Tag Archives: Environment

A Message To The Environmental Movement (VIDEO)


(Corbett Report) Sadly, we now know how the Climategate scandal referred to in this video was addressed: by sweeping the true nature of its revelations under the rug with fraudulent investigation after fraudulent investigation after fraudulent investigation. As a global carbon treaty comes closer to reality, however, it is more important than ever to remind the well-meaning but severely misinformed environmental activists about how their cause has been hijacked so that the COP21 agenda can be derailed.

Stay tuned for more coverage of this important issue on The Corbett Report in the coming weeks.]

Transcript: This is James Corbett of and I come here today with a message for you.

You the environmentalists, you the activists, you the campaigners.

You who have watched with growing concern the ways in which the world around us has been ravaged in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.

You who are concerned with the state of the planet that we are leaving for our children and our grandchildren and those generations yet unborn.

This is not a message of divisiveness, but cooperation.

This is a message of hope and empowerment, but it requires us to look at a hard and uncomfortable truth:

Your movement has been usurped by the very same financial interests you thought you were fighting against.

You have suspected as much for years.

You watched at first with hope and excitement as your movement, your cause, your message began to spread, as it was taken up by the media and given attention, as conferences were organized and as the ideas you had struggled so long and hard to be heard were talked about nationally. Then internationally.

You watched with growing unease as the message was simplified. First it became a slogan. Then it became a brand. Soon it was nothing more than a label and it became attached to products. The ideas you had once fought for were now being sold back to you. For profit.

You watched with growing unease as the message became parroted, not argued, worn like a fashion rather than something that came from the conviction of understanding.

You disagreed when the slogans–and then the science–were dumbed down. When carbon dioxide became the focus and CO2 was taken up as a political cause. Soon it was the only cause.

You knew that Al Gore was not a scientist, that his evidence was factually incorrect, that the movement was being taken over by a cause that was not your own, one that relied on beliefs you did not share to propose a solution you did not want. It began to reach a breaking point when you saw that the solutions being proposed were not solutions at all, when they began to propose new taxes and new markets that would only serve to line their own pockets.

You knew something was wrong when you saw them argue for a cap-and-trade scheme proposed by Ken Lay, when you saw Goldman Sachs position itself to ride the carbon trading bubble, when the whole thrust of the movement became ways to make money or spend money or raise money from this panic.

Your movement had been hijacked.

The realization came the first time you read The Club of Rome’s 1991 book, The First Global Revolution, which says:

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

And when you looked at the Club of Rome’s elite member roster. And when you learnt about eugenics and the Rockefeller ties to the Kaiser Willhelm Institute and the practice of crypto-eugenics and the rise of overpopulation fearmongering and the call by elitist after elitist after elitist to cull the world population.

Still, you wanted to believe that there was some basis of truth, something real and valuable in the single-minded obsession of this hijacked environmental movement with manmade global warming.

Now, in November 2009, the last traces of doubt have been removed.

Last week, an insider leaked internal documents and emails from the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University and exposed the lies, manipulation and fraud behind the studies that supposedly show 0.6 degrees Celsius of warming over the last 130 years. And the hockey stick graph that supposedly shows unprecedented warming in our times. And the alarmist warning of impending climate disaster.

We now know that these scientists wrote programming notes in the source code of their own climate models admitting that results were being manually adjusted.

We now know that values were being adjusted to conform to scientists’ wishes, not reality.

We now know that the peer review process itself was being perverted to exclude those scientists whose work criticized their findings.

We now know that these scientists privately expressed doubts about the science that they publicly claimed to be settled.

We now know, in short, that they were lying.

It is unknown as yet what the fallout will be from all of this, but it is evident that the fallout will be substantial.

With this crisis, however, comes an opportunity. An opportunity to recapture the movement that the financiers have stolen from the people.

Together, we can demand a full and independent investigation into all of the researchers whose work was implicated in the CRU affair.

We can demand a full re-evaluation of all those studies whose conclusions have been thrown into question by these revelations, and all of the public policy that has been based on those studies.

We can establish new standards of transparency for scientists whose work is taxpayer funded and/or whose work effects public policy, so that everyone has full and equal access to the data used to calculate results and all of the source code used in all of the programs used to model that data.

In other words, we can reaffirm that no cause is worth supporting that requires deception for its propagation.

Even more importantly, we can take back the environmental movement.

We can begin to concentrate on the serious questions that need to be asked about the genetic engineering technology whereby hybrid organisms and new, never-before-seen proteins that are being released into the biosphere in a giant, uncontrolled experiment that threatens the very genome of life on this planet.

We can look into the environmental causes of the explosion in cancer and the staggering drops in fertility over the last 50 years, including the BPA in our plastics and the anti-androgens in the water.

We can examine regulatory agencies that are controlled by the very corporations they are supposedly watching over.

We can begin focusing on depleted uranium and the dumping of toxic waste into the rivers and all of the issues that we once knew were part of the mandate of the real environmental movement.

Or we can, as some have, descend into petty partisan politics. We can decide that lies are OK if they support ‘our’ side. We can defend the reprehensible actions of the CRU researchers and rally around the green flag that has long since been captured by the enemy.

It is a simple decision to make, but one that we must make quickly, before the argument can be spun away and environmentalism can go back to business as usual.

We are at a crossroads of history. And make no mistake, history will be the final judge of our actions. So I leave you today with a simple question: Which side of history do you want to be on?

For The Corbett Report, this is James Corbett in western Japan.

For more of the same:

Neonicotinoid’s Devastating Effects Are Far More Reaching Than You May Know (VIDEO)

Neonicotinoids, the pesticides linked to the mass die-off of bees, are now found in stream and well samples across the U.S.. These widely used pesticides aren’t just killing the bees and butterflies. They’re also killing insects, which are critical to the food chain. But what are they doing to us? U.S. regulatory agencies have set what they say are “safe” limits for neonic residues on our food, including baby foods. But as Scott Hoffman Black, executive director of The Xerces Society, points out, no one is studying the long-term, potentially carcinogenic effect, neonics have on humans.


Scott Hoffman Black, Executive Director of The Xerces Society, speaks about the impact of neonicotinoid pesticides on the environment. “We believe because they’re so toxic, they’re so long-lived, they’re found inside plants but readily move into water, that we could really see big ecosystem changes because of these chemicals,” he says. He says that neonicotinoids, now found in stream and well samples across the United States, are not only affecting pollinators like bees and butterflies but killing insects — the underpinning of the food chain. And that affects birds, fish, and other wildlife. “The chemical companies are really running the show here,” Black says. He questions whether a chemical closely related to nicotine – a known carcinogen – should be so widely used on food crops until further safety studies are done. “It’s not just about the environment. It’s that we are not taking care of humans.”

Link TV

EPA Accident Leaves Communities With 90 Day Water Supply


By: Joshua Krause | The Daily Sheeple –

By now you’ve probably heard all about the 1 million gallons of toxic waste that was dumped into the Animas River in Colorado, as well as the fact that the EPA was responsible for the disaster. One of their teams had entered an abandoned mine with the intention of figuring out how to remove the waste, but instead accidentally caused it to spill heavy metals like lead, cadmium, arsenic, and mercury into the environment.

However, you may not have heard some of the latest developments. For starters, it may be even worse than the EPA first reported. The USGS has estimated that it was 3 million, not 1 million gallons of toxic waste. In addition, the waste has since made its way into New Mexico, where furious residents have criticized the EPA for not warning them sooner. They rely on the river for drinking water, and the cities of Farmington and Aztec have had to cut the river’s access to treatment plants, leaving them with a 90 day supply of potable water. New Mexico State Engineer Tom Blaine backed the claims of residents, saying that the EPA gave them no warning, and failed to alert the state government.

The EPA has since taken several samples from the river, and has found excessive levels of heavy metals. The arsenic levels alone are 800 times higher than the acceptable limit in some places. We won’t know how damaged the environment is until the waste clears on its own, but it’s safe to say that some parts of the Animas River will be dead zones after this.

Contributed by Joshua Krause of The Daily Sheeple.

Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshua’s reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger .

Global Warming Is About Global Mass Genocide (VIDEO)

The Georgia Guidestones are symbols of the global depopulation agenda. It is written on their surface that the human population should not exceed 500 million people.

The Georgia Guidestones are symbols of the global depopulation agenda. It is written on their surface that the human population should not exceed 500 million people.

The environmentalist movement was created to impose the policies desired by the British Empire, typified by WWF founder, Prince Philip. His desire to kill off billions of people via global scares such as global warming are supported by lies, created to promote a fascist genocidal policy… in the name of environmentalism.”

Followers of this movement may be well meaning, though mislead. The creators of this movement are Nazis… literally! See it for yourself and research this topic further.

The video below by LaRouchePac, explains it in a nutshell.

Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.

Evo Morales Authorizes Drilling For Oil In Protected Lands


(The Real Agenda) Morales lashed out at what he called the American Empire’s desire to have “untouchable, intangible” territories in the third world to make up for their own crimes against the environment.

The need to discover new oil reserves has been the camouflage for the Bolivian Government to allow oil exploration in protected areas.

Despite the fact that such areas have been reserved for environmental conservation, the Evo Morales administration decided to open them for oil exploration.

The measure has been strongly rejected by environmental and indigenous associations, who Morales had gained confidence in the past as a member of one of those indigenous groups.

The government has responded harshly and ensures the public that it will expel from the country all non-governmental organizations that oppose the development of the oil industry on conservation lands.

According to government documents, the Morales administration intends to have oil companies pay a meager 1% of their investment to the communities located near the land that will be exploited.

The government of Evo Morales recently approved a decree that authorizes oil exploration in all areas protected by Bolivia’s environmental laws. The move generated the support of the oil industry and strong criticism from several environmental organizations.

Morales replied to the latter with a harsh speech, delivered at the bottom of a newly opened oil well, in which he threatened to deport non-governmental organizations that oppose the expansion of the hydrocarbon industry, which he said is the engine of the national economy, and said that Bolivians will not become, as these organizations intend them to be, in the “Park Rangers” of the developed countries.

Morales also said that “forest reserves have been created since the start of the American empire”, which wants “untouchable, intangible” territories in the third world to make up for their own crimes against the environment. In contrast, he said, “we have an obligation to explore all we have.”

NGOs have been threatened for questioning the Bolivian government, which says it intends to lead the global fight against global warming by implementing a development model that respects indigenous foundations and the “rights of Mother Earth”, but that takes measures as the one it has just passed.

“With this approval, the government has crossed a red line,” says environmentalist Cecilia Requena, “because it does not concern an area or a particular project, but all the parks and indigenous territories, at any time in the future”.

The environmental movement is also concerned with the fact that oil companies won’t have to show indigenous people the necessity and safety of their projects, a process that until now was required before drilling in protected land. The need to carry out “prior consultation” before drilling in land that belonged to indigenous has now been replaced with a payment of 1% of the investment destined to be used in protected areas.

“Surely there will be conflicts between the oil companies and indigenous people” says Requena, “and the government wants to avoid them by threatening the NGO’s with expulsion”.

Oil experts argue that there are new technologies that allow exploitation in sensitive natural sites without causing serious damage, but neither the NGO’s not the indigenous people have been show such technologies or the degree of disruption they will have on their land.

Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.

Another Round Of Fake Environmental Concern

cop21 paris 2015

(The Real Agenda) Transnational oil corporations are just one group of many that bear responsibility for the destruction of the environment, yet, they love to appear as if they are concerned about the health of the planet.

Big Oil has been behind fake environmental movements for the past half a century, financing NGOs and philanthropic organizations that present themselves as defenders of the environment but that are nothing less than corporate creations whose role is to keep people distracted while they go about destroying the future of billions of people.

While many oil companies claim to have a firm corporate social responsibility plan which supposedly includes avoiding environmental pollution, they always manage to dump chemicals into landfills and to use dangerous substances in the products they manufacture.

As the next round of environmental discussions on so-called Climate Change is set to take place in Paris this year, oil companies are already asking to be let into the conversations so they can speak directly with representatives of the United Nations and national governments.

The fake environmental movement and the UN could not have a better partner than Big Oil in their attempt to establish a legally binding universal agreement at the end of the United Nations Climate Change Conference next November in Le Bourget, France.  Both Big Oil and the UN have worked hand in hand to make people surrender their rights to property and individual liberty because “climate doomsday” is around the corner.

Unfortunately for them, more people are now aware of the hoax that anthropogenic global warming and climate change really are, which is why the UN and large international corporations are now partnering to secretely approve a resolution that would mandate the end of civilization as we know it.

As we have reported ad nauseum before, Big Oil and other industries are strong supporters of the carbon credits scheme, the system that codifies pollution worldwide, as it promotes planetary contamination in exchange for fees that only the largest companies will be able to afford.

In a recent statement sent by six major European oil companies to Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, they claim that “climate change is a critical challenge to our world”, which is why they want full access to the climate negotiations that will take place in Paris.

BP Group, BP, Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, Total Satoil are trying to get a place at the conversations in Paris later this year, where the UN intends to approve mechanisms to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

According to UN officials, the main goal of the meeting is to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, which the UN and other environmental organizations claim to be the cause of global warming. The same discussion is taking place at the governmental level.

The major economies of the world are presenting their commitments to reduce emissions. And companies involved in fossil fuels are in the crosshairs of an economic model that  leads to the total decarbonisation of the world’s economy, as recognized last week by Figueres.

In this situation, the six European oil giants have sent the letter to the UN in an attempt not to be left out of the agreements. The companies say they want to “open a direct dialogue with the UN and national governments”.

The formula they propose is the same that exists now, except it would be a mandatory one if approved. They want to put a price tag on carbon emissions and the official establishment of carbon markets for buying and selling carbon allowances, a fraudulent scheme which now moves about $34 billion annually. A large chunk of this money is paid to people like Al Gore, who owns his own carbon trade company.

These six major companies believe that carbon pricing can “discourage high emissions” of CO2 and “reduce uncertainty which will help stimulate investment in low carbon technologies.” For that, the oil companies ask for “transparent, stable and ambitious regulatory frameworks” which they will undoubtedly seek to influence and control.

“We recognize that the current trend in emissions of greenhouse gases is higher than what is necessary to limit temperature increase to less than two degrees above pre-industrial levels”, stated in their letter the leaders of the six major oil companies.

“The challenge now is how to meet increased demand for energy with less CO2″, they added. “We are ready to play our part”, say these companies.

The flawed science referred to by the six oil companies in their letter is the same provided by the UN in multiple documents. This so-called science purports that desirable planetary temperature should be just above pre-industrial levels, which according to the UN can only be reached by completely decarbonizing human activity. In truth, despite the continuous increase in CO2 emissions for the past decade or so, there has been no measurable increase in global temperatures.

Even mainstream media have been obligated to report on the fact that data that shows a relation between increases in CO2 emissions and global warming have been manipulated to fit the politics of global warming and climate change so that European and American corporations, through their UN partners, have an excuse to push for limits to development in third world nations.

Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.

Is This Global Drought Being Caused By The Systematic Destruction Of The Hydrologic Cycle?


Have you noticed that severe drought seems to be gripping much of the planet right now?  You probably have.  But why is this happening?  Could it be possible that we are doing this to ourselves?  Many want to try to link the rise and fall of precipitation levels to temperature variations, but there is something much more obvious that they are overlooking.  Trees play an absolutely critical role in our water cycle, and every single minute the amount of land that is deforested around the globe is equivalent to 36 football fields.  By extracting water from the soil and releasing it into the atmosphere, trees provide a critical link in the hydrologic cycle that we all depend upon.  If there were no more trees, life on this planet would become exceedingly difficult for humanity.  So the fact that we are literally ripping the lungs out of the planet is a very big deal.

Before we get more into deforestation, let’s take a look at the damage that this drought is inflicting all around the world right now.  I have repeatedly written about the worst multi-year drought in the history of the state of California and about how we are headed for the worst water crisis this country has ever seen.  At this point, 1,900 wells have already gone completely dry in California, and there has been so little precipitation that some toddlers have never actually seen rain

Should you touch it? Eat it? Run from it? The drought is so bad in California that some young children have never seen rain.

When 22-month-old Grayson of Dana Point saw rain for the first time this week, he had no idea what it was.

He was so fascinated by the idea of water falling from the sky, he couldn’t resist opening his mouth to taste a few raindrops.

Things are even worse down in South America.

Sao Paulo, the largest city in Brazil, is enduring the worst drought that it has seen in decades.  Things are projected to be so dire in Sao Paulo this summer that authorities are considering bringing in the military to keep order…

An engineer for Sao Paulo state’s water company said that “scenes from the end of the world” would ensue if the city ran out of water.

The drought in the Brazilian metropolis of Sao Paulo has become so severe that local authorities are considering bringing in military personnel to cope with the possible social chaos.

With over 11 million residents, Sao Paulo is Brazil’s most populous city and the country’s economic center. But senior officials at Sao Paulo’s water facility said residents might soon be evacuated because there is not enough water, to bathe or to clean homes.

The water crisis is the worst is the last 84 years, and the dry season has only just begun, with less water in the dams than in 2014, when restrictions on water began and the authorities began to realize the seriousness of the disaster.

But of course it isn’t just Sao Paulo.  That entire region of South America is in the midst of a long-term water crisis.  Since the year 2000, the amount of rain the southeastern Amazon has been getting has fallen by approximately 25 percent.  They desperately need a lot more rain, and they just aren’t getting it.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the planet, much of the entire continent of Australia is suffering through a devastating multi-year drought.

For example, the amount of territory currently enduring drought conditions in Queensland is the largest ever recorded

Queensland is suffering the most widespread drought in the state’s history, as drought declarations spread across more than 80% of its land.

The state government has added another four council areas to the list of drought-declared areas following a patchy wet season and the weather bureau’s declaration of an El Niño event that will result in hotter and drier conditions.

The total area of Queensland that’s drought declared is 80.35%, eclipsing the previous record of 79.01% in March 2014 – during the same drought.

The state’s agriculture and fisheries minister, Bill Byrne, said one of the four new declared areas, parts of Mareeba shire on the Atherton tablelands, had not been in drought since 1979.

And things are not looking good on the other end of the country either.  Since the mid-1970s, the amount of rain that has fallen in southwestern Australia has declined by about 15 to 20 percent, and it is being projected that the amount of rainfall will drop by another 40 percent over the next few decades.

Another continent that is deep in crisis is Africa.  Most people know that the Sahara desert just continues to grow and expand in the north, but most people have not heard of the horrible drought that is now plaguing farmers all over the southern half of the continent.  In fact, things are already so bad that authorities are warning of “food shortages” later this year…

Southern Africa faces possible food shortages over the next few months due to a severe drought in the ‘maize belt’ of South Africa, where a lack of rain had caused crop failure rates of over 50 percent, the World Food Program (WFP) said on Monday.

In South Africa, the WFP said maize production was estimated to have dropped by a third compared with last year, putting it on track for a harvest of 9.665 million tonnes, its worst in eight years.

Besides South Africa, which produces more than 40 percent of regional maize, the drought was also likely to hit harvests in southern Angola, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Malawi and Madagascar, the UN agency said in a report.

Are you starting to get the picture?

Yes, there has always been drought, but have we ever seen a time when there has been so much severe drought in so many diverse areas of the planet?

What we are observing is not normal.  And what is especially troubling about all of this is that it appears that we are at least partially responsible for what is happening.

As I mentioned at the top of this article, our planet is being deforested at a staggering pace.  But there are consequences for all of this deforestation.  You see, the truth is that trees play an absolutely critical role in the hydrologic cycle

The removal of trees (deforestation) is having a major impact on the water cycle, as local and global climates change.

Normally, trees release water vapour when they transpire, producing a localised humidity. This water vapour then evaporates into the atmosphere where it accumulates before precipitating back to the Earth as rain, sleet or snow. Deforestation in one area can therefore affect the weather in another area because if trees are cut down, there is less water to be evaporated into the atmosphere and subsequently less rain.

At a local level, the land becomes drier and less stable. When it rains, instead of the water being soaked up, there is increased run-off and leaching. Areas can become more prone to both droughts and flooding, impacting on plants and animals, and also humans living near deforested areas.

It has been estimated that our forests are responsible for producing approximately 30 percent of the fresh water for our planet.  Trees extract water from the ground and release it into the atmosphere.  When there are fewer trees, there is less rain.

And that is why the deforestation that is going on all around the globe is so deeply troubling.  Just consider the following numbers…

-According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, about 18 million acres of forest is lost every single year.

-As I mentioned above, the equivalent of 36 football fields is being deforested every single minute.

-At this point, we have already lost about half of all the tropical forests in the world.

Fortunately, many scientists are starting to realize how this deforestation is contributing to the global drought.  For example, scientists in Brazil are now specifically blaming deforestation for the nightmarish drought the nation is currently enduring…

Decades of destruction in the Amazon rainforest might be the reason that Brazil’s taps are running dry, Brazilian scientists say. Deforestation is crippling the jungle’s ability to pump moisture into the air, which could be causing drought across broad swaths of the South American country, the Associated Press reported Thursday.

With each tree that falls, you lose a little bit more of that water that’s being transported to São Paulo and the rest of Brazil,” Philip Fearnside, a professor at the Brazilian government’s National Institute for Research in the Amazon, told AP. “If you just let that continue, you’re going to have a major impact on big population centers in Brazil that are feeling the pinch now.”

So what do you think about all of this?

Do you believe that there is a solution?

Please feel free to share your thoughts by posting a comment below…

Michael T. Snyder is a graduate of the McIntire School of Commerce at the University of Virginia and has a law degree and an LLM from the University of Florida Law School. He is an attorney that has worked for some of the largest and most prominent law firms in Washington D.C. and who now spends his time researching and writing and trying to wake the American people up. You can follow his work on The Economic Collapse blog, End of the American Dream and The Truth Wins. His new novel entitled “The Beginning Of The End” is now available on

Climate Change Psyop- New Study: Decreasing CO2 Emissions Will “Save Thousands Of Lives”!


Remember the early days of the global warming hoax? When Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) were all telling us the earth was going to fry within the next decade? The earth was getting warmer and it was all because of CO2. Since its early days of inception no movement has died and been debunked more than the global warming movement.

So often it has been debunked that it has had to undergo numerous facelifts, re-shaping of logic, arguments and agendas. The movement changed its name to “Climate change” around the late 90’s and has stuck to their argument since then: The earth is getting hotter AND cooler (climate change) because of global warming which is because of CO2. Their argument has not changed … until now that is.

In a new bold move the movement is recently rolling out a new argument that they hope will be a game changer. Anyone awakened to the new world order plans of the globalist, and who is paying attention to this movement should not be surprised by anything they do this year (2015) which I’ve tagged the year of the global warming-climate change hoax. The movement knows that the Obama administration is running out of time and back in November of 2013 they passed an executive order to give Obama dictatorial control of all climate change legislation. This 2015 global warming-climate change hoax campaign has been in the works for some time now. We are now seeing the full manifestation of this planned move which is an important part of the U.N.’s Agenda 21 takeover and the implementation of a global carbon tax, both which are being presented as “solutions” to the “problem” of CO2 emission.

Yes, the movement stands firm in the hands of several multi-million dollar philanthropic organizations which have been funding the movement for some time now. The multi-billion dollar movement thrives on massive donations from organizations like the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The Grantham Foundation and organizations like the Mistra’s Indigo Program. All three of these pro-global warming, pro-climate change foundations are behind the funding of the latest bizarre and controversial government “study”. This time the movement is taking off the gloves and going for a new level of bogus claims, lies, and agenda driven pseudo-science propaganda.

In the latest “study” funded by the above foundations climate researchers are claiming that (Al Gore style) mandatory cutbacks on CO2 “pollutants” is now “projected” to “save thousands of lives” because of the related improvement it will have on medical conditions such as heart attacks and other cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, sudden death and other medical conditions.

That’s right. The movement is now boldly stepping out beyond the climate argument which like the global warming claims of the nineties has failed to convince critical thinkers and free thinkers. To pad their movement with a new argument and a new angle this new study attempts to “project” and predict health issues as a result of CO2 emissions:

“We used the PM2.5 and O3 from the CMAQ air quality simulations for the continental USA and compared them with the 2020 reference case to estimate and map the health co-benefits for each of the policy scenarios. These estimates do not include the direct health benefits resulting from mitigating climate change (for example, reduced heat-related illness). Concentration-response functions were derived for six health co-benefit outcomes, on the basis of extensive published literature on the health effects of air pollution. The six outcomes are: PM2.5 – related changes in premature deaths; myocardial infarctions (heart attacks); cardiovascular hospital admissions (excluding myocardial infarctions); respiratory hospital admissions; O3 – related changes in premature deaths; and hospital admissions associated with respiratory illness.”

Take notice of the sketchy language employed throughout the entire argument. Air quality “simulations” are being compared to “reference cases” in order to come up with an “estimate” and map the health “CO-benefits” for each policy scenarios. On top of that, notice that all of these agenda driven “studies” are promoted by telling the reader WHERE the study is published as if the “where” in itself makes the study legitimate. This technique actually works. Many people will hear the words “This study is published in the New England Journal of Medicine” and subliminally most people will accept the study as legitimate just because it’s published in the said journal. This is all part of many agenda driven psuedo-science studies which are pushed as propaganda to the masses to be accepted as truth by default.

Furthermore, there is no medical language in this study. No mention of the human immune system and its role in human disease or for that matter the health of the individual, age, underlying disease etc. Instead the study only mentions “projections” of medical disease being assumed by the researchers without explaining the medical bases of the assumption.

This entire CO2 emission study amounts to a bunch of well funded climate change hoaxers playing with numbers and hypothesizing about what theoretical health benefits might come from the climate change CO2 mandatory emission cuts that Obama will be rolling out this summer. This study is simply creating a pre-determined pre-justification argument for what the Obama administration wants to implement later this summer. This is a prime example of the climate change U.N. agenda in full swing.

If we do nothing else let us admire the template the climate change/global warming hoaxers are leaving us. They passed the Climate Change executive order in November of 2013, they planned out their strategy all of 2014 and now they are making their move here in 2015.

Let’s all stand firm against this deceptive agenda. It’s nothing more than a takeover of all human activity and it is intricately related to the U.N.’s Agenda 21.

Take notice that these studies, these “scientists” and the entire movement say nothing about the daily spraying of the atmosphere. They hypocritically ignore all the geoengineering of our planet going on right before our eyes. They ignore the 150+ geoengineering and weather modification patents and the accelerated spraying programs we’ve seen in just the last year with daily chembombs wiping out beautiful blue skies in California and around the country every day. They pretend like geoengineering is not happening. They ignore that the skies are being sprayed with dangerous nano-sized metal particles which is causing more human disease than any amount of CO2 emission could ever cause. This study is deception from beginning to end. In fact it’s a psyop on the American people and the world. They now want to blame CO2, a natural healthy gas necessary for the survival of the planet, as the culprit of disease in humans as well as the planet. They continue to lie about the nature of CO2. They ignore that CO2 is a miniscule greenhouse gas in comparison to water vapor. They ignore the tiny role human produced CO2 plays in the heating of the planet. They ignore the effect of the ACTUAL heat source, that being the sun itself, in heating the planet. The entire study is prefaced with a profound lie-

“As an abundant greenhouse gas, CO2 is a major contributor to climate change.”

And you cannot build a study based on lies. The entire climate change movement is now a logic disruptor and a mental static creator on humanity. This is a hiccup, a thorn that we must figure out how to deal with so that it doesn’t come back to bite us in a way that will cost us all of our liberties and freedoms.

The victim followers

Let us all stay focused on exposing the primary goals of the movement and think of intelligent, creative ways to defuse it. Consider the victimized followers and realize that their loyalty to the movement is based on emotion, good intentions and blind faith. We all know the drill. They repeat the same old lies over and over as if repeating it makes it more true. They are immune and resistant to scientific logic and reason. They often reference another “scientist” as the endorser of their logic and they site this as the “proof” that they are right.

The climate change psyop victims love their movement because it’s based on the warm feeling of “caring” for the earth. They are also told that those who oppose the global warming-climate change movement are radical brainwashed right wing “deniers”, “pro-corporation”, Koch brothers defenders, and even zombies themselves. Sadly, the climate changers have become THE most brainwashed activist group on the planet today. The multi-billion dollar movement really has spent billions on TV shows, movies, documentaries, commercials, campaigns, books, websites, fundraisers, marches, magazines, songs, studies, political campaigns, signature campaigns and coming this summer even concerts, all to reinforce (like a religion) their beliefs.

From a psychological standpoint we should take note that funding really is directly related to the level of brainwashing. The climate change-global warming hoax agenda is full proof of this. Don’t believe it? Try to convince anyone from that movement that they are being fooled.

Moving forward

As a humanity we must find a way to move forward above and beyond mocking and chastising those involved in the climate change-global warming movement. The first thing we should take note of is that many people in this movement really are well intended people. For that reason we must find a way to at least make them reflect on their own freedom. Try to get these people to see the conspiratorial side of the argument. I have found they are usually not open to realizing the scientific reality of CO2 because they really do believe whatever their scientific masters (funded by pro-global warming philanthropists) tell them. Scientific logic and reason usually does not stand a chance when someone has already deferred their personal scientific logic and reason to another scientist. Therefore it may be more rewarding to appeal to their love of freedom. Plant the seed, tell them about how the Club of Rome concocted the global warming movement. Show them the facts behind this history and give them something to think about.

Ultimately, as with any religion, you cannot break someone away from their chosen religion. It is something that must happen naturally. Until then, in order to move forward, those of us who understand the agenda in play right now must find ways to expose and resist this agenda as we have done with many other agendas in play. When enough people resist, more people come to the realization of what is happening. Already we know that many young Americans are not buying into the global warming lie. They are realizing that climate is supposed to change and they are beginning to understand that the real problem with today’s climate change is the engineered change of the planet through chemtrails spraying.

Ultimately, the climate change agenda, I believe, is being used to deflect attention away from the global movement against geoengineering and chemtrails spraying. The movement is deliberately trying to change the conversation to one that blames the individual for the changes of the climate instead of the criminal geoengineering programs that are ongoing worldwide. The criminals behind the daily spraying of our skies are likely loving what the climate change hoaxers, and psyop victims are doing for their agenda. They are deflecting attention away thus giving them more room and time to spray the skies every single day.

Unplugging from the matrix of lies

Are you still plugged into the matrix? Look up and see the skies and see what is being done to them before your eyes. Are you young? Turn off the global warming voices and instead ask someone older to let you see their photos from the decades of the past. Take a day and sit back and look at the pictures of the sky back in the 1990’s, the 80’s, 70’s, 60’s. Ask your grandmother to show you her old photos and enjoy browsing through these one day. As you look at one photo after another of blue skies and beautiful fluffy white clouds, compare that to today’s feathery, weird, stratospheric, linear, tic-tac-toe skies. Then ask yourself, could these messy weird chemical looking skies be blocking the sunlight and causing climate change when done for over 10 years straight? Keep in mind that planes packed the skies in those days too burning fuel just like planes do today. Remember that in those days the skies were cold and humid too. Remember that in those days clouds were not pink. Sit back and see the pictures for yourself and ask yourself what has changed? Then research the patents for geoengineering and research what whistleblowers have said. Research the topic with a clear and diligent mind and ask yourself what might over a decade of spraying tiny metal particles into the atmosphere do to the climate. Then when you are fully awake to what is happening try to contain yourself. Realize that knowledge is a two edge sword. It can bring you down and it can motivate you too, it all depends on how you handle it.


Finally, let’s realize that the climate change movement really is a central part of the globalist new world order plans and we can expect more deceptive studies like these to come out this year and years to come. Let’s stand firm and do everything we can to expose their lies. The solutions will have to come from the smallest levels. Start with small groups of people looking to implement counter policies at the smallest level. Claim, reclaim and maintain your independence from the U.N. and all global government bodies. Realize that your Senators are mostly all sold out to the billion dollar global warming agenda. Find out where your congress representative stands and do what you can to vote them out. Let’s also prepare for future counter strategies to the global enslavement policies they want to soon implement. No doubt they will rely on smart meters and other devices to try to monitor and measure your use of items. Let’s stay ahead of the curve on the freedom and technological side of things and head off this movement as they move forward. At this point nothing should surprise us. Stay vigilant and keep your eyes wide open.

Climate Change Psyop Study Makes New Wild Medical Claim!

Breaking: Related article from around the web:
Australian PM’s adviser says U.N. using climate change for ‘new world order’

Bernie Suarez is a revolutionary writer with a background in medicine, psychology, and information technology. He has written numerous articles over the years about freedom, government corruption and conspiracies, and solutions. A former host of the 9/11 Freefall radio show, Bernie is also the creator of the Truth and Art TV project where he shares articles and videos about issues that raise our consciousness and offer solutions to our current problems. His efforts are designed to encourage others to joyfully stand for truth, to expose government tactics of propaganda, fear and deception, and to address the psychology of dealing with the rising new world order. He is also a former U.S. Marine who believes it is our duty to stand for and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. A peace activist, he believes information and awareness is the first step toward being free from enslavement from the globalist control system which now threatens humanity. He believes love conquers all fear and it is up to each and every one of us to manifest the solutions and the change that you want to see in this world, because doing this is the very thing that will ensure victory and restoration of the human race from the rising global enslavement system, and will offer hope to future generations.

5 Ways Air Pollution Is Destroying Your Health


You probably already know about some of the dangers that severe air pollution exposure can cause and how places like stoplights at intersections can increase your exposure to harmful air particles up to 29 times more than the open road. While these facts are startling, you probably don’t know about the almost invisible dangers. [1] Namely the numerous diseases and cognitive issues now being linked to air pollution. Here we’ll get into five ways you’re letting air pollution destroy your health.

The Hidden Dangers of Air Pollution

Despite the slow turn to more sustainable forms of agriculture and industry, air pollution is still a big problem. Here are just some of the ways air pollution negatively affects your health.

1. Air Pollution is Linked to Suicide

It may seem crazy to think that air pollution could lead to something as serious as suicide, but studies in Taiwan, South Korea, China, and now Utah suggest a link. Not only is suicide the 10th leading cause of death in the US, it is the number 8th cause of death in Utah. [2] Obviously, there are many factors that must be considered when discussing causes of suicide; however, suicide rates increased in Utah during the spring and fall (a time when certain aspects of air pollution can be worse).

2. Air Pollution Slows Cognition in Schoolchildren

We all know that air pollution can exacerbate symptoms of asthma and other respiratory-related illnesses and diseases, but did you also know that it can affect brain development? Dr. Jordi Sunyer did a study to see just how affected schoolchildren are by air pollution (specifically traffic pollution). The study concluded that children who attended schools in polluted areas showed overall slower cognition in comparison to those who attended schools in areas with less traffic pollution. “The associations between slower cognitive development and higher levels of air pollutants remained after the researchers took factors such as parents’ education, commuting time, smoking in the home and green spaces at school into account.” [3]

3. Significant Risks to Frequent Flyers

Those who fly frequently (especially pilots or other airline staff) could potentially be more at risk for certain issues, dubbed “aerotoxic syndrome.” Most planes have a mechanism that compresses air from the engines and uses that as air in the cabin, but sometimes, these mechanisms malfunction and allow oil particles to taint the cabin air. Many airline employees have mentioned this, but one pilot, Richard Westgate, passed away in 2012 after claiming to be a victim of poisonous and toxic cabin fumes. [4]

4. Cremations Release Mercury Into the Air

With land for burials becoming more scarce (and also more expensive), many people turn to cremation as an alternate form of honoring the body of a loved one who has passed on. The unfortunate side effect of cremation is mercury emissions. [5] Honoring a fallen loved one should not come at the price of endangering yourself and others, but there are alternatives such as alkaline hydrolysis or “liquid cremation” that are far healthier for the environment and for you.

5. Air Pollution Linked to Autism

Autism and related disorders have been on the rise for some time and research suggests air pollution may be a contributing factor. Several reports noted a link between exposure to toxic metals and other pollutants in children who were more at risk to develop autism. Other studies focused on pregnant women and how closely they lived to freeways and other sources of heavy pollution. All of the studies found similar exposures to a handful of particular pollutants that seemed to increase the risk of autism in newborns. [6]

Air Pollution: No Simple Solution

It’s difficult to remove all air pollution from your life, unfortunately, but you can monitor and limit your exposure. Keep abreast with local news about your city or even check in on a Breathe Cam. [7] Keep plants inside your home to help remove harmful pollutants. [8] [9] Consider an air purification device, they can be a great active approach for purifying the air in your home.

How’ve you dealt with air pollution? Leave a comment and share your tips below.


  1. Baggaley, Kate. Stoplights are hotspots for air pollution. Science News. 2015.
  2. Pappas, Stephanie. Utah suicides linked to air pollution. Live Science. 2015.
  3. CBC News. Traffic pollution tied to slower cognition in schoolchildren. CBC News. 2015.
  4. Campbell, Jaime. Toxic fumes in plane cabin’s pose health risks to frequent flyers, says coroner. 2015.
  5. Lewis, Barbara. EU should curb mercury emissions from cremations, campaigners say. Reuters. 2015.
  6. Arnold, Carrie. Air pollution and ASDs: Homing in on an environmental risk factor. EHP. 2015.
  7. Keane, Jonathan. Keep an eye on your city’s pollution in real time. New Scientist. 2015.
  8. Barboza, Tony. Cleaner air is linked to stronger lungs in Southern California children. LA Times. 2015.
  9. Kinzler, Don. NASA Study: Houseplants remove harmful substances from indoors. Duluth News Tribute. 2015.

Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, NP, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM has studied natural healing methods for over 20 years and now teaches individuals and practitioners all around the world. He no longer sees patients but solely concentrates on spreading the word of health and wellness to the global community. Under his leadership, Global Healing Center, Inc. has earned recognition as one of the largest alternative, natural and organic health resources on the Internet.

Green-Washing: Climate Terrorism Openly Advocated By Mainstream Media

Our skies and clouds have been changing unnaturally for decades, yet very few people, seem to have noticed. (Photo:

Our skies and clouds have been changing unnaturally for decades, yet very few people, seem to have noticed. (Photo:

Mainstream media is now talking about measures to ‘save the planet’ from non-existent global warming.

One of the greatest hoaxes in human existence is the notion that humans are responsible for catastrophic climate events. But even people who believe such a fairy tale are hard pressed to explain why it is that the environmental movement led by global organizations such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, which are heavily financed by corporations, refuse to talk about two very specific issues.

First, fossil fuels are responsible for about 13% of all greenhouse gases sent into the atmosphere, while animal agriculture is responsible for 51% of the total. You would think that so-called environmentalists and their followers would be all over the place asking government to curb wasteful industrial agriculture, but they are not. In fact, most environmentalists aren’t even aware that industrial agriculture causes more damage to the environment than fossil fuels will ever be able to.

Second, Geoengineering, the attempt to manage planetary climate via aerosol spraying, using space mirrors, and ionospheric manipulation, among others, are not and have never been a conspiracy theory or something that has been in testing phases for decades. As we have reported ad nauseum, geoengineering is an everyday practice and has been so for at least 60 years.

Despite the fact that geonegineering has been fully operational for over half a century, more climate extremists talk about manipulating global climate as a novelty and as an option to lack of ‘political will’ to impose austerity policies on human development.

Climate extremists, who are usually presented as climate experts or geoengineering experts, have had their voices echoed more frequently by mainstream media with the only intention to smoothly phase in the chatter about geoengineering as the only solution to save the planet from non-existant global warming.

From globalists falsifying temperature records, to the assignment of blame over elements that do not cause global warming, climate extremists are now ganging up to create strong support for what they call plan B. This plan B involves changing the Earth’s climate with a manual override. “Engineers and climatologists have already written a lot about the technologies that could cool it. Now, some want to take their experimental computer models to real life,” writes El País, a Spanish newspaper that reports on geonegineering as the newest road to follow if we want to save ourselves.

Behind the word geoengineering there is a range of technologies that share the same point of departure and arrival. If humans fail to reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases the climate extremists see themselves as charged with the task to change the weather to cool the planet. It is not a surprise that mainstream media have gone from totally ignoring geoengineering practices to lying about them in such a short time. It is also not a surprise they only talk about the more mundane practices to carry out geoengineering at a large scale.

Most media outlets only report on measures such as painting roofs and facades to reflect sunlight, setting up giant mirrors in space to create areas of planetary shadow and CO2 capturing, as the most important practices. They don’t go near aerosol spraying, the most common geoengineering practice that has been around for decades now.

Aerosol spraying is a two-stage practice. It blocks solar radiation while contaminating the environment in which we live including the soil and the water; yet climate extremists see it as part of the equation to reduce natural solar radiation from reaching the planet. “If we do not restrain emissions and global mean temperatures exceed the threshold of 2 degrees, we need to introduce new elements into the equation,” say some geoengineers. This notion has been widely discredited by true climate scientists as old predictions about temperature rising have not taken place.

According to some climate terrorists, although the Sun is not to blame for human emissions, reducing its radiation could lower temperatures. But neither are the oceans or the soil guilty of anything, however, aerosol spraying punishes soil fertility and oceanic ecosystems daily anywhere this technique is used.

Along with geoengineering from space, management of solar radiation and capturing CO2, climate terrorists have other ideas they would like to implement:

“The failure of our politicians to achieve concrete measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases is worrying scientists and causing many of them to start thinking about extreme measures,” says climatologist Ken Caldeira, from the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Mr. Caldeira is considered one of the foremost experts on global climate change, and he has always been a big supporter of geoengineering.

Although publicly he does not consider himself a faithful supporter of geonegineering, he is actively been studying alternatives if all else fails. I support small-scale experiments to help build knowledge about the basic processes related to solar geoengineering” he explains.

“What I do not support, at least for now, are the experiments that aim to develop technology deployment,” he says.

Unfortunately, Mr. Caldeira has not heard the news about the ongoing geoneginering programs led by the military and private contractors. He probably has not heard about existing patents for deployment technologies, and he certainly has not seen the planes spraying heavy metals right over his head.

In a report to the US government prepared by Caldeira and twenty other scientists in 2011, they concluded that the management of solar radiation is perhaps the most radical technology but also one of the most effective ways to cool the planet. That is a very cheerful conclusion for someone who would not like to mess up with the planet’s climate.

What Caldeira and his team say is that they think it is a good idea to play with the sun, but most geoengineers look at the clouds. While some want to set up mirrors that reflect some of the light, others are said to be studying how to make clouds more permeable to radiation and heat so that they can escape into space. That is exactly what the geoengineering programs have been doing for over half a century. The implementation of geonengineering programs have been creating “alternative cloud systems” that block sun light at a specific location. This phenomenon is seen daily over large cities worldwide.

The closest climate terrorists have been to completing one of these experiments was in 2011. Then, engineers and British climatologists devised the SPICE project, the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering. The project allegedly sought to inject aerosols such as sulfur dioxide in the upper layers of the atmosphere to increase the refractive clouds. Mr. Caldeira and his peers are decades late since this is exactly what other climate terrorists have been doing since the 1960s.

SPICE is still investigating stratospheric aerosol injection. Part of the project was to study the injection from a balloon and a part of this plan was to build the prototype airship.” For various reasons, the scientists decided not to go ahead with this project,” says Piers Forster, principal investigator of SPICE.

The controversy that marked the plan between the public and the British scientific community itself led to the creation of a a study to determine the feasibility of various geoengineering projects but also their possible side effects. “You can learn a lot, as indeed we do, harsh simulations and laboratory studies without carrying experiments on the street. But overall, I think we need to develop both together,” says Forster.

Another fruit of SPICE was the demonstrated need to regulate geoengineering. Even at a small scale, these experiments can alter rainfall patterns and winds. It is not a secret that the State of California has been submitted to massive geoengineering manipulation which is why it has been under drought conditions for such a long time.

As clarified by the British scientist, “it is difficult to create a legal framework if you don’t know what you’re regulating and what you‘re protecting. Therefore, we need to have some idea of the technology. But on the other hand, it would be unethical to start regardless of the good supervisory practices and governance to establish large-scale experiments,” he adds. Mr. Forster is apparently ignorant about the large scale experimentation that has been going on for decades.

In route from the simulations that the large scale experiments is Scopex. Designed by scientists at Harvard University, this project aims to inject aerosols into the stratosphere. Scopex also wants to study how would the injection of aerosols affect the ozone layer, lest the remedy aggravates the disease. The proposal, detailed in a special issue of the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, aims to inject several hundred grams of sulfuric acid to see if solar radiation management works without damaging the ozone layer.

The idea of conducting experiments to alter atmospheric processes is understandably controversial, but our Scopex experiment is only a proposal,” says one of its promoters, David Keith. Its aim is to be in place in 2017 but, as he says, “it can only go forward if public funding is substantial, with a formal approval process and a study of independent risks,” he adds in a note. These climate terrorists want humanity to pay for their own demise by financing the poisoning of the air, water and soil as a solution to non-existent global warming.

The level of funding for a project to counter climate change would be unheard of in the history of mankind,” says Joan Pau Sanchez, a researcher at the Polytechnic University of Catalonia.

A project like this would cost about 1.5% of world GDP,” he adds. To get an idea, that would be 30 times the dollars invested in the Apollo program that put a man on the moon. Effectiveness, cost and governance are the obstacles faced by geoengineering. That is why more global leaders are now calling for a Global Green Government that would be able to implement the systematic poisoning of humanity to a scale that we have never seen before.

Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.


Blame It On Bayer

bayer hall of shame

With so many corporations polluting our environment, poisoning our food and corrupting our democracy, it’s tough to single out “the worst.” But this year, we’re asking you to elect one of the biggest bee-killers in the world, Bayer CropScience, into the Corporate Hall of Shame.

We think it’s about time consumers hold Bayer accountable for not only manufacturing the pesticides that kill bees, but for creating a public relations campaign aimed at blaming everything but the company’s pesticides for the mass die-off of pollinators.

By now, we all know that neonicotinoids are the primary culprit in Colony Collapse Disorder. We also know who stands to profit the most from selling neonics—Bayer CropScience is the world’s number one seller of neonics, with annual sales of over $1 billion.

To hear Bayer tell it, the neonic-maker is the honeybee’s best friend. Instead of taking responsibility for poisoning pollinators, Bayer has launched a very expensive public relations campaign, outlined in this report by the Friends of the Earth. The campaign is aimed at shifting the blame to global warming. Or maybe mites.

Bayer has even established the bogus Bayer Bee Care Center in a disingenuous public relations move aimed at convincing consumers that the company is dedicated to protecting bees.

Bayer should be ashamed. It isn’t, of course. So it’s up to us to shame the world’s leading bee-killer.

Vote Bayer into the Corporate Hall of Shame


Many Said It Would Fail, But It Works And It Can Help Change Our World (VIDEO)


Have you heard of Boyan Slat and his plan to clean up the oceans? There’s a good chance you have because his initial story went viral after he did a TEDx talk about how we could clean up the world’s oceans using his device.

We first covered this story back in 2013 and at the time many people were talking about the huge potential his clean up array had in ridding the ocean of plastic. As stated by Boyan himself:

One of the problems with preventive work is that there isn’t any imagery of these ‘garbage patches’, because the debris is dispersed over millions of square kilometres. By placing our arrays however, it will accumulate along the booms, making it suddenly possible to actually visualize the oceanic garbage patches. We need to stress the importance of recycling, and reducing our consumption of plastic packaging.”

Wise words from a truly innovative mind. After his impressive invention, Boyan decided to found The Ocean Cleanup Foundation, a non-profit organization responsible for the development of his proposed technologies. If brought into fruition, his solution could save hundreds of thousands of aquatic animals annually, reduce pollutants (including PCB and DDT) from building up in the food chain and even improve human health given the fact harmful plastic has been found in humans after being in the ocean.

Many Said It Would Fail

Like with any great invention, many said it would fail and many even came after us for posting such a “ludicrous idea.” But as its been shown time and time again, ‘negative’ voices on the internet aren’t always best to listen to and I’m glad Boyan made that choice.

People claimed the problem would be too big to solve. We should only focus on land. His device wouldn’t be feasible. A lot of difficult things to face for a young person with an idea. For some this may have sidelined their efforts for good, but he kept going.

He ended up raising $2.1 million dollars to help get his project going and by June of 2014 he was publishing his astounding results.

“The report’s main conclusion – that The Ocean Cleanup Array is likely feasible and financially viable method to cleanup nearly half the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in 10 years – remains unchanged.

“There’s obviously a lot more work to do – we estimate the technology should be ready for full-scale implementation in three to four years’ time. Now that we are confident the first phase has produced a solid basis, we can now close off the feasibility study, and fully focus on initiating the Pilot Phase,” Boyan said.[1]

A Problem Is Never Too Big

I believe in many cases we only limit ourselves by the confines we allow our minds to put on something. I can promise you as an entrepreneur myself, people will try and cut you down from the very first day you mention your idea, but if you feel strongly or passionately about something, go for it. Even if you meet challenges that cause your journey to change, I can guarantee you will have learned a lot along the way. Sometimes it’s not always about the end result but instead, the journey.

Boyan is an inspiration in this case as well. He has met the challenges and ridicules of others and went forth anyway. There are many challenges in our world that need addressing and each can be addressed. If you have the inspiration to tackle one, go for it, no matter how tough it may seem.

Joe Martino

I created Collective-Evolution 5 years ago and have been heavily at it since. I love inspiring others to find joy and make changes in their lives. Hands down the only other thing I am this passionate about is baseball.


UN Climate Talks Are An Abject Failure

un 2014 climate change lima peru

LIMA – No real science backs the notion that humans are the main cause of global warming. In fact, this reality is one of the reasons why the term global warming has been changed twice since its inception. For a few years, we’ve heard the mainstream media call it climate change, as if changes in the Earth’s climate are not normal and natural. Then came the term, climate disturbance, the latest in a list of names that intends to distract people from the science of climate change to focus them on how bad humans are to the planet and how this fact requires that the planet be depopulated massively.

It seems that the leaders of the fake environmental movement, the proponents of cutting CO2 emissions as a way to reduce global warming and mitigate the supposed consequences they attach to it, always talk about cutting down emissions globally as if they do not have to reduce their footprint themselves. For example, the first climate meeting in Rio in 1992 had 1,000 delegates participating in the discussions. Last week in Lima, there were 11,000 people from almost every single country on the planet.

The climate talks are a failure for two main reasons: Firstly, climate science as it is presented on the main stream is pseudo-science. If it wasn’t all the scientific community would be undoubtedly on board. Second, scientists and delegates are not the ones discussing what needs to be done, corporations are. One of the reasons why very little agreement is achieved every time there is a new climate meeting is because more delegates from different countries continue to realize that global warming is a hoax and that the so-called “science” that backs it up does not have anything scientific behind it.

The question is, if with every new climate meeting less is accomplished, why bother having these meetings? The leaders of the corporate world who are behind the global warming hoax understand that in order to have the masses of people on board, they need to make them feel part of it, so they call on national representatives to appear on climate meetings to “work together” on policies that have already been decided on. This is more easily understood if you live in North America, where local and regional meetings on global warming and Agenda 21 are held everywhere to make people feel included.

Neither the latest UN summits nor the previous ones are effective in moving forward on curbing CO2 emissions – assuming CO2 is a threat for real. The balance of Lima has been especially painful. After the US and China announced the signing of a new emissions deal, it appeared that the magic key to open the door of paralysis would finally be opened, but it was not. Hopes fell apart like sugar cubes in the last few hours where the ambitious objectives, once again, vanished. All that delegates at the latest Lima COP20 Climate Talks have to show for is hope that the next meeting in 2015 will render anything more significant than what they accomplished this year.

The abject failure of the climate talks has some people suggesting that the format of the event should be changed. Perhaps, some say, there are too many people involved. Yvo de Boer, Executive Director of the Climate Change Convention of the UN, said the problem is that the UN negotiators have no authority. Listen carefully here. The UN wants more power, enough power to ignore the representatives of the world nations so it can decide whatever its corporate sponsors want to adopt as “climate policy”. If the leaders of the G-20 met and said, Gentlemen, let’s do this,’ this whole debate would be over in 30 minutes,” he told Reuters. Do you understand it now?

The failure to reach an agreement is a two prong issue. Firstly, it means there is a strong opposition from developing countries to surrender their right to have better living conditions, and, second, the United Nations can claim it does not have enough power to decide so countries vote to provide that power to decide unilaterally. Things would not change much if such power were awarded, after all, the G20 nations already decide what economic and social policies are implemented worldwide.

What could be wrong with giving the G20 more power when it comes to climate policy? It would only mean the leaders of the “free world” would be able to codify the policies they have already implemented – by stealth for a long time – to de-industrialize the West while keeping developing nations poor. This along with their depopulation policies would result in the much desired goal to massively reduce the planet’s population by as much as 90%.

In Lima many world delegations already knew about this, so hostilities resumed when their representatives made their voices heard to demand less responsibility in action against global warming. De Boer proposed to correct errors ahead of the summit in Paris 2015, and tried to identify the cornerstones of work to do” and that “a technical process needs to unfold as opposed to a political one.” The problem is that the COP20 meetings are filled with politicians and representatives from the global industry, which makes it impossible to achieve technical goals. De Boer‘s hope is that Paris marks a turning point after nearly two decades of climate diplomacy with poor results since Kyoto was adopted in 1997.

The covenant of Lima is poor because countries are only invited (but not required) to submit their plans for reducing greenhouse gases. This is so, because as explained earlier, the actual policies that corporate leaders seek to approve have already been written. All that they want is developing countries to sign on the dotted line and comply with their desires.

Teresa Ribera, former Secretary of State for Climate Change, notes, however, that the solution must be political negotiations at the UN. Mrs. Ribera, much like former and current political leaders thinks that besides being a forum, the UN should be awarded the power to force policy on countries much as it does already on so-called conservation of natural resources. (See Agenda 21 for details). She says that along with the political side, there must be a technical one, the complex and mixed messages require “policy responses by politicians”, as opposed to science based decisions.

She proposes the descentralization of negotiations so that the “consensus” required by the UN does not paralyze countries poised to achieve more ambitious targets to limit greenhouse gases. However, her proposal to achieve this goal is filled with more red tape. She wants to create a club of the 50 fastest countriesso that the process can not broken. By the way, Mrs. Ribera is the director of the Institute for Durable Development and International Relations, a French think tank that works under the socialist French government.

Ribera finds it curious that developing countries do not demand more from industrialized countries such as China, for example. The reason for this is that China, Russia, the United States and some European nations -either through their government or their corporations – finance investments and develop collaborative projects in these countries, so a “call to action” from third world nations would mean a considerable reduction in such an investment. 

Some observers thought that the Lima talks were so weak that the result shows that the multilateral UN process is not the best for climate action. They are absolutely correct. Each nation should independently establish its own environmental goals as opposed to having a global bureaucracy telling them what they must do while the largest polluters in the planet buy their way through policy and law by purchasing carbon credits that encourage more pollution of the environment.

We continue negotiating to take adopt vague agreements only to save the multilateral system, so that it gives governments some legitimacy on the issue, but that can no longer continue, explained  Llorenç Serrano, former environment secretary of CCOO, when questioned about this issue. José Manuel Entrecanales, president of Acciona, said referring to the poor results achieved in Durban, South Africa, in 2011, that “the lack of agreement on climate change shows that politicians do not have a strong mandate from their constituents. The fault is ours,” he said.

“While negotiators struggled to get even a modest agreement, the UN is not the only key player,” said Nathaniel Keohane, from the Environmental Defense Fund. “The announcement of the US and China before the summit did provide a fundamental change in establishing the division of responsibilities between developed nations and developing countries to produce a convergence of effort. But in Lima a lot of developing countries retreated,” said Elliot Diringer of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.

The result is that the United Nations considers that it is already clear that the promises of action to limit warming to be talked about in Paris in December 2015 are below the goal of preventing a temperature rise of 2 degrees above the preindustrial era.

“We’ll have to work a lot,” said French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius of the task ahead for Paris.

Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute. Read more about Luis.

California: Worst Drought In 1,200 years

Dry cracked earth is visible on the banks of Shasta Lake at Holiday Harbor on August 30, 2014 in Lakehead, California. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images/AFP)

Dry cracked earth is visible on the banks of Shasta Lake at Holiday Harbor on August 30, 2014 in Lakehead, California. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images/AFP)

The state of California is going through the worst drought in at least 1,200 years, the US scientist said after analyzing tree rings.

It’s now drier in California than during the 1930s dustbowl and the historic droughts of the 1970s and 1980s, a study published by the American Geophysical Union said.

The scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute and the University of Minnesota used tree rings to reconstruct the Golden State’s temperature and precipitation history back to 800 A.D., Washington Post reports.

The method they applied was simple and vivid, with tighter rings on California’s oldest trees meaning dryer years.

A car sits in dried and cracked earth of what was the bottom of the Almaden Reservoir on January 28, 2014 in San Jose, California. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images/AFP)

A car sits in dried and cracked earth of what was the bottom of the Almaden Reservoir on January 28, 2014 in San Jose, California. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images/AFP)

During the 1,200-year period, the researchers identified 66 droughts, which lasted between three to nine years.

But none of them were as bad as the drought that started in California in 2012 and still far from coming to an end.

Moreover, the trees revealed that 2014 turned out to be the worst single drought year in the surveyed period.

cali drought

The current dry season was caused not only by low below-average precipitation, but also by record-breaking heat, which intensified the drought by around 36 per cent, the scientists said.

According to US drought Monitor, more than 50 per cent of California’s territory remained in “exceptional drought” during the week, with the whole state being in drought.

Water shortages as well as crop and pasture losses may cost the state 2.2 billion this year, with 17,100 jobs lost and 428,000 acres of land left unplanted, Bloomberg reports.

More than a year’s supply of water has gone missing in the state’s reservoirs, with even record rains, falling in California this week being unable to seriously affect the situation.

It’ll take at least several unusually wet years to regain the losses.

Source: RT


What Is Big Oil Doing At The Lima Climate Talks?

cop20 peru

The COP20, sponsored by the United Nations and transnational corporations, has the biggest carbon footprint ever.

LIMA – You would think that the Lima Climate Talks would be discussions among scientists and policy makers, that they would be candid conversations about how to improve energy usage and significantly reduce environmental pollution.

Well, that will have to be left for another climate talk, or perhaps another era in human history.

Even though Big Oil is one of the most significant polluters worldwide – ask Exxon and BP – representatives from the most powerful energy companies are and have been at every environmental gathering since Rio 1992.

You are probably asking yourself what in the world are representatives from the most dangerous industry in the world, one that rivals geo-engineering and GMO polluters, at the Climate Talks in Peru.

Is it even possible to negotiate ways to have a cleaner planet when the polluters, those who only seek profit for their shareholders and themselves are at the negotiating table?

For starters, these guys are not there to negotiate, but to take care of their interests.

Oil is, and will be the main source of energy for industries the globe over for a while, but these guys should not be able to participate in discussing how to have a cleaner planet.

They are not interested in a cleaner planet. If they were, they would have not caused so much damage to the environment as they have done. If they were really interested in a cleaner planet, they would be investing as much money as they pile up to oppose the emergence of new technologies and real environmental campaigns – not fake global warming alarmism.

Now, it is important to understand why they are there.

The reason is, they finance the fake environmental movement. That’s right. Those people asking for a significant cut in CO2 emissions and who blame humans for global warming are in bed with BP, Shell, Exxon and Chevron, among others. Environmentalism is a big business, and it is funded and directed by the heads of industry who control the most important monopolies.

“Official lore from the environmental movement’s publications asserts that the movement emerged from the grass roots. The truth, however, is that funding and policy lines comes from the most prestigious institutions of the Eastern Liberal Establishment, centered around the New York Council on Foreign Relations, and including the Trilateral commission, the Aspen Institute, and a host of private family foundations.” report Rogelio A. Maduro and Ralf Schauerhammer in chapter 10 of their book The Holes in the Ozone Scare: The Scientific Evidence That the Sky Isn’t Falling.

Surprised? Don’t be! That is the nature of corporate monopoly and bureaucracy.

But there is more. According to the authors, the current environmentalist movement, to which millions of people subscribe simply because they do not know what else to do, has very clear intentions for the present and the future of the western world. Unfortunately, those intentions are not the best for humanity. “This network of foundations created environmentalism, moving it from a radical fringe movement into a mass movement to support the institutionalization of antiscience, no-growth policies at all levels of government and public life. As prescribed in the Council on Foreign Relations 1980s Project book series, environmentalism has been used against America’s economy, against such targets as high-technology agriculture and the nuclear power industry. This movement is fundamentally a green pagan religion in its outlook.”

As people at the Climate Talks in Lima and previous events sponsored by the United Nations have seen, the motto used by the corporate-led environmentalist movement – “saving the Earth” – while disguising itself as “non- for profits” that seek to represent the “public interest”, is all a sham, indeed.

Each and every environmental coalition is made up of thousands of little environmental groups, which are directly or indirectly financed by monies from the UN or big corporations. How would they manage to grab billions of dollars a year in funding if it wasn’t for the large contributions from corporate interests?

Take for example the Global Tomorrow Coalition, which is composed by over 100 environmental and population-control groups. None of these groups have a budget that is lower than 3 million dollars a year.

Research compiled by Maduro and Schauerhammer, shows that as far back as the 1980s, 35 foundations were responsible for heavily investing and literally financing the operations of two powerful so-called environmental groups: The Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Back in the early 1990s, available public sources showed that the total revenues of the environmentalist movement were more than $8.5 billion per year. How much do you think their budget is today?

Put simply, the environmental movement is owned by a club of billionaires and their tax-free foundations, who, through their financial contributions, control the Environmental Movement to a point where even government agencies seem unable to do their job independently.

In the summer of 2014, a report released by the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, confirmed the notion that establishment organizations such as the WWF and to a great extent Greenpeace, EarthJustice, the US National Wildlife Federation, the Nature’s Conservancy, the Sierra Club Foundation and the Union of Concerned Scientists received almost 8 billion dollars from these groups.

While skeptics of the environmentalist movement are labeled as puppets of “big oil”, those who are indeed controlled by the oil industry, the UN and tax-exempted foundations owned by a few global corporate leaders fill their pockets with tons of cash. The baseless accusations pinned on anyone who opposes the anthropogenic warming hoax is nothing more than a projection of their own greed.

While climate alarmists appeal to the large dumbed-down masses so they demand change from their political leaders, the environmentalists are getting paid off to push the fake “save the Earth” agenda movement whose only goal is to limit development, keep people poor in third world nations and to drastically reduce populations.

As Chris Williams, from Climate & Capitalism puts it, the current wave of fake environmentalists are just a group of great tacticians and great strategists. They are great with ” the science and art of using a fighting force to the best advantage”, while conducting a large-scale campaign against the very same masses of people who they have recruited to put pressure on political leaders so they pass legislation that favours large transnational corporations.

If you did not understand it before, now you know why ‘big oil’ and other dominant corporations are at the ‘negotiating table’ in Lima, Peru. Every single document signed in past climate meetings had the seal of approval of those corporations. If it did not, it would have not been accepted. They own the environmentalist movement. No decisions that favors the planet will be made until these people are kicked out the room and that is never going to happen unless environmental organizations, especially the larger ones, stop accepting funds from corporate donors and philanthropic tax-free foundations.

Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute. Read more about Luis.


Climate Alarmists Want To Limit How Much Carbon “A Human Can Emit”


Is payment for breathing next? They argue that in this way it would be possible to set a limit for each nation.

LIMA: As the amount of people who see no threat from global warming grows almost at the same rate as ice sheets in the poles, there are still those who ignore science and intend to drive their political interests above all else.

This week, climate alarmists meeting in Lima, Peru, have proposed to limit the amount of CO2 that each person emits as a way to abruptly curb how much CO2 each nation is allowed to release into the atmosphere.

The proposal has many people thinking whether the next step in the climate alarmism campaign will be a proposal to establish a ‘toll’ that would charge people for breathing.

For many years, politicians and bureaucrats have considered taxing people by the amount of miles they drive and even taxing farmers for the amount of flatulence their farm animals release into the air, so what is stopping the same people from proposing imposing a tax on breathing?

According  to the Minister for Environmental Affairs of Costa Rica, Édgar Gutiérrez, the head of the delegation that is circulating the proposal to impose a limit on personal emissions, the plan has been discussed “since the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, but it has not been possible for populations to change their consumption. If we can agree on a target that affects the individual, then it will the person’s responsibility to limit his or her emission to two tons of carbon per year,” Gutierrez said.

The kind of draconian measures such as the one presented by Costa Rica are not new. In fact, they are abundant though intelligently disguised as policies that ‘make sense’ in official UN documents such as Agenda 21 and the 1992 UN Biodiversity Assessment which was agreed upon during the Rio meeting.

Climate alarmism contrasts with global perception

In contrast to the ongoing campaign that blames all of humanity for the debunked notion of we are all responsible for global warming, while attempting to impose limits to human progress, especially in developing nations, a new globally conducted survey sponsored by the United Nations, the Overseas Development Institute and Ipsos Mori published this week, once again shows that global warming or climate change, as climate alarmists like to call it, is of no concern for most of the 6.5 million people who participated in the poll.

“MY World is a United Nations global survey for citizens. Working with partners, we aim to capture people’s voices, priorities and views, so world leaders can be informed as they begin the process of defining the next set of global goals to end poverty,” explains the website that contains the results of the survey. Not surprisingly, climate change appears dead last on a list of 16 issues that were presented as priorities to those who participated in the poll.

Among the most concerning issues at the top of the result are education, healthcare, jobs, honesty in government and food availability. In total, 4,412,589 people cited education as the main concern, while 3,721,392 responded that healthcare was the most pressing issue. Only 1,354,059 people mentioned climate change as an important issue.

One important detail obtained from the survey is that from the 6,657,495 million people from around the world who participated in the survey, almost 4 million are between the ages of 16 and 30. This is particularly important because those people are the ones who will soon inherit the destiny of humanity in each of their corners of the world, and if they are already aware that the threat of global warming is a hoax and concentrate their efforts in real, more pressing issues, perhaps humanity does have a chance for a better future.

The number of women and men who participated in the survey was virtually 50-50, with 3,398,578 men and 3,200,527 women in total.

It is also important to point out that almost 3 million people who participated in the survey held a level of education above high school and many of them went into higher education. This means that people who are more concerned with education, healthcare, jobs and other real issues are fairly well educated to take over the destiny of humanity into their hands.

Contrast between fabricated science and reality

Not only are people more aware that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, but reality also shows otherwise.

One of the pinnacle arguments offered by the so-called scientific community that alerted us about the dire consequences of not taxing us all to ‘fix’ climate change was that ocean levels would rise to swallow whole coastal areas. However, a recent large snow storms in the northern hemisphere have chilled their argument.

As pointed out by Somehow Reasonable, “Record setting cold and snow, not global warming, became the norm in November 2014.”

Four Thousand eight hundred fifty six locations in the U.S. set daily record low-high temperatures in November and another 4,121 saw record lows at least one day in November,” reports the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

“For the U.S. as a whole, Rutgers University Global Snow Lab reports, North America snow cover reached a record extent for mid-November (15.35 million square kilometers), crushing the old record from 1985 by over 2 million square kilometers,” reports H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., who is the managing editor of Environment & Climate News and a research fellow for environment and energy policy at The Heartland Institute.

Today, Britons are being warned about the coming ‘Weather Bomb’. “The Met Office has issued a number of amber and yellow weather warnings as the cold front sweeps in, bringing winds of up to 80mph,” reports Yahoo News.

A fact that does remain a constant in the climate alarmism movement is the lack of mention, both in documents and during official events such as the COP20 now being held in Peru, is the consequences that weather modification has had in climate patterns. There is no mention of chemtrails, solar radiation management and other programs that have been running for decades and which are responsible for ‘unexplainable’ phenomena such as the continuous mass drought in the state of California.

According to a World Meteorological Organization report, 42 nations have active weather modification programs and many other countries are developing new geo-engineering programs themselves. Despite abundant documentation that show patents and active programs, the climate alarmists are still trying to scare the population with made-up science, as supposed to warning the world about the impending threats generated by geo-engineering programs.

Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute. Read more about Luis.

Food Affected By Fukushima Disaster Harms Animals, Even At Low-Levels Of Radiation

pale blue grass butterflies

Butterflies eating food collected from cities around the Fukushima nuclear meltdown site showed higher rates of death and disease, according to a study published in the open access journal BMC Evolutionary Biology.

Researchers fed groups of pale blue grass butterflies (Zizeeria maha) leaves from six different areas at varying distance from the disaster site, and then investigated the effects on the next generation. Feeding offspring the same contaminated leaves as their parents magnified the effects of the radiation. But offspring fed uncontaminated leaves were mostly like normal butterflies, and the authors say this shows that decontaminating the food source can save the next generation.

The 2011 meltdown at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant released substantial amounts of radiation into the surrounding area. Humans were evacuated, and no significant health effects have been reported, but the scientists from the University of the Rukyus, Okinawa, Japