Tag Archives: WWF

What makes a lobbyist?

That is a serious question, because at times I have no clue what a lobbyist is. That is the question that the CBC leaves me with. There was even more power behind the article at the Financial Times, but their paywall prevents me from mentioning them. So here we are relying on the CBC. They did nothing really wrong and the article ‘At COP28 climate summit, there’s concern oil and gas lobbyists have too much influence’ (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/climate/climate-dubai-cop28-lobbyists-canada-1.7042376) is a good read. Yet the question that follows be from the beginning which we see with “With tens of thousands in Dubai for the climate talks, environmentalists and policy experts are expressing concern over the growing presence of fossil fuel lobbyists at the meetings”. So, from the start we get the connection to a lobbyist. Which according to the dictionary means “a person who takes part in an organised attempt to influence legislators.” Yet I believe it is more then that. Another version is “a special interest group that hires a lobbying organisation to influence an elected official on a particular policy” which seems to apply better. And with COP28 (any COP actually) the need for lobbyists is clear. Yet if it was ONLY fossil fuels there would not be that much attendance. You might think that “An analysis from a coalition of advocacy groups found representatives of the fossil fuel industry have been in attendance a total of 7,200 times at the annual United Nations climate talks over the past two decades” would be enough. But how many ‘representatives’ would have been in attendance 7200 times? Lets just say that it might be a career, but I think that any lobbyist would be washed out after 100 visits, let alone 7200. So, there is a part missing and when we think COP there is EPA, there is EEA, there is also WWF, Earthjuice and a lot more and at this event they all are rushing to see if their needs are being met. The last part is given by the CBC and concerns Canada. So consider “Saskatchewan is also hosting a pavilion, at a cost of $765,000, where it will hold panels by industry leaders”, now consider that to break ‘even’ they need to see around $10 million (stand, flights, hotels and so forth). So you tell me what Saskatchewan is doing there? I honestly do not know, but they are there (hopefully) for a reason. 

The fun part is that the COP28 has a green zone and a blue zone, the blue zone is only for UNFCCC. A part that the CBC did not give us (the Financial Times had that in their article). So there are two strains of lobbyists, so who goes where? All parts that were missed be many media. Another part is that a player like Bentley systems (not the car) as well as Monash University are also there, they both have their own lobbyists, but neither gave us those goods. In a semantical mood I would state that there was an event (23 AD) where less than 0.1% was a virgin (the only virgins there were the Vestal Virgins representing Vesta, the rest were men, wives, whores and slaves and the event was at Circus Maximus on the order of Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus. The entire setting mattered and it matters for COP28 events too. Without the entire enchilada we get a mere slice of what is going on and in that setting we see a misrepresenting of lobbyists as well as the COP28 event. You see, the people in the green zone do not get access to the blue zone (as far as I can tell) and the blue zone is where it is all at. So as such many articles do not give us the whole story (the Financial Times was more complete). All settings that matter, all settings that were (intentional or not) missed and that is where we are at. 

So what was the missions of these lobbyists and what policies were they supporting (or not) for governments? All questions that mattered, but we aren’t told that, were we?

Enjoy Sunday, I still have 8 hours to go, Vancouver is still on Saturday, lucky bastards.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Free IP for John Cena

Yes, it is a different story this time around. It is IP, and it is free for John Cena. He actually inspired the IP. You see, I first saw him in the Wall, a most excellent movie. I did not know the man, other than that he served, which I read somewhere. Then I saw him in the movie Blockers. A bit over the top, it is so American those Prom movies, but I saw it, mostly because Leslie Mann was in it. It was a few weeks later when I was working as a volunteer in a Salvo’s shop when I saw a 3 DVD pack with the John Cena experience. That was the moment I saw he was originally a wrestler. And whilst watching the first DVD I also had an idea. There is an option for John Cena to get an Oscar, but not the one he might have ever banked on. He could stand a chance to get the Oscar for Best Documentary Feature.

How so?
You see, what I never knew (as I never served in the US army) is that the WWF has done things for the USO, and there is the story. The USO, or United Service Organisations is a setting that provides entertainment for the armed forces. The USO has been around since WW2. So there is material from WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm and many other places. It has over 30,000 volunteers and it has remained (outside of the US) highly invisible. I had heard of the USO, but when you consider just how much they have done, I am surprised that no one else has taken the time to create a movie on what they have achieved. A show about a show, optionally with the special effects on the people who were there, with the morph to what they are now. Interviews with the people behind the entertainment going all the way back to WW2 (if any of them are still around). I think that it is important that this movie is made, because these people should not be forgotten. 

Why John Cena?
That is a fair question. He is a lighthouse of attention, this time the attention should fall on the people who make the USO run. He could optionally even finance the move (and reap the rewards). A movie that could lead to global visibility and global recognition of a people who worked from the shadows for far too long.  And he is but one entertainer that would most likely be willing to shine a torch on the achievements and activities of the USO, there are plenty of others, yet I believe that he gave light to the USO and would willingly do it again.

It could be anyones show, but the greats were Gary Sinise, Bob Hope, Danny Kaye and a few more. And until the JC experience I did not even know that the WWF does its part to entertain the troops via the USO, so there are plenty of people, but who can make the movie? Not me, I am neither a producer or a director, so I am handing it over in the blog. If my writing sets (in part) ownership of the IP, I will happily hand it over to John Cena. Perhaps he can make it work and end up with an Oscar in the process. It seems simple. But is it?

An Idea I have never seen anywhere else, so why not? Why are people not looking around anymore? Why are they all settled on the quick run to cash? As far as I can tell, most of these runs merely shorten their lives and leaves them with nothing, but that is my take on the matter.

Leave a comment

Filed under movies

8 Generations

I thought long about this and until this morning I had not made up my mind whether I would write this. You see, this is not based on facts (or at least extreme loosely facts), I had spoken to a priest about this, but as I see the article in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/21/five-biggest-threats-human-existence), I decided to write the story anyway.

Consider the notion, the one that Anders Sandberg wrote in his story “Not those who will live 200 years from now, but 1,000 or 10,000 years from now“. In my view the man might actually be an optimist. For the most we have been deceived so long (not by the fore mentioned writer), that we have not been heeding anyone’s word in matters of survivability.

What if we are ending the option of life the way we currently are? What if we have at the maximum only 8 generations left? Did you consider this? Why 8 generations? Well, the number is slightly random, we might actually only have 7 or even 6 generations left.

This train of thought started with two events. The second one is the one I wrote about in ‘Tusks!’ earlier this month. It was about the Ivory trade and how at this stage, elephants will be extinct in 15 years (a claim by the World Wildlife Federation). The first one was the news by several sources that Japan was intend on slaughtering whales again for ‘scientific’ purposes (at http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/experts-concerned-japans-talk-scientific-whaling-n156766). The interesting quote is “What bothers Clapham is that ‘whaling nations have said forever that they advocate sustainable whaling, and then they go on to ignore mounting evidence of population declines in the interests of profit’“. I must say that the IWC has not been overly outspoken in visibility of the numbers, some they have, some are estimates and it can all be found here: http://iwc.int/estimate. The numbers imply that between the two markers 1985-1991 and 1992-2003, the Minke Whales in the southern Hemisphere were ‘culled’ for almost 30%. That is a MASSIVE number! So far Japan has not produced ANY viable information on why whales have to die for their ‘research’. In my view, Japan has an obligation to openly produce the entire scientific data on the whales, with the spectrum of issues they want to prove/disprove by slaughtering whales. If they do not, it is only fair that we perform medical experimentations on the Japanese population in regards to resistance to radiation for the term 1944-1947 and 2010-2014. Will they wait until 30% of the population is ‘culled’ until they complain? I do reckon that national interest in Whale meat would likely go down.

Let us all remain calm and realise that this is not some anti-Japanese issue! But, the example is here for a reason!

The whale has a massive impact on the aquatic balance “When one species of animal that is important to the food chain dies it allows other species to thrive” (from whalefacts.org). In addition there is the quote “Studies have shown that the nutrients in sperm whale poop helps stimulate the growth of phytoplankton which pull carbon from the atmosphere to provide a cleaner and healthier breathing environment for all animals. Estimates state that as much as 400,000 tonnes of carbon are extracted from the air due to these whales each year!“, the whales also keep the krill population in balance, who in term deal with some of the carbon issues we create. Here is where it all becomes a bit weird. It seems that we, Homo Sapiens need Krill oil too. We have been taking massive amounts of it from the arctic and as such, we have denied the whales their food source. Another part is the quote “The adult Antarctic krill feeds preferentially on phytoplankton” implying that the whales themselves foster and nurture their own food source, making it a symbiotic relationship. “Several threats to Antarctic krill have been identified, including increasing commercial demand for krill oil and meal for the aquaculture, medical and cosmetic industries, as well as advancing technologies which enable much greater catches and quicker processing” show that we need the krill food source too, making the whale a competitor, as such, in conjunction with global warming (which removes the chances of successful Krill reproduction), should give us a larger pause then it is currently giving us.

All this has further consequences, as these two species are culled stronger and stronger, the predators in the arctic will end up with different needs. Like the whale, the Elephant has a similar impact. As the Lions and subsequent the Hyena’s lose this food source, they will have to pick on other sources. Consider that an elephant carcass will feed the pride for a week, taking them out means that they become solely dependent on the other species, which will then take a downturn in numbers too. How is all this linked to these 8 generations?

We have been feeding ourselves and through this our biosphere into extinction. The time we could have had to resolve issues are slowly and surely getting lost to us due to sheer greed! You do not have to believe me, but when was the last time you have beef without the fear of horse meat? Is it about profit (partially accepted as correct), or is this because veal is getting harder and harder to get? We see part of this at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/23/us-usa-agriculture-inflation-idUSBREA4M0FI20140523, where it is stated that prices in the US are at a record high. They blame the drought, which might be true in part. Another side here is the fact that this planets population grew by 30% in the last 20 years, that is within two generations. This is the need to feed over one and a half billion more people. The US only grew by 22% in that time, but consider the given truth that you need greens and livestock to feed another 60 million and add obesity into the mix and you have the beginning of a food disaster.

It goes beyond food, which is the main event, but not the whole picture. The site IndexMundi is telling us, that the world requires 90 million barrels of oil EACH DAY! This number becomes an issue, when we know that the bulk of all oil comes from OPEC and the OPEC-12 reported in that same time a production of 31 million barrels a day. The entire world produces roughly 80 million barrels of oil a day, there seems to be the issue that we need more. Before you go into the idea that it is just oil, and like running water we have plenty. Think again, oil is begotten (for the lack of a better word), from the earth. These fields are finite plain and simple! If we take the following premise that over the last 12 years, we used on average 80 million barrels of oil a day and a barrel in 159 litres, then how much oil did we need to spawn? that number comes to 12.72 billion litres of oil each day for 4380 days, which gets us to a cube that is 59 Km by 59Km by 59Km. That is one massive cube and this is only for the last 12 years. If we accept that the atmosphere end (roughly) at 17Km, then we get an interesting rectangular cuboid which is just over 109 Kilometres long and wide reaching to the edge of our atmosphere (at twice the height of the Mount Everest). I think the picture is clearly shaping that we are seriously on route of consuming ourselves quite literally into extinction. That view is only enhanced when we see the extreme ways on how large companies are now trying to get a little more gas using shale gas methods of getting a little more out of rock. Do you think they would go this distance and setting themselves up to these dangers if it was not ‘essential’? The question becomes, is it greed, or is it finality that is getting us into these waters?

I do not claim to have the answers, but there is every indication that 8 generations might be optimistic. Yes, we see the words on ‘responsible’ fishing and on the need for other solutions. It was only last July when we saw on ABC the quote “Australia’s east coast is experiencing a chronic shortage of wheat and stocks could run out by November“. No matter what this precise reason is for that one newscast, we are confronted that a larger part of the 7 billion population (a 2012 number) needs bread on a daily basis. How much wheat is needed to make 7 billion buns of bread each day?

It is when we realise these astronomical numbers that we get a first inkling on the dangers we face when we hear the words ‘food’ and ‘shortage’ together. More important, what can we do to prevent the nightmare the eight generation will face once he/she arrives there. I am not the first one to make these claims and in many places, we see some ‘expert’ giving us numbers that it will not be such a harsh reality. Is that so? For decades global warming was ‘debunked’ by carefully selected ‘experts’ even today they are still trying to throw sand in many eyes to dissuade many from seeing the perilous times that lie ahead.

In this article I only raised two of the daily needs we face every day, what happens when we add the need for clean (healthy) water? Part of that was illustrated last February in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-water-shortages-threat-terror-war).

The six areas in direct threat give us an indication that drought or not, we are in long term dire need for the one substance we cannot do without. If the human body needs 3 litres of water each day, then how will we get by on getting 21 billion litres of water each day for years to come? We all think too easy that this planet is 70% water. That water is not all fresh water and we have to share it with many other life forms (not just the fish). Feel free not to take my word on this. The WWF had this to say “By 2025, two-thirds of the world’s population may face water shortages”, that is just a decade from now, will this come to pass? Consider that the current population requires a body of water the size of the Dead Sea is not entirely comfortable when we consider the amounts of fresh water we have been polluting in recent years.

Time will tell, in the end we might not even get 8 generations to figure it out, however I always was an incurable optimist.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Tusks!

It is 01:55; I am just waking up after receiving a message on Facebook. It does not matter who it was from, it is about the message. The initial message was about doing something to save the elephants. They are expected to go extinct in 2030. This is not a good thing, yet when I looked at the message and then took another look, certain issues came up in my mind.

The article does all the marketing we would expect. Elements of corruption in Thailand from officials trying to keep it all quiet and so on. We have all heard it before! The picture is interesting as it show an African elephant with three Africans in it, so there is already that too.

The next feed I see (not send to me) is some article on how the Republican Party is trying to block new restrictions on the ivory trade, so what is ACTUALLY going on?

First things first! I am all for keeping all elephants (African and Indian) safe. This is not going to happen, for the very simple reason that until someone changes the approach on poachers, this will continue. In my view, detecting and hunting and trying to arrest these people will NEVER work! I see these poachers as ‘terrorists’ against life and against the natural balance. They were not alone. In the days of Queen Victoria, the rich and those who imagined themselves ‘mighty’, were all about shooting ‘big game’ in Africa. Opposing the entire pragmatic view on life, not unlike the white settlers in the USA with their buffalo, for greed and ego and so on, massive amounts of lives were needlessly lost. Those acts unhinged the balance that African and Asian tribes had with their natural environment. Now, some are driven to poaching, and I cannot condone it because this is all done for money, not for meat or survival. In my mind the only solution is to set out hunting parties and hunt down these poachers down with deadly efficiency, no arrests!
The hunters become the hunted and as such, the elephant might end up having a slightly longer life, yet for generations to come the elephants remain in danger of extinction.

Why this ‘extreme’ view?

It is pure pragmatism; shouting and sanctions will not work. If you think that this does, then take a look at Cuba, it is still there after 5 decades of ‘sanctions’, the sanctions are not working and if the calculations that some are publishing are correct, it means that he elephant will be extinct long before any form of sanction became successful, making it a useless strategy.

Now we get to the juicy part. The Republican Party, what is exactly going on? This is the part I do not know and for the most, I could not find anything from a substantial source. There was an article on WKRN, which is a Tennessee station, but that is about it. The summon here is that the Republican representative is stating that it is harder to differentiate between legal and illegal items, and these restrictions would make the owner of legal ivory items, as is seen in old piano’s, recycled ivory in the handles of guns and knives as well as the owners of many violin bows (which apparently also contains ivory), overnight criminals, their items, if need be, confiscated and their value reduced to zero. They have a point here, the biggest issue as I see it would be to keep people with legitimate items out of harm’s way, which makes the restrictions longwinded and in the end useless. So, there is a point, the part that I found interesting is that the article by the WWF, stating that it is the last chance for Thailand to tackle the illegal Ivory trade. I found it interesting that the newspapers were not all over the internet with this, then in the article I read is that the deadline is March 2015, so why was I woken up with this?

The answer is that this seems a long time to stem illegal trade, more than enough for some people to truly fill their pockets, which is what it seems to me. The article from the WWF, was however quite illuminating. The issue is not the legal domestic trade, which is an issue as Thailand depends on this commerce, it is that African Elephant ivory is smuggled into Thailand and these tusks become ‘legally valid’ commercial items and as such, according to figures 20,000 elephants, or better stated their 40,000 tusks make it to the souvenir shops, in many small ways.

So this is all about African tusks. I think it would have been nice to see such articles more prominently in several newspapers, but in the end, some X-Factor story will probably take centre page in such times.

What to do?

The important part is visibility and justice of exposure. Let’s not forget that there is an issue with the WWF part on the entire ivory issue. The WWF wants to put pressure somewhere, which is fair enough, but why Thailand? It seems to have a ‘valid’ (from what I read) ivory trade. The issue should not be with Thailand, but with the African source. The fact that hundreds, if not thousands of tusks per trip make it to Thailand should be the issue. We can clearly assume that it involves something massively larger than a dinghy, which means a corrupt crew for sure, and likely a corrupt captain too. So, while it is taking days to cross the Indian Ocean, perhaps getting better Intel on who and how should be the issue, if the numbers of 20,000 elephants a year is true, then this would take a massive amount of space, or many trips (a very regular schedule). Now, it is not that clean cut (or clear cut for that matter), so there are more sides and let’s not forget, with this amount of ivory, someone’s pockets are getting lined with $$$$.

In the end, we all agree, something will have to be done. The question remains, with these levels of extinction, how far are we willing to go? If the survival of the elephant is in such a critical stage, then sanctions will no longer be enough. There is also no question that it takes someone smarter than me (and someone who is better at hunting poachers then me) to solve the issue. Whoever gets the job, we should consider how extreme the handed mandate needs to become, because 15 years is not a long time. It implies that one of the most impressive land creatures on this earth will become extinct during the watch of the current generation.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Science