UNECE-ACCC/C/2013/82: ‘Scarcity & Conflict’ Censorship-Population-Environment-Terrorism Connection
The Anarcho-Primitivism / Æquilibriæx CommonSism Sustainable Security (I=PAT) worldview argues that reducing conflict (I: Impact), requires reducing procreation (P: Population) and consumption (A: Affluence) to below carrying capacity levels by returning to a low/no tech sustainable agrarian society.
Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminist v Breivik | 12 May 2013
On 11 March 2013, Communicant filed a Communication to the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, regarding the alleged Non-Compliance by Kingdom of Norway with the obligations under the Aarhus Convention: Denial of Request for Access to Environmental Information from (a) Newspaper Editors, and (b) Bar Association; by Norwegian Environment Appeals Committee and Parliamentary Ombudsman.
The Environmental Information denied to Communicant, by Norwegian Newspaper Editors, the Environmental Appeals Board and Parliamentary Ombudsman, related to the decision-making to censor the Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism-Connection during the Breivik trial: how Mainstream Access-to-Discourse Editors censorship of non-violent scarcity-conflict political grievances and problem solving activism facilitate a scarcity-conflict pressure cooker socio-political reality for their “If it Bleads, It Leads” corporate propaganda profits from the exploding terror of the socio-political scarcity-conflict pressure cooker.
The Environmental Information denied to Communicant, by Norwegian Bar Association, the Environmental Appeals Board and Parliamentary Ombudsman, related to the Bar Association’s refusal to justify their non-Environmental Complaints policy.
On 26 April 2013, the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee ruled that Communicants complaint was “manifestly unreasonable”, without providing any written reasons justifying their ruling of “manifestly unreasonable”.
Request for Written Reasons: Re: Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee 26 April 2013 “manifestly unreasonable” ruling concerning compliance by Norway with provisions of the Convention in connection to ‘Scarcity & Conflict’ and ‘Environmental Complaints Policy’ access to information and access to justice (ACCC/C/2013/82).
On 11 March 2013, Communicant filed a Communication to the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, regarding the alleged Non-Compliance by Kingdom of Norway with the obligations under the Aarhus Convention: Denial of Request for Access to Environmental Information from (a) Newspaper Editors, and (b) Bar Association; by Norwegian Environment Appeals Committee and Parliamentary Ombudsman.
The Environmental Information denied to Communicant, by Norwegian Newspaper Editors, the Environmental Appeals Board and Parliamentary Ombudsman, related to the decision-making to censor the Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism-Connection during the Breivik trial: how Mainstream Access-to-Discourse Editors censorship of non-violent scarcity-conflict political grievances and problem solving activism facilitate a scarcity-conflict pressure cooker socio-political reality for their “If it Bleads, It Leads” corporate propaganda profits from the exploding terror of the socio-political scarcity-conflict pressure cooker. [See ACCC: Johnstone v. Norway]
The Environmental Information denied to Communicant, by Norwegian Bar Association, the Environmental Appeals Board and Parliamentary Ombudsman, related to the Bar Association’s refusal to justify their non-Environmental Complaints policy. [See ACCC: Johnstone v. Norway]
The UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters was adopted on 25th June 1998 in the Danish city of Aarhus at the Fourth Ministerial Conference in the 'Environment for Europe' process. The Convention: (A) Links environmental rights and human rights; (B) Acknowledges that we owe an obligation to future generations; (C) Establishes that sustainable development can be achieved only through the involvement of all stakeholders; (D) Links government accountability and environmental protection; (E) Focuses on interactions between the public and public authorities in a democratic context. It is not only an environmental agreement, it is also a Convention about government accountability, transparency and responsiveness. The Aarhus Convention grants the public rights and imposes on Parties and public authorities obligations regarding access to information and public participation and access to justice.
The Convention provides for:
• the right of everyone to receive environmental information that is held by public authorities ("access to environmental information"). This can include information on the state of the environment, but also on policies or measures taken, or on the state of human health and safety where this can be affected by the state of the environment. Applicants are entitled to obtain this information within one month of the request and without having to say why they require it. In addition, public authorities are obliged, under the Convention, to actively disseminate environmental information in their possession;
• the right to participate in environmental decision-making. Arrangements are to be made by public authorities to enable the public affected and environmental non-governmental organisations to comment on, for example, proposals for projects affecting the environment, or plans and programmes relating to the environment, these comments to be taken into due account in decision-making, and information to be provided on the final decisions and the reasons for it ("public participation in environmental decision-making");
• the right to review procedures to challenge public decisions that have been made without respecting the two aforementioned rights or environmental law in general ("access to justice").
On 26 April 2013, the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee ruled that Communicants complaint was “manifestly unreasonable”, without providing any written reasons justifying their ruling of “manifestly unreasonable”.
Request for written reasons as to exactly how and why the Communication was ‘manifestly unreasonable’.
 Anders Breivik: Scarcity-Conflict and Fraud of Psychiatry Information submitted to Oslo Court and Norwegian Media during the Trial was a manifestly reasonable matter of discourse by parties and of interest to the Media:
[9.1] In a letter from Mr. Breivik, dated 02 July 2012 he writes: “I also heard about your letter and email campaigns. They have played a part in the national discourse here and the media have observed it with interest. I cant say for sure how much of an impact it has played, the only thing for sure is that it has made an impact!”
Manifestly Reasonable: Media’s Censorship of Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection:
 The Oslo & Utoya Attacks were a symptom of the Censorship-Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection: The “If It Bleads, It Leads :: Media Population-Terrorism Connection” report submitted to Media Editors argued that Mainstream Access-to-Discourse Editors censorship of non-violent political grievances and scarcity-conflict problem solving activism facilitate a pressure cooker socio-political reality for the media’s “If it Bleads, It Leads” corporate propaganda profits, by (1) censoring the Scarcity (due to Overpopulation and Overconsumption) causes of violent resource war conflict; (2) that media abuse their publicity power in terms of their censorship of Ecocentric arguments submitted to courts; and by abusing public discourse/free speech resources; by providing certain parties with preferential and special access to such public discourse, and severely restricting or denying others any access to such public discourse; (3) Mainstream media avoid addressing or enquiring into root causes of the scarcity-conflict socio-political problems they report upon as reported in Dr. Michael Maher’s report How and Why Journalists Avoid Population - Environment connection. Anders Breivik argued his terrorist acts were justified by the necessity to: (1) Resist Eurabia: foreign immigration enabled by a corrupt NeoLiberal Corporatist elite; (2) Gov & Media Censorship of debate and discussion of the consequences of Demographic / Immigration issues required Ultra violence to Access International Public Discourse.
 Military Doctrine & Academic Theory: Scarcity-Conflict & Media Censorship of Population in Scarcity-Conflict equation is Manifestly Reasonable:
[11.1] The ‘Scarcity as Root cause of Conflict’ and How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection, information submitted to Media Editors and Oslo District Court, during Breivik Trial, subsequently censored by the media editors, from their readers, was ‘manifestly reasonable’ environmental information.
[11.2] Scarcity as Root Cause of Conflict: The Academic and Military doctrine documentation detailing the ‘manifestly reasonable’ argument, theory and practice that Scarcity is considered a Root Cause of Conflict is immense. In fact it is one of the primary foundations for the arguments about the national security dangers of climate change: namely that climate change will result in oil, food, and water shortages which will relate to a threat-multiplier effect on all other scarcity related conflict. See Communication para.5.2; as well as, to name but a few:
A. International Court of Justice: Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206.
B. Bundeswehr (Sep 2010): Peak Oil: Security Policy Implications of Scarce Resources; Bundeswehr.
C. Bush, GW Snr (1986/02): Public Report of the Vice-President’s Task Force on Combatting Terrorism, United States Government
D. Canadian Security Intelligence Service: Gizewski, Peter (Spring 1997): Environmental Scarcity and Conflict, by Peter Gizewski, Project on Environment Population and Security, Peace and Conflict Studies Program, University of Toronto; Canadian Security Intelligence Service: Archived: Commentary No. 71.
E. White House: National Security Council (1974/04/24): National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests, Cover Letter by Henry Kissinger.
F. White House: National Security Council (1974/12/10): National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 200): Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests, Washington, DC, 227 pp. (The Kissinger Report)
G. White House: National Security Council (1975/11/26): National Security Decision Memorandum 314: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests, Washington, DC. 4 pp.; made public policy by Pres. Gerald Ford.
H. White House: Nixon, R. (1969/07/18): Special Message to the Congress on Problems of Population Growth, Public Papers of the Presidents, No. 271, p. 521, Office of the Federal Register, National Archives, Washington, DC, 1971
I. White House: Nixon, R (1970/03/16): Remarks of President Nixon on Signing Bill Establishing the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, White House
J. White House: Nixon, R. (1972/05/05): Statement About the Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, Public Papers for the Presidents, No. 142, p. 576, Office of Federal Register, National Archives, Washington, DC, 1974.
K. White House: Rockefeller Commission Report (1972/03/27): Population and the American Future: The Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future (PDF); a Signet Special Edition, W5219, The New American Library, Inc., 1301 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, March, 1972.
