Following my first thread on how WWF have been clearing land for carbon credit projects, making many people starving and homeless, here is the latest on African land clearing projects, making western investors rich and in some cases wiping out entire villages. The local people get almost nothing, their land is sequestered in similar ways it was in apartheid South Africa and modern Zimbabwe. This is totally legal and condoned by governments worldwide under UN recommendations.

More details, it's getting far worse

The amount of space given to Satguru to push his batty conspiracy theories is beyond belief. The fact he can smear so many people without a shred of evidence amazes me. I thought this would be an intelligent site but it's reputation is shredded by allowing this nonsense so much space. I have been accused of being a troll in one of the climate change sites. That means I am a minority intruder where the accepted truth is held by the majority. I have been privately contacted by others on this site, including scientists who cheer my posts but do not want to get involved in a slanging match.

Please put at least a limit on the conspiracy propaganda and get back some credibility. I am contacting WWF for a response to the above diatribe.

That site states "That the power of the market combined with the applications of safe technologies could offer solutions to many of the worlds pressing concerns." This is just a ultra right wing site that believes in "the market" to solve the worlds problems. This theory has been so blown out of the water it is a joke to invoke it. The GFC was the market on steroids. If this site isn't an astroturf for the oil companies I will be very surprised. You are just a fact free zone Sat.

Glenn, this is not your site, I've been here a lot longer than you including five years as a moderator. If you've got a decent argument against what I present here then present it. If it's just a personal hissy fit as you don't like people you disagree with having a voice then hard luck, and you are in the wrong place not me.

CFACT is the site you posted as your authority to slander the WWF. CFACT received $542,000 from Exxon Mobil from 1998 to 2006. It also received #3,195,500 from the Allegheny foundation which was founded by Oil Billionaire Richard Mellen Scaife. You slag off all climate scientists for being corrupt because of their funding links. According to your logic CFACT is corrupt and not worth listening to. Took me all of 5 minutes to find the facts to undermine your credibility so how about you do some research so Funtrivia can regain its credibility.

So, if two different people report a crime, and one happens to be the victim or someone who will indirectly benefit if the culprit is brought to rights, you can only trust the one who has absolutely no personal interest in the result? Now that is a conspiracy theory! It's funny how you accuse me of wacky conspiracies and the only thing you offer to demonstrate it is an, erm, conspiracy theory.

I know you probably won't but I hope others can see the irony there.

I think the writing style is a bit slanted in the article, but I don't like loophole in the UN CDM that allows countries to meet requirements by using other countries land, which includes displacement of people from the countries.

While the UN intention may is good, the way the loophole is being used is not good.

The UN should sure up that loophole, have countries make better internal efforts, and allow the African Nations to handle their own business.

If they want to help countries become more modern do it with projects the people in the area need and want, not to take the easy way out for themselves.

We don't allow personal attacks on this site. if you can't use factual evidence to refute the other person's belief, don't say anything at all, please.

I have no problem with people seeing different sides of the same issue. That's what discussion is all about. After all, you don't learn anything if all you talk about is what YOU know.

I don't even care if the discussion gets "heated" lol. I just assume people are passionate about their beliefs and don't intend harm to any one else's character. (I "could" be naive in this regard ~)

And I don't care if someone is Methuselah. It doesn't mean their interpretation is either wrong or right. But to convince me, a person needs to either "show me the money" or back down and apologise.

If folks can't present "pure" evidence that is accepted (by most) then they shouldn't be discussing them in the first place.

Although I enjoyed BXB's rational response, this thread has gone so far off the supposed original topic that it's not even interesting. Sorry .

If I got paid for the research I would happily provide dissertation standard evidence, but always make sure the tests have been passed in previous checks before I add anything online. There's absolutely no doubt that native villagers, often living in the same places all their lives, are being displaced, and some are starving as a result.

I'll keep adding more since it's been requested, but this is an eyewitness story pretty typical of them all I've come across. It's exploiting a system which can easily be exploited, and the UN are not the slightest bit concerned about the ways it is happening in their name.

Ugandan land grabs

"On Sunday, February 28, 2010, armed troops evicted villagers in Uganda’s Mubende district, to make way for a tree plantation. The troops were acting on behalf of a British forestry company that claims it fights global warming. The trees will supposedly absorb carbon dioxide, so that carbon-credits can be sold to transnational polluters, to stave off “dangerous manmade climate change and disruption.”

Long-time villagers in thriving communities were beaten by gun-toting soldiers who burned homes, destroyed crops and butchered livestock."

Anyone who can call someone making the effort to expose these atrocities a conspiracy nut who should be silenced should seriously investigate their own motives. Everyone should be ready to learn how power is abused whatever their personal views on the area.

I almost hesitate to opine because while I have been on the site for five years, I am a relative newbie to the forums and am loathe to ruffle the feathers of the folks who have shaped and molded them into the fine and informative public voice that they presently are. Having said that, I would like to submit that while personal and ad hominem attacks have absolutely no place in this space, I would hope that the moderators in their wisdom ( which I have seen beautifully exercised time and again) will continue to allow passionate, and yes even heated debate when it comes to this topic and other topics in the future. I have my own opinions on the question of climate change as future posts will attest, and while hard language should be carefully vetted, it is sometimes the unfortunate byproduct of strongly held opinions. Passion can sway opinion or reinforce it, soften hearts or harden them, illuminate or obscure. Civility must take the day, but my fervent hope is that this place will not become an insipid backwater of forced politeness and constant self-editing to conform to the "comfort zone" of any and all possible readers.

I think it's the ad hominem attacks that have that effect. It's the sort of thing people might be tempted to do if they wanted to derail a thread, but obviously nobody here would ever do that, would they?

Paul4760 - a thousand times yes.

Lesley: yup to ad hominem
Paul: couldn't agree more. I quite like lively and honest discussions myself. And I thought it was nice of the moderator not to shut it down entirely, but simply put in a "tsk-tsk" reminder notice instead : )

Paul, I think your comment should be pinned at the top of every forum, and thanks for the support and tolerance Beth.

I think if someone smears all climate scientists as corrupt and uses oil company spivs as proof to smear a wonderful organization such as WWF the onus is on you to have very strong evidence. I am a supporter of WWF and I take it very bloody personally when they are attacked without any credible evidence. There are 2 topics on this site. Fear of Global warming (670 replies) and Alaskan Ice Ignores global warming (258 replies). They are controversial and some heated arguments had. However over 80% of the replies are from one person. I have not seen any other topic have even 20 replies. The only reason for this can be either, the old mates rule because he is a former moderator for 5 years, or the moderators on this site are pro sceptical on climate change and not professional enough to be objective.

Again, the attacks on all climate scientists and every scientific organization in the world without a shred of evidence is beyond the pale and this site should not continue being an outlet for lies and spin. I had to laugh when I was accused of thinking this was my site. I am not the one with the 80% replies to my own posts.

Mountain, Satguru has earned the respect of mnay on this site for who he is and how he handled modedrating over many, many years. The idea he gets special treatment for being a former moderator is not the case.

Just lurking here and I think Mountaingoat is raising a fair point too, somewhere amid the passion and indignation.

This thread has thrown the WWF into an implication that it has ...what?...sent UN soldiers in to to burn children asleep in their beds, and all because climate change is a con that's making the Eurovision a lot of money. Something like that.

The articles posted are about government deals, and are from news sources reporting it at the time. So where's the secrecy being exposed, and why is WWF getting a starring role in the thread, and where is the research showing that the UN condone this sort of violence, or even forced eviction?

In this thread, these organisations are being implicated in murder! Of course there needs to be some more proof than "I always check" when the assertion is that "the UN are not the slightest bit concerned about the ways it is happening" or when the opening post sets up certain opinions as already established facts.

Here's a report from the New York Times about an eviction, and how it went (badly) and how and who are gaining / championing it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/world/...pushed-out.html

So we should conclude from these reports that there is a serious problem.






Here's a report where the WWF were involved in a project and deny that they condone evictions.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201111151427.html



It does seem to me that the UN policy is misguided, but the money involved in large business operations is - as usual - going to corrupt and twist any policy to benefit itself. That's what business does.

When an ambitious policy, however well-meaning, gets into bed with big business and then is operating in countries that admit there are large corruption problems, there's bound to be trouble.

What's the solution? Do we just give up?

Thanks for the support Bx, much appreciated.

The hundred or whatever replies I made on the Alaskan Ice thread are because it's my library on new data as it comes out and I also use it as my own database when sending out links. But the non-sequitur of saying in the same paragraph how many items I've posted altogether on the topic, and then saying I have no evidence is frankly embarrassing to yourself. I can only assume you've ignored the entire list of material, even though I usually copy over the most important parts, which is all from scientific papers and universities. How can anyone ignore all that?

As for WWF, they are not who they were, who even I supported 30 years ago have been taken over, and Patrick Moore, founder of sister organisation Greenpeace, has left for the exact reasons I mentioned which cover them both equally. I'm sure I posted it all here at the time. Even the BBC allowed an RSPB officer to admit the charities now have to mention the climate in order to get funding even when it's totally outside their remit, as the competition has become so great for it. I supported WWF as well when that was their job, but what they are doing now campaigning for higher energy taxes and Greenpeace lobbying to stop Africa drilling for oil and America for adding a pipeline it's no longer about the wildlife but a political vision.

Coincidentally even the BBC did a piece last night on land clearances in Indonesia and Africa for palm oil (read 'biofuel') so I reckon now they've taken it up it's pretty official and I as the mere advance herald am off the hook as I beat them to it by a few months on part 1. They interviewed the companies who denied it but the fact the BBC spent half an hour exposing people being driven from their land under what are UN plans for 'sustainable development', whether by private companies, WWF, local militia or otherwise, they are all driven by the same motivation and just depends who is behind each individual clearance at the time. I only picked on WWF as they were the very first to be reported, by a respectable German newspaper who don't spout nonsense for sales only to be ripped apart later on after they've sold the papers. They are only one large part of a huge picture but the very third world people the UN is claiming to support are losing the most. That's without even considering the widespread starvation from burning food crops for fuel under the same UN directives.

BBC news

Now as far as I'm concerned, what on earth have WWF got to do with even mentioning biofuel, let alone promoting it as part of their own campaigning? What animals benefit from clearing thousands of acres of third world land for corn and palm oil?

WWF support biofuel

I think the UN should sure up the loopholes and have countries, or the companies they are buying the rights from, put efforts into finding ways to work with the residents of any land they wish to use.

In regards to the other two topics which have been brought to the discussion table here, I support the WWF and believe the Earth's cycles and population have more to do with Global Warming than anything else.


Edit
After reading Sats post I will take another look at WWF and if I become uneasy with their current goals, I will try to find a group that is doing what they once did, or localize my support.

Here's my understanding of WWF's role:

The WWF's involvement is not to encourage or create a new/bigger market for more palm oil, rather it is to monitor (and attempt to affect policy within) the companies that are already producing palm oil. Likewise biofuels, which come from the same companies/plantations.

The hoped for result is to skew the market so that it will only buy palm oil that has been certified as following procedures that are sustainable and responsible, including responsibilities to the local communities.

The WWF's interest in it is that the palm oil industry destroys natural habitat, so needs to be changed. That includes the destruction of a global habitat, which may also be called climate change, or for those who have issues with 'climate change' we could say 'suspected climate change'.

Whether this method of round table discussion with bankers, NGOs and big corporations is working or not is certainly up for discussion. Whether such certifications carry any real meaning is also up for discussion.



Is WWF a motivational force behind land clearance for oil production, including evictions etc? I would say no.

Enough.