Env. Complaints Policy’ Env. Info.

13-05-12: ACCC-82: Johnstone v Norway: Request Written Reasons  

ACCC/C/2013/82: Johnstone v. Norway: Re: 'Manifestly Unreasonable' Req for ‘Scarcity & Conflict’ & ‘Env. Complaints Policy’ Env. Info.

Profile for js-ror
Advertisement