L. United Nations: (1974/08): World Population Plan of Action (PDF); Adopted by consensus of the 137 countries represented at the UN World Population Conference at Bucharest, August 1974
M. United States Army: Department of the Army (December 1994): Field Manual 100-23, Peace Operations. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army
N. United States Army (2001): US Army Posture Statement - FY 2002.
O. United States Army: Murphy, R (2006/10/24): US Army Strategy of the Environment, Office of the Dep. Asst. Sec. of the Army, Environment, Safety & Occup. Health: Assistant for Sustainability.
P. United States Army & TRADOC (2012): US Army Unified Quest 2012 Fact Sheet, Unified Quest 2012 is the Army Chief of Staff's annual Title 10 Future Study Plan (FSP).
Q. United States Army Command and General Staff College: David, MAJ William E (April 1996): Environmental Scarcity as a Cause of Violent Conflict, USA Military Intelligence, School of Advanced Military Studies; United States Army Command and General Staff College.
R. United States Army War College: Butts, Kent (25 April 1994): Environmental Security: A DOD Partnership for Peace; US Army War College.
S. United States Army War College: Bush, Col BX (13 Mar 1997): Promoting Environmental Security during Contingency Operations; US Army War College.
T. United States Army War College: Peters, R (1996): The Culture of Future Conflict, US Army War College: Parameters: Winter 1995-96, pp. 18-27.
U. United States Army War College: Ubbelohde, LTC Kurt F. (10 April 2000): Freshwater Scarcity in the Nile River Basin, US Army War College.
V. United States Department of Defence: Department of Defense (Jan 2012): Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for the 21st Century Defense.
W. United States Joint Forces Command (15 March 2010): Command releases report examining the future, FJCOM.
X. United States Joint Forces Command (2010/02/18): The Joint Operating Environment - 2010 (The JOE – 2010).
Y. U.S. Forest Service (Dec 2012): Report Predicts a Strain on Natural Resources Due to Rapid Population Growth.
Z. Proposed Legal Principles for Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development, adopted by the WCED Experts Group on Environmental Law, WCED Our Common Future (1987) 348.
AA. World Scientists Warning to Humanity, issued 18 November 1992, issued by 1700 leading scientists from 70 countries, including 102 Nobel Prize laureates in Science.
BB. Chiarelli, Peter W General (6 Nov 2008): Prof Al Bernstein Lecture Series: School of Advanced International Studies, Remarks by General Peter W Chiarelli.
CC. Choucri, Nazli: Population & Conflict: New Dimensions of Population Dynamics; Population Dynamics and Local Conflict
DD. Guillebaud, J (2007): YouthQuake: Population, fertility and environment in the 21st Century, Optimum Population Trust
EE. Hardin, G (1968/12/13): Tragedy of the Commons, Science.
FF. Hardin, G (1986/08/10): Cultural Carrying Capacity, AIBS Distinguished Service Award Acceptance Speech.
GG. Hardin G (1991): Carrying Capacity and Quality of Life, Environmental Science: Sustaining the Earth.
HH. Heinberg, R (2006/04/30): Population, Resources, and Human Idealism, Energy Bulletin.
II. Homer-Dixon, T (1991): On The Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict.
JJ. Homer-Dixon, T, & Boutwell, J, & Rathjens, G (1993): Environmental change and violent conflict: Growing scarcities of renewable resources can contribute to social instability and civil strife. Scientific American, 268(2), pp. 38-45
KK. Homer-Dixon, T (1994): Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence from Cases.
LL. Homer-Dixon, T (June 1995): Strategies for Studying Causation in Complex Ecological Political Systems.
MM. Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Gizewski, Peter (June 1995): “Urban Growth and Violence: Will the Future Resemble the Past?,” Environment, Population and Security.
NN. Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Howard, Philip (June 1995), “Environmental Scarcity and Violent Conflict: The Case of Chiapas, Mexico,” Environment, Population and Security.
OO. Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Kelly, Kimberley (June 1995): “Environmental Scarcity and Violent Conflict: The Case of Gaza,” Environment, Population and Security.
PP. Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Percival, Valerie (June 1995): “Environmental Scarcity and Violent Conflict: The Case of Rwanda,” Environment, Population and Security.
QQ. Homer-Dixon, T (Sep 1995): The Ingenuity Gap: Can Poor Countries Adapt to Resource Scarcity.
RR. Homer-Dixon & Percival (Oct 1995): Environmental Scarcity and Violent Conflict: Case of South Africa.
SS. Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Gizewski, Peter (April 1996): “Environmental Scarcity and Violent Conflict: The Case of Pakistan,” Environment, Population and Security.
TT. Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Schwartz, Daniel; Deligiannis, Tom (Summer 2000): “The Environment and Violent Conflict: A Response to Gleditsch’s Critique and Suggestions for Future Research,” Environmental Change & Security Project Report: 77-93.
UU. Koppel, T (2000): CIA and Pentagon on Overpopulation and Resource Wars, Nightline.
VV. Leahy, E & Engelman R & Vogel C & Haddock S & Preston T (2003): The Shape of Things to Come: Why Age Structure Matters to a Safer More Equitable World, Population Action Int’l
WW. Parthemore, C & Nagl, J (2010/09/27): Fueling the Future Force: Preparing the Department of Defense for a Post-Petroleum Environment, Center for a New American Security (CNAS).
XX. Simmons, M (2000/09/30): Revisiting the Limits to Growth: Could Club of Rome Have Been Correct, After All?; Energy Bulletin.
[11.3] Military Doctrine & Academic Theory: Climate Change & National Security: Climate Change acts as a Scarcity and Conflict Threat Multiplier of oil, water and food resource wars and mass migration:
A. Global Military Advisory Council on Climate Change (GMACCC) Chairman: Major General Muniruzzaman (04 Apr 2013): Climate Change and Global Security; America Security Now
B. Military Advisory Board (MAB)(April 2007): National Security and Climate Change, Center for Naval Analysis, CAN. [video]
C. Military Advisory Board (MAB)(May 2009): Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security; Center for Naval Analysis, CAN
D. Military Advisory Board (MAB)(July 2010): Powering America’s Economy: Energy Innovation at the Crossroads of National Security Challenges, Center for Naval Analysis, CAN.
E. Military Advisory Board (MAB) (unknown): Energy, Climate Change, and the Military: Implications for National Security; Woodrow Wilson Center for Environmental Security.
F. Military Advisory Board (unknown): National Security and the Threat of Climate Change, Woodrow Wilson Center for Environmental Security
G. Lucka Kajfez-Bogataj (11 Dec 2009): Climate Change as a National and International Security Threat; Good Planet Org.
H. Clark Wesley General, McGinn Dennis rear Admiral, Boycott Rosy (18 Dec 2009): Climate Change is a Global Security Threat; Global Observatory
I. Climate Patriots (19 Feb 2010): Energy, Climate Change and American National Security: A Military Perspective; Pew Climate Security.
J. Titley, David, Rear Admiral, USN (19 Nov 2010): Climate Change and National Security; TEDxPentagon
K. McGinn Dennis, Vice Admiral, Navy (26 Jan 2012): Energy, Climate Change and National Security: Challenges and Opportunities for America; Purdue University
L. Congressional Hearing: (06 June 2008): National Security and Climate Change; Energy Environment TV
M. Jarvis Lionel, Rear Admiral, Royal Navy (17 Oct 2011): Climate Change and Military Security; One World TV
[11.4] Academic Theory: Media’s Censorship-Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection:
[11.5] How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection: The argument that journalists and editors consciously and unconsciously practice self-censorship of population-environment issues in the social conflict and environmental destruction stories they report upon is well documented in Dr. Maher’s thesis, How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection, which no media publication has disputed.
A. Maher, MT (1995): Media Framing and Salience of the Population Issue, PhD dissertation.
B. Maher, MT (1997/03): How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Population and Environment, Volume 18, Number 4, March 1977; Reprinted in 1997 by the Carrying Capacity Network, Focus, 18 (2), 21-37.
C. Paddock William (Jan 1998): Addendum on Journalists Noncoverage of Population; Population and Environment ; Vol 19, No 3, pp.221-224.
D. Ehrlich, Paul and Anne (1998-89): Speaking Out on Population: A conspiracy of silence is limiting action on the world's most basic environmental problem, Issues in Science and Technology, Winter 1988-89, at 36-37.
E. Wheeler Timothy (September 2003): Skirting the Population Issue: Why Journalists Need to Tackle Growth; Environment Writer.
F. Earth Focus Episode 36: National Security and Climate Change; LinkTV reports on the National Security Journalism Initiative setup by Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism to educate journalists about how to integrate national security concerns of scarcity and conflict within its conventional social problem reporting.
22/07 AUF Utoya Survivor Bjorn Ihler’s Center for Free and Creative Expression: The Censorship-Terrorism Connection
 Mr. Bjørn Magnus Jacobsen Ihler was an AUF student on Utoya on the day that Mr. Anders Breivik committed the Oslo bombing and Utoya Attacks.
 Mr. Ihler does not agree with his Norwegian countrymen’s silent conspiracy to censor those they disagree with (left or right).
 Mr. Ihler believes – like Prof Clark McCauley writes in When Does Political Anger Turn to Violence?; and as argued in Communicator’s “If It Bleeds, it Leads: Media's Censorship Population Terrorism Connection” Earth Day Report to Media Editors – that it is precisely when people or groups of people are silenced and censored and denied political solutions for their grievances, that they are left only one option for resolving their scarcity-conflict socio-political problems: violence and terrorism.
 In an oped for RP-Online: “It is not over yet”, he describes the betrayal of Prime Minister Stoltenberg’s promise of an open debate and the “Oppressive Political Correctness” practiced by Norwegians, including after Breivik attack and trial. (via Google translate)
We need an open debate
A few days after the assassination of prime minister stood before the people, he said, that love brings love, and we would fight this terrible act of terrorism, by providing greater openness and more democracy. That sounded to me then that we would conduct a lively public debate about it, it sounded then, that we would hear voices from all possible political camps, it sounded then, that my Prime Minister agreed with me.
I firmly believe that an open debate is the means by which we can prevent further acts that are based on extremist views. This is connected with the theory that I "the echo chambers of extremism" call. These spaces are closed society of people who share the same extremist ideas. I want to scare anyone, but we know that these groups exist, we know they can be found all over the world, and we know that they are a threat. In these societies, extreme ideas can move freely, sometimes as a group trying to communicate their ideas to the world, but the world is busy taking care of other things, so the ideas usually stay in this closed society.
Breivik said that the reason why his ideas did not come to the public, was censorship. More precisely: He spoke of self-censorship. It seemed to him that the public had strict guidelines and would never listen to him nor reprint his views. One thinks in closed societies.
What did the Prime Minister?
This feeling of listening that nobody makes the effort, and the fact that there are ideas in which they all agree to ignore them, generates a high level of frustration. For some people this leads to frustration, which they feel they have to act. So terrorists can be created.
As the Prime Minister said that openness is the means by which we should be fighting extremism, I believed that it was what he meant. It turned out that I was wrong. I still do not understand exactly what he meant, but the following happened:
First detained most of the news sites in the country for a certain amount of their time commenting on anything that had to do with terrorism. This could have been an opportunity to hear potential supporters of the idea that was behind the act, and to argue against them. It could be a way to relieve a lot of pressure, which was created in the reverberation room, and to show people that others were interested and had good reasons for their ideas to be against it. Instead, they were locked out.
Oppressive political correctness
Secondly, began a massive public debate. Debates are usually a good thing, but the output seemed to be that the majority of the public had a clear view of what was politically correct, and that with views that were contrary to this political correctness, should not be possible for people to express their views to communicate. If they did it but they should at least be expressed in a correct language.
It may be understandable that one represents this condition, but it is also important to remember that many people have other means in communicating around as the average newspaper columnist. Not everyone is trained to write a letter to the editor or write at all. Therefore, we should be more open to people who use their own language, we should ignore bad grammar and spelling errors. The only thing we should consider not to accept, are direct threats and insults.
All in all I think that this debate about debating with those who have ideas outside the political correct, the feeling has reinforced that we had to censor myself.
 Mr. Ihler decided to found the Center for Free and Creative Expression:
After surviving the terror of the 22nd of July in Norway I’ve decided to devote my life to peoples fight for freedom, against violent extremism and for freedom of expression. I see this centre as what I hope can be my most valuable participation, and I hope you will help me.
If you in any way feel you can help in finding funding or otherwise, please do not hesitate to contact me.
 In Freedom of Expression in the fight against terror, he writes:
Sometimes it’s difficult to accept that other people have radically different ideas and views than you. It’s even more difficult to accept it when someone seems to have extremely different ideas and perspectives than what’s commonly accepted elsewhere in the society. This makes it difficult to be an extremism of any sort, right wing, islamic, christian or leftwing. Society strives towards the norm, towards a centre that most people seems to agree about.
There might be various reasons why it’s difficult to get through whit a message that’s not commonly accepted or politically correct. By those having the extreme opinions some of this will be seen as unfair social censorship, while people other places are threatened by a more organized governmental censorship. In this post censorship refers to social censorship against what’s perceived to be politically incorrect and self-censorship of extremist ideas, even tho I realize the dangers of all forms of censorship.
The most dangerous part of these forms of censorship is not that we don’t talk about stuff, but that we don’t get to, or won’t listen to certain ideas. This causes a feeling of injustice among those having these ideas. They feel that they don’t get through. And to some extent they don’t.
This creates small closed societies. Societies where the extremist ideas are shared, where the ideas bounce around, where they grow and amplify. This can go on until someone choses to do something about the idea. They might take to arms. They might go from being extremists to becoming terrorists. We have to avoid that.
In order to avoid that we have to bring these societies into the light. We have to let them express their ideas, to get them to feel that we hear what they have to say. We have to let the pressure out of the closed societies. This we can do through communication and expression. We must invite to debates, we must show that we listen and we must argue against what we think is unjust. That’s how we, through freedom expression, can fight terrorism.
 What does it say about the subjective impartial problem solving professionalism of a Committee of alleged ‘Human Rights’ defenders, Neoliberal Editors and Bar Association Attorneys; when a young survivor of brutal psychological and physical terrorism, has a greater commitment to resolving the censorship to public discourse and access to political solutions, causes of terrorism, by making a concerned commitment to listen sincerely and refusal to censor, or endorse the censorship of, the ideas of his enemies, that he does not understand, and may disagree with?
Admirals, Generals, Former CIA Director & News Editor: Censorship-Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection.
 Climate Change as a Scarcity and Conflict Threat Multiplier of oil, water and food resource wars and current problem of mass migration to Europe:
“Climate Change will become a defense and security issue, for four major reasons. There will be water wars, there will be oil wars, there will be massive migration on a scale the world has never seen, and there will be massive food insecurity. The two things of importance to the United States and UK will be issues of migration, which we already have problems with in Europe and the US. It will get much much more extreme. .. So much of our food is derived from Africa and Central and South America, if that starts to fail .. there could be rioting. There is an expression which is called nine meals from anarchy.” – Rosie Boycott, Former Editor of the Independent; Climate Change and National Security.
 Walking the National Security – Scarcity & Conflict -- Talk to Support the Troops: Procreate and Consume below carrying capacity, to enable the avoidance of resource war conflict:
[20.1] Vice Admiral Dennis V. McGinn, USN (Ret); Former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Requirements and Programs: Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security; Center for Naval Analysis, CAN:
“A yellow ribbon on a car or truck is a wonderful message of symbolic support for our troops. I’d like to see the American people take it several steps further. If you say a yellow ribbon is the ‘talk,’ then being energy efficient is the ‘walk’. A yellow ribbon on a big, gas-guzzling SUV is a mixed message. We need to make better energy choices in our homes, businesses and transportation, as well as to support our leaders in making policies that change the way we develop and use energy. If we Americans truly embrace this idea, it is a triple win: it reduces our dependence on foreign oil, it reduces our impact on the climate and it makes our nation much more secure.”
[20.2] Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn; Energy, Climate Change, and the Military: Implications for National Security; Woodrow Wilson Center for Environmental Security:
“Global climate change will pose serious threats to water supplies and agricultural production, leading to mass migration in some cases. At the same time we will see an increasing demand for a dwindling supply of fossil fuels. These factors mean and intense competition for key and vital resources, around the globe and that leads to conflict.
“This report is different to many other reports, involving military leaders. That is because in it, we make a direct appeal to the American people. We talk in this report about the amazing sacrifices the American people made during World War II, planting victory gardens, cutting down on fuel use, saving scrap metal and old rubber, sacrifices, or maybe just examples of common sense and prudent lifestyle changes. Whatever you call them, the steps taken by the American people then, shortened the war and saved lives.
And I believe the same can be said today about these challenges of energy security and climate security. There are individual steps that every American can take. Using less energy. Being more efficient with the energy that we do use. Supporting new policies to help our country take a new energy path. These are the steps that can help us avoid, or shorten wars in the future. Those wars over competition for vital resources. These are steps that can save lives.
They may cost money yes, but if we don't spend the money now, we will still pay, and we will pay much more later. In fact, we'll pay in American lives lost.
American civilians played an important role in World War II because they understood the stakes and because they were asked to do so. General Wald made the stakes clear, and our report makes the stakes clear. Our current energy posture poses a significant and urgent threat to our national security, militarily, economically and diplomatically.
Hopefully more Americans will understand these stakes, and that these consequences will affect them. Hopefully more Americans will hear the very direct request from our Commander in Chief and from this small group of a dozen retired Admirals and Generals.
The American people, all of us, through our energy choices can contribute directly to the security of our nation. It is a triple win. It makes us energy independent. It reduces our effect on the environment, and it makes our nation very much more secure.”
[20.3] James Woolsey, Former CIA Director; Climate Change and National Security:
“I was testifying before a House Committee a few months ago and one of the members was very sceptical of climate change and was arguing with me, because I presented some of the reasons why I thought climate change was a serious problem, and I finally said "Congressman look, set aside climate change, do you realize that seven of the nine things that I've suggested will help us be allot more resilient against terrorism or oil cut-offs." And he said, "Oh if you are doing them for that reason, then its fine."”
[20.4] James Woolsey (19 October 2009): How your Gas Money Funds Terrorism, American Jewish Committee, Washington DC.:
“The author of the fine book The Looming Tower, about Al'Qaeda and 9/11, Laurence Wright, writes for the New Yorker, has a fascinating sentence in the Looming Tower. He says that with a little over 1% of the worlds Muslims, Saudi's control about 90% of the worlds Islamic Institutions. Now what does that mean to the rest of us? Wahaabi Islam, the religion of Saudi Arabia, if you read the Imam's Fatwa's, rather than what they say to us, the Fatwa's are somewhere between murderous and genocidal with respect to their discussion of Shiite Muslims, Jews, homosexuals and apostates. They are massively oppressive of women in many, many ways. They are focussed on the establishment of a worldwide Caliphate, a theocratic dictatorship. That is essentially Al'Qaeda's doctrine. There is no substantive difference between Al'Qaeda and the Wahaabi's of Saudi Arabia want to take us. The question is 'Who's in charge'?
So its somewhat like the feud between the Trotskyites and the Stalinists in the 1920's and 30's. Because the reach of Wahaabi Madrassas is so great, you have all over Pakistan, as well as the West Bank and in allot of other parts of the world, little boys being taught hatred essentially. Now that produces a situation in which by shelling out essentially a billion dollars a day at seventy dollars a barrel of oil, for imported oil, and since allot of that money goes to the Middle East, you and I shouldn't have any question about who is paying for the other side of this long war that we are in. If you want to know who is paying for those Madrassas in Pakistan or the West Bank to teach those little boys to hate, just next time you go to a filling station, before you get out to charge your gasoline and credit card, turn the rear-view mirror just a few inches, so you are looking into your own eyes. Now you know who is paying for those little boys to be taught to hate. The situation we have with the Wahaabi's of Saudi Arabia is not too far from what would be the case if Ferdinand and Isabella and Torquemada running the Spanish Inquisition were still around in Spain and Spain drilled down and found 25% of the worlds oil under Spain. Ferdinand and Isabella turn to Torquemada and they say "We know that you like to pick the pope and pick the head of the Lutherans and the Evangelicals and the President of Notre Dame and that’s all fine with us, here's six, seven, eight billion dollars a year, just go to it. That’s the kind of problem the world, would hypothetically have if Torquemada and the Inquisition were still around and that’s the kind of problem we've got with the Wahaabi's of Saudi Arabia.”
Manifestly Reasonable: Media Silence/Censorship/Non-coverage of Scientific study results advocating Sustainable Security (Walking the National Security – Scarcity & Conflict -- Talk to Support the Troops): ‘Procreate/Consume below carrying capacity’.
 Media Censorship: Citizens are ignorant of how to contribute to Sustainable Security: Procreate and Consume below carrying capacity, to avoid scarcity induced resource war conflict.
[21.1] Maher, Michael (1997/03): How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection: University of Southwestern Louisiana, Population and Environment, Volume 18, Number 4, March 1977; Reprinted in 1997 by the Carrying Capacity Network, Focus, 18 (2), 21-37.
Population researchers Paul and Anne Ehrlich opened their book, The Population Explosion, with a chapter titled, "Why Isn't Everyone as Scared as We Are?" They acknowledged, "The average person, even the average scientist, seldom makes the connection between [disparate environmental problems] and the population problem, and thus remains unworried" (1990, p. 21). But while they noted that the evening news almost never connects population growth to environmental problems, the Ehrlichs chiefly blamed social taboos fostered by the Catholic Church and "a colossal failure of education" (p. 32) for public indifference about population. Howell (1992) also minimized the role of the media in influencing public aptitude about science and the environment, and pointed instead to education: “The obvious starting point for the individual is the public schools .... Education proceeds into undergraduate programs, which can play more than one major role in enhancing scientific literacy (p. 160).”
The Ehrlichs and Howell seem to assume that education is the chief factor driving public opinion about environmental causality. But in Tradeoffs: Imperatives of Choice in a High-Tech World, Wenk (1986) offered a more media-centric view of how the public learns: "Whatever literacy in science and technology the general public has reached is not from formal education. Rather, it is from the mass media. That responsibility of the press has been almost completely ignored" (p. 162).
This study will examine press responsibility for the public's indifference to population growth by exploring two questions:
* To what extent do press reports about population-driven environmental problems link those problems to population growth?
* What reasons do reporters give for ignoring population growth in stories about environmental problems?
Why Journalists Avoid Mentioning Population
As we have seen, both land development economists and environmental experts acknowledge population growth as a key source of environmental change. But journalists frame environmental causality differently.
Why? Communication theory offers several possibilities. First is the hegemony-theory interpretation: reports omit any implication that population growth might produce negative effects, in order to purvey the ideology of elites who make money from population growth. As Molotch and Lester (1974) put it, media content can be viewed as reflecting "the practices of those having the power to determine the experience of others" (p. 120). Since real estate, construction and banking interests directly support the media through advertising purchases, this interpretation seems plausible. A number of media critics (e.g., Gandy, 1982; Altschull, 1984; Bennett, 1988) have suggested that media messages reflect the values of powerful political and commercial interests. Burd (1972), Kaniss (1991) and others have pointed out that newspapers have traditionally promoted population growth in their cities through civic boosterism. Molotch (1976) even suggested that cities can best be understood as entities competing for population growth, with the city newspaper as chief cheerleader.
Certainly most reporters would be incensed at the suggestion that they shade their reporting to placate commercial interests. But Breed’s classic study of social control in the newsroom (1955) showed that news managers’ values are transmissible to journalists through a variety of pressures: salaries, story assignments, layout treatment, editing, and a variety of other strategies that effectively shape news stories in ways acceptable to management.
Another possible explanation for why journalists omit population growth from their story frame is simple ignorance of other explanations. Journalists who cover environmental issues may not be aware of any other possible ways to frame these stories, thus they derive their framing from other journalists. Journalists frequently read each other’s work and take cues for coverage from other reporters, particularly from the elite media (Reese & Danielian, 1989). Perhaps the pervasive predictability of the story frames examined in the Part I is another example of intermedia influence.
On the other hand, it seems difficult to believe that journalists could be ignorant of the role population growth plays in environmental issues, because media coverage frequently ties population growth to housing starts and business expansion.
Furthermore, "Why" is one of the five "W’s" taught in every Journalism 101 course. A public affairs reporting textbook, Interpreting Public Issues (Griffin, Molen, Schoenfeld, and Scotton, 1991), admonishes journalists: "A common journalistic mistake is simply to cover events —real or staged— and ignore underlying issues" (p.320). The book identified population trends as one of the "big trouble spots," and listed world population as the first of its "forefront issues in the ’90s" (p. 320). Hence, we cannot say that reporting basic causality is beyond the role that journalists ascribe for themselves. Indeed, a panel at the 1994 Society of Environmental Journalists discussed "Covering Population as a Local Story" (Wheeler, 1994). But ignorance remains a possible reason, for not all reporters have training in environmental issues.
A third possible explanation comes from the "Spiral of Silence" theory by German scholar Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (1984): “The fear of isolation seems to be the force that sets the spiral of silence in motion. To run with the pack is a relatively happy state of affairs; but if you can’t, because you won’t share publicly in what seems to be a universally acclaimed conviction, you can at least remain silent, as a second choice, so that others can put up with you. (p. 6)”
This study suggests that the working principles of journalistic storytelling create a vast causal dissociation when the news media report population-driven environmental problems. Local media can cover local environmental degradation, but cannot connect these problems to population growth because, in part, reporters and their sources feel that population growth can only addressed at the national level.
National media can address the population issue, but national reporters can’t peg a story on population to local events that, from a national perspective, seem trivial. Why would Newsweek readers in Iowa or Oregon want to know about population-driven water rationing in a suburb of San Diego, or a protested land development north of Atlanta? And on the other hand, why would a borough of Boston want to address national population growth as an issue? From a systems theory perspective, the information feedback loop that connects the microcosm to the macrocosm is broken in the news we get.
A spiral of silence also seems to affect journalists’ framing of population-driven environmental problems. Most journalists interviewed in this study knew population growth affects the environment they cover, but they were reluctant to mention population either in their stories or in the interviews that formed the basis for this chapter. Reporters know the controversial nature of population growth, and would rather avoid the issue than mention it —even in questioning sources for their stories.
This study suggests that, from an agenda-setting perspective, the narrative imperative of newswriting keeps issues like population off the agenda. Frequency of mention by the media is the chief means by which an issue asserts itself into the public consciousness (McCombs and Shaw, 1977). But even though population growth causes or exacerbates uncountably frequent events that lower the quality of most Americans’ lives, reporters don’t mention this. They can’t connect event to ultimate cause in daily events reporting, and this effectively keeps the cause off the agenda and out of public consciousness. If, as one interviewed reporter suggested, reporters "cover fires" for six months, then write a single "trend story" that connects the events to causes, this pattern likely keeps population low on the agenda, because an isolated trend story is unlikely to have much effect on public consciousness.
McCombs and Shaw (1977) note that the media serve a useful function by setting the agenda: “Both by deliberate winnowing and by inadvertent agenda-setting the mass media help society achieve consensus on which concerns and interests should be translated into public issues and opinion. (pp. 151-152)”
But the agenda-setting process seems useful only if we consider what the media do place on the agenda. This study shows that agenda-setting may have a dark side, when we consider what the media do not cover. To generalize from this study, it seems likely the media have a blind spot regarding the basic layers of multilayered causality. The deep causes that drive daily events remain off the agenda. Certainly this is the case with population growth, but such causal dissociation may keep many other deep-seated causes of social problems off the agenda.
Although scholars have not satisfactorily tied the media agenda and public opinion to the policy agenda (Borquez, 1993), many scholars have agreed that the media are very important for determining what does not get on the policy agenda. Spitzer (1993) noted: "The scope of the conflict determines the outcome...more than any other single force in national politics, the media control the scope of politics." In a similar vein Kingdon (1973) said: "In addition to noting how important the media are in bringing subjects, facts, and interpretations to congressmen, it is also important to mention that the media also play some part in determining which pieces of information will not be brought to congressmen." And indeed, recent U.S. policy on population is pronatalist (Abernethy, 1993). Although in 1996 Congress took measures to reduce immigration, it did so primarily for economic and social reasons, rather than out of concern for the environment. That same Congress dramatically reduced U.S. funding for worldwide family planning programs.
Many environmentalists are frustrated by the low salience Americans give the population issue. Deploring the "primitive stage" of U.S. public opinion on population, Grant (1992, p. 231) characterizes U.S. political discourse as "the kingdom of the deaf" (p. 239). Part I of this study shows that the American public is not deaf; but in the news they read Americans simply have little to hear that explains the environmental costs of population growth. Well-known population researcher Paul Ehrlich has written that a "conspiracy of silence" keeps humanity from taking action on population (1989). Part II of this study shows that journalists are engaged in no conspiracy; they are simply keeping within the storytelling bounds of their craft, framing their coverage of environmental issues narrowly with regard to space and time. Interviewed journalists feel that a limited newshole keeps them from connecting local environmental problems to global causes like population growth. They also know that reproductive matters are a hot button with some readers, and steer clear of the issue if they can.
But population must become more salient if future generations are to enjoy the quality of life we now know. A number of scholars conversant with sustainable levels of agricultural and energy output recently estimated an optimum population for the United States (Pimentel and Pimentel, 1992; Costanza, 1992; Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1992; Werbos, 1992). The highest estimates were below current population levels; several low estimates were for a population of less than 100 million. Meanwhile the population of the United States is 265 million and is growing about 1 percent a year.
Walter Lippmann (1922) distinguished news from truth: “The function of news is to signalize an event, the function of truth is to bring to light the hidden facts, to set them into relation with each other, and make a picture of reality on which men can act (p. 226).”
This study shows how and why we are letting signalized events, rather than truth, set the agenda for our demographic and environmental future.
A. Wheeler Timothy (September 2003): Skirting the Population Issue: Why Journalists Need to Tackle Growth; Environment Writer.
Why is it so hard for journalists covering the environment to address population?
Do we lack the guts to tackle really tough, controversial issues? Or do we lack the smarts to sort out the complicated and often-indirect role population growth plays in problems such as water shortages, declines in biodiversity and suburban sprawl?
We've been talking for years about how population growth is one of the major under-reported stories on our beat. I remember sitting on a panel at a Society of Environmental Journalists conference in 1994, offering tips for "localizing" what many perceived then as a global issue. That wasn't the first, or last, how-to session.
Yet we have succeeded as journalists so rarely in making the environment-population connection in print or on the air that it remains remarkable when someone does. Population was one of the environmental journalism "taboos" hashed over at SEJ's annual meeting last year in Baltimore. It's on SEJ's agenda again this year in New Orleans.
It doesn't help, either, that almost no environmental groups will talk about population growth. The Sierra Club engaged in a fierce debate in 1998 over immigration, but ultimately decided not to take a stand against it. No other major environmental group has touched it since.
Recognizing how journalists crave facts that can give them a toehold on such slippery subjects, one population group, Numbers USA, has come out with a study that says only half the land gobbled up in the past decade can be blamed on sprawling development patterns. The rest of the land consumed went to house more people, contends Roy Beck, the group's executive director and another former environmental journalist.
Many are uncomfortable with such calculations, and distinctly uncomfortable with some of the critics of the driving force in America's population growth these days. Beck and his group have been lumped in with "hate groups," after all, for advocating limits on immigration.
I plead guilty to some of the same limitations facing other journalists: Last year, when I was editing The Baltimore Sun's environmental coverage, Tom Horton, our Chesapeake Bay columnist, told me he wanted to write a piece calling for limits on immigration because he believed population growth was a long-term threat to the Bay.
"Do it while I'm on vacation," I grumbled. I didn’t relish getting calls from readers accusing us of xenophobia.
If he was really serious about writing such a column, I told him, I wanted to see evidence that immigrants are somehow more environmentally damaging to the Bay than those folks who are moving into the region from other parts of the United States.
Like many other journalists, I'd missed the proverbial forest for the trees. And I'd shied away from a controversial topic because of the "baggage" it came with.
So maybe it's time to quit lecturing others and start figuring out how to talk reasonably about population again.
[21.3] Google News Search:
A. Your search - michael maher, population, environment, journalists - did not match any news results.
 Every Child Increases a Woman’s Carbon Footprint by a factor of 20: A woman can reduce her carbon footprint 19 times more by having one fewer child than by all other energy efficiency actions the E.P.A. suggests combined:
[22.1] Paul A. Murtaugh, Michael G. Schlax (2009): Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals [PDF]; Global Environmental Change, 19 (2009) pp. 14-20
Summary: There are many ways that each of us can reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses. One important choice is how many children we choose to have. While it is obvious that each child, grandchild, and their descendants will be a producer of carbon dioxide in their lifetimes, it is not obvious what those emissions might be, and how those amounts compare with the reduced emissions that might come from driving a more fuel efficient car, using energy-efficient light bulbs and the like.
The assumption is that a person is responsible for the carbon emissions of his or her descendants, weighted by their relatedness. That is, a parent is responsible for 1/2 the emissions of their children, 1/4 the emissions of their grandchildren and so on. Of course you can't know for certain how many children your grandchildren will have, and you can't know how much carbon dioxide they will emit, but the authors make some estimations based on expected trends in different countries.
For 11 countries, they estimate the number of descendants using the high, median and low U.N. estimates of how birthrates will change in each country. They then use three levels of how carbon emissions may change in the future: a low (optimistic) estimate that they will drop to 1/2 of Africa's current level, a medium estimate that they will remain constant at today's levels, and a a high estimate that they will continue to increase as they are now until 2100.
The comparison of carbon dioxide savings are striking. If you live in the U.S. you can reduce your carbon dioxide emissions 19 times more by having one fewer child than by all other actions the E.P.A. suggests combined.
[22.2] Related NGO Articles:
A. Oregon State University: Murtaugh Paul (07/31/2009): Family Planning: A major Environmental Emphasis; Oregon State
B. Institute for Population Studies (17 July 2009): Reproduction and the Carbon Legacies of Individuals.
[22.3] News Articles:
A. Oregonian (31 July 2009): Oregon State study says having fewer children is best way to reduce your carbon footprint, by Eric Mortenson.
B. Google News Result: “Your search - murtaugh, carbon, oregon - did not match any news results.”
 Only Civilization Collapse will prevent runaway global climate change: Industrial Civilization/Consumption Developmentism as Heat Engine Root cause of Scarcity-Conflict Climate Change-National Security Impending Near-term Extinction reality.
[23.1] Timothy J. Garrett (Nov. 2009), Are there basic physical constraints on future anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide?; Climatic Change
[23.2] University of Utah (22 Nov 2009): Is Global Warming Unstoppable?: Theory also says Energy Conservation doesn't help.
[23.3] Dr. Guy McPherson; Former Professor Emeritus of Natural Resources and Ecology & Evolutionary Biology; University of Tucson, Arizona: Guy McPherson speaking in Middleville, Michigan, September 2011 (at 08:08):
“An article in the refereed journal Climatic Change says that only Economic Collapse will prevent runaway global climate change. That was two years ago. This is among the most important papers I have ever seen and among the least cited in the scientific literature. I interviewed eight of the premier Post Doctoral in the world, last January, and of the eight, six said they were a climate scientist, that was their specialty. So I asked each of the six of them about this paper, and none of them had heard of it. These are the people who are at their best in terms of their knowledge of climate science, and none of them had heard of it. Only complete economic collapse will prevent runaway global climate change. .. It was rejected by several scientific journals first, because its just too dire, that can’t happen here, but then the prestigious journal Climatic Change says ‘Yeah, its bullet proof. There is nothing wrong with his analysis at all’.”
[23.4] Google News Results:
A. “Your search - tim garrett, carbon, utah, anthropogenic - did not match any news results.”
B. Your search - tim garrett, carbon, utah, "heat engine" - did not match any news results.
C. Your search - tim garrett, carbon, utah, civilization - did not match any news results.
Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee’s history of providing written reasons to Neo-liberal communicants, indicates possible Neo-liberal discrimination towards Anarcho-Primitivist communicant.
 ACCC History of Providing Written Reasons:
[27.1] Twenty of the eighty-two communications submitted to the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee have been found inadmissible.
