Issuu on Google+

North Carolina Senators c/o Senator Dan Soucek NC Senate: 300 N. Salisbury Street, R 310 Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 NC Military Base Commanders: Camp Lejeune: Gen James Amos; Ft Bragg: Maj Gen Jeffrey N. Colt; Seymour Johnson AFB: Col Jeannie M. Leavitt; Fifth Coast Guard Dist: Rear Adm Steven H. Ratti CC: Global Security Experts: Climate Change is a Global Security Threat

CC: North Carolina Representatives c/o: Rep. Jonathan Jordan, Chuck McGrady, Pricey Harrison & Nelson Dollar NC House of Representatives 300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 307B1 Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 CC: Turtle Island: Eustace Conway Turtle Island Preserve 2683 Little Laurel Rd. Boone, NC 28607 CC: Global Military Advisory Council on Climate Change (GMACCC)

Military Necessity / National Security Justifications for Legally Supporting Turtle Island to continue teaching De-Industrialized Primitivist Living Skills I hereby request North Carolina Senators and Military Base Commanders to show your support for the National Security Imperative of Educating US Citizens to urgently Learn to ‘Walk their Talk’ of ‘Supporting the Troops’, by reducing their impact (I=PAT) on their nation’s Natural Capital; by ensuring that Primitivist Educational Camps like Turtle Island (and others) stay open, by legally supporting Bill 774. Table of Contents: [1]

Statement of Facts: Bill 774 and Turtle Island Primitivist Educational Camps

[2]

National Security Imperative for Primitivist Living Skills Argument:

[2.1] Natural Capital: Nature and its resources and biodiversity are the source and sustenance of all of life. A.

What are the Trillion Dollar Costs of Destroying Natural Capital?

B.

How Does Advanced Technological Use Contribute to the Destruction of Natural Capital?

[2.2] Reducing Our Destruction of our Nation and Planet’s Natural Capital: IPAT: Reduce (a) Population, and our Thermodynamic Footprint: (b) Affluence and (c) Energy Technology A.

I=PAT: Reducing Human Impact on the Environment requires population and consumption reduction. PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539 * Cel: (071) 170 1954 * guerrylla-law.co.nr


B.

Thermodynamic Footprint: A x T’s Damage to Natural Capital.

[2.3] Urgent Environmental Security Issues currently facing Humanity as a result of our failure to protect our Planet’s Natural Capital, all three of which require citizens to urgently Learn to ‘Walk their Talk’ of ‘Supporting the Troops’, by reducing their impact (I=PAT) on their nation’s Natural Capital: A.

Peak Non-Renewable Natural Resources (NNR): Scarcity

B.

Ecological Biodiversity Crisis and Destruction of Renewable Resources

C.

Climate Change

[2.4] The Scarcity-Conflict Death Spiral: Difference between Sustainable Peaceful Procreation, Consumption and Production and Unsustainable Scarcity-Conflict Procreation, Consumption and Production [2.5] Military Doctrine: Non-Renewable and Renewable Resource Scarcity and Conflict [2.6] Scarcity-Conflict Death Spiral on Steroids: 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 [2.7] Military Appeal to American/World Citizens to ‘Walk their Talk’ of ‘Supporting the Troops’, by massively reducing their energy consumption, by – for example - “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.”

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

2


Statement of Facts: Bill 774 & Turtle Island Primitivist Educational Camps Eustace Conway (born Eustace Robinson Conway IV in 1961 in South Carolina) is an American naturalist and the subject of the book The Last American Man by Elizabeth Gilbert and the subject of an early episode of the weekly radio show This American Life. He is the owner of 1,000-acre (4.0 km2) Turtle Island Preserve near Boone, North Carolina. Turtle Island educates adults and children about primitive skills and lifestyle’s and sustainable practices.

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

3


In November, 2012, Turtle Island was forced to shut down public access following notices of violation from the Watauga County Planning & Inspections Department and Appalachian District Health Department1. On June 4 2013, Bill 774 goes to Senate. The fate of Turtle Island Preserve depends on this Bill going forward. Bill 7742, if accepted by the North Carolina legislative process will give Turtle Island Preserve a lot of the relief it needs and hopefully allow them and other museums, heritage sights, schools and camps the freedom to teach about American heritage and authentic ways of living that our Industrial Civilization way of living’s regulatory system have made illegal. House Bill 774 sponsored by Representatives Jonathan Jordan, Chuck McGrady, Pricey Harrison and Nelson Dollar, recently passed in the House, and now requires the support of the North Carolina Senate. I hereby request North Carolina Senators and Military Base Commanders to show your support for the National Security Imperative of Educating US Citizens to urgently Learn to ‘Walk their Talk’ of ‘Supporting the Troops’, by reducing their impact (I=PAT) on their nation’s Natural Capital; by ensuring that Primitivist Educational Camps like Turtle Island (and others) stay open, by legally supporting Bill 774.

Natural Capital: Nature and its resources and biodiversity are the sustenance of all of life: “If you really think the environment is less important than the economy, try holding your breath while you count your money”. — Dr. Guy McPherson.

Natural Capital: Nature and its resources and biodiversity are the source and sustenance of all of life. The overexploitation, overproduction and overconsumption of Nature’s natural capital above ecosystem carrying capacity levels, systematically reduces the ecosystem’s carrying capacity, and activates the Scarcity-Conflict Death Spiral: [1] Natural capital is the extension of the economic notion of capital (manufactured means of production) to environmental goods and services. A functional definition of capital in general is: "a stock that yields a flow of valuable goods or services into the future". Natural capital is thus the stock of natural 1 2

http://www2.wataugademocrat.com/News/story/Turtle-Island-forced-to-close-id-009690 http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2013&BillID=h774 MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

4


ecosystems that yields a flow of valuable ecosystem goods or services into the future. For example, a stock of trees or fish provides a flow of new trees or fish, a flow which can be sustainable indefinitely. Natural capital may also provide services like recycling wastes or water catchments and erosion control. Since the flow of services from ecosystems requires that they function as whole systems, the structure and diversity of the system are important components of natural capital.3

[2] Economic prosperity depends on the flow of services from at least four types of capital: natural capital (the direct level of reliance depends on the sector and country; although indirectly all of the economy is dependent on the biodiversity strength of nature and its natural resources), manmade capital (buildings, machines and infrastructure, all of which are dependent on natural capital resources for their manufacture, maintenance and operation), human capital (people and their education, skills and creativity, whose physical and psychological health is directly dependent on natural capital) and social capital (the links between people and communities in terms of cooperation, trust and rule of law; all of which once again relies on the health and biodiversity of natural capital, to avoid degeneration into scarcity-conflict relationships). [3] ‘Biodiversity’ is an umbrella term that covers all life on the planet, from the genetic level to terrestrial, freshwater and marine habitats and ecosystems. It underpins our global economy as well as human well-being. Biological diversity

3

Encyclopedia of the Earth http://www.eoearth.org/article/Natural_capital MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

5


means “the variability among living organisms from all sources, including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems" (Article 2, convention on Biological Diversity (cBD)). The term covers all the variety of life that can be found on Earth (plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms), the diversity of communities that they form and the habitats in which they live. It encompasses three levels: ecosystem diversity (i.e. variety of ecosystems); species diversity (i.e. variety of different species); and genetic diversity (i.e. variety of genes within species). [4] Ecosystem means “a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit” (Article 2, cBD). Each ecosystem contains complex relationships between living (biotic) and non-living (abiotic) components (resources), sunlight, air, water, minerals and nutrients. The quantity (e.g. biomass and productivity), quality and diversity of species (richness, rarity, and uniqueness) each play an important role in a given ecosystem. The functioning of an ecosystem often hinges on a number of species or groups of species that perform certain functions e.g. pollination, grazing, predation, nitrogen fixing. [5] Ecosystem services refer to the benefits that people obtain from ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005a). These include: provisioning services (e.g. food, fibre, fuel, water); regulating services (benefits obtained from ecosystem processes that regulate e.g. climate, floods, disease, waste and water quality); cultural services (e.g. recreation, aesthetic enjoyment, tourism, spiritual and ethical values); and supporting services necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services (e.g. soil formation, photosynthesis, nutrient cycling). The Trillion Dollar Costs of Destroying Natural Capital: [6] The living fabric of this planet - its ecosystems and biodiversity - are in rapid decline worldwide. This is visible and palpable and is variously due to commercial over-exploitation, or population pressures, or a raft of unhelpful policies, or some combination. At a very fundamental human level, however, it is due to the lack of awareness that there is a problem with human society being disconnected from nature. [7] The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)4 puts a value on the ecological services provided to humanity. It found, for example, implementing REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) could help (a) Halve deforestation by 2030, and (b) Cut emissions by 1.5 Gt of CO2 per year. From a cost perspective (p.18), it is estimated that (i) It would cost from US$ 17.2 – 4

http://www.teebweb.org/ MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

6


33 billion per year; (ii) The estimated benefit in reduced climate change is US$ 3.2 trillion [8] In addition, they cited another study that estimated that 3,000 listed companies around the world were responsible for over $2 trillion in environmental “externalities” (i.e. costs that have to be borne by society from ignored factors, or “social costs”). This is equivalent to 7% of their combined revenues and up to a third of their combined profits. [9] The benefits of these silent parts of our economy is also summarized in these videos by TEEB’s Pavan Sukhdev: (a) The Invisible Economy5: The hidden environmental and social costs from corporations:, TEEB, January 12, 2011; (b) What is the world worth?6: What the global economy would look like with nature on the balance sheet, TEEB, November 15, 2010.

[10]

In Put a Value on Nature!7 and In What’s the World Worth?8 Pavan

Sukhdev talks about how $2.25 Trillion of Corporate Costs are externalized by Corporations and paid by Society. They do it because the system allows them to do it. To stop this we need to recognize natural capital, build it into our systems. When we measure GDP, as a measure of our economic performance at the national level, we should include our biggest asset at the country level, our natural capital and the state of its improved biodiversity health, or destruction. When we measure corporate performances we don't include our impacts on nature and water and

5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmQH6HPbaU http://vimeo.com/16841649 7 http://youtu.be/oU9G2E_RYJo 8 http://youtu.be/0n7lY3iYQ3s 6

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

7


biodiversity and what the business costs society. In a Study in China, TEEB measured the Externality costs of Timber extraction. They found that the extraction costs were almost twice the prevailing Market Cost of Timber. If the Externality costs had been included in the Market Price, the Market Cost would have been three times what it was, which would have accurately reflected the true ecological and social cost of the timber extraction. [11]

Jowit Juliette (18 Feb 2010): World's top firms cause $2.2tn of

environmental damage, report estimates9; The Guardian The cost of pollution and other damage to the natural environment caused by the world’s biggest companies would wipe out more than one-third of their profits if they were held financially accountable, a major unpublished study for the United Nations has found. The report comes amid growing concern that no one is made to pay for most of the use, loss and damage of the environment, which is reaching crisis proportions in the form of pollution and the rapid loss of freshwater, fisheries and fertile soils. The UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment initiative and the United Nations Environment Programme jointly ordered a report into the activities of the 3,000 biggest public companies in the world, which includes household names from the UK’s FTSE 100 and other major stockmarkets. The study, conducted by London-based consultancy Trucost and due to be published this summer, found the estimated combined damage was worth US$2.2 trillion (£1.4tn) in 2008 – a figure bigger than the national economies of all but seven countries in the world that year. The figure equates to 6-7% of the companies’ combined turnover, or an average of one-third of their profits, though some businesses would be much harder hit than others. “What we’re talking about is a completely new paradigm,” said Richard Mattison, Trucost’s chief operating officer and leader of the report team. “Externalities of this scale and nature pose a major risk to the global economy and markets are not fully aware of these risks, nor do they know how to deal with them.” The true figure is likely to be even higher because the $2.2tn does not include damage caused by household and government consumption of goods and services, such as energy used to power appliances or waste; the “social impacts” such as the migration of people driven out of affected areas, or the long-term effects of any damage other than that from climate change. The final report will also include a higher total estimate which includes those long-term effects of problems such as toxic waste. 9

Jowit Juliette (18 Febr 2010): World's top firms cause $2.2tn of environmental damage, report estimates ; The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/18/worlds-top-firms-environmental-damage MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

8


Sukhdev said the heads of the major companies at this year’s annual economic summit in Davos, Switzerland, were increasingly concerned about the impact on their business if they were stopped or forced to pay for the damage. “It can make the difference between profit and loss,” Sukhdev told the annual Earthwatch Oxford lecture last week. “That sense of foreboding is there with many, many [chief executives], and that potential is a good thing because it leads to solutions.”

[12]

Andrew Simms (18 Feb 2010): The Price for Environmental Destruction?

There is None10; The Guardian The economy is no stranger to creating its own fantasy world with little or no relation to the real one. We witnessed the damage that can cause when the banks thought they had stumbled on financial alchemy and could transform bad debt into good – economic base metal into gold. Now it's possible that a much bigger error is coming to light. The rise and rise of global corporations lifted on a wave of apparent productivity gains may have been little more than a mask for the reckless liquidation of natural capital. It's as if we've been so distracted by our impressive speed of economic travel that we forgot to look at the fuel gauge or the cloud of smog left in our wake. A new UN report estimates that accounting for the environmental damage of the world's 3,000 biggest companies would wipe out onethird of their profits. Any precise figure, however, is a matter of how risk is quantified and of where you draw the line. In 2006, for example, the New Economics Foundation (NEF), of which I am the policy director, looked at the oil companies BP and Shell, who together had recently reported profits of £25bn. By applying the Treasury's own estimates of the social and environmental cost of carbon emissions, we calculated that the total bill for those costs would reach £46.5bn, massively outweighing profits and plunging the companies into the red. [..]The concept of a balanced budget, so loved by conservatives in relation to finance and spending, seems to be an alien concept when the consumption of natural resources and the production of waste is concerned. Yet it is far more important to achieve a balanced environmental budget than an economic one. You can always print more money, but you can't print more planet.

[13]

TruCost (05 October 2010): Universal Ownership: Why Environmental

Externalities matter to Institutional Investors11; UN Principles for Responsible Investment: 10

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/18/price-of-environmental-destruction MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

9


US$ 6.6 trillion: The estimated annual environmental costs from global human activity equating to 11% of global GDP in 2008. US$ 2.15 trillion: The cost of environmental damage caused by the world's 3,000 largest publicly-listed companies in 2008.

[14]

TEEB (2011): The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in National

and International Policy Making12: Ecosystems and their human well-being and ‘natural capital’ is for all. The figures

biodiversity underpin the global economy and need to be valued and protected. The world’s not a luxury for the rich but a necessity speak for themselves: over a billion people

11

TruCost (05 October 2010): Universal Ownership: Why Environmental Externalities matter to Institutional Investors; UN Principles for Responsible Investment http://www.trucost.com/published-research/44/universalownership-why-environmental-externalities-matter-to-institutional-investors 12 TEEB (2011), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in National and International Policy Making. Edited by Patrick ten Brink. Earthscan, London and Washington. http://www.teebweb.org/publications/teeb-study-reports/national-and-international/ MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

10


in developing countries rely on fish as a major source of food and over half of all commercial medicines derive from natural substances, mostly sourced in rainforests. Damage to global ecosystem services and biodiversity is acute and accelerating. In the last century we have lost 35% of mangroves, 40% of forests and 50% of wetlands. 60% of ecosystem services have been degraded in fifty years. species loss is 100 to 1,000 times than in geological times and will get worse with climate change. 80% of the world’s fisheries are fully- or overexploited. critical thresholds are being passed: for example, coral reefs risk collapse if co2 emissions are not urgently reduced. Ecosystem damage carries costs for business and society: the number of sectors benefiting from natural capital represents a far larger share of the economy than many policy-makers appreciate. Failure to halt biodiversity loss on land may cost $500 billion by 2010 (estimated value of ecosystem services that would have been provided if biodiversity had been maintained at 2000 levels). At sea, unsustainable fishing reduces potential fisheries output by an estimated $50 billion/year. Growing demand from an expanding wealthier population is a key cause of biodiversity loss. At a deeper level, economic signals from policy and market prices fail to reflect the true value of biodiversity. Incentives are not in place to encourage sustainable practices or to distribute costs and benefits efficiently and fairly. The imbalance between private gain and public loss runs through most of today’s policy failures.

[15]

TruCost (Apr 2013): Natural Capital: The Top 100 Externalities13: This report offers a high level perspective on the world’s biggest natural capital risks for business, investors and governments. To provide a business perspective, it presents natural capital risk in financial terms. In doing so, it finds that the world’s 100 biggest risks are costing the economy around $4.7 trillion per year in terms of the environmental and social costs of lost ecosystem services and pollution. Findings of this report build on TEEB’s The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Business and Enterprise and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation by estimating in monetary terms the financial risk from unpriced natural capital inputs to production, across business sectors at a regional level. By using

13

TruCost (Apr 2013): Natural Capital: The Top 100 Externalities; TEEB http://www.trucost.com/published-research/99/natural-capital-at-risk-the-top-100-externalities-of-business MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

11


an environmentally extended input-output model (EEIO) (see Appendix 2), it also estimates, at a high level, how these may flow through global supply chains to producers of consumer goods. It demonstrates that some business activities do not generate sufficient profit to cover their natural resource use and pollution costs. Trucost’s analysis has estimated the unpriced natural capital costs at US$7.3 trillion relating to land use, water consumption, GHG emissions, air pollution, land and water pollution, and waste for over 1,000 global primary production and primary processing region-sectors under standard operating practices, excluding unpredictable catastrophic events. This equates to 13% of global economic output in 2009. Risk to business overall would be higher if all upstream sector impacts were included. All impacts are in 2009 prices and reflect 2009 product quantities, the latest year for which comprehensive data were available.

How Does Advanced Technology Use Contribute to the Destruction of Natural Capital?: [16]

Adrian Bejan and Sylvie Lorente (5 April 2010): The constructal law of

design and evolution in nature14 (PDF15); Royal Society. To summarize, all the high-temperature heating that comes from burning fuel (QH or the energy associated with QH and the high temperature of combustion; cf. Bejan 2006) is dissipated into the environment. The need for higher efficiencies in power generation (greater W/QH) is the same as the need to have more W, i.e. the need to move more weight over larger distances on the surface of the Earth, which is the natural phenomenon (tendency) summarized in the constructal law. At the end of the day, when all the fuel has been burned, and all the food has been eaten, this is what animate flow systems have achieved. They have moved mass on the surface of the Earth (they have ‘mixed’ the Earth’s crust) more than in the absence of animate flow systems. The moving animal or vehicle is equivalent to an engine connected to a brake (figure 4), first proposed by Bejan & Paynter (1976) and Bejan (1982, 2006). The power generated by muscles and motors is ultimately and necessarily dissipated by rubbing against the environment. There is no taker for the W produced by the animal and vehicle. This is why the GNP of a country should be roughly proportional to the amount of fuel burned in that country. (Bejan 2009).

14 15

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1545/1335.full http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1545/1335.full.pdf MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

12


GDP/Economic Growth and energy consumption’s aggravating/threat multiplier ‘heat engine’ relationship to the national security threat of climate change (CO2 emissions):

ARE economist David Roland-Holst’s chart – which one of his student’s calls his ‘demonic bubble bath’ – shows the tight relationship between energy use and prosperity, a key climate change issue. Based on World Bank and International Energy Agency data, the vertical axis plots per capita energy use in terajoules/year; the horizontal is per capita income as measured by the GDP. Bubble sizes represent population.

[17] Energy consumption is the foundation of industrial development; since energy use is equivalent to development. A country’s development is a symptom of its MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

13


energy consumption. The rate of energy consumption and increase in carbon dioxide emissions are virtually identical and have grown exponentially over the last 40 years. Increased efficiency leads to more energy use. [18] Since the earth’s non-renewable resources are finite, and its renewable resources can only be exploited on a finite level equivalent to carrying capacity regeneration; this trend cannot continue. [19] P. F. Henshaw (10/17/09): Jevons' Effect and why improving technology efficiency multiplies energy consumption16. Energy efficiency improvements and energy use have both been increasing steadily growing rates. So improving economic efficiency apparently enables the creation of more new energy uses than energy savings. The net effect is to increase the rate of resource depletion. - (fig 1)

Consequently, efficiency improvement results in 2.5 times more energy uses than energy savings, consistent with the observations of Jevons in 1885. (fig 1) Equally surprising, CO2 is being produced at the same increasing rate as total energy use, so new clean energy sources are not replacing any fossil fuel use, only adding enough to keep the same proportion of clean energy in the mix as in 1971. (fig 1)

16

http://www.synapse9.com/pub/EffMultiplies.htm MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

14


[20] At Do Renewables decrease global CO2 emissions17, Prof Tadeusz (Tad) Patzek, Chairman of the Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering Department at The University of Texas at Austin; rescaled the slopes of the trends of Henshaw’s graph with the multipliers shown in the inset box, so that all trends more less overlay. His analysis:

The rate of energy use and carbon dioxide emissions are virtually identical and have grown exponentially over the last 40 years. The impact of large dams and nuclear power plants has been barely visible, and disappeared by 2007. The renewable energy sources, wind turbines, biomass cogeneration, and biofuels (photovoltaic panel area is too small to be relevant), are barely keeping up with the deforestation and general paving of the world. Increased efficiency leads to more energy use and the ratio of the slopes has remained constant (3.7) over the last 40 years. Thus, just as Stanley Javons predicted, higher efficiency leads to more energy use which leads to still higher efficiency. Since the Earth is finite, this trend cannot continue and the current global economy must break down. There is nothing we can do about it, unless we fundamentally change, and the approach to breakdown is exponential. For example, the expected period of doubling of global energy consumption is 34-37 years. Since this doubling is impossible, claims18 to the contrary by the IPCC notwithstanding, the global economy as we know it today will cease to exist within the next 10-20 years. 17 18

http://patzek-lifeitself.blogspot.com/2011/02/do-renewables-decrease-global-co2.html http://gaia.pge.utexas.edu/papers/EnergyCoalPaperPublished.pdf MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

15


[21]

Breakthrough (12 Jan 2019): Carbon Dioxide and the Global Economy19.

The relationship of carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels (data: U.S. Energy Information Agency) with global GDP (as measured in PPP terms and reported by Maddison).

Ross Garnaut (2011) The Garnaut Climate Change Review 2011: Australia in the Global Response to Climate Change20: Chapter 3: Emissions in the Platinum Age21.

[22]

Figure 3.13 Global energy use and CO2 emissions, 1970 to 2007

19

http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/carbon_dioxide_and_the_global http://www.garnautreview.org.au/index.html 21 http://www.garnautreview.org.au/chp3.htm 20

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

16


Sources: Energy use from BP (2008); CO2 emissions from IEA (2007b) and Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Centre (2008).

Reducing the Destruction of our Nation and Planet’s Natural Capital: Reduce (a) Population, and our Thermodynamic Footprint: (b) Affluence and (c) Energy Technology. I=PAT: Reducing Human Impact on the Environment requires

[23]

population and consumption reduction. [24]

The impact of humans on the environment and the demands that people place

on the resources available on the planet can be summarised by what is known as the Ehrlich or IPAT equation, I=PAT. I = impact on the environment or demand for resources,

P

=

population

size, A = affluence and T = technology. [25]

The two most important

conclusions deriving from this relationship are that: [25.1]

the

support

only

Earth a

can limited

number of people, at a certain level

of

affluence,

in

a

sustainable manner; and [25.2]

Population and Consumption must be reduced to below carrying capacity.

[26]

Thermodynamic Footprint: A x T’s Damage to Natural Capital:

[27]

In Thermodynamic Footprints22, Paul Chefurka writes: The TF is really a measure of human activity. All human activity is made possible though our use of energy, and our energy-driven activity is what alters the planet’s physical, biological and chemical makeup – through mining, manufacturing, construction, habitat alterations, and the generation of wastes such as carbon dioxide, garbage and other pollution.

22

Chefurka Paul (3 Mar 2013): Thermodynamic Footprints , How Many.org http://www.howmany.org/newsarc/thermodynamic-footprints/ MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

17


Because of this, our energy use is the best available proxy or representative for our overall impact on the planet. TF should therefore be understood as a measure of the impact we are having on (or damage we are doing to) our planet’s life-support systems. Definition: The Thermodynamic Footprint is the ratio of all the energy a person normally uses in a period of time, over the amount of energy they generate within their bodies from food. The “energy we normally use” includes fossil fuels and non-fuel generated electricity from hydro, nuclear and renewable sources such as wind and solar power. It includes both our own direct energy use and our individual share of all the energy society uses to create and maintain the world we live in. The result is a number, expressed in units I call Human Equivalents or HE. The number describes how many times a person’s environmental impact is multiplied by their technological energy consumption. If someone used no additional energy beyond the food they ate, their TF value would be 1 HE. If their TF is 2 HE, it means they have twice the impact on their environment as someone who used no additional energy. Someone with a TF of 10 HE has the same impact as ten people without energy assistance.. [..] The Human Equivalent The unit of the Human Equivalent or HE is similar to the concept of the “energy slave“. Each of us represents the operation of some quantity of primary energy within our environment. That energy (plus the food an individual consumes) represents the work of a number of “human equivalents”, a number that is given by our Thermodynamic Footprint. World Thermodynamic Footprint Since 1800 The next graph may be the most interesting. By multiplying the average global TF figure by the actual world population, we can find the “Human Equivalent” population of the world over time. This value reflects both our increasing energy consumption and our growing world population. It is a measure of the increasing planetary impact of the combined growth in our technology, activity and numbers. In 1800 the actual world population was just under 1 billion, while the “Human Equivalent” population was just over a billion. By 2010, the world’s numeric population was 6.85 billion, while the “Human Equivalent” population had ballooned to the staggering level of over 135 billion people. This means that the planetary systems are now experiencing an impact equivalent to 135 billion hunter-foragers living and working with muscle, wood and animal power alone.

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

18


[..] The famous equation “I = PAT” was introduced by Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren in the 1970s to express human environmental impact. In it, the impact (I) is calculated as our population (P) times our individual level of activity (A) times a technological multiplier (T). While we can measure P directly, finding good representatives for A or T (or for the combination of A x T) is quite difficult. As Jack Vallentyne noticed over 35 years ago, the Thermodynamic Footprint is a very good proxy for that elusive “AT” term. By using it this way we can determine that humanity today is having 135 times the impact on the planet that we had just 200 years ago.

[28]

Thermodynamic Footprint of Germany’s 31 Richest Billionaires:

Scarcity-Conflict equivalent of 941 million (30 mil each) hunter-foragers. [28.1]

The 2008 World Bank Development Indicators report that the wealthiest

20% of the world accounted for 76.6% of total private consumption. The poorest fifth just 1.5%. [28.2]

Breaking that down slightly further, the poorest 10% accounted for just

0.5% and the wealthiest 10% accounted for 59% of all the consumption. [28.3]

Put differently the wealthiest 10% accounted for 59% of all consumption

induced resource scarcity’s contribution to the Scarcity-Conflict Death Spiral; and the wealthiest 6.6 % would account for 38.94 % of consumption.

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

19


[28.4]

Human Development Report 1998 Overview23, United Nations

Development Programme (UNDP). Figures quoted use data from 1995: Today’s consumption is undermining the environmental resource base. It is exacerbating inequalities. And the dynamics of the consumption-poverty-inequality-environment nexus are accelerating. If the trends continue without change — not redistributing from high-income to low-income consumers, not shifting from polluting to cleaner goods and production technologies, not promoting goods that empower poor producers, not shifting priority from consumption for conspicuous display to meeting basic needs — today’s problems of consumption and human development will worsen. … The real issue is not consumption itself but its patterns and effects. … Inequalities in consumption are stark. Globally, the 20% of the world’s people in the highest-income countries account for 86% of total private consumption expenditures — the poorest 20% a minuscule 1.3%. More specifically, the richest fifth: 

Consume 45% of all meat and fish, the poorest fifth 5% Consume 58% of total energy, the poorest fifth less than 4% Have 74% of all telephone lines, the poorest fifth 1.5% Consume 84% of all paper, the poorest fifth 1.1% Own 87% of the world’s vehicle fleet, the poorest fifth less than 1%

Runaway growth in consumption in the past 50 years is putting strains on the environment never before seen.

[29] According to Forbes list24 of the World's 500 Richest Billionaires are: (1) Karl Albrecht, $26 billion; (2) Dieter Schwarz, $19.5 billion; (3) Berthold & Theo Jr. Albrecht, $18.9 billion; (4) Susanne Klatten, $14.3 billion; (5) Michael Otto and Family, $14.2 billion; (6) Stefan Quandt, $11.9 billion; (7) Johanna Quandt, $10.6 billion; (8) Klaus-Michael Kuhne, $9 billion; (9) Hasso Plattner, $8.9 billion; (10) August von Finck, $8.2 billion; (11) Klaus Tschira, $7.5 billion; (12) Dieter Schnabel, $7.2 billion; (13) Ludwig Merckle, $7.1 billion; (14) Heinz Hermann Thiele & Family, $6.4 billion; (15) Reinhold Wurth, $6 billion; (16) Karl-Heinz Kipp, $5.1 billion; (17) Michael Herz, $4.7 billion; (18) Wolfgang Herz, $4.7 billion; (19) Heinz-Horst Deichmann & Family, $4.4 billion; (20) Erivan Haub & Family, $4.3 billion; (21) Elizabeth Mohn & Family, $4.3 billion; (22) Curt Engelhorn, $4 billion;

23

http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_1998_en_overview.pdf Durgy Edwin (03/04/2013): The World's Richest Billionaires: Full List of the Top 500; Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwindurgy/2013/03/04/the-worlds-richest-billionaires-full-list-of-the-top-500/ Jardine, Nick (11 Oct 2011): Meet the 10 Richest People in Germany; Business Insider http://www.businessinsider.com/check-out-germanys-10-richest-individuals-and-families-2011-10?op=1

24

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

20


(23) Axel Oberwelland, $3.6 billion; (24) Heinz-Georg Baus, $3.4 billion; (25) Andreas Strungmann, $3.4 billion; (26) Thomas Strungmann, $3.4 billion; (27) Guenther Fielmann, $3.1 billion; (28) Otta Happel, $3 billion; (29) Friede Springer, $3 billion; (30) Aloys Wobben, $3 billion; (31) Hans Riege, $2.9 billion. Total: $ 234.6 billion [29.1] Germany’s National Wealth25 amounts to 18.04 Trillion dollars, so 234.6 billion amounts to 1.275%. [29.2] If the richest 5% consume 58% of the worlds total energy, then the richest 1,275 % consume approximately 20%. [29.3] 20% of Germany’s Energy Consumption: 11,573,533,680,000 kWH (11 trillion) A. [29.4] A. [29.5] A. [29.6] A.

Total Electricity Consumption is 57,867,668,400,000 kWH (2010): 7,215.42 kWH (201026) x Population: 80.2 million. Total German Population’s HE: 4,709,613,472 (4.709 billion) 7,215.420 Watts + 125 / 125 = 58 HE x 80.2 million Elite’s 20% Human Equivalent: 941,922,694 HE (941 million) 30,384,603 HE (30 million) per elite member Germany’s Impact on the Environment: I=PAT: 80.2 million x 58 HE = 4,709,613,472. (4,709 billion)

[29.7] Consequently, although Germany’s numeric population was 80,2 million in 2010, its Thermodynamic Footprint or Human Equivalent amounted to 4.709 billion hunter-foragers. Germany’s 31 richest individuals amounted to a Thermodynamic footprint of 941 million hunter-foragers. On average Germany’s 31 richest individuals amounted to a Thermodynamic footprint of 30 million hunterforagers each. [29.8] The Thermodynamic Footprint, expressed in Human Equivalents, quantifies in general terms the amount of damage that our technological activity is causing to the planet’s life-support systems; or the measure of the impact we are having on (or damage we are doing to) our planet’s life-support systems. [29.9] In Scarcity-Conflict terms it is a measure of our damage to the planet’s physical, biological and chemical makeup – through mining, manufacturing, construction, habitat alterations, and the generation of wastes such as carbon

25 "National wealth accounts Gross stock of fixed assets". Federal Statistics Office. 2011-09-17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_wealth www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/EN/Content/Statistics/VolkswirtschaftlicheGesamtr echnungen/Vermoegensrechnung/Tabellen/Content75/Bruttoanlagevermoegen,templateId=renderPrint.psml 26 2010 World Bank: http://www.orkii.com/germany

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

21


dioxide, garbage and other pollution; it is our contribution to Resource Scarcity and subsequent Scarcity induced Conflict. [29.10] If a measure of Germany’s Thermodynamic conflict upon the planet’s resource scarcity is equivalent to that of 4.709 billion hunter-foragers, then its 31 richest individuals Thermodynamic Scarcity-Conflict Footprint is that of 941 million hunter foragers, 30 million hunter-foragers each.

Urgent Environmental Security Issues currently facing Humanity as a result of our failure to protect our Planet’s Natural Capital, all three of which require citizens to urgently Learn to ‘Walk their Talk’ of ‘Supporting the Troops’, by reducing their impact (I=PAT) on their nation’s Natural Capital: [A] Peak Non-Renewable Natural Resources (NNR): [30] Scarcity: Humanity’s Last Chapter: A Comprehensive Analysis of Nonrenewable Natural Resource (NNR) Scarcity’s Consequences:

[31]

AnthroCorpocentric27 Flat Earth Society28 Jurisprudence views the world from a firmly entrenched inaccurate Anthropocentric (human-centred) perspective, where there is always a brighter future, because the implicit assumption of our Anthropocentric political, economic and legal worldview is that there will always be “enough” Non Renewable Natural Resources (NNR‘s) to enable a brighter future, and all politics and economics needs to concern itself with, is how to use these NNR‘s to provide ever improving material living standards for our ever-expanding global population29. From a broader Ecocentric30 Finite Resource Scarcity perspective, beyond Peak NNR31, there is no hope for a brighter future, the future

Clugston (2012) (p.127): “The AnthroCorpocentric perspective considers the philosophy, processes, and activities by which natural resource inputs to a society‘s economy are converted into goods and services outputs (wealth creation). It also considers the philosophy, processes, and activities by which goods and services (wealth) are allocated among a society‘s population. The fundamental assumption underlying the prevailing AnthroCorpocentric perspective is that notwithstanding periodic temporary shortfalls, natural resource inputs and natural habitat waste absorption capacities will remain sufficient to perpetuate global industrialism indefinitely.‘ – Scarcity, Clugston Chris (pg. 127) 28 Bartlett (1993) (1996/09) (1999/01) (2002); Hardin (1999); 29 Hardin (1985); Bartlett (2006/09); Guillebaud (2007); Leahy (2003) 30 “The ecological perspective considers natural resource inputs and natural habitat waste absorption capacities as the ultimate limiting factors governing a society‘s economic/political processes and activities, its attainable economic output (GDP) level, and its attainable level of societal wellbeing—i.e., the material living standards enjoyed by the society‘s population.” – Scarcity, Clugston C (127) 31 Bartlett (2006/09); Clugston (2012): Peak NNR: “NNRs are finite; and as their name implies, NNR reserves are not replenished on a time scale that is relevant to humans. More unfortunately, economically viable supplies associated with the vast majority of NNRs that enable our industrialized way of life are becoming increasingly scarce, both domestically (US) and globally. While there will always be ―plenty of NNR’s in the ground, there will not always be ―plenty of economically viable NNR’s in the ground. In fact, there are ―no 27

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

22


is one of depletion, austerity, resource wars & socio-economic and political collapse;32 because the fundamental assumption of ever-increasing NNR‘s, underlying our limited AnthroCorpocentric jurisprudence perspective is inaccurate.33 [32] Peak Oil is the end of cheap oil, it is the point where every barrel of oil is harder to find, more expensive to extract, and more valuable to whoever owns or controls it. As early as 2000, geological experts warned Peak Oil would occur sometime between 2000 and 200734. Cheap oil is the oxygen of the “economic growth”35 global economic system and industrial food production36. [33]

Scarcity: Overview:

[33.1] Mr. Chris Clugston’s37 Domestic (US) & Global NNR Scarcity Analysis is based upon his analysis of the criticality and scarcity associated with each of the 89 analyzed NNRs, using data from USGS, EIA, BEA, BLS, Fed, CBO, FBI, IEA, UN, World Bank, etc; and concludes in general that “absent some combination of immediate and drastic reductions in our global NNR utilization levels, ... we will experience escalating international and intranational conflicts during the coming decades over increasingly scarce NNR‘s, which will devolve into global societal collapse, almost certainly by the year 2050.”38 [33.2] Scarcity’s Global NNR Scarcity Analysis (pg.51-59) (pg 41-4939) summarizes global criticality and scarcity associated with each of the 89 analyzed NNR’s: (a) An overwhelming majority, 63 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, were considered “scarce” globally in 2008, immediately prior to the Great Recession; (b) A significant number, 28 of the 89 analyzed NNRs have peaked: are “almost certain” to remain scarce permanently going forward; and a sizeable number, 16 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, will “likely” remain scarce permanently; and (c) Global extraction/production levels associated with 39 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, are considered “at risk”.

longer enough economically viable NNR’s in the ground to enable continuous improvement in human societal wellbeing at historical rates.” –Clugston, C: Scarcity 32 Scarcity (p.4) 33 Clugston Chris: Scarcity: Humanity‘s Final Chapter: The realities, choices and likely outcomes associated with ever-increasing non-renewable natural resource scarcity, page 4 34 On February 11, 2006 Deffeyes claimed world oil production peaked on December 16, 2005 35 Deffeyes (2006): "The economists all think that if you show up at the cashier's cage with enough currency, God will put more oil in ground." 36 Ruppert (2004): p.24: ―We eat oil. It is a little known fact that for every 1 calorie of food energy produced, 10 calories of hydrocarbons are consumed.‘ 37 Clugston, Chris: Scarcity: Humanity‘s Final Chapter: The realities, choices and likely outcomes associated with ever-increasing non-renewable natural resource scarcity (Booklocker.com Inc 2012). Scarcity is a comprehensive, multidisciplinary assessment of the realities, choices, and likely outcomes associated with everincreasing non-renewable natural resource (NNR) scarcity. NNRs are the fossil fuels, metals, and non-metallic minerals that enable our industrialized existence. 38 Clugston, C: Scarcity: Preface, pg. ix 39 issuu.com/js-ror/docs/clugston_scarcity_pg31-55 MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

23


[33.3] NNR’s at risk – i.e. years to global exhaustion of reserves – are: (a) Antimony: 8 yrs (used for starter lights ignition batteries in cars and trucks; (b) Bauxite: 40 years (only economically viable feedstock for aluminium); (c) Bismuth: 17 years (non-toxic substitute for lead in solder and plumbing fixtures); (d) Cadmium: 25 years; (e) Chromium: 26 years (stainless steel, jet engines and gas turbines); (f) Coal: 40 years (electricity generation); (g) Cobalt: 26 years (gas turbine blades, jet aircraft engines, batteries); (h) Copper: 27 years; (i) Fluorspar: 23 years (feedstock for fluorine bearing chemicals, aluminium and uranium processing); (j) Graphite (Natural): 23 years; (k) Iron Ore: 15 years (only feedstock for iron and steel); (l) Lead: 17 years; (m) Lithium: 8 years (aircraft parts, mobile phones, batteries for electrical vehicles); (n) Manganese: 17 years (stainless steel, gasoline additive, dry cell batteries); (o) Molybdenum: 20 years (aircraft parts, electrical contacts, industrial motors, tool steels); (p) Natural Gas: 34 years; (q) Nickel: 30 years; (r) Niobium: 15 years (jet and rocket engines, turbines, superconducting magnets); (s) Oil: 39 years; (t) Rhenium: 22 years (petroleum refining, jet engines, gas turbine blades); (u) Silver: 11 years; (v) Thalium: 38 years; (w) Tin: 18 years; (x) Tungsten: 32 years; (y) Uranium: 34 years (primary energy source, weapons); (z) Zinc: 13 years; (aa) Zirconium: 19 years (nuclear power plants, jet engines, gas turbine blades). [33.4] Scarcity concludes “Our Next Normal is Catastrophe”: Our AnthroCorpocentric worldview does not recognize that “from a broader ecological perspective, all human economics and politics are irrelevant,” to “paraphrase Thoreau, we are ‘thrashing at the economic and political branches of our predicament, rather than hacking at the ecological root.’”40 [33.5] “Because the underlying cause associated with our transition from prosperity to austerity is ecological (geological), not economic or political, our incessant barrage of economic and political “fixes” are misguided and inconsequential. Our national economies are not “broken”; they are “dying of slow starvation” for lack of sufficient economically viable NNR inputs. [33.6] “Our industrial lifestyle paradigm, which is enabled by enormous quantities of finite, non-replenishing, and increasingly scarce NNRs, is unsustainable, i.e. physically impossible – going forward.41 [33.7] “Global humanity‘s steadily deteriorating condition will culminate in selfinflicted global societal collapse, almost certainly by the year 2050. We will not accept gracefully our new normal of ever-increasing, geologically-imposed austerity; nor will we suffer voluntarily the horrifically painful population level reductions and material living standard degradation associated with our inevitable transition to a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm.

40 41

Clugston, C: Scarcity: Preface, pg. 103-104 Clugston, C: Scarcity: Preface, pg. 103-104 MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

24


[33.8] “All industrialized and industrializing nations, irrespective of their economic and political orientations, are unsustainable and will collapse in the nottoo-distant future as a consequence of their dependence upon increasingly scarce NNRs. [33.9] We can voluntarily reduce population and consumption, or NNR scarcity depletion will force it upon us, in our inevitable transition to a sustainable, preindustrial lifestyle paradigm. [34]

Natural Resources and Human Evolution:

[34.1] During the past 2+ million years, humanity—Homo sapiens and our hominid predecessors—evolved through three major lifestyle paradigms: huntergatherer, agrarian, and industrial. [34.2] Each of the three paradigms is readily distinguishable from the other two in terms of its worldview, natural resource utilization behavior, and resulting level of societal wellbeing—i.e., attainable population levels and material living standards.

[35]

The Hunter-Gatherer Lifestyle Paradigm:

[35.1] The hunter-gatherer (HG) lifestyle paradigm spanned over 2 million years, from the time that our hominid ancestors first stood erect on the continent of Africa to approximately 8,000 BC. HG societies consisted of small nomadic clans,

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

25


typically numbering between 50 and 100 individuals, who subsisted primarily on naturally occurring vegetation and wildlife. [35.2] The HG lifestyle can best be described as subsistence living for a relatively constant population that probably never exceeded 5 million globally. Huntergatherers produced few manmade goods beyond the necessities required for their immediate survival, and they generated no appreciable wealth surplus. [35.3] The HG worldview revered Nature as the provider of life and subsistence, a perspective that fostered a passive lifestyle orientation through which huntergatherers sought to live—albeit somewhat exploitatively—within the environmental context defined by Nature. The HG resource mix consisted almost entirely of renewable natural resources such as water and naturally occurring edible plant life and wildlife. [36]

The Agrarian Lifestyle Paradigm:

[36.1] The agrarian lifestyle paradigm commenced in approximately 8,000 BC and lasted until approximately 1700 AD, when England initiated what was to become the industrial revolution. [36.2] Agrarian societies existed primarily by raising cultivated crops and domesticated livestock. [36.3] The agrarian worldview perceived Nature as something to be augmented through human effort, by domesticating naturally occurring plant and animal species. The agrarian lifestyle orientation was proactive in the sense that it sought to improve upon what Nature provided. [36.4] While modest wealth surpluses were sometimes generated by agrarian populations, agrarian existence typically offered little more in the way of material living standards for the vast majority of agrarian populations than did the HG lifestyle—although the global agrarian population did increase significantly, reaching nearly 800 million by 1750 AD. [36.5] The agrarian resource mix consisted primarily of RNRs, which were increasingly overexploited by ever-expanding, permanently-settled agrarian populations. As agrarian cultivation and grazing practices became increasingly intensive, renewable natural resource reserves were increasingly depleted and natural habitats were increasingly degraded as well. [37]

The Industrial Lifestyle Paradigm:

[37.1] The inception of the industrial lifestyle paradigm occurred with England’s industrial revolution in the early 18th century, less than 300 years ago.

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

26


[37.2] Today, over 1.5 billion people—approximately 22% of the world’s 6.9 billion total population—is considered “industrialized”; and nearly three times that many people actively aspire to an industrialized way of life. [37.3] Our industrialized world is characterized by an incomprehensibly complex mosaic of interdependent yet independently operating human and non-human entities and infrastructure. [37.4] These entities must function continuously, efficiently, and collectively at the local, regional, national, and global levels in order to convert natural resource inputs into the myriad goods and services that enable our modern industrial way of life. [37.5] [Note that failures within the industrial mosaic can disrupt, temporarily or permanently, the flow of societal essentials—water, food, energy, shelter, and clothing—to broad segments of our global population.] [37.6] Tremendous wealth surpluses are typically generated by industrialized societies; such wealth surpluses are actually required to enable the historically unprecedented material living standards enjoyed by increasingly large segments of ever-expanding industrialized populations. [37.7] The industrialized worldview perceives Nature as something to be harnessed through industrial processes and infrastructure, in order to enhance the human condition. It is an exploitive worldview that seeks to use natural resources and habitats as the means to continuously improve human societal wellbeing—that is, to provide continuously improving material living standards for ever-increasing numbers of ever-expanding human populations. [37.8] The resource mix associated with today’s industrialized societies is heavily skewed toward nonrenewable natural resources, which, in addition to renewable natural resources and natural habitats, have been increasingly overexploited since the dawn of the industrial revolution. [37.9] It is precisely this persistent overexploitation of natural resources and natural habitats—especially NNRs—that has enabled the “success” associated with the industrial lifestyle paradigm—success being defined here as continuous increases in both human population levels and human material living standards. [38]

Nonrenewable Natural Resources—the Enablers of Industrialization:

[38.1] Our industrial lifestyle paradigm is enabled by nonrenewable natural resources (NNRs)—energy resources, metals, and minerals. Both the support infrastructure within industrialized nations and the raw material inputs into industrialized economies consist almost entirely of NNRs; NNRs are the primary sources of the tremendous wealth surpluses required to perpetuate industrialized societies. MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

27


[38.2] As a case in point, the percentage of NNR inputs into the US economy increased from less than 10% in the year 1800, which corresponds roughly with the inception of the American industrial revolution, to approximately 95% today. Between 1800 and today, America’s total annual NNR utilization level increased from approximately 4 million tons to nearly 7 billion tons—an increase of over 1700 times! [38.3] In the absence of enormous and ever-increasing NNR supplies, the 1.2 billion people who currently enjoy an industrialized way of life will cease to do so; and the billions of people aspiring to an industrialized way of life will fail to realize their goal. [39]

NNR Scarcity:

[39.1] As their name implies, NNRs are finite—they are not replenished by Nature; and they are scarce—economically viable NNR deposits are rare. Persistent extraction (production) will therefore deplete recoverable NNR reserves to exhaustion. [Note: the terms NNR “production” and NNR “extraction” are used interchangeably throughout the paper. Although “extraction” is the proper term— humans do not produce NNRs—the term “production” has gained wide acceptance within the NNR extraction industries.] [39.2] The typical NNR depletion cycle is characterized by: a period of “continuously more and more”, as the easily accessible, high quality, low cost resources are extracted; followed by a “supply peak”,8 or maximum attainable extraction level; followed by a period of “continuously less and less”, as the less accessible, lower quality, higher cost resources are extracted. [39.3] Since the inception of our industrial revolution, humanity has been the beneficiary of “continuously more and more” with respect to available NNR supplies. [39.4] Unfortunately, in the process of reaping the benefits associated with “continuously more and more”, we have been eliminating—persistently and systematically—the very natural resources upon which our industrialized way of life depends. [39.5] Increasingly, global NNR supplies are transitioning from “continuously more and more” to “continuously less and less”, as they peak and go into terminal decline. As a result, NNRs are becoming increasingly scarce—ever-tightening global NNR supplies are struggling to keep pace with ever-increasing global demand.

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

28


[40]

The Analysis:

[40.1] The following Global Nonrenewable Natural Resource Scarcity Assessment quantifies the magnitude associated with increasing global NNR scarcity and the probabilities associated with imminent and permanent global NNR supply shortfalls. The assessment consists of two analyses, both of which are based on US Geological Survey (USGS) and US Energy Information Administration (EIA) data. [40.2] The Global NNR Scarcity Analysis assesses the incidence of global scarcity associated with each of 57 NNRs during the period of global economic growth (20002008) prior to the Great Recession. [40.3] The Global NNR Supply Shortfall Analysis assesses the probability of a permanent global supply shortfall associated with each of 26 NNRs between now and the year 2030. [41]

Global NNR Supply Shortfall Analysis Findings:

[41.1] Fifty (50) of the 57 NNRs (88%) analyzed in the Global NNR Scarcity Analysis experienced global scarcity—and therefore experienced temporary (at

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

29


least) global supply shortfalls—during the 2000-2008 period. Twenty three (23) of the 26 NNRs (88%) analyzed in the Global NNR Supply Shortfall Analysis are likely to experience permanent global supply shortfalls by the year 2030. Each permanent NNR supply shortfall represents another crack in the foundation of our globalizing industrial lifestyle paradigm; at issue is which crack or combination of cracks will cause the structure to collapse? [41.2] Permanent global supply shortfalls associated with a single critical NNR or with a very few secondary NNRs can be sufficient to cause significant lifestyle disruptions—population level reductions and/or material living standard degradation. [41.3] A permanent shortfall in the global supply of oil, for example, would be sufficient to cause significant local, national, and/or global lifestyle disruptions, or outright global societal collapse; as would permanent global supply shortfalls associated with 2-3 critical NNRs such as potassium, phosphate rock, and (fixed) nitrogen; as would concurrent permanent global supply shortfalls associated with 4-5 secondary NNRs such as the alloys, catalysts, and reagents that enable the effective use of critical NNRs. [41.4] Given our vulnerability to an ever-increasing number of imminent and permanent global NNR supply shortfalls, the likelihood that the mix and volume of shortfalls will reach their “critical mass” is a question of “when”, not “if”. [42]

Implications of Increasing Global NNR Scarcity:

[43]

Increasing NNR Scarcity:

[43.1] Available supplies associated with an overwhelming majority of NNRs— including bauxite, copper, iron ore, magnesium, manganese, nickel, phosphate rock, potash, rare earth metals, tin, and zinc—have reached their domestic US peak extraction levels, and are in terminal decline.16 Based on the evidence presented above, available supplies associated with a vast majority of NNRs are becoming increasingly scarce globally as well. [43.2] Because global NNR supplies are transitioning from “continuously more and more” to “continuously less and less”, our global societal wellbeing levels— our economic activity levels, population levels, and material living standards—are transitioning from “continuously more and more” to “continuously less and less” as well. [44]

Sustainability is Inevitable:

[44.1] “Business as usual” (industrialism), “stasis” (no growth), “downscaling” (reducing NNR utilization), and “moving toward sustainability” (feel good initiatives) are not options; we will be sustainable…

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

30


[45]

Unintended Consequences:

[45.1] It is difficult to argue that our incessant quest for global industrialization and the natural resource utilization behavior that enables our quest are inherently evil. We have simply applied our everexpanding knowledge and technology over the past several centuries toward dramatically improving our level of societal wellbeing, through our ever-increasing utilization of NNRs. [45.2] However, despite our possibly justifiable naïveté during our meteoric rise to “exceptionalism”, and despite the fact that our predicament was undoubtedly an unintended consequence of our efforts to continuously improve the material living standards enjoyed by our ever-expanding global population; globally available, economically viable supplies associated with the NNRs required to perpetuate our industrial lifestyle paradigm will not be sufficient going forward.

[46]

Our Transition to Sustainability:

[46.1] Humanity’s transition to a sustainable lifestyle paradigm, within which a drastically reduced human population will rely exclusively on renewable natural resources (RNRs)—water, soil (farmland), forests, and other naturally occurring biota—is therefore inevitable. Our choice is not whether we “wish to be sustainable”; our choice involves the process by which we “will become sustainable”. [46.2] We can choose to alter fundamentally our existing unsustainable natural resource utilization behavior and transition voluntarily to a sustainable lifestyle MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

31


paradigm over the next several decades. In the process, we would cooperate globally in utilizing remaining accessible NNRs to orchestrate a relatively gradual—but horrifically painful nonetheless—transition, thereby optimizing our population level and material living standards both during our transition and at sustainability. Or, we can refrain from taking preemptive action and allow Nature to orchestrate our transition to sustainability through societal collapse, thereby experiencing catastrophic reductions in our population level and material living standards. [47]

The Squeeze is On:

[47.1] It would be convenient if our unraveling were to occur in 1,000 years, or 500 years, or even 50 years. We could then dismiss it as a concern for future generations and go busily about improving our national and global societal wellbeing levels in the meantime. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Great Recession was a tangible manifestation of our predicament—NNR scarcity was epidemic in 2008, both domestically (US) and globally. Our unraveling is in process. At present, however, only an extremely small minority of the global populace understands that NNR scarcity is the fundamental cause underlying our predicament and its derivative economic and political problems. When the general public becomes aware of this fact and of the fact that NNR scarcity is a permanent, ever-increasing, and unsolvable phenomenon, collapse will ensue in short order.

[B] Ecological Biodiversity Crisis & Destruction of Renewable Resources: [48] Earth is home to millions of species, including humans. An approximate number of total number of eukaryotic42 species is likely to be 5 ± 3 million of which about 1.5 million have been already named. Current estimates of various eukaryote phyla are: A.

1.5 million fungi; 3,067 brown algae; 17,000 lichens;

B.

321,212 plants (including: 10,134 red and green algae, 16,236 mosses, 12,000 ferns and horsetails, 1,021 gymnosperms, 281,821 angiosperms);

C.

1,367,555 non-insect animals including: 1,305,250 invertebrates (2,175 corals, 85,000 mollusks, as many as 1.1 million arachnids, including ~1 million mites and ~100,000 other arachnids, 47,000 crustaceans, 68,827

42

A eukaryote is an organism whose cells contain complex structures enclosed within membranes. Eukaryotes may more formally be referred to as the taxon Eukarya or Eukaryota. The defining membrane-bound structure that sets eukaryotic cells apart from prokaryotic cells is the nucleus, or nuclear envelope, within which the genetic material is carried. MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

32


other invertebrates); 63,649 vertebrates (31,300 fish, 7,093 amphibians, 9,768 reptiles, 9,998 birds, 5,490 mammals); D.

As many as 10–30 million insects.

[49] Earth’s mineral resources and the products of the biosphere contribute resources that are used to support all of earth’s species populations, including the mammalian human population. 29.2% (148.94 million km2, or 57.51 million sq mi) of planet earth is not covered by water and consists of mountains, deserts, plains, plateaus, and other geomorphologies. [50] The graphs below illustrate how the post-World War 2 socio-economic boom, mainly in Europe and North America but now gathering pace elsewhere, has affected components of the Earth system. (Source: Steffen et al (2004))

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

33


[51]

Planetary Boundaries:

[52] The Earth system responds in complex ways to external forces. The most obvious external force is the energy from the sun, which changes over time. On timescales of hundreds of thousands of years, the Earth’s position relative to the sun alters slightly, changing the amount of energy we receive. The Earth system responds to this external force by cycling between ice ages and warm periods in a regular pattern. [53] After the last ice age, which finished 12,000 years ago, the Earth system settled into a relatively stable warm period that has allowed human society to grow and develop, eventually becoming a global force. Without significant external interference, this period would have likely persisted for several thousand years to come.