[27.2] One was inadmissible due to being already under review by the committee (2008-25: Albania: Ardian Klosi, Sinan Hibro); and another due to the withdrawal of the communicant (2010-52: N. Ireland: Gary McGhee).
[27.3] Two were found to be ‘inadmissible’ by the first Committee, without any reasons provided for such decision (2004/07: Poland: Antoni Zawislak and 2004-10: Kazakhstan: Sergey Kuratov).
[27.4] A further two were inadmissible for “Insufficient use of domestic remedies” (2004-09: Armenia: Edik Baghdasaryan and 2007-19: UK: John Dall).
[27.5] Eight were inadmissible for ‘lacking corroborating information’ (2005-14: Poland: Antoni Zawislak; 2008-34: Spain: Maria Lopez Lax; 2009-42: Hungary; 2010-47: UK: Frances McCartney; 2010-49: UK: RM Buxton; 2012-74: UK: Frances McCartney; 2013-79: Italy: Rita D'Orsogna; and 2013-80: Croatia: Lucijan Mohorovich). One was inadmissible for “insufficient information” (2010-56: UK: T Ewing).
[27.6] Only two were found inadmissible for reasons that they were ‘manifestly unreasonable’.
A. 2012-75: UK: Terence Ewing was allegedly “manifestly unreasonable” because ‘the proceedings on the adoption of the plan were still ongoing and the content of the communication was very close to the content of communication ACCC/C/2011/61, which was currently under consideration by the Committee.”
B. 013-82: Norway: Lara Johnstone was simply ‘manifestly unreasonable’ without any ‘because …...’ reasons provided.
 ACC Committee are comprised of Neo-Liberal/Conservative Pacifist Compulsive Developmentism/Egoist Consumptionism Environmentalists:
[28.1] Chairperson: Mr. Jonas Ebbesson (Sweden): Mr. Jonas Ebbesson is Professor of Environmental Law, Dean of the Faculty of Law, and Director of Stockholm Environmental Law and Policy Centre, at Stockholm University.
[28.2] Vice-Chair: Mr. Alexander Kodjabashev (Bulgaria): Mr. Alexander Kodjabashev is a Senior Partner specializing in environmental law matters at Dobrev & Partners in Sofia, Bulgaria.
[28.3] Mr. Pavel Černý (Czech Republic): Mr. Pavel Černý is a Senior Partner specializing in environmental, administrative and constitutional law at Šikola & Partners in Brno.
[28.4] Mr. Ion Diaconu (Romania): Mr.Ion Diaconu is professor of international law, with a focus on human rights law, at universities in Bucharest.
[28.5] Ms. Heghine Hakhverdyan (Armenia): Ms. Heghine Hakhverdyan is a lecturer of Environmental Law at the Faculty of Law, Yerevan State University (YSU).
[28.6] Ms. Ellen Hey (Netherlands): Dr. Ellen Hey is the Head of the Public International Law Department at Erasmus School of Law in Rotterdam.
[28.7] Mr. Jerzy Jendrośka (Poland): Dr. Jerzy Jendrośka is the Managing Partner of Jendrośka Jerzmanski Bar & Partners, which is an environmental law firm based in Poland; and Adjunct Professor of European and International Law at Opole University, and of Environmental Law at Wroclaw University.
[28.8] Mr. Gerhard Loibl (Austria): Dr. Gerhard Loibl is a Professor of International Law and Law of the European Union at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna.
[28.9] Ms. Dana Zhandaeva (Kazakhstan) (as of 30 March 2012, replacing Ms. Kravchenko): Ms. Dana Zhandaeva is currently working as a free-lance, independent consultant on issues related to international law.
 All Communications submitted to ACC Committee, except for Communicator’s Anarcho-Primitivist communication, were from Neo-Liberal / Conservative Environmentalists:
[29.1] All other Communicator’s appear to have been Neo-Liberal Mainstream Environmentalists; Communicator is the only Anarcho-Primitivist.
 Unsustainable Patriarchal Pacifism Neo-Liberal ‘Compulsive Development’ Environmentalism vs. Sustainable Gender Balanced Voluntarism Anti-Civilization Anarcho-Primitivism:
“Civilization, very fundamentally, is the history of the domination of nature and of women. Patriarchy means rule over women and nature.” – John Zerzan, Patriarchy, Civilization, And The Origins Of Gender.
“Alas, still around to some degree, going through the motions and in some cases finding new ways to repackage the same old shit. The eternally superficial liberal-left “progressives” are as transparently averse to liberation as are the few surviving leninoids. [..] What all these left-leaners lack is a willingness to confront the basics of domination with the resolve and pointed questioning required if domination is to be erased.” – John Zerzan, The Left Today.
“The key component of the left is co-opting indigenous cultures; and breaking the resistance of indigenous cultures [to the cultural imperialism onslaught of industrial civilization’s compulsive Developmentism]; and that is what the left does.” - John Zerzan: Pretensions of Modernity (at 00:38:35)
“Cultural imperialism is the economic, technological and cultural hegemony of the industrialized nations, which determines the direction of both economic and social progress, defines cultural values, and standardizes the civilization and cultural environment throughout the world. [..] The ideology of the technological imperialists. To western man, culture is the antithesis of nature; it implies the subjugation of nature in order to build a technological, man-made world, in order to establish civilization, the acme of which is the metropolis. The ideology of the subjugation of nature has reached its climax in the conquest of outer space, but it has also supplied the moral justification for the white man's voyages of discovery, for colonialism, the slave trade, the unscrupulous exploitation of natural resources and the overseas aid plans of today: the purpose of these being to yoke all nations to the world trade network of the industrialized countries.” – Matti Sarmela; What is Cultural Imperialism?
[30.1] Neo-Liberal Environmentalism fully endorses Industrial Civilization’s addiction to Compulsive Developmentism, which involves the (a) domination of women, primitives and nature; which consequently means it is (a) patriarchal pacifism: only the patriarch is entitled to violence, all resistance to the patriarch’s violence must be non-violent; and (b) unsustainable since it endorses the unsustainable use of finite resources.
[30.2] Anarcho-Primitivism opposes Industrial Civilization, as well as all forms of domination against women, nature and primitives, including Technological domination, which consequently means it is (a) gender balanced voluntarism: all agreements, including non-violence, are entered into by fully informed voluntary mutual agreement, and if reneged by one party, the other party is not bound by the nullified agreement; and (b) sustainable since it only endorses the low tech/no tech sustainable use of renewable resources.
[30.3] Anonymous: What is Anarcho-Primitivism?:
Anarcho-primitivists comprise a subculture and political movement that, generally, advocates hunting and gathering as the ideal human subsistence method (from the point of view of sustainable resource use) and the band as the ideal human social structure (for its features of egalitarianism). While the goal may seem improbable, a primitivist would contend that more modest goals are either undesirable or unachievable within the system. The past 10,000 years have after all been largely a history of “solutions” to the problems of an agricultural society. This critique of “civilization” inherently rejects less radical ideals and claims to go uniquely to the heart of all social discontent. It is multi-faceted, drawing on several traditions of thought. These include the nineteenth century social speculators, anthropology of hunter-gatherers, situationism, anarchism, radical (deep) ecology, and anti-technological philosophy. The potential problem of implementation is largely solved by a growing consensus that an end to “economic growth” is fast approaching, making revolutionary change inevitable. The direction of that change is the focus of anarcho-primitivist interest.
Anarcho-primitivism is subtly influencing society in several ways. The Unabomber’s “manifesto” enunciated many of the central tenets of anarcho-primitivism (e.g. rejection of liberalism and industrialism). Primitivists were among the protesters participating in window-smashing, spray-painting, and other vandalism at the Seattle WTO protests in December 1999. They are probably among those elusive “eco-terrorists” who carry out property destruction in the name of the Earth Liberation Front. The popular novel Fight Club (1996), which became a feature film, portrayed a group of alienated young men who reject consumerist culture and attempt to bring it to an end through massive sabotage. While anarcho-primitivism may not seem worthy of much thought or attention because it falls far outside the mainstream of political discourse, it ought not to be dismissed. It merits substantial attention solely on the basis of its harmonious integration of several historically disparate lines of thought.
Aims: The prefix “anarcho” signifies the anarchist rejection of the state in favor of small-scale political structures. Additionally, as primitivist icon John Zerzan (2002:67–68) explains, “I would say Anarchism is the attempt to eradicate all forms of domination.” So a key distinction must be made between anarcho-primitivists and anarchists generally because, “[f]or example, some Anarchists don’t see the technological imperative as a category of domination.”
In the most general terms, they reject “civilization” in favor of “wildness.” More specifically, they call for the abandonment or destruction of industrial (and possibly agricultural) technology in favor of subsistence that is not based on the industrial “forces of production” — hence, the adoption of the “primitive” label. This means that primitivists reject even forms of production based on collective management and ownership because any production exceeding immediate subsistence needs is seen as incompatible with long-term sustainability.
g. A final pillar supporting the primitivist ethos demonstrates the unsustainability of industrial society. This body of work refutes those arguments that claim science will provide the solutions necessary to sustain current First World living standards in the face of massive resource degradation and depletion. It also provides anarcho-primitivists a safe, simple answer to the challenge, “How are you going to get there?” The 1972 book, Limits to Growth (LTG), was the first systematic assessment of the sustainability of modern society. More than a decade of environmentalism still had not popularly integrated ubiquitous environmental problems into a coherent message for public consumption. Earlier works like Erlich’s The Population Bomb and Carson’s Silent Spring had focused on specific bite-sized issues. LTG offered a satisfying, yet disturbing complete picture. It was the product of a research project commissioned by the Club of Rome, an international, informal group of “businessmen, statesmen, and scientists” (Meadows, et. al. 2004:ix) who wanted an assessment of the sustainability of the overall course of human society. The final report predicted that unless widespread measures were taken to reduce consumption and pollution sufficiently early, human society would overshoot global carrying capacity and ultimately face a collapse, defined as “an uncontrolled decline in both population and human welfare” (Meadows, et. al. 2004:xi). The research group reached this conclusion through the use of a computer model which was able to factor in multiple variables and the interaction between them. LTG was the first attempt to present the environmental crisis as a whole and show that it required a systematic response (Kassiola 1990:17).
Resource shortages have become a serious concern in recent years among limits-to-growth theorists. [..] It must be added, few if any of the scholars who promote limits-to-growth critiques are excited about the end of “civilization” they foresee (most hope to avert it), but, for an anarcho-primitivist, their scenarios provide a near-panacea.
It should be clear, by now, that there is a reasonably solid canon of anarcho-primitivist philosophy available, which provides the seeds for what could potentially blossom into a movement. Several periodicals (Green Anarchy, Species Traitor, Green Anarchist, Fifth Estate, Live Wild or Die, The Final Days, Green Journal, Disorderly Conduct, Cracks in the Empire, Do or Die, and Quick!) are dedicated to anarcho-primitivist theory, and the most widely circulated American anarchist magazine, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, frequently features primitivist viewpoints (Zerzan 2002:3). The Federal Bureau of Investigation apparently sees the potential of a radical environmental movement, since it has deemed eco-terrorism the number one domestic terrorist threat. The small communities currently in existence may represent the budding of this movement or they may not. In either case, the arguments in favor of anarcho-primitivism should be evaluated openly by mainstream society because, if its claims are valid, their implications are immediate and uncommonly far-reaching.
[30.4] John Zerzan: Patriarchy, Civilization, And The Origins Of Gender:
Civilization, very fundamentally, is the history of the domination of nature and of women. Patriarchy means rule over women and nature. Are the two institutions at base synonymous?
Philosophy has mainly ignored the vast realm of suffering that has unfolded since it began, in division of labor, its long course. Hélène Cixous calls the history of philosophy a “chain of fathers.” Women are as absent from it as suffering, and are certainly the closest of kin.
Camille Paglia, anti-feminist literary theorist, meditates thusly on civilization and women:
“When I see a giant crane passing on a flatbed truck, I pause in awe and reverence, as one would for a church procession. What power of conception: what grandiosity: these cranes tie us to ancient Egypt, where monumental architecture was first imagined and achieved. If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.” 
The “glories” of civilization and women’s disinterest in them. To some of us the “grass huts” represent not taking the wrong path, that of oppression and destructiveness. In light of the globally metastasizing death-drive of technological civilization, if only we still lived in grass huts!
Women and nature are universally devalued by the dominant paradigm and who cannot see what this has wrought? Ursula Le Guin gives us a healthy corrective to Paglia’s dismissal of both:
“Civilized Man says: I am Self, I am Master, all the rest is other — outside, below, underneath, subservient. I own, I use, I explore, I exploit, I control. What I do is what matters. What I want is what matter is for. I am that I am, and the rest is women and wilderness, to be used as I see fit.” 
The general crisis of modernity has its roots in the imposition of gender. Separation and inequality begin here at the period when symbolic culture itself emerges, soon becoming definitive as domestication and civilization: patriarchy. The hierarchy of gender can no more be reformed than the class system or globalization. Without a deeply radical women’s liberation we are consigned to the deadly swindle and mutilation now dealing out a fearful toll everywhere. The wholeness of original genderlessness may be a prescription for our redemption.
[30.5] Uday Chandra: Liberalism and its Other: Primitivism:
“Liberalism is widely regarded as a modern intellectual tradition that defends the rights and freedoms of autonomous individuals. Yet, in both colonial and postcolonial contexts, liberal theorists and lawmakers have struggled to defend the rights and freedoms of political subjects whom they regard as “primitive,” “backward,” or “indigenous.” Liberalism thus recurrently encounters its primitive other, a face-off that gives rise to a peculiar set of dilemmas and contradictions for political theory and law.” - Uday Chandra, Liberalism and Its Other: The Politics of Primitivism in Colonial and Postcolonial Indian Law; Law and Society Review
[30.6] Primitives & Liberals view each other as the Wrong Kind of Green:
A. Neo-Liberalism and the Defanging of Feminism.
B. Pacifism as Pathology.
C. Ideological Motivations of Industrial Civilization.
D. Offsetting Resistance: The Effects of Foundation Funding .
 Neoliberal White/Black Consumptionist Guilt’s Egotist Consumption; a.k.a. Idiot Compassion and Lifestyle Activism:
[31.1] In First as Tragedy, then as Farce, Communist Philosopher and Economist Slavoj Zizek shares his perspective on the problems of Neo-Liberalisms addiction to Cultural Imperialist Capitalism’s values of alleged ‘Ethical Consumption’:
“Like Soros, in the morning he grabs the money; in the afternoon, he gives half of the money back to charity. In today's capitalism, more and more the tendency is to bring this tendency together. So when you buy something, your anti-consumerist duty is to do something for others, for the environment and so on, is already included in the price. If you think I am exaggerating, walk around the corner, into any Starbucks coffee, and you will see how they explicitly tell you, I quote "Its not just what you are buying, its what you are buying into. When you buy starbucks, whether you realize it or not, you are buying into something bigger than a cup of coffee. You are buying into a coffee ethics. Through our Starbucks Shared Planet Program we purchase more fair trade coffee than anyone in the world, ensuring that the farmers who grow the coffee beans receive a fair price for their hard work.......” Its a good coffee karma. This is cultural capitalism at its purist. You don't just buy a coffee. In the very consumerist act, you buy your redemption from only being a consumerist. You do something for the environment, you do something for starving children in Guatamala. ..... For every act of consumerism, within the price you pay, you purchase your redemption. This generates almost a kind of semantic over investment or burden. Its not just buying a cup of coffee, you are fulfilling a whole series of ethical duties. This logic today is almost universalized. Why? It makes you feel warm, it makes you feel like you are doing something for … My point is that, this very interesting short circuit, where the very act of egotist consumption, already includes the price for its opposite.”
[He proceeds to quote: Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism] “It is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering, than it is to have sympathy with thought. People find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, ugliness, and starvation. It is inevitable they would be strongly moved by this. Accordingly with admirable, but misdirected intentions, they very sentimentally set themselves the task of remedying the problems they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease, they merely prolong it. Indeed, they are part of the disease. They try to solve the problem of poverty, by keeping the poor alive, or in the case of an advanced school, by amusing the poor. But this is not a solution, it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. It is the altruistic virtues which have prevented the carrying out of this aim. The worst slave owners were those who were kind to their slaves. In doing so they prevented the core of the system to be realized by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it. Charity degrades and demoralizes.”
[31.2] Zizek refers to Egotist Consumptionism as Cultural Capitalism at its Purist: Where the very act of egotist consumption - buying 'free trade' coffee, going on an 'ecotourist' holiday -- already includes the price for its opposite. In the very consumerist act, you buy your redemption from only being a consumerist.’
[31.3] Idiot Compassion’s primary conscious or unconscious subjective purpose is to engage in public displays of fake ‘Charity Compassion’ to assert the individuals ‘Moral Superiority’; while doing absolutely nothing about the underlying root causes of the particular suffering they demand ‘charity compassion’ for.
[31.4] Tibetan Buddhist Master Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche defined Idiot Compassion as “a slimy way of trying to fulfil your desire secretly;” the Karmayogini journal as, “It is when you give people what they want as opposed to what they need, all in the name of being nice and compassionate [so that you can feel better yourself].”
[31.5] In Idiot Compassion, Pema Chodron refers to idiot compassion as what in Psychology is referred to as enabling: “Idiot compassion … refers to something we all do a lot of and call it compassion. In some ways, it’s what’s called enabling. It’s the general tendency to give people what they want because you can’t bear to see them suffering. Basically, you’re not giving them what they need. You’re trying to get away from your feeling of I can’t bear to see them suffering. In other words, you’re doing it for yourself. You’re not really doing it for them.”
[31.6] Soulseeds: Mindful Compassion and Idiot Compassion explains Idiot Compassion as “When you try to help someone when they don’t want your help, or because you are really trying to help yourself, this may be idiot compassion. Its often the distinction between charity (giving TO someone) and empowerment (helping people help themselves) .. The Zen story about compassion with a rolled up umbrella makes the point. A woman was in India, riding with a friend in a rickshaw when they were attacked by a crazed man. He did no harm other than to frighten the women. However the woman was upset and asked her Zen teacher what the appropriate response to her attacker would be. The teacher said very simply, “You should have very mindfully and with great compassion whacked the attacker over the head with your umbrella.””
[31.7] Right Lifestyle, which refers to both Lifestyle Activism and Lifestyle Politics, avoids any examination of the consumptionist focus of the lifestyle, which involves maximizing physical, psychological social comfort and material acquisition, by getting involved in acts of Lifestyle Activism or Lifestyle Politics, as a feel good way to be involved in shallow activities which pretend to solve the worlds problems; while actively avoiding addressing any root causes of the problems, to implement social structural changes.
[31.8] Open Left’s article: Self Delusion and the Lies of Lifestyle activism: Core Dilemmas of Community Organizing argues that much of lifestyle activism’s primary focus of public displays of Lifestyle Activism are to assert the relevant individuals ‘Moral Superiority’: “Most lifestyle activism seems to take the form it does because it allows (mostly middle-class professionals) to feel like they can make a difference in the world while at the same time purifying their lives . Every deposit of old food into the compost pile is a re-enactment of "who" they are, of how their life maintains its wholeness in a complicated, dirty, seemingly uncontrollable world. .. At the same time, lifestyle activism is often an opportunity for display. Others can see your solar panel or wind turbine. You can brag about your compost pile and educate others about how to create one. Every time you drive your Prius around town, others can see how virtuous you are.”
[31.9] In Part II, The Distortion of Lifestyle Politics OpenLeft provide an interesting case study of “the ways lifestyle activism and politics can have distorting effects on social change, drawing from a recent book by the sociologist Mary Pattillo. In Black on the Block she examines what happened when middle-class African Americans used lifestyle strategies in their effort to "reclaim" an impoverished central city neighborhood, North Kenwood-Oakland, in Chicago. This example is especially fascinating because it shows how class-based preferences for lifestyle activism functioned among a group of middle-class African Americans also grappling with racial inequality.”
 Neo-Liberal ‘Compulsive Development’ Capital-Consumptionist Melting pot Multiculturalism vs. Voluntarist Anti-Civilization Anarcho-Primitivism Separatist Multiculturalism:
[32.1] Neo-Liberal Multiculturalism fully endorses Industrial Civilization – and its driver Corporate Capitalism’s – addiction to Compulsive Developmentism, which involves the (a) destruction and cultural ‘sustainable development’ colonization of homogenous tribal, ethnic, cultural, racial and religious individual identities, to be replaced with a ‘Consumerist’ identity and the commodification and commercialization of their culture’s clothing, cuisine, etc.
[32.2] Anarcho-Primitivism opposes Industrial Civilization, as well as all forms of Compulsive Developmentism and domination against women, nature and primitives, including Technological domination, which consequently means it supports and encourages all communities, cultures, ethnicities, races and religions to resist the destruction and Compulsive Developmentism cultural colonization of their homogenous ethnic, cultural and/or racial tribes. Separatist multiculturalism protects individuals to retain their culture, as their primary form of identity, protecting all culture’s purity hence protects authentic cultural diversity.
[32.3] Communist Philosopher and Economist Slavoy Zizek argues in Multiculturalism: The Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism, that Meltingpot/Non-Racial Multiculturalism, is the ideal Egotist Consumptionism cultural logic of Multinational Capitalism, intent on colonizing all cultures into slaves to Egotist Consumptionism. Multinational Corporations wish to colonize all nations and their cultures, turning all culture’s primary cultural value into that of an egotist consumer, for the profits of multinational corporations.
Multiculturalism: How, then, does the universe of Capital relate to the form of Nation State in our era of global capitalism? Perhaps, this relationship is best designated as ‘auto-colonization’: with the direct multinational functioning of Capital, we are no longer dealing with the standard opposition between metropolis and colonized countries; a global company as it were cuts its umbilical cord with its mother-nation and treats its country of origins as simply another territory to be colonized. This is what disturbs so much the patriotically oriented right-wing populists, from Le Pen to Buchanan: the fact that the new multinationals have towards the French or American local population exactly the same attitude as towards the population of Mexico, Brazil or Taiwan. Is there not a kind of poetic justice in this self-referential turn? Today’s global capitalism is thus again a kind of ‘negation of negation’, after national capitalism and its internationalist/colonialist phase. At the beginning (ideally, of course), there is capitalism within the confines of a Nation-State, with the accompanying international trade (exchange between sovereign Nation-States); what follows is the relationship of colonization in which the colonizing country subordinates and exploits (economically, politically, culturally) the colonized country; the final moment of this process is the paradox of colonization in which there are only colonies, no colonizing countries—the colonizing power is no longer a Nation-State but directly the global company. In the long term, we shall all not only wear Banana Republic shirts but also live in banana republics.
And, of course, the ideal form of ideology of this global capitalism is multiculturalism, the attitude which, from a kind of empty global position, treats each local culture the way the colonizer treats colonized people—as ‘natives’ whose mores are to be carefully studied and ‘respected’. That is to say, the relationship between traditional imperialist colonialism and global capitalist self-colonization is exactly the same as the relationship between Western cultural imperialism and multiculturalism: in the same way that global capitalism involves the paradox of colonization without the colonizing Nation-State metropole, multiculturalism involves patronizing Eurocentrist distance and/or respect for local cultures without roots in one’s own particular culture. In other words, multiculturalism is a disavowed, inverted, self-referential form of racism, a ‘racism with a distance’—it ‘respects’ the Other’s identity, conceiving the Other as a self-enclosed ‘authentic’ community towards which he, the multiculturalist, maintains a distance rendered possible by his privileged universal position.
Multiculturalism is a racism which empties its own position of all positive content (the multiculturalist is not a direct racist, he doesn’t oppose to the Other the particular values of his own culture), but nonetheless retains this position as the privileged empty point of universality from which one is able to appreciate (and depreciate) properly other particular cultures—the multiculturalist respect for the Other’s specificity is the very form of asserting one’s own superiority.
 In 'The one measure of true love is: you can insult the other'; Slavoj Zizek writes that fake two faced tolerance, is the worst form of intolerance and cultural bigotry or racism, which treats other cultures as children, and unworthy of honesty and sincerity; whereas brutal honesty is the highest form of sincere multicultural tolerance:
Another thing that bothers me about this multiculturalism is when people ask me: 'How can you be sure that you are not a racist?' My answer is that there is only one way. If I can exchange insults, brutal jokes, dirty jokes, with a member of a different race and we both know it's not meant in a racist way. If, on the other hand, we play this politically correct game - 'Oh, I respect you, how interesting your customs are' - this is inverted racism, and it is disgusting.
In the Yugoslav army where we were all of mixed nationalities, how did I become friends with Albanians? When we started to exchange obscenities, sexual innuendo, jokes. This is why this politically correct respect is just, as Freud put it, 'zielgehemmt'. You still have the aggression towards the other.
You cannot do the game of erotic seduction in politically correct terms. For me there is one measure of true love: you can insult the other. Like in that horrible German comedy film from 1943 where Marika Röck treats her fiancé very brutally. This fiancé is a rich, important person, so her father asks her why are you treating him like that. And she gives the right answer. She says: 'But I love him, and since I love him, I can do with him whatever I want.' That's the truth of it. If there is true love, you can say horrible things and anything goes.
When multiculturalists tell you to respect the others, I always have this uncanny association that this is dangerously close to how we treat our children: the idea that we should respect them, even when we know that what they believe is not true. We should not destroy their illusions. No, I think that others deserve better - not to be treated like children.
 Supporting Documentation:
A. List of Aarhus Convention Inadmissible Rulings.
B. ECHR: 16325/13: Johnstone v. Norway: Oslo District Court’s Breivik Necessity Judgement was Discriminatory & Ineffective Remedy.
a. 05 March 2013: ECHR: Registrar: Ragna Bjarnadottir: Application no. 16325/13: Johnstone v. Norway (PDF).
b. 11 Jan 2013: European Court of Human Rights Application (PDF)
C. Media Censorship: Citizens are ignorant of how to contribute to Sustainable Security: Procreate and Consume below carrying capacity, to avoid scarcity induced resource war conflict.
a. Maher, Michael (1997/03): How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection: University of Southwestern Louisiana, Population and Environment, Volume 18, Number 4, March 1977; Reprinted in 1997 by the Carrying Capacity Network, Focus, 18 (2), 21-37.
D. Every Child Increases a Woman’s Carbon Footprint by a factor of 20: A woman can reduce her carbon footprint 19 times more by having one fewer child than by all other energy efficiency actions the E.P.A. suggests combined:
a. Paul A. Murtaugh, Michael G. Schlax (2009): Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals; Global Environmental Change, 19 (2009) pp. 14-20
E. Only Civilization Collapse will prevent runaway global climate change: Industrial Civilization/Consumption Developmentism as Heat Engine Root cause of Scarcity-Conflict Climate Change-National Security Impending Near-term Extinction reality.
a. University of Utah (22 Nov 2009): Is Global Warming Unstoppable?: Theory also says Energy Conservation doesn't help.
b. Timothy J. Garrett (Nov. 2009), Are there basic physical constraints on future anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide?; Climatic Change
Dated at George, South Africa, Pale Blue Dot: 11 May 2013
» » » » [EcoFem vs. KT Breivik]