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

34


[54] In 2009, researchers made the first attempt to define planetary boundaries associated with thresholds or tipping points in the Earth system that threaten the current state. They identified43 nine interconnected boundaries. Ensuring these boundaries are respected, the authors argue, will reduce the risk of crossing dangerous thresholds that push the Earth system into a new state. But the authors also state that human activity has already driven the Earth system across three boundaries: climate, biodiversity loss and nitrogen useš. [55] The boundaries concept is still in its infancy and is expected to be refined in the coming years to explore its full implications. However, it is a useful communication tool. It moves the discussion beyond sustainable resource use to focus on fundamental and uncontrolled changes to Earth’s biological, chemical and physical processes, prompting society to rethink definitions of sustainable development. Furthermore, it has the potential to help policymakers take an interconnected approach to managing planetary risks.

43

Rockstrom Johan (24 Sep 2009): A safe operating space for humanity, Nature, 461, 472-475 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/461472a.html PDF: http://www.environment.arizona.edu/files/env/profiles/liverman/rockstrom-etc-liverman-2009-nature.pdf MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

35


[56]

Two Agri-Cultures: Law of Limited Competition and Totalitarian

Agriculture: [56.1] Current Arable land is a category of agricultural land, which, according to Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) definition, additionally includes land under permanent or perennial crops, such as fruit plantations, as well as permanent pastures, for grazing of livestock. In 2008, the world's total arable land amounted to 13,805,153 km², and 48,836,976 km² was classified as "agricultural land."44 [57] In Genetic feedback and human population regulation 45, Russell Hopfenberg says that in terms of agricultural land use practices, the world is divided into two different Agri-cultures: “Lack of cultural variability is precisely the situation in which the human species finds itself. Except for a tiny minority of tribal peoples on the planet, the human species can be seen as participating in a monoculture. This monoculture, called civilization (Quinn 1992; Cohen 1995), has as its foundation, the basic feature of continually increasing food production. As Cohen (1995) stated, “The ability to produce food allowed human numbers to increase greatly and made it possible, eventually, for civilizations to arise.” Farb (1978) pointed out that “intensification of production to feed an increased population leads to a still greater increase in population.” He also asserted “the population explosion, the shortage of resources, the pollution of the environment, exploitation of one human group by another, famine and war—all have their roots in that great adaptive change from foraging to production.” Farb’s statement makes clear that the “adaptive change from foraging to production” is coming into focus as one that has provided some relatively short-term benefits and many long-term difficulties. These difficulties may ultimately lead to an environment that is no longer capable of sustaining human life (Pimm et al. 1995).”

[58]

Primitivism Agriculture in accordance to the Ecological Law of

Limited Competition: Junk-food chains, including KFC and Pizza Hut, are under attack from major environmental groups in the United States and other developed countries because of their environmental impact. Intensive breeding of livestock and poultry for such restaurants leads to deforestation, land degradation, and contamination of 44

FAO Resources page". FAO.org. 2010. http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-publications/ess-yearbook/essyearbook2010/yearbook2010-reources/en/ 45 Hopfenberg, R. (2009) MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

36


water sources and other natural resources. .. Overall, animal farms use nearly 40 percent of the world’s total grain production. In the United States, nearly 70 percent of grain production is fed to livestock. … In Indian Agriculture, women use up to 150 different species of plants (which the biotech industry would call weeds) as medicine, food, or fodder. For the poorest, this biodiversity is the most important resource for survival. … What is a weed for Monsanto is a medicinal plant or food for rural people. — Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest46

[58.1] Prior to Totalitarian Agriculture, humans engaged in Agriculture in accordance to the Law of Limited Competition. Daniel Quinn defines the Ecological Law of Limited Competition as such: you may compete to the full extent of your capabilities but you may not hunt down your competitors or destroy their food or deny them access to food. [58.2] Essentially what this means is that you cannot claim ownership of all the food. You can compete for the food that you need, but you cannot say "all the food is mine and no one else who wants any can have some." You can fight for food but you cannot act in a genocidal fashion, setting out to kill those who compete with you merely because they compete with you. [58.3] A lion and a hyena may compete with each other to determine who gets to eat the dead antelope. However the lions may not rally together and set out to eliminate hyenas lest they challenge them for any of their kills. To do so would be to operate outside the boundaries of the law. [58.4] How the Law is Self Eliminating: If the lions did rally together and kill of all the hyenas then there would be more food for them. Their population would increase and their territory would expand. But there would still be other competitors for their food. So the lions set up a special task force to go out and eliminate other species that compete for food and living space. [58.5] Elimination doesn't occur instantly. It takes place when there is nowhere left to expand, no competitors left to destroy. If a species destroys their competitors then there is more food available to them. With more food they can support a higher population. And with a higher population they need more living space so they expand their territory. But as they expand their territory they meet more competitors who are eating food that could be theirs. So they destroy them, taking all the food in the new territory. With all this new food population expands again and so does territory.

46

Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest, (South End Press, 2000), pp. 70-71, 104-105. MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

37


[58.6] And then it happens all over again. This way of life works for a short period of time. It doesn't eliminate the species instantly. Elimination only takes place when there is nowhere left to expand into, no competitors left to destroy. [58.7] When this happens the way of life implodes. So many competitors have been destroyed that the biodiversity of the ecosystem has been fatally weakened. All that the landscape now supports is the lawbreaker and the lawbreaker's food. With biodiversity gone and the food chain destroyed the food supply of the lawbreakers will fall apart and when the food supply falls apart the lawbreaker is eliminated. [58.8] Quinn argues that humans are the only species to have broken this law, beginning with Agriculture, 10 000 years ago. Takers exterminate their competitors, which is something that never happens in the wild. In the wild, animals will defend their territories and their kills and they will invade their competitors' territories and pre-empt their kills. Some species even include competitors among their prey, but they never hunt competitors down just to make them dead, the way ranchers and farmers do with coyotes and foxes and crows. What they hunt, they eat." When animals go hunting—even extremely aggressive animals like baboons—it's to obtain food, not to exterminate competitors or even animals that prey on them." [58.9] Takers systematically destroy their competitors' food to make room for their own. Nothing like this occurs in the natural community. The rule there is: Take what you need, and leave the rest alone." [58.10] Takers deny their competitors access to food. In the wild, the rule is: You may deny your competitors access to what you're eating, but you may not deny them access to food in general. In other words, you can say, `This gazelle is mine,' but you can't say, `All the gazelles are mine.' The lion defends its kill as its own, but it doesn't defend the herd as its own." "Bees will deny you access to what's inside their hive in the apple tree, but they won't deny you access to the apples." [59]

Unsustainable Taker Totalitarian Agriculture: Indigenous and local communities [living primitive lifestyle’s] play a significant role in conserving very substantial areas of high biodiversity and cultural value. In addition to officially-designated protected areas, there are many thousand Community Conserved Areas (CCAs) across the world, including sacred forests, wetlands, and landscapes, village lakes, catchment forests, river and coastal stretches and marine areas. These are natural and/or modified ecosystems of significant value in terms of their biodiversity, cultural significance and ecological services. They are voluntarily conserved by indigenous and local communities, through customary MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

38


laws or other effective means, and are not usually included in official protected area statistics. Globally, 4 to 8 million square km (the larger estimate is an area bigger than Australia) are owned or administered by communities. In 18 developing countries with the largest forest cover, over 22% of forests are owned by or reserved for communities. In some of these countries (for example Mexico and Papua New Guinea) the community forests cover 80% of the total. By no means all areas under community control effectively conserved, but a substantial portion are. In fact, some studies show that levels of protection are actually higher under community or indigenous management than under government management alone. -- Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010), Global Biodiversity Outlook 347

[60]

Totalitarian Agriculture Trade-Offs:

[61] World Food and Human Population Growth, describes how food supply drives human population growth, and how human population growth adversely affects our environment and our ability to sustain our culture. This began with the agricultural revolution, a cultural change which advocates continually increasing food production. The consequences of Agricultural expansion are: * decreased

47

http://gbo3.cbd.int/ MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

39


carbon sequestration (80%), decreased soil nutrients (20%), decreased base stream flow (30%), and decreased species biodiversity (80%).48

[62] In Ensuring healthy biodiversity and sustainable productive agriculture can coexist in Europe49, Patrick ten Brink’s graph gives a simplified example of the trade-offs involved in a decision to leave land in a natural state, Hopfenberg, Russell (2007): Chapter 32-33: Before – After Forest Conversion to Cropland Patrick Ten Brink (11 April 2013): Ensuring healthy biodiversity and sustainable productive agriculture can coexist in Europe; Hungry for Change II Conference and Exhibition, Brussels Biodiversity session – programme http://www.slideshare.net/Patricktenbrink/patrick-ten-brink-of-ieep-teeb-ecpa-hungry-for-change-ii-final-11april-2013 48 49

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

40


convert it to extensive agriculture or convert it to intensive agriculture (excluding pollution issues). The example shows how intensive totalitarian agriculture was initially believed to increase food production by around 200%; however with extended intensive abuse of the land, food production yields were no greater than if the land had been left in its natural state; however, intensive use of the land had reduced soil protection by 80%, freshwater by 80%, energy by 80%, and climate regulation by 80%. As land is degraded and more artificial inputs are made to get the same provisioning service, the share of the ecosystem services drops as soil is degraded. What initially may appear as positive food production gains end up not to be so.

[63] Despite aware of biodiversity’s importance50, Civilization insists on continuing its Human’s Population and Consumption lifestyle’s51, including Totalitarian Agricultural practices, contributing to the destruction of biodiversity. In August 1999, Environment New Service, reported52: “the current extinction rate is now approaching 1,000 times the background rate and may climb to 10,000 times the

50

http://www.globalissues.org/article/170/why-is-biodiversity-important-who-cares http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug1999/1999-08-02-06.asp 52 http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug1999/1999-08-02-06.asp

51

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

41


background rate during the next century, if present trends continue [resulting in] a loss that would easily equal those of past extinctions.” (Emphasis added) [64] A major report, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment53, released in March 2005 highlighted a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth54, with some 10-30% of the mammal, bird and amphibian species threatened with extinction, due to human actions. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) added55 that Earth is unable to keep up in the struggle to regenerate from the demands we place on it. [65] The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) notes in a video 56 that many species are threatened with extinction. In addition, at threat of extinction are: (i) 1 out of 8 birds; (ii) 1 out of 4 mammals; (iii) 1 out of 4 conifers; (iv) 1 out of 3 amphibians; (v) 6 out of 7 marine turtles; (vi) 75% of genetic diversity of agricultural crops has been lost; (vii) 75% of the world’s fisheries are fully or over exploited; (viii) Up to 70% of the world’s known species risk extinction if the global temperatures rise by more than 3.5°C; (ix) 1/3rd of reef-building corals around the world are threatened with extinction; (x) Over 350 million people suffer from severe water scarcity. [66] As explained in the UN’s 3rd Global Biodiversity Outlook57, the rate of biodiversity loss has not been reduced because the 5 principle pressures on biodiversity are persistent, even intensifying: (a) Habitat loss and degradation due to overpopulation and overconsumption; (b) Climate change (a consequence of Population and Economic Growth Agenda); (c) Excessive nutrient load and other forms of pollution (a consequence of Population and Economic Growth Agenda); (d) Over-exploitation and unsustainable use (a consequence of Population and Economic Growth Agenda); (e) Invasive alien species. Most governments report to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity that these pressures are affecting biodiversity in their country (see p. 55 of the report). [67] The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) maintains the Red List58 to assess the conservation status of species, subspecies, varieties, and even selected subpopulations on a global scale.59 [68] Consider the following observations and conclusions from established experts and institutions summarized by Jaan Suurkula, M.D. and chairman of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology (PSRAST): 53

http://www.globalissues.org/article/408/sustainable-development-introduction http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4391835.stm 55 http://www.panda.org/index.cfm?uNewsID=83520 56 What kind of world do we want?, IUCN, December 2008 (Updated Jan 22, 2010) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdsB0zlQ4bg 57 http://gbo3.cbd.int/ 58 http://www.iucnredlist.org/ 59 Threat status of comprehensively assessed species by IUCN. Source: IUCN, compiled by Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May 2010, p. 28 http://gbo3.cbd.int/ 54

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

42


World-wide cooperation required to prevent global crisis; Part one— the problem60: The world environmental situation is likely to be further aggravated by the increasingly rapid, large scale global extinction of species. It occurred in the 20th century at a rate that was a thousand times higher than the average rate during the preceding 65 million years. This is likely to destabilize various ecosystems including agricultural systems. …In a slow extinction, various balancing mechanisms can develop. Noone knows what will be the result of this extremely rapid extinction rate. What is known, for sure, is that the world ecological system has been kept in balance through a very complex and multifaceted interaction between a huge number of species. This rapid extinction is therefore likely to precipitate collapses of ecosystems at a global scale. This is predicted to create large-scale agricultural problems, threatening food supplies to hundreds of millions of people. This ecological prediction does not take into consideration the effects of global warming which will further aggravate the situation. Industrialized fishing has contributed importantly to mass extinction due to repeatedly failed attempts at limiting the fishing. A new global study concludes that 90 percent of all large fishes have disappeared from the world’s oceans in the past half century, the devastating result of industrial fishing. The study, which took 10 years to complete and was published in the international journal Nature, paints a grim picture of the Earth’s current populations of such species as sharks, swordfish, tuna and marlin. …The loss of predatory fishes is likely to cause multiple complex imbalances in marine ecology. Another cause for extensive fish extinction is the destruction of coral reefs. This is caused by a combination of causes, including warming of oceans, damage from fishing tools and a harmful infection of coral organisms promoted by ocean pollution. It will take hundreds of thousands of years to restore what is now being destroyed in a few decades. …According to the most comprehensive study done so far in this field, over a million species will be lost in the coming 50 years. The most important cause was found to be climate change.

60

Jaan Suurkula, World-wide cooperation required to prevent global crisis; Part one— the problem, Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology, February 6, 2004 [Emphasis is original] http://www.psrast.org/globecolcr.htm MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

43


…NOTE: The above presentation encompasses only the most important and burning global environmental problems. There are several additional ones, especially in the field of chemical pollution that contribute to harm the environment or upset the ecological balance.

[69]

Declining Amphibian Populations:

[69.1] Amphibians are particularly sensitive to changes in the environment61. Amphibians have been described as a marker species or the equivalent of “canaries of the coal mines” meaning they provide an important signal to the health of biodiversity; when they are stressed and struggling, biodiversity may be under pressure. When they are doing well, biodiversity is probably healthy. [69.2] Malcom MacCallum of the Biological Sciences Program, Texas A&M University calculated that the current extinction rate of amphibians could be 211 times the background amphibian extinction rate62. He added that “If current estimates of amphibian species in imminent danger of extinction are included in these calculations, then the current amphibian extinction rate may range from 25,039–45,474 times the background extinction rate for amphibians. [70]

Reptiles Threatened by Deforestation, Habitat Loss & Trade:

[70.1] 19% of the world’s reptiles are estimated to be threatened with extinction, according to a study by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Zoological Society of London63. Reptiles include species such as snakes, lizards, crocodiles, turtles and tortoises. [70.2] The study noted that the extinction risk is not evenly spread. For example, the study estimated 30% of freshwater reptiles to be close to extinction. Freshwater turtles alone are at a 50% risk of extinction, as they are also affected by national and international trade. [70.3] Why are reptiles so sensitive to environmental conditions?: “Reptiles are often associated with extreme habitats and tough environmental conditions, so it is easy to assume that they will be fine in our changing world. However, many species are very highly specialized in terms of habitat use and the climatic conditions they require for day to day functioning. This makes them particularly sensitive to environmental changes.” [71]

Dwindling Fish Stocks:

61

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/10-08Turnover.asp http://www.herpconbio.org/~herpconb/McCallum/amphibian%20extinctions.pdf 63 Dr Monika Böhm (February 15, 2013): Almost one in five reptiles struggling to survive, IUCN http://www.iucn.org/news_homepage/news_by_date/2013/?12086/Almost-one-in-five-reptiles-struggling-tosurvive 62

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

44


[71.1] The UN’s 3rd Global Biodiversity Outlook report 64, mentioned earlier, notes that, “About 80 percent of the world marine fish stocks for which assessment information is available are fully exploited or overexploited. Fish stocks assessed since 1977 have experienced an 11% decline in total biomass globally, with considerable regional variation. The average maximum size of fish caught declined by 22% since 1959 globally for all assessed communities. There is also an increasing trend of stock collapses over time, with 14% of assessed stocks collapsed in 2007.” [71.2] IPS reports that fish catches are expected to decline dramatically in the world’s tropical regions because of climate change65. Furthermore, “in 2006, aquaculture consumed 57 percent of fish meal and 87 percent of fish oil” as industrial fisheries operating in tropical regions have been “scooping up enormous amounts of fish anchovies, herring, mackerel and other small pelagic forage fish to feed to farmed salmon or turn into animal feed or pet food.” As Suurkula mentioned above, mass extinctions of marine life due to industrialized fishing has been a concern for many years. Yet, it rarely makes mainstream headlines. [71.3] A research article in the journal, Science, warned commercial fish and seafood species may all crash by 204866. At the current rate of loss, it is feared the oceans may never recover. Extensive coastal pollution, climate change, over-fishing and the enormously wasteful practice of deep-sea trawling are all contributing to the problem, as Inter Press Service (IPS) summarized67. [71.4] Loss of Biodiversity’s effect on aquatic ecosystems: Ecosystems are incredibly productive and efficient—when there is sufficient biodiversity68. Each form of life works together with the surrounding environment to help recycle waste, maintain the ecosystem, and provide services that others—including humans—use and benefit from. [71.5] For example, as Steve Palumbi of Stamford University (and one of the authors of the paper) noted69, the ocean ecosystems can (i) Take sewage and recycle it into nutrients; (ii) Scrub toxins out of the water; (iii) Produce food for many species, including humans; (iv) Turns carbon dioxide into food and oxygen. [71.6] With massive species loss, the report warns, at current rates, in less than 50 years, the ecosystems could reach the point of no return, where they would not be able to regenerate themselves. Dr. Boris Worm comments: “Whether we looked at tide pools or studies over the entire world’s ocean, we saw the same picture 64 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010), Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May, 2010, p.48 http://gbo3.cbd.int/ 65 http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48796 66 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5800/787 67 http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35349 68 http://www.globalissues.org/article/170/why-is-biodiversity-important-who-cares 69 Dr. Boris Worm, Losing species, Dalhousie University, November 3, 2006 http://www.dal.ca/news/2006/11/03/oceanstudy.html

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

45


emerging. In losing species we lose the productivity and stability of entire ecosystems. I was shocked and disturbed by how consistent these trends are— beyond anything we suspected.” [72]

Declining Ocean Biodiversity:

[72.1] It is not just fish in the oceans that may be struggling, but most biodiversity in the seas. This includes mammals (e.g. whales, dolphins, polar bears), birds (e.g. penguins), and other creatures (e.g. krill). [72.2] The Census of Marine Life70 is a global network of researchers and scientists. They’ve been involved in a decade-long initiative to assess diversity, distribution and abundance of life in the oceans. A better understanding of these complex systems is clearly important given our dependence on the marine ecosystem in various ways. [Brief explanation of why we need to monitor ocean biodiversity, Ocean Observations Biodiversity Video71, Census on Marine Life, November 28, 2007] [72.3] This first Census of Marine Life (CoML) hopes to act as a baseline of how human activity is affecting previously unexplored marine ecosystems. A database72 of global marine life has also published as well as numerous videos 73 (also on YouTube74) images75, and reports: 201076.) [72.4] The Census was able to determine, that over-fishing was reported to be the greatest threat to marine biodiversity in all regions followed by habitat loss and pollution. One of the summary reports77 also added that “the fact that these threats were reported in all regions indicates their global nature.” A collection of regional and overview reports were also published on the Public Library of Science web site [72.5] In the past century, commercial whaling has decimated numerous whale populations, many of which have struggled to recover. [72.6] Increasing rapid ocean acidification, caused by the oceans absorbing more carbon dioxide than usual (because it is emitted by humans more than it should) also affects marine ecosystems, as explained at the climate change and biodiversity page78. [73]

Inland Water Ecosystems:

70

http://www.coml.org/ http://www.youtube.com/censusofmarinelife#p/c/4/kXXzvGJCVAc 72 http://www.iobis.org/ 73 http://www.coml.org/video-gallery 74 http://www.youtube.com/censusofmarinelife 75 http://www.coml.org/image-gallery 76 http://www.coml.org/Highlights-2010 77 http://www.ploscollections.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0012110 78 http://www.globalissues.org/article/172/climate-change-affects-biodiversity 71

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

46


[73.1] We use water for a variety of purposes from agricultural, domestic and industrial uses. This has involved activities that alter surrounding ecosystems, such as drainage, diversion of water for irrigation, industrial and domestic use, contaminating water with excess nutrient run-off (e.g. from fertilizers) and industrial waste, building damns, etc. [73.2] The UN’s 3rd Global Biodiversity Outlook report 79 also mentioned earlier notes that “shallow-water wetlands such as marshes, swamps and shallow lakes have declined significantly in many parts of the world.” (p.42). [73.3] The report also notes that water quality in freshwater ecosystems is an important biodiversity indicator, yet global data is quite lacking. But there are numerous examples that are known. Quoting a number of examples from the report, A.

Between 56% and 65% of inland water systems suitable for use in intensive agriculture in Europe and North America had been drained by 1985. The respective figures for Asia and South America were 27% and 6%.

B.

73% of marshes in northern Greece have been drained since 1930.

C.

60% of the original wetland area of Spain has been lost.

D.

The Mesopotamian marshes of Iraq lost more than 90% of their original extent between the 1970s and 2002, following a massive and systematic drainage project. Following the fall of the former Iraqi regime in 2003 many drainage structures have been dismantled, and the marshes were reflooded to approximately 58% of their former extent by the end of 2006, with a significant recovery of marsh vegetation.

E.

More than 40% of the global river discharge is now intercepted by large dams and one-third of sediment destined for the coastal zones no longer arrives. These large-scale disruptions have had a major impact on fish migration, freshwater biodiversity more generally and the services it provides. They also have a significant influence on biodiversity in terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems.

[73.4] The report also notes that “The number of observed ‘dead zones’, coastal sea areas where water oxygen levels have dropped too low to support most marine life, has roughly doubled each decade since the 1960s. Many are concentrated near the estuaries of major rivers, and result from the buildup of nutrients, largely carried from inland agricultural areas where fertilizers are washed into watercourses. The nutrients promote the growth of algae that die and decompose on

79

http://gbo3.cbd.int/ MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

47


the seabed, depleting the water of oxygen and threatening fisheries, livelihoods and tourism.” (p. 60)80 [73.5] Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010), Global Biodiversity Outlook 381, May, 2010, p.43: “In some areas, depletion and pollution of economically important water resources have gone beyond the point of no return, and coping with a future without reliable water resources systems is now a real prospect in parts of the world. UNESCO’s Third World Water Development Report predicts that nearly half of humanity will be living in areas of high water stress by 2030.” [74]

Loss of Forests and Biodiversity:

[74.1] A 20-year study has shown that deforestation and introduction of nonnative species has led to about 12.5% of the world’s plant species to become critically rare82. (In fact, as an example, a study suggests that the Amazon damage is worse than previously thought83, due to previously undetected types of selective logging and deforestation.) [74.2] A report from the World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development suggests that the forests of the world have been exploited to the point of crisis84 and that major changes in global forest management strategies would be needed to avoid the devastation. [74.3] What also makes this a problem is that many of the endangered species are only found in small areas of land, often within the borders of a single country. [74.4] New species of animals and plants are still being discovered. In Papua New Guinea, 44 new species of animals were discovered recently in the forests. Logging may affect these animals’ habitats, though. The loss of rainforests around the world, where many species of life are found will mean that potential knowledge, whether medicinal, sustenance sources, or evolutionary and scientific information etc. could be lost. [74.5] Brazil, which is estimated to have around 55,000 species of flora, amounting to some 22% of the world’s total and India for example, which has about 46,000 and some 81,000 animal species (amounting to some 8% of the world’s biodiversity), are also under various pressures, from corporate globalization,

80 Source: Updated from Diaz and Rosenberg (2008). Science. Graph compiled by Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May 2010, p.60 http://gbo3.cbd.int/ 81 http://gbo3.cbd.int/ 82 http://www.unep-wcmc.org/species/plants/overview.htm 83 http://www.unfoundation.org/unwire/archives/UNWIRE990408.asp#9 84 http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr1999/1999-04-20-03.asp

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

48


deforrestation, etc. So too are many other biodiverse regions, such as Indonesia, parts of Africa, and other tropical regions.85 [74.6] The UN’s 3rd Global Biodiversity Outlook report, mentioned earlier, also notes the extent to which deforestation is occurring as well as measures to address associated concerns. [74.7] The report notes (p.32) that forests (a) Are approximately 31% of the Earth’s land surface, (b) Contain more than half of all terrestrial animal and plant species (mostly in the tropics), and (c) Account for more than two-thirds of net primary production on land – the conversion of solar energy into plant matter. [74.8] Deforestation, however, continues at an “alarming rate”, despite recent decreases in several tropical countries. [74.9] The significant decline noted in the Brazilian Amazon is not enough to prevent the World Bank worrying about the future. The Global Biodiversity Outlook report notes that “According to a recent study co-ordinated by the World Bank, 20% Amazon deforestation would be sufficient to trigger significant dieback of forest in some parts of the biome by 2025, when coupled with other pressures such as climate change and forest fires.” [74.10] Furthermore, some of the reversals in deforestation is because of reforestation, but the report raises the same concerns as also noted further below. Namely, “Since newly-planted forests often have low biodiversity value and may only include a single tree species, a slowing of net forest loss does not necessarily imply a slowing in the loss of global forest biodiversity. Between 2000 and 2010, the global extent of primary forest (that is, substantially undisturbed) declined by more than 400,000 square km, an area larger than Zimbabwe.” (p. 32) [75]

Sustainable Forests or Exponential Profits?:

[75.1] Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest86: “It is true that cutting down forests or converting natural forests into monocultures of pine and eucalyptus for industrial raw material generates revenues and growth. But this growth is based on robbing the forest of its biodiversity and its capacity to conserve soil and water. This growth is based on robbing forest communities of their sources of food, fodder, fuel, fiber, medicine, and security from floods and drought.” [75.2] The overly corporate-led form of globalization that we see today also affects how natural resources are used and what priorities they are used for. 85

Comparing actual area of Brazilian portion of the Amazon deforested each year between 1990 and 2009 including the projected rate based on Brazilian government targets to reduce deforestation by 80% by 2020, and cumulative total deforestation as a percentage of the estimated original extent of the Brazilian Amazon (4.1 million km2). Source: Brazilian National Space Research Agency (INPE), graph compiled by Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May 2010, p.33 http://gbo3.cbd.int/ 86 Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest, (South End Press, 2000), p.1 MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

49


[75.3] We hear more about sustainable forestry practices by the large logging multinationals. However, what does that really mean? Who is it sustainable for? Society and the environment, or for the logging companies? By replanting trees that will grow quickly and allow them to be felled for “sustained” logging sounds like a good strategy. However, the trees that are favored for this (eucalyptus) require a lot of water to grow so quickly. As John Madeley points out: “[T]he [eucalyptus] trees achieve this rapid growth by tapping large quantities of groundwater, impoverishing surrounding vegetation and threatening to dry up local water courses.”87 [75.4] Madeley continues by describing the impact that the use of chemicals to treat woodpulp from the eucalyptus has on local fisheries and on food production. This has had terrible effects on indigenous people within such regions. 10 years on from the above, Inter Press Service notes similar things, as activists around the Amazon complain about tree plantations88. [76]

Illegal Timber Trade On A Large Scale:

[76.1] Some government institutions even buy illegal timber89 from pristine forests. For example, it is claimed90 that UK buys all of its Mahogany from pristine forests in Brazil where 80% of all timber is traded illegally. Even though Brazil has now tried to introduce a moratorium on Mahogany logging for two years, this has been slammed91 by some as too little, too late. [77]

Legal Timber Trade On A Large Scale:

[77.1] Under much secrecy, there is a push from USA and Asian economies to reduce tariffs92 for wood and paper products. Also at the WTO Ministerial meeting in November 1999, opening more markets for easier access93 was the agenda, which included forests.

[C] Climate Change: “We can't muster the force of nations to really begin fundamental changes in their energy systems, their construction, their lifestyle patterns, without a profound understanding of the urgency of the situation. We've got to act now.” – Wesley Clark, John Madeley, Big Business Poor Peoples; The Impact of Transnational Corporations on the World’s Poor, (Zed Books, 1999) p.76. 88 http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49489 89 http://www.foe.co.uk/pubsinfo/infoteam/pressrel/1998/19980306000112.html 90 http://www.foe.co.uk/pubsinfo/infoteam/pressrel/1998/19980622130111.html 91 http://www.lycos.com/envirolink/news/stories/3494.html 92 http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/mar98/04_50_005.html 93 http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul1999/1999-07-01-02.asp 87

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

50


Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, 1996-1999, Climate Change is a Global Security Threat “The rate of change is happening at 300 times faster than any other extinction time in earth history, except that of the Asteroidal impact. [On feedback loops] The distinction between just a feedback process and a runaway feedback process is very, very important indeed. You can have feedback that slowly increases, if you like, the risk and puts the temperature up a bit higher. Runaway feedback says the system responds so much to an increase in temperature that it becomes faster in the way it changes the climate with rising temperature. So the hotter it gets, the faster it gets hotter, and the hotter it gets, the faster it gets hotter faster, until you move into a process that’s completely uncontrollable. And instead of coming up to a new equilibrium temperature that may be a bit high, it goes on going up faster and faster until something runs out—there’s no more methane to release or we’ve run out of forests to burn or something …“The danger of moving into a runaway climate change scenario is now clear and is beginning to be quantified in the last few months. It’s probably the greatest threat that we face as a planet.” (from 11:15ff.) - Artic Methane: Why the Sea Ice Matters94 "If we don't take action now, every day, every year that goes by, the options for dealing with the effects of climate change and the effects of energy security become much much more expensive, and in fact some of the options completely go over the next ten to twenty years; if we don't start taking some prudent actions now." – Vice Admiral Dennis McGinnis; Climate Patriots: A Military Perspective on Energy, Climate Change and National Security95

[78] Large-scale assessments do not include consideration of (A) aggravating Tipping Points (Positive Feedback loops) or (B) mitigating Collapse of Industrial Civilization (Negative Feedback loops): 

 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (late 2007): 1 C by 2100 Hadley Centre for Meteorological Research (late 2008): 2 C by 2100 United Nations Environment Programme (mid 2009): 3.5 C by 2100 Hadley Centre for Meteorological Research (October 2009): 4 C by 2060 Global Carbon Project, Copenhagen Diagnosis (November 2009): 6 C, 7 C by 2100 International Energy Agency (November 2010): 3.5 C by 2035 United Nations Environment Programme (December 2010): up to 5 C by 2050

94

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSsPHytEnJM

95

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjS9pU0y_JU

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

51


[79]

Tipping Points / Positive Feedback Loops (Aggravate Climate Change):

[80]

List of Tipping Points: 

Methane hydrates are bubbling out the Arctic Ocean (Science, March 2010) Warm Atlantic water is defrosting the Arctic as it shoots through the Fram Strait (Science, January 2011). This breakdown of the thermohaline conveyor

   

belt is happening in the Antarctic as well96. Siberian methane vents have increased in size from less than a meter across in the summer of 2010 to about a kilometre across in 2011 (Tellus, February 2011) Drought in the Amazon triggered the release of more carbon than the United States in 2010 (Science, February 2011) Peat in the world’s boreal forests is decomposing at an astonishing rate (Nature Communications, November 2011) Methane is being released from the Antarctic, too (Nature, August 2012) Russian forest and bog fires are growing (NASA, August 2012)

96

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/10/1200602/-The-Antarctic-Half-of-the-Global-ThermohalineCirculation-Is-Faltering MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

52


  

Cracking of glaciers accelerates in the presence of increased carbon dioxide97 (Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, October 2012) The Beauford Gyre apparently has reversed course98 (U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center99, October 2012) Exposure to sunlight increases bacterial conversion of exposed soil carbon, thus accelerating thawing of the permafrost100 (Proceedings of the National Academy

of Sciences, February 2013) Summer ice melt in Antarctica is at its highest level in a thousand years101: Summer ice in the Antarctic is melting 10 times quicker than it was 600 years ago, with the most rapid melt occurring in the last 50 years (Nature

Geoscience102, April 2013) Arctic drilling103 was fast-tracked by the Obama administration during the summer of 2012

[81]

Aaron Franklin (16 March 2013): Tipping Points104; Artic News:

Now, Earths vulnerable Carbon stores are: Carbon in the Arctic: 97

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112711923/glaciers-cracking-carbon-dioxide-101112/ http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/the-beauford-gyre.html 99 http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/10/ 100 http://phys.org/news/2013-02-sunlight-climate-warming-gas-arctic-permafrost.html 101 http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/04/15/us-antarctica-ice-idUKBRE93E08D20130415 102 http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1787.html 103 http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/19/872121/arctic-death-spiral-new-local-shipping-and-drillingpollution-may-speed-up-polar-warming-and-ice-melting/ 104 http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.nz/2013/03/tipping-points.html 98

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

53


ESAS: 500 Gton C organic 1000 Gton C hydrate 700 Gton C free methane total: 2200 Gton C +other submarine permafrost:

arctic

2200/0.8=2750 Gton C +1700Gt in land permafrost= 4450 Gton C A large part of this is Vunerable to being lost rapidly into the Ocean/Atmosphere system if the Arctic defrosts, polar ocean warms, heavy rainfalls hit the Tundras. Carbon in soils and Living Biomass: Total organic C in soil and living biomass is approx: 1000 Gton C living + 1500 Gton soil. = 2500Gton C A large part of this is Vunerable to being lost rapidly into the Ocean/Atmosphere system if the Arctic defrosts, Global weather systems change, Rainforests and/or peat deposits burn, desertification and/or heavy rainfalls hit the Tropical, Temperate, Boreal forests. So thats the vunerable surface Carbon stores. Total about 7000 billion tons of carbon. There's never been this much in the history of planet earth, that we know of. Carbon in Deep sea Clathrates: Estimates range from 5000 Gton C to 78000 Gton C A large part of this is vulnerable to being lost into the Ocean/Atmosphere system if the oceans warm a few degrees, reaching the

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

54


bottom in a few hundred to a few thousand years, causing the stability to be lost.

The Scarcity-Conflict Death Spiral: Difference between Sustainable Peaceful Procreation, Consumption and Production and Unsustainable Scarcity-Conflict Procreation, Consumption and Production [82]

In Peace seekers have no plan for enduring peace105, Dr. Jack Alpert

argues that Peaceniks failure to move society from conflict to peace, their establishment of never ending or honoured “peace accords, moral codes, acts of economic justice, and environmental laws, are like traffic signals” which “cause people to relinquish freedoms” but, “do not stop (change) the behaviors that increase scarcity, conflict, and environmental destruction”106: “result from a faulty perception of what increases or decreases conflict. Where, peace seekers have acted as if conflict is caused by bad leadership maybe they should have acted as if trends in conflict are driven by trends in scarcity. Maybe they would have been more successful if they acted as if trends in scarcity are driven by the collective behaviors of 6 billion people. That while each individual acts benignly to achieve personal objectives the unintentional result is an increase in scarcity and conflict.” [83]

Another reason for ignoring the above view of human conflict – according to

Dr. Alpert -- is that peace seekers, even when successful at restraining the police, military or mediating hostilities, do not change our course toward conflict. They only delay it. In the process, peace seekers consume the very energy required to change the things that would make societies head toward peace. [84]

In Human Predicament: Better Common Sense Required: The Future

of Social Conflict107, Dr. Jack Alpert challenges us to answer two questions Corporate Oligarchs who profit from Unsustainable procreation (demand for more consumers), production and consumption, including its scarcity-conflict resource war consequences; do not want citizens, politicians, police, judges, prosecutors and those tasked with national security to ask themselves. [85]

Lets consider that Peace and conflict are defined not as descriptions of

behaviour between nations, but as trends describing social conditions. Put

105

www.skil.org/position_papers_folder/Peaceniks_Wake_up.html Alpert, Jack (04/01/04): Footprint vs. Freedom: www.skil.org/position_papers_folder/Footprint_vs_freedom.html 107 youtu.be/sK8WxeGxkPk 106

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

55


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. [86]

There are two kinds of conflict: [86.1]

Direct: he took my car, he enslaved me, he beat me, he raped me, he

killed me; and Indirect. Indirect intrusions are the by-product of other people's behaviour. [86.2]

Indirect: ‘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. Free Trade enabling overexploitation, overproduction and overconsumption of a nation natural capital resources is an economic intrusion by one set of oligarchs upon another set of citizens whose lives depend on such natural capital. [87]

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 direct and indirect intrusions. A measure of the UK’s conflict is the sum of 62 million sets of direct and indirect intrusions. [88]

Using this definition of conflict, any citizen, politician, policeman, judge or

legislator sincerely concerned about finding out whether and how the United Kingdom’s socio-economic and political system is moving towards peace or towards conflict; can do so, by determining the answers to the following questions: A.

Procreation Footprint: How many children per family leads to peace; or conversely how many children per family, contributes to greater resource scarcity, and exponential increase in conflict, i.e. an individuals’ ‘breeding war combatant’ status? [According to the research of Dr. Jack Alpert108, the global answer – currently based on current population numbers -- is one child per family leads to peace; two or more children leads to conflict]

B.

Production/Carbon Footprint: How much exploitation and production of non-renewable and renewable natural resources relative to the nation’s Natural Capital carrying capacity footprint leads to peace; or conversely how much of a nation’s non-renewable and renewable natural resources can or should a corporation exploit into production of consumer goods,

108

http://sqswans.weebly.com/human-predicament.html MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

56


before such exploitation and production contributes to greater resource scarcity and exponential increase in conflict; i.e. a corporations ‘production combatant’ status? [All utilization of non-renewable natural resources— fossil fuels, metals, and minerals—at any level, contributes to scarcityconflict. Peaceful utilization of Aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric natural habitats requires that they be degraded only at levels less than or equal to the levels at which they are regenerated by Nature. Exploiting renewable resources above their capacity to regenerate is not sustainable and does not contribute to peaceful resource relations; i.e. contribute to scarcity-conflict109. See Carbon Footprint110] C.

Consumption/Carbon Footprint: How much consumption of nonrenewable and renewable natural resources relative to the nation’s Natural Capital carrying capacity footprint leads to peace; or conversely how much consumption of non-renewable and renewable natural resources relative to the nation’s Natural Capital carrying capacity footprint, contributes to greater resource scarcity, and exponential increase in conflict,

i.e.

an

individuals

‘consumption

combatant

status’?

All

consumption of nonrenewable natural resources—fossil fuels, metals, and minerals—at

any

level,

contributes

to

scarcity-conflict.

Peaceful

consumption of Aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric natural habitats requires that they be degraded only at levels less than or equal to the levels at which they are regenerated by Nature. Exploiting renewable resources above their capacity to regenerate is not sustainable and does not contribute to peaceful resource relations; i.e. contribute to scarcityconflict111. [See Nation Footprint112; Finance Footprint113, Business Footprint114; Personal Footprint115] [89]

In the absence of the worlds political, economic and corporate leaders

confronting and acknowledging the difference between sustainable peaceful “Sustainable natural resource utilization behavior involves the utilization of renewable natural resources— water, cropland, pastureland, forests, and wildlife—exclusively. Renewable natural resource reserves can be depleted only at levels less than or equal to the levels at which they are replenished by Nature. The utilization of nonrenewable natural resources—fossil fuels, metals, and minerals—at any level, is not sustainable. Aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric natural habitats can be degraded only at levels less than or equal to the levels at which they are regenerated by Nature. All other natural resource utilization behavior and all other natural habitat degradation are unsustainable—period.” (Sustainability Defined, by Chris Clugston, author: Scarcity) 110 http://www.carbonfootprint.com 111 Ibid: Sustainability Defined, by Chris Clugston, author: Scarcity 112 http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_for_nations/ 113 http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_for_finance/ 114 http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_for_business/ 115 http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/personal_footprint/ and http://www.myfootprint.org/ 109

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

57


consumption and procreation and unsustainable scarcity-conflict aggravating consumption and procreation; and implementing legislation and Jurisprudence in accordance thereto; Dr. Alpert provides proof how the global AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Suicide Freight Train has as much chance of muddling through the coming ‘Falling Man Syndrome’ Crisis of Conflict, as an individual sitting in an unbelted car crash. (Non-Linearity and Social Conflict116) [90]

Dr. Alpert compares humanity’s refusal to confront the difference between

sustainable peaceful and unsustainable scarcity-conflict driven consumption and procreation, by believing that “in 200 years, our endorsement of the Inalienable Right to Breed and consume has resulted in the exponential consumption of over half of the Earth's resources, and nothing bad has happened yet”; to a man who has fallen out of a 150 story building, passing the window of the 60 th story, calling out to a friend “‘I’ve fallen 90 stories in the past 5 seconds and nothing bad has happened yet”.

Military Doctrine: Non-Renewable and Renewable Resource Scarcity and Conflict: “There is also a new and different threat to our national security emerging—the destruction of our environment. The defense establishment has a clear stake in this growing threat... one of our key national security objectives must be to reverse the accelerating pace of environmental destruction.” - Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), Senate, June 28, 1990 *** “According to a growing body of literature, scarcity of freshwater to meet the many needs of Third World countries is rapidly escalating. Furthermore, many of the remaining exploitable sources of freshwater are in river basins shared by two or more sovereign states. These facts present the potential for violent conflict over water unless affected states can develop and use their common water resources in a cooperative, sustainable, and equitable manner. The United States, in its National Security Strategy and Foreign Affairs Policy, has called attention to the problem of resource scarcity as having important implications for American security.”117 ***

116

youtu.be/W5capqGod9A LTC Kurt F. Ubbelohde (10 April 2000): Freshwater Scarcity in the Nile River Basin, US Army War College http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA378148 117

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

58


“The effect of environmental problems on national security, now commonly referred to as "environmental security," is important to the US military. The concept first appeared in the 1991 National Security Strategy (NSS), when President Bush recognized that the failure to competently manage natural resources could contribute to potential conflict.118 The 1993 National Security Strategy echoed this concern and included the environment as an element of economic power.119 When A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement was published in February 1996, it amplified the importance of the environment as a component of United States national security even further.120 The 1996 NSS recognizes that competition for natural resources "is already a very real risk to regional stability around the world."121 It also states that national and international environmental degradation poses a direct threat to economic growth and to global and national security.122 Thus, as one of the institutions charged with protecting our national security, the US military also should be concerned with all aspects of environmental security.� 123

***

118

National Security Strategy of the United States, Washington, DC, US Gov Printing Office, 1991. National Security Strategy of the United States, Washington, DC, US Gov Printing Office, 1993 120 A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement, Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office, February 1996. 121 Ibid., at 26. 122 Ibid., at 30. 123 Colonel Brian X. Bush (13 March 1997): Promoting Environmental Security during Contingency Operations; US Army War College http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA326869

119

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

59


“Environmental issues can adversely influence our national security in two important ways. One of these is potential or actual conflict between nations or groups that can arise as a result of disputes over natural resources or transnational environmental problems. A second way that environmental issues can directly affect national security is by destabilizing governments or institutions in a country afflicted with environmental degradation. Haiti is a good example. As early as 1978, the President's Council on Environmental Quality noted that deforestation in Haiti was almost complete and then predicted that social disruption and instability would soon follow.124 It took 16 more years and a military overthrow of duly elected President Aristide to spark renewed US military involvement in Haiti. However, it is clear that the environmental devastation of that country's forests, soil and water supplies created a cause and effect between environmental issues and Haiti's economic deprivation, massive migration and the basic instability of virtually every economic or governmental institution in the country.�125

[91] 1974: NSSM 200: National Security Study Memorandum: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (The Kissinger Report)126: Rapid population growth adversely affects every aspect of economic and social progress in developing countries. It absorbs large amounts of resources needed for more productive investment in development. It requires greater expenditures for health, education and other social services, particularly in urban areas. It increases the dependency load per worker so that a high fraction of the output of the productive age group is needed to support dependents. It reduces family savings and domestic investment. It increases existing severe pressures on limited agricultural land in countries where the world's "poverty problem" is concentrated. It creates a need for use of large amounts of scarce foreign exchange for food imports (or the loss of food surpluses for export). Finally, it intensifies the already severe unemployment and underemployment problems of many developing countries where not enough productive jobs are created to absorb the annual increments to the labor force. Even in countries with good resource/population ratios, rapid population growth causes problems for several reasons: First, large capital investments generally are required to exploit unused resources. Second, some countries already have high and growing unemployment and lack the means to train new entrants to their labor force. Third, there are long delays between starting effective family planning programs and reducing fertility, and even longer delays between reductions in fertility and population stabilization. Hence there is substantial danger of vastly

124

Environmental Quality. 1978 Annual Report on the Environment Washington: Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office, 1978. 125 Colonel Brian X. Bush (13 March 1997): Promoting Environmental Security during Contingency Operations; US Army War College http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA326869 126 http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

60


overshooting population targets moderated in the near future.

if

population

growth

is

not

[..] Moderation of population growth offers benefits in terms of resources saved for investment and/or higher per capita consumption. If resource requirements to support fewer children are reduced and the funds now allocated for construction of schools, houses, hospitals and other essential facilities are invested in productive activities, the impact on the growth of GNP and per capita income may be significant. In addition, economic and social progress resulting from population control will further contribute to the decline in fertility rates. The relationship is reciprocal, and can take the form of either a vicious or a virtuous circle. Implications of Population Pressures for National Security It seems well understood that the impact of population factors on the subjects already considered -development, food requirements, resources, environment -- adversely affects the welfare and progress of countries in which we have a friendly interest and thus indirectly adversely affects broad U.S. interests as well. [..] A recent study* of forty-five local conflicts involving Third World countries examined the ways in which population factors affect the initiation and course of a conflict in different situations. The study reached two major conclusions: 1. ". . . population factors are indeed critical in, and often determinants of, violent conflict in developing areas. Segmental (religious, social, racial) differences, migration, rapid population growth, differential levels of knowledge and skills, rural/urban differences, population pressure and the special location of population in relation to resources -in this rough order of importance -all appear to be important contributions to conflict and violence... 2. Clearly, conflicts which are regarded in primarily political terms often have demographic roots: Recognition of these relationships appears crucial to any understanding or prevention of such hostilities." [..] Professor Philip Hauser of the University of Chicago has suggested the concept of "population complosion" to describe the situation in many developing countries when (a) more and more people are born into or move into and are compressed in the same living space under (b) conditions and irritations of different races, colours, religions, languages, or cultural backgrounds, often with differential rates of population growth among these groups, and (c) with the frustrations of failure to achieve their aspirations for better standards of living for themselves or their children. To these may be added pressures for and actual international migration. These population factors appear to have a multiplying effect on other factors involved in situations of incipient violence. These adverse conditions appear to contribute frequently to harmful developments of a political nature: Juvenile delinquency, thievery and other crimes, organized brigandry, kidnapping and terrorism, food riots, other outbreaks of violence; guerrilla MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

61


warfare, communal violence, separatist movements, revolutionary movements and counter-revolutionary coupe. All of these bear upon the weakening or collapse of local, state, or national government functions. Beyond national boundaries, population factors appear to have had operative roles in some past politically disturbing legal or illegal mass migrations, border incidents, and wars. If current increased population pressures continue they may have greater potential for future disruption in foreign relations. Perhaps most important, in the last decade population factors have impacted more severely than before on availabilities of agricultural land and resources, industrialization, pollution and the environment. All this is occurring at a time when international communications have created rising expectations which are being frustrated by slow development and inequalities of distribution. Population growth and inadequate resources. Where population size is greater than available resources, or is expanding more rapidly than the available resources, there is a tendency toward internal disorders and violence and, sometimes, disruptive international policies or violence. The higher the rate of growth, the more salient a factor population increase appears to be. A sense of increasing crowding, real or perceived, seems to generate such tendencies, especially if it seems to thwart obtaining desired personal or national goals. 2. Populations with a high proportion of growth. The young people, who are in much higher proportions in many LDCs, are likely to be more volatile, unstable, prone to extremes, alienation and violence than an older population. These young people can more readily be persuaded to attack the legal institutions of the government or real property of the "establishment," "imperialists," multinational corporations, or other ── often foreign ── influences blamed for their troubles. 3. Population factors with social cleavages. When adverse population factors of growth, movement, density, excess, or pressure coincide with racial, religious, color, linguistic, cultural, or other social cleavages, there will develop the most potentially explosive situations for internal disorder, perhaps with external effects. When such factors exist together with the reality or sense of relative deprivation among different groups within the same country or in relation to other countries or peoples, the probability of violence increases significantly.

[92] Butts, Kent (25 April 1994): Environmental Security: A DOD Partnership for Peace127; US Army War College: [Report on the Dept of Defense effort to create a Proactive Environmental Security Peace Strategy as part of the Fifth Senior Environmental Leadership Conference.] 127

Butts, Kent Hughes (25 April 1994): Environmental Security: A DoD Partnership for Peace http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB339.pdf MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

62


“Environmental degradation imperils nations' most fundamental aspect of security by undermining the natural support systems on which all of human activity depends.â€? - Michael Renner, 1989128 The DOD environmental security mission has its roots in the fact that environmental problems that lead to instability and contention are being ignored, and U.S. combat forces are becoming involved in the resulting conflict. In addition, DOD's environmental security mission supports the National Security Strategy (NSS) of the United States and must be understood in that context. As stated by the National Security Strategy, "The stress from environmental challenges is already contributing to political conflict." Recognizing the importance of environmental issues to U.S. national security interests, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security defined DOD's role in environmental security to include "mitigating the impacts of adverse environmental actions leading to international instability."129 Instability and conflict often result from the poverty created by the economic regression of resource depletion or scarcity. The abuse of power by the leaders of many developing countries has frequently manifested itself in exploitive resource management practices, a wasting away of the economic infrastructure, human suffering and ethnic-based competition for increasingly scarce resources, and, ultimately, to conflict. [..] The global population has grown geometrically and will double over the period from 1950 to 2000, bringing environmental issues to the fore. Rates of global population continue to increase, particularly in the vulnerable developing world, accelerating demand for food and a broad range of other natural resources. The global rates of consumption of natural resources are far greater than the ecosystem has previously endured.10 The world is rapidly moving beyond local shortages, which historically have created local conflict, to regional or transboundary resource shortages with the potential to escalate into far reaching hostilities involving U.S. forces. In numerous regions the ability of the earth to replenish its renewable resources, even with the human intervention of irrigation and fertilizer, has already been exceeded. Indeed, these very interventions often create unforeseen, adverse environmental consequences. Thus, the frequently ignored, long-lead-time environmental factors have reached their thresholds and are causing instability that security policy analysts cannot ignore. [..] The most notable environmental threats to U.S. security are: • Global: competition for or threatened denial of strategic resources; ozone depletion; global warming; loss of biodiversity;

128

Michael Renner, National Security: The Economic and Environmental Dimensions, Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, May 1989. Another early and important effort to broaden the definition of national security to include environmental challenges was Jessica Tuchman Matthews, "Redefining Security," Foreign Affairs, Spring 1989, pp. 162-178. 129 Sherri Wasserman Goodman, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, (Environmental Security), Statement Before the Subcommittee on Installation and Facilities, May 13, 1993. MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

63


proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; effects of demilitarization of nuclear, chemical, biological and conventional weapons; space debris; and inability or unwillingness of countries to comply with international environmental agreements and standards. • Regional: environmental terrorism, accident or disaster; vector-borne communicable diseases; regional conflicts caused by scarcity/denial of resources; cross border and global common contamination; and environmental factors affecting military access to land, air, and water. • State: environmental degradation of the resource base on which governmental legitimacy depends; risks to public health and the environment from DOD activities; increasing restrictions on military operations and access to air, land, and water; inefficient use of military resources; reduced weapons systems performance; demilitarization of nuclear, chemical, and conventional weapons systems; and erosion of public trust. Recommendations: • Appoint a special assistant to the National Security Advisor for International Environmental Security Affairs and create an interagency working group, chaired by the Special Assistant, to develop a Presidential Decision Document establishing U.S. environmental security policy. • Establish environmental security as a principal objective of the National Security Strategy and include environmental issues in National Security Council threat assessments and foreign policy planning. • Emphasize the linkage between environmental security objectives and the achievement of current, primary congressional and administration interests of democratic reform, economic development, and conflict resolution. • In conjunction with the United Nations, use DOD capabilities to enforce international treaties and agreements. • Create a DOD Environmental Crisis Monitoring Center to warn the policymaking community of chronic environmental issues before political positions have hardened and policy options have narrowed.

[93] Department of the Army, Field Manual 100-23, Peace Operations130. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army, December 1994, p. 28. The seventh principle of humanitarian action in armed conflict131 says: “Contextualization: Effective humanitarian action should encompass a comprehensive view of overall needs and of the impact of interventions. Encouraging respect for human rights and addressing the underlying causes of conflicts are essential elements. (own emphasis)

130 131

http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/fm100-23(94).pdf Humanitarian Actions in Times of War, by Larry Minear & Thomas Weiss MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

64


[94]

1995: White House: National Security Strategy132: “Increasing competition for the dwindling reserves of uncontaminated air, arable land, fisheries and other food sources, and water, once considered 'free' goods, is already a very real risk to regional stability around the world. The range of risks serious enough to jeopardize international stability extends to massive population flight from man-made or natural catastrophes, such as Chernobyl or the East African drought, and to large-scale ecosystem damage caused by industrial pollution, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, ozone depletion, desertification, oceanic pollution and ultimately climate 133 change.

[95] April 1996: MAJ William E David, USA Military Intelligence: Environmental Scarcity as a Cause of Violent Conflict134, School of Advanced Military Studies; United States Army Command and General Staff College This monograph argues that the Army is unprepared for the implications of environmental scarcity as a cause of violent conflict. The proof follows in the next three chapters. Chapter Tow provides a conceptual model for examining the causal relationship between environmental scarcity and violent conflict. It shows causation by answering two questions. First, does scarcity cause specific social effects, such as population migration and poverty? Second, so the social effects that result from scarcity cause violent conflict? [..] [This chapter concludes that conflicts arising from environmental scarcity will occur more frequently in the future and threaten U.S. national security interests. Third, does doctrine address conflicts caused by environmental scarcities? The doctrinal review reveals that the Army does not recognize environmental scarcity as a cause of conflict. Chapter Four synthesizes the findings from the preceding chapters, showing that the Army is intellectually unprepared for conflicts caused by environmental scarcity. The monograph ends with two recommendations. First, the Army should recognize environmental causes of war in its doctrine. Second, the Army should adopt the Modified Conflict Causality Model as a doctrinal tool for predicting and evaluating future conflicts. [..] Humans adversely affect the environment. Contaminated water, deforestation, soil erosion, and the depletion of fisheries are but some of the outcomes. Although few people would disagree with the causation between human activities and environmental degradation, their reactions place them in one of two categories: cornucopians or neo-Malthusians. Cornucopians do not worry about protecting any single natural resource. They believe that human ingenuity will always allow the substitution

132

February 1995: A National Security Study of Engagement and Enlargement http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nss/nss-95.pdf 133 National Security Strategy of the United States. February 1995, Washington, D. C: Government Printing Office, 1995, p. 18 134 http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA314878 MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

65


of more abundant resources to produce the same products and services. Neo-Malthusians put less faith in ingenuity, arguing that "renewable resources' is a misleading term. [..] The divergence between cornucopians and neo-Malthusians enters into the debate corcerning the causes of conflict. Corncopians remain prisoners of the industrial revolution. They assume that there are only social cuases for social and political changes, neglecting the role of nature. However, Robert Kaplan noted: "nature is coming back with a vengeance, tied to population growth. It will have incredible security implications"[1] Neo-Malthusians realize that humans cannot seperate themselves from nature. The following causality analysis adheres to the neo-Malthusian perspective. therefore, it takes a holistic approahc toward causality, combining conflict studies and the study of the physical environment. After providing a conflict causality model, this chapter uses six case studies to prove that violent conflicts can arise from environmental scarcities.

[96] 13 Mar 1997: Col BX Bush: Promoting Environmental Security during Contingency Operations135; US Army War College “The effect of environmental problems on national security, now commonly referred to as "environmental security," is important to the US military. The concept first appeared in the 1991 National Security Strategy (NSS), when President Bush recognized that the failure to competently manage natural resources could contribute to potential conflict.[1] The 1993 National Security Strategy echoed this concern and included the environment as an element of economic power.[2] When A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement was published in February 1996, it amplified the importance of the environment as a component of United States national security even further.[3] The 1996 NSS recognizes that competition for natural resources "is already a very real risk to regional stability around the world."[4] It also states that national and international environmental degradation poses a direct threat to economic growth and to global and national security.[5] Thus, as one of the institutions charged with protecting our national security, the US military also should be concerned with all aspects of environmental security.� “Environmental issues can adversely influence our national security in two important ways. One of these is potential or actual conflict between nations or groups that can arise as a result of disputes over natural resources or transnational environmental problems. A second way that environmental issues can directly affect national security is by destabilizing governments or institutions in a country afflicted with environmental degradation. Haiti is a good example. As early as 1978, the President's Council on Environmental Quality noted that deforestation in Haiti was almost complete and then predicted that social disruption and instability would soon follow.[6] It took 16 more years and a military overthrow of duly elected

135

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA326869 MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

66


President Aristide to spark renewed US military involvement in Haiti. However, it is clear that the environmental devastation of that country's forests, soil and water supplies created a cause and effect between environmental issues and Haiti's economic deprivation, massive migration and the basic instability of virtually every economic or governmental institution in the country.�

[97] Spring 1997: Canadian Security Intelligence Service Archived: Commentary No. 71: Environmental Scarcity and Conflict136, by Peter Gizewski, Project on Environment Population and Security, Peace and Conflict Studies Program, University of Toronto The past decade has witnessed growing recognition of the importance of environmental factors for national and international security. In 1987, the UN World Commission on Environment and Development pointed to environmental stress as "a possible cause as well as a result of conflict". In 1992, the UN Security Council warned that sources of instability in the economic, social, humanitarian, and ecological fields included military and political "threats to peace and stability". Two years later, the Clinton Administration observed that "terrorism, narcotics trafficking, environmental degradation, rapid population growth and refugee flows ...have security implications for present and long-term American policy". A wealth of popular commentary in the past few years has asserted the existence of general links between environmental stress and violence and security concerns. But proponents of such linkages tend to sensationalise the issue, ignoring empirical research and exaggerating the importance of environmental pressures as a conflict-generating force. In fact, until recently, scholars and policy makers functioned with relatively limited understanding of the causal mechanisms by which environmental scarcity can lead to conflict. Recent work has yielded results which partially fill this gap. Employing a series of detailed examples in which environment exhibits a prima facie link to social instability, such case studies carefully trace a causal connection between scarcity and conflict, and advance a set of key propositions which describe these links and the conditions under which they apply. General Insights: Current work on linkages between environment and conflict emphasizes the conflict-generating potential of renewable resource scarcities (i.e. cropland, fresh water, fuel wood and fish). While the strategic significance of non-renewable resources (e.g. petroleum, minerals) has long been recognized, market forces which reduce their demand and stimulate substitution and technical innovation have served increasingly to mitigate their scarcity and conflict-generating potential. Such forces have been less effective in preventing scarcities of renewables-scarcities which, growing evidence shows, threaten the internal stability of a number of developing countries. 136

http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/pblctns/cmmntr/cm71-eng.asp MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

67


According to the University of Toronto's Thomas Homer-Dixon, scarcities of agricultural land, forests, fresh water and fish are those which contribute the most to violence. These deficiencies can be demand-induced, a function of population growth within a region; supply-induced, resulting from the degradation of resources within the region; or structural, the result of an unequal distribution of resources throughout the society. The three processes are not mutually exclusive and mayand often do-occur simultaneously, acting in tandem. The degradation and depletion of renewable resources can generate a range of social effects. It can work to encourage powerful groups within society to shift resource distribution in their favour. This process, known as "resource capture" generates profits for elites while intensifying the effects of scarcity among the poor or weak. A process of "ecological marginalization" often follows with poorer groups forced to seek the means of survival in more ecologically fragile regions such as steep upland slopes, areas at risk of desertification, tropical rain forests, and low quality public lands within urban areas. The high population densities in these regions, combined with a lack of capital to protect the local ecosystem, breeds severe environmental scarcity and chronic poverty. Other social effects can include decreased agricultural potential, regional economic decline, population displacement and a disruption of legitimized institutions and social relations. Most significantly, these scarcities can, either individually or in combination, generate forces and processes which contribute to violent conflict among groups within society. Such scarcities may act to strengthen group identities based on ethnic, class or religious differences, most notably by intensifying competition among groups for ever dwindling resources. At the same time, they can work to undermine the legitimacy of the state and its capacity to meet challenges. As the balance of power gradually shifts from the state to the challenging groups, the prospects for violence increase. Such violence tends to be subnational, diffuse and persistent. States may prove capable of avoiding suffering and social stress by adapting to scarcities. They can pursue programs and policies which encourage more sustainable resource use. Alternatively, a state may disengage itself from reliance on scarce resources by producing goods and services less dependent on such resources. The resulting products could then be traded for items which local scarcities preclude the state from producing. More often, however, countries lack the social and technical ingenuity needed to adapt successfully to the shortages they face.

[98] 10 Apr 2000: LTC Kurt F. Ubbelohde: Freshwater Scarcity in the Nile River Basin137, US Army War College “According to a growing body of literature, scarcity of freshwater to meet the many needs of Third World countries is rapidly escalating. Furthermore, many of the remaining 137

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA378148 MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

68


exploitable sources of freshwater are in river basins shared by two or more sovereign states. These facts present the potential for violent conflict over water unless affected states can develop and use their common water resources in a cooperative, sustainable, and equitable manner. The United States, in its National Security Strategy and Foreign Affairs Policy, has called attention to the problem of resource scarcity as having important implications for American security.”

[99] Sep 2010: Bundeswehr: Peak Oil: Security Policy Implications of Scarce Resources138 Effects of Peak Oil on Armed Forces Severe impediments to mobility as a consequence of peak oil would have a considerable effect on all German security bodies, including the Bundeswehr. In the long run, not only all societies and economies worldwide but armed forces as well will be faced with the various and difficult challenges of transformation towards a “post-fossil” age. Implications for Germany: A markedly reduced mobility of the German Armed Forces would have various consequences – not only for the available equipment and training, but also for their (global) power projection and intervention capabilities. Given the size and complexity of many transport and weapon systems as well as the high standards set for qualities like robustness in operation, alternative energy and drive propulsion systems would hardly be available to the necessary extent in the short term. One of the consequences to be initially expected would be further cutbacks in the use of large weapon systems for training purposes in all services, thus raising the need for more “virtualised” training. However, effects on current and planned missions would most likely be even more severe. Deployment to the theatre of operations, the operation of bases and the mission itself are considerably more energy- and above all fuel-intensive than the mere upkeep of armed forces. [..] Peak oil, however, is unavoidable. This study shows the existence of a very serious risk that a global transformation of economic and social structures, triggered by a long-term shortage of important raw materials, will not take place without frictions regarding security policy. The disintegration of complex economic systems and their interdependent infrastructures has immediate and in some cases profound effects on many areas of life, particularly in industrialised countries.

[100]

2010: White House: National Security Strategy139: Challenges like climate change, pandemic disease, and resource scarcity demand new innovation. Meanwhile, the nation that leads the world in building a clean energy economy will enjoy a substantial economic and security advantage. That is why the

138

English: http://www.permaculture.org.au/files/Peak%20Oil_Study%20EN.pdf May 2010: National Security Strategy http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf 139

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

69


Administration is investing heavily in research, improving education in science and math, promoting developments in energy, and expanding international cooperation. Transform our Energy Economy: As long as we are dependent on fossil fuels, we need to ensure the security and free flow of global energy resources. But without significant and timely adjustments, our energy dependence will continue to undermine our security and prosperity. This will leave us vulnerable to energy supply disruptions and manipulation and to changes in the environment on an unprecedented scale.

[101] 2012: January: Department of Defense: Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for the 21st Century Defense140: In this resource-constrained era, we will also work with NATO allies to develop a “Smart Defense” approach to pool, share, and specialize capabilities as needed to meet 21st century challenges. [..] Whenever possible, we will develop innovative, low-cost, and small-footprint approaches to achieve our security objectives, relying on exercises, rotational presence, and advisory capabilities. [..] A reduction in resources will require innovative and creative solutions to maintain our support for allied and partner interoperability and building partner capacity. However, with reduced resources, thoughtful choices will need to be made regarding the location and frequency of these operations. [..] The balance between available resources and our security needs has never been more delicate.

[102] Dec 2012: U.S. Forest Service: Report Predicts a Strain on Natural Resources Due to Rapid Population Growth141. U.S. Forest Service report outlines how a growing population and increased urbanization in the next 50 years will drain the nation's natural resources including water supplies, open space, and forests. Agriculture Under Secretary Harris Sherman had this to say about the report: "We should all be concerned by the projected decline in our nation’s forests and the corresponding loss of the many critical services they provide such as clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, wood products and outdoor recreation."

Scarcity-Conflict Death Spiral on Steroids: 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:

140 141

http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf http://www.fs.fed.us/news/2012/releases/12/report.shtml MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

70


[103]

Generals, Admirals and National Security Experts who consider Climate

Change a National Security Threat, as a result of its aggravation of the ScarcityConflict equation, include: “You can pay now, or you can pay a whole lot later. And by pay a whole lot later, it’s not just about paying in dollars, its really about paying in American lives.” - Admiral John Natham, United States Navy (Ret); Climate Patriots: A Military Perspective on Energy, Climate Change and National Security142 “In my piece, the last third of it is a joint planning session for an Energy policy for the United States between the ghost of John Muir and the ghost of George Patton. Muir is only worried about carbon and thinks terrorism is something the FBI can deal with if anybody needs to. Patton is only worried about terrorism and thinks global warming is something these birkenstock wearers cooked up somewhere between smoking tokes around the campfire or something. They don't agree at all on the problems they are trying to solve, but they keep finding that there is a very substantial degree of overlap in the things that they want to do. Because in so far as you move toward distributed generation of electricity, because you are worried about the security of the web, terrorist attacks on the web and the like, in so far as you are putting solar energy on your roof, you are also going green, because you can't put a coal fired power plant on your roof, thank goodness.” - James Woolsey, Former CIA Director & Former Undersecretary US Navy

142

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjS9pU0y_JU

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

71


[103.1] General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, 1996-1999, Climate Change is a Global Security Threat143. [103.2] MG Munirizzaman – Climate Change and Global Security144; American Security Project: A.

Major General Muniruzzaman, former Senior Officer of the Bangladesh Army and President of the Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies (BIPSS); Chairman: Global Military Advisory Council on Climate Change (GMACCC)

B.

Brigadier General Stephen Cheney, USMC (Ret.), CEO: American Security Project, Member Global Military Advisory Council on Climate Change (GMACCC)

[103.3] Rear Admiral Lionel Jarvis, Assistant Chief of Staff (Health) and Chief Naval Medical Officer, Royal Navy; Rear Admiral Lionel Jarvis - Climate Change and Military Security145; OneWorldTV. [103.4] Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, Senior British Royal Navy officer, currently the United Kingdom's Climate and Energy Security Envoy; Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti on link between climate change, health and national security146; OneWorldTV [103.5] James Woolsey; Former CIA Director; Climate Change and National Security147 (2010), Climate State. [103.6] Center for Naval Analysis: Military Advisory Board: National Security and the Threat of Climate Change148: A.

General Gordon R. Sullivan, USA (Ret.): Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, Chairman, Military Advisory Board

B.

Admiral Frank “Skip” Bowman, USN (Ret.): Former Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program; Former Deputy Administrator-Naval Reactors, National Nuclear Security Administration

C.

Lieutenant General Lawrence P. Farrell Jr., USAF (Ret.): Former Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs, Headquarters U.S. Air Force

D.

Vice Admiral Paul G. Gaffney II, USN (Ret.): Former President, National Defense University; Former Chief of Naval Research and Commander, Navy Meteorology and Oceanography Command

143

http://youtu.be/tz9vRxCMZUw http://youtu.be/JEtP0I-wwhM 145 http://youtu.be/3neELnBCu5c 146 http://youtu.be/p4Af3AqUBVI 147 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfobHy0a9CU 148 http://www.cna.org/reports/climate 144

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

72


E.

General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.): Former Commanding General, U.S. Army Materiel Command

F.

Admiral T. Joseph Lopez, USN (Ret.): Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe and of Allied Forces, Southern Europe

G.

Admiral Donald L. “Don” Pilling, USN (Ret.): Former Vice Chief of Naval Operations

H.

Admiral Joseph W. Prueher, USN (Ret.): Former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) and Former U.S. Ambassador to China

I.

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.): Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

J.

General Charles F. “Chuck” Wald, USAF (Ret.): Former Deputy Commander, Headquarters U.S. European Command (USEUCOM)

K.

General Anthony C. “Tony” Zinni, USMC (Ret.): Former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)

L.

Ms. Sherri W. Goodman: General Counsel, CAN: Executive Director, Military Advisory Board; Former Deputy UnderSecretary of Defense (Environmental Security) (1993-2001).

[103.7] Climate Patriots: A Military Perspective on Energy, Climate Change and National Security149; Pew Climate Security: A.

Admiral John Natham, United States Navy (Ret)

B.

John Warner, Secretary of the Navy, Secretary Senate Armed Services Committee

C.

Former Captain James Morin, United States Army

[103.8] A Conversation with Richard L. Engel150; Council on Foreign Relations A.

Richard L. Engel, Director, Environment and Natural Resources Program, National Intelligence Council; Retired Major General, U.S. Air Force

[103.9]

Rear Admiral David Titley, USN - Climate Change and National

Security 151; TEDxPentagon A.

Oceanographer for the U.S. Navy, RADM David Titley

[103.10] Climate Security Report152; American Security Project A.

Lieutenant General Daniel Christman, US Army (Ret.);

149

http://youtu.be/kjS9pU0y_JU http://youtu.be/uAAT2qQZUfM 151 http://youtu.be/7udNMqRmqV8 152 http://youtu.be/k3gk-siSyus 150

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

73


B.

Brigadier General Steven Anderson, US Army (Ret.);

C.

Brigadier General Steve Cheney, USMC (Ret.), CEO of American Security Project;

[103.11] Adjusting to Climate Change: A National Security Dimension153; Herzliya Conference: A.

Efi Stenzler, Chairman of the Board of Directors of KKL-JNF; Former Company Commander in the Parachute Division (Major – Res).

B.

Arnon Sofer, Dean of the Faculty for Social Sciences and Vice Chairman of the Center for National security research; University of Haifa.

[103.12] The Cost of Inaction on Climate Change Will be Staggering154; Partnership for a Secure America. A.

The signatories to PSA’s letter join the State Department, Defense Department, National Intelligence Council, and many other security voices in emphasizing the serious national security implications of climate change.

B.

Signatories include seventeen former Senators and Congress members, nine retired generals and admirals, both the Chair and Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission, and Cabinet and Cabinet-level officials from the Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton, and Bush (43) administrations: (1) Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State 1997-2001; (2) Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State 2001-05; (3) Samuel Berger, National Security Advisor 1997-2001; (4) Sherwood Boehlert, US Congressman (R-NY) 19832007; (5) Carol Browner, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency 1993-2001; (6) Michael Castle, US Congressman (R-DE) 1993-2011, Governor (R-DE) 1985-92; (7) GEN Wesley Clark, USA (Ret.), Fmr. Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO; (8) William Cohen, Secretary of Defense 19972001, US Senator (R-ME) 1979-97; (9) Lt Gen Lawrence P. Farrell, Jr., USAF (Ret.), Fmr. Deputy Chief Of Staff for Plans and Programs, HQ USAF; (10) BG Gerald E. Galloway, Jr., P.E., Ph.D., USA (Ret.), Fmr. Dean of the Academic Board, US Military Academy; (11) Wayne Gilchrest, US Congressman (R-MD) 1991-2009; (12) James Greenwood, US Congressman (R-PA) 1993-2005; (13) VADM Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.), Fmr. Inspector General of the Department of the Navy; (14) Lee Hamilton, US Congressman (D-IN) 1965-99, Co-Chair, PSA Advisory Board; (15) Gary Hart, US Senator (D-CO) 1975-87; (16) Rita E. Hauser, Chair, International Peace Institute; (17) Carla Hills, US Trade Representative 1989-93; (18) Thomas Kean,

153 154

http://youtu.be/CE4k0K06WBg http://www.psaonline.org/article.php?id=976 and http://youtu.be/wf21Du67ls0 MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

74


Governor (R-NJ) 1982-90, 9/11 Commission Chair; (19) GEN Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.), Fmr. Commanding General, US Army Materiel Command; (20) Richard Leone, President, The Century Foundation 1989-2011; (21) Joseph I. Lieberman, US Senator (I-CT) 1989-2013; (22) Richard G. Lugar, US Senator (R-IN) 1977-2013; (23) VADM Dennis V. McGinn, USN (Ret.), Fmr. Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Requirements and Programs; (24) Donald McHenry, US Ambassador to the UN 1979-81; (25) Constance Morella, US Congresswoman (R-MD) 1987-2003, US Ambassador to OECD 2003-07; (26) Sam Nunn, US Senator (D-GA) 1972-96; (27) John Porter, US Congressman (R-IL) 1980-2001; (28) Tom Ridge, Secretary of Homeland Security 2003-05, Governor (R-PA) 1995-2001; (29) ADM Gary Roughead, USN (Ret.), Fmr. Chief of Naval Operations; (30) Warren Rudman, US Senator (R-NH) 1980-92, Fmr. Co-Chair, PSA Advisory Board; (31) Christopher Shays, US Congressman (R-CT) 1987-2009; (32) George Shultz, Secretary of State 1982-89; (33) Olympia J. Snowe, US Senator (R-ME) 19952013; (34) GEN Gordon R. Sullivan, USA (Ret.), Fmr. Chief of Staff, US Army, Chairman, CNA Military Advisory Board; (35) Timothy E. Wirth, US Senator (D-CO) 1987-93; (36) Frank Wisner, Undersecretary of State 1992-93; (37) R. James Woolsey, Director of Central Intelligence 1993-95, Co-founder, US Energy Security Council; (38) GEN Anthony Zinni, USMC (Ret.), Fmr. Commander in Chief, US Central Command

Scientists: Climate Change is a Near-Term Extinction (NTE) Threat in absence of urgent immediate actions to massively reduce carbon emissions/end industrial civilization: “Let’s ignore the models for a moment and consider only the results of a single briefing to the United Nations Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen (COP15)155. Regulars in this space will recall COP15 as the climate-change meetings thrown under the bus by the Obama administration. A footnote on that long-forgotten briefing contains this statement: “THE LONG-TERM SEA LEVEL THAT CORRESPONDS TO CURRENT CO2 CONCENTRATION IS ABOUT 23 METERS ABOVE TODAY’S LEVELS, AND THE TEMPERATURES WILL BE 6 DEGREES C OR MORE HIGHER. THESE ESTIMATES ARE BASED ON REAL LONG TERM CLIMATE RECORDS, NOT ON MODELS.” In other words, Obama and others in his administration knew nearterm extinction of humans was already guaranteed. Even before the dire feedbacks were reported by the scientific community, the Obama administration abandoned climate change as a significant

155 http://wrongkindofgreen.org/2012/12/10/the-most-important-cop-briefing-that-no-one-ever-heard-truth-lies-racismomnicide/

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

75


issue because it knew we were done as early as 2009. Rather than shoulder the unenviable task of truth-teller, Obama did as his imperial higher-ups demanded: He lied about collapse, and he lied about climate change. And he still does.” – Guy McPherson, [Near-Term Extinction] Climate Change Summary and Update156

[104] James Hansen, Adjunct Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University’s Earth Institute: “Imagine a giant asteroid on a direct collision course with Earth. That is the equivalent of what we face now [with climate change], yet we dither.” - Why I must speak out about climate change157 TED [105] Arctic Methane Emergency Group: Founding members Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics, Cambridge; Stephen Salter, Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design, Edinburgh; and Brian Orr, former Principal Science Officer at the UK DoE. [105.1] Matter of Artic Methane Alert Survival Letter to World Leaders158 [105.2] Methane Outbreak Alert159: “Over the past three decades, snow cover has been reduced by 17-18% per decade and sea ice is declining fast because of humaninduced global warming. Consequently, the albedo effect is collapsing in the Arctic. Albedo is the reflection of Sun’s radiation off the white ice and white snow surfaces. Unfortunately, when the albedo effect collapses, the dark sea and dark land mass 156

http://guymcpherson.com/2013/01/climate-change-summary-and-update/

157

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change.html http://www.ameg.me/index.php/letter-to-world-leaders 159 Dissident Voice, 27/04/2013 http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/04/methane-outbreak-alert/ 158

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

76


absorb most of the Sun’s radiation. A collapsing albedo effect is ominously apocalyptic for the Arctic, and for the world. And, disturbingly, Arctic albedo is already in the collapsing stage. This will inevitably lead to ever more methane emissions and a vicious cycle of feedbacks leading to an extinction event, probably unstoppable. .. [105.3] AMEG 2012 Policy Brief160: “AMEG’s conclusion is that there is now a planetary emergency. Only by grasping the nettle and intervening with great determination, as in a war effort, is there a chance of remedying the situation before it is too late. International collaboration to fight this common "enemy" of Arctic meltdown must bring all nations together, in the cause of our very survival.” [105.4] Malcolm Light (9 Feb 2012): “This process of methane release will accelerate exponentially, release huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere and lead to the demise of all life on earth before the middle of this century.” - Global Extinction within one Human Lifetime as a Result of a Spreading Atmospheric Arctic Methane Heat wave and Surface Firestorm161; Artic News [106] T. Goreau, PhD: Global Coral Reef Alliance, former Senior Scientific Affairs Officer at the United Nations Centre for Science and Technology for Development, in charge of Global Climate Change and Biodiversity issues, where he contributed to the original draft of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: “The long-term sea level that corresponds to current CO2 concentration is about 23 meters above today’s levels; and the temperatures will be 6 degrees C or more higher. These estimates are based on real long term climate records, not on models.” -- Briefing to the United Nations Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen (COP15): What is the Right Target for CO2?: 350 PPM is a death sentence for Coral Reefs and Low-Lying Islands: The Safe level of CO2 for SIDS is around 260 parts per million162 footnote. [107] Scientists call for war on climate change, but who on Earth is listening? 163; David Spratt (8 Dec 2012); Climate Code Red [107.1] Dr Daniel Pauly; Professor and the project leader of the Sea Around Us Project at the Fisheries Centre at the University of British Columbia, Director of the Fisheries Centre (2003 – 2008), said it was time to prepare economy for a climate change 'war'164. [107.2] Josep Canadell: Global Carbon Project: CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research165 [107.3] World Bank said166 that 4 °Cs of warming will end the world as we know it.

160

http://a-m-e-g.blogspot.com/2012/09/ameg-policy-brief.html http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.nz/p/global-extinction-within-one-human.html 162 http://www.globalcoral.org/AOSIS%20Briefing%202009.pdf and http://wrongkindofgreen.org/2012/12/10/themost-important-cop-briefing-that-no-one-ever-heard-truth-lies-racism-omnicide/ 163 http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2012/12/david-spratt-scientists-call-for-war-on.html 164 http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3646638.htm 165 http://theconversation.edu.au/the-widening-gap-between-present-emissions-and-the-two-degree-target-11101 166 http://climatechange.worldbank.org/content/climate-change-report-warns-dramatically-warmer-worldcentury 161

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

77


[107.4] United Nations Environment Programme Report on Tipping Point Policy Implications of Warming Permafrost167. [107.5] Professor Matthew England, University of NSW told the ABC's 7.30 Report that we need a global-scale effort168 akin to preparing for a war. [107.6] Prof. Corinne Le Quéré, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Britain and professor at the University of East Anglia, says "We need a radical plan"169.

[107.7] Professor Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria, Canada: “We are losing control of our ability to get a handle on the global warming problem" 170 and “The scientists have lost patience with our carefully constructed messages being lost in the political noise. And we are now prepared to stand up and say enough is enough”171 and “Put bluntly, climate change commitments are incompatible with short- to mediumterm economic growth (in other words, for 10–20 years). Moreover, work on adapting to climate change suggests that economic growth cannot be reconciled with the breadth and rate of impacts as the temperature rises towards 4 °C and beyond — a serious possibility if global apathy over stringent mitigation persists. Away from the microphone and despite claims of 'green growth', few if any scientists working on climate change would disagree with the broad thrust of this candid conclusion…. At the same time as climate change analyses are being subverted to reconcile them with the orthodoxy of economic growth, neoclassical economics has evidently failed to keep even its own house in order.”172 “The Arctic isn’t Vegas — what happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic — it’s the planet’s air conditioner. Whereas nearly 80 calories are required to melt a gram of ice at 0 C, adding 80 calories to the same gram of water at 0 C increases its temperature to 80 C. Anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions add more than 2.5 trillion calories to Earth’s surface every hour (ca. 3 watts per square meter173, continuously). Ocean acidification associated with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is proceeding at an unprecedented rate174 and could trigger mass extinction by itself175. Already, half the Great Barrier Reef has died during the last three decades176. And ocean acidification is hardly the only threat on the climate-change

167

http://unep.org/pdf/permafrost.pdf http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3646515.htm 169 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/03/co2-emissions-climate-change-certain 170 http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/12/03/1270911/as-global-co2-emissions-rise-scientists-warn-2-degreetarget-is-nearly-out-of-reach-we-need-a-radical-plan/ 171 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/13/stern-attacks-politicians-climate-change 172 http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n9/full/nclimate1646.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201209 173 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas 174 http://www.enn.com/climate/article/45006 175 ftp://ftp.gfdl.noaa.gov/pub/mbw/Ocean_Acidification_Papers/Veron_2008.pdf 176 http://www.livescience.com/23612-great-barrier-reef-steep-decline.html 168

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

78


front. As one little-discussed example, atmospheric oxygen levels are dropping to levels considered dangerous for humans177. An increasing number of scientists agree that warming of 4 to 6 C causes a dead planet. And, they go on to say, we’ll be there by 2060178. The ultra-conservative International Energy Agency, on the other hand, concludes that179, “coal will nearly overtake oil as the dominant energy source by 2017 … without a major shift away from coal, average global temperatures could rise by 6 degrees Celsius by 2050, leading to devastating climate change.” At the 11:20 mark of this video, climate scientist Paul Beckwith indicates Earth could warm by 6 C within a decade180. If you think his view is extreme, consider the reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years published in Science in March 2013181. One result is shown in the figure below.”

– Guy McPherson, [Near-term Extinction] Climate Change Summary and Update182

177

http://survivalacres.com/blog/oxygen-levels-are-dropping/ http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2012/12/david-spratt-scientists-call-for-war-on.html 179 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/18/energy-coal-idUSL5E8NI4G620121218 180 http://youtu.be/zw1GEp8UBj4 181 https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/global-temperature-change-the-big-picture/ 182 http://guymcpherson.com/2013/01/climate-change-summary-and-update/ 178

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

79


[107.8] Guy McPherson, former Professor Emeritus of Natural Resources and Ecology & Evolutionary Biology: “The evidence for human extinction by 2030 is overwhelming” -- The End: Walking Away from Apocalypse with Guy McPherson183, by Adam Engel / May 3rd, 2013; and (at 20:18, 26:00 & 27:40) Environmental Point of No Return: A Discussion with Dr. Guy McPherson184.); [Near-term Extinction] Climate Change Summary and Update185.

Necessity to De-Industrialize: Reduce Consumption to Pre-Industrial levels: Only voluntary De-Industrialization or involuntary Civilization Collapse will prevent runaway global climate change: Industrial Civilization as Heat Engine Root cause of Scarcity-Conflict Climate Change-National Security Threat. [108] Dr. Guy McPherson; Former Professor Emeritus of Natural Resources and Ecology & Evolutionary Biology; University of Tucson, Arizona: Guy McPherson speaking in Middleville, Michigan, September 2011186 (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’.”

[109]

Timothy J. Garrett (Nov. 2009), Are there basic physical constraints on future

anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide?187; Climatic Change [110]

University of Utah (22 Nov 2009): Is Global Warming Unstoppable?: Theory

also says Energy Conservation doesn't help188.

183

http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/05/the-end-walking-away-from-apocalypse-with-guy-mcpherson/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odlReNpGQ7c 185 http://guymcpherson.com/2013/01/climate-change-summary-and-update/ 186 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOq2A_SGTYA 187 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-009-9717-9 188 http://unews.utah.edu/news_releases/is-global-warming-unstoppable/ 184

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

80


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. “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-dioxideemitting 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.”

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

81


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 inflation-adjusted 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 2,000 years ago. Then he investigated the implications for carbon dioxide emissions. “Economists think you need population and standard of living estimate productivity,” he says. “In my model, all you need know is how fast energy consumption is rising. The reason why because there is this link between the economy and rates energy consumption, and it’s just a constant factor.”

to to is of

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? MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

82


“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.

Military Appeal to American/World Citizens to ‘Walk their Talk’ of ‘Supporting the Troops’, by massively reducing their energy consumption, by “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.” [111]

Center for Naval Analysis: Military Advisory Board: Powering America’s

Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security189: “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.” - Vice Admiral Dennis V. McGinn, USN (Ret); Former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Requirements and Programs190

189 190

http://www.cna.org/reports/energy http://www.cna.org/reports/energy MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

83


A.

General Charles F. “Chuck” Wald, USAF (Ret.): Former Deputy Commander, Headquarters U.S. European Command (USEUCOM); Chairman, CNA Military Advisory Board

B.

General Charles G. Boyd, USAF (Ret.): Former Deputy Commander in Chief of U.S. Forces in Europe

C.

Lieutenant General Lawrence P. Farrell Jr., USAF (Ret.): Former Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs, Headquarters U.S. Air Force

D.

General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.): Former Commanding General, U.S. Army Materiel Command

E.

General Ronald E. Keys USAF (Ret.): Former Commander, Air Combat Command

F.

Admiral T. Joseph Lopez, USN (Ret.): Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe and of Allied Forces, Southern Europe

G.

Admiral T. Joseph Lopez, USN (Ret.): Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe and of Allied Forces, Southern Europe

H.

Vice Admiral Dennis V. McGinn, USN (Ret.): Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Warfare Requirements and Programs

I.

Admiral John B. Nathman, USN (Ret.): Former Vice Chief of Naval Operations

J.

Rear Admiral David R. Oliver, Jr., USN (Ret.): Former Principal Deputy to the Navy Acquisition Executive

K.

General Gordon R. Sullivan, USA (Ret.): Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; Former Chairman, CNA Military Advisory Board

L.

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.): Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

[112] Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn; Energy, Climate Change, and the Military: Implications for National Security191; 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 191

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1FMeVH2AgI MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

84


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 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.”

[113] James Woolsey, Former CIA Director; Climate Change and National Security192: “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."”

[114] James Woolsey (19 October 2009): How your Gas Money Funds Terrorism193, 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 192 193

http://youtu.be/NfobHy0a9CU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNDiQUBjR1o MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

85


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. 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.”

Dated at George, South Africa, Pale Blue Dot: 03 June 2013

Lara Johnstone MILINT Earth Day

MILINT Earth Day Briefing Paper navyjag-humint.co.nr

WH Petition: http://wh.gov/zjyC

86


GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2013

SESSION LAW 2013-75 HOUSE BILL 774 AN ACT TO EXEMPT CERTAIN PRIMITIVE STRUCTURES FROM THE BUILDING CODE. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: SECTION 1. G.S. 143-138 reads as rewritten: "§ 143-138. North Carolina State Building Code. ‌ (b3) Except as provided by subsection (c1)subsections (b4) and (c1) of this section, the Code may contain provisions regulating every type of building or structure, wherever it might be situated in the State. (b4) Building rules do not apply to (i) farm buildings that are located outside the building-rules jurisdiction of any municipality, or (ii)(ii) farm buildings that are located inside the building-rules jurisdiction of any municipality if the farm buildings are greenhouses.greenhouses, (iii) a primitive camp, or (iv) a primitive farm building. For the purposes of this subsection: (1) A "farm building" shall include any structure used or associated with equine activities, including, but not limited to, the care, management, boarding, or training of horses and the instruction and training of riders. Structures that are associated with equine activities include, but are not limited to, free standing or attached sheds, barns, or other structures that are utilized to store any equipment, tools, commodities, or other items that are maintained or used in conjunction with equine activities. The specific types of equine activities, structures, and uses set forth in this subdivision are for illustrative purposes, and should not be construed to limit, in any manner, the types of activities, structures, or uses that may be considered under this subsection as exempted from building rules. A farm building that might otherwise qualify for exemption from building rules shall remain subject only to an annual safety inspection by the applicable city or county building inspection department of any grandstand, bleachers, or other spectator-seating structures in the farm building. An annual safety inspection shall include an evaluation of the overall safety of spectator-seating structures as well as ensuring the spectator-seating structure's compliance with any building codes related to the construction of spectator-seating structures in effect at the time of the construction of the spectator-seating. (2) A "greenhouse" is a structure that has a glass or plastic roof, has one or more glass or plastic walls, has an area over ninety-five percent (95%) of which is used to grow or cultivate plants, is built in accordance with the National Greenhouse Manufacturers Association Structural Design manual, and is not used for retail sales. Additional provisions addressing distinct life safety hazards shall be approved by the local building-rules jurisdiction. (3) A "farm building" shall include any structure used for the display and sale of produce, no more than 1,000 square feet in size, open to the public for no more than 180 days per year, and certified by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as a Certified Roadside Farm Market. (4) A "primitive camp" shall include any structure primarily used or associated with outdoor camping activities, including structures used for educational, instructional, or recreational purposes for campers and for management

*H774-v-4*


(5)

‌."

training, that are (i) not greater than 4,000 square feet in size and (ii) are not intended to be occupied for more than 24 hours consecutively. "Structures primarily used or associated with outdoor camping activities" include, but are not limited to, shelters, tree stands, outhouses, sheds, rustic cabins, campfire shelters, picnic shelters, tents, tepees or other indigenous huts, support buildings used only for administrative functions and not for activities involving campers or program participants, and any other structures that are utilized to store any equipment, tools, commodities, or other items that are maintained or used in conjunction with outdoor camping activities such as hiking, fishing, hunting, or nature appreciation, regardless of material used for construction. The specific types of primitive camping activities, structures, and uses set forth in this subdivision are for illustrative purposes and should not be construed to limit, in any manner, the types of activities, structures, or uses that are exempted from building rules. A "primitive farm building" shall include any structure used for activities, instruction, training, or reenactment of traditional or heritage farming practices. "Primitive farm buildings" include, but are not limited to, sheds, barns, outhouses, doghouses, or other structures that are utilized to store any equipment, tools, commodities, livestock, or other items supporting farm management. These specific types of farming activities, structures, and uses set forth by this subdivision are for illustrative purposes and should not be construed to limit in any manner the types of activities, structures, or uses that are exempted from building rules.

SECTION 2. This act is effective when it becomes law. In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 6th day of June, 2013. s/ Daniel J. Forest President of the Senate s/ Thom Tillis Speaker of the House of Representatives s/ Pat McCrory Governor Approved 4:19 p.m. this 12th day of June, 2013

Page 2

Session Law 2013-75

House Bill 774


13-06-03: NC Bill 774: Turtle Island Sustainable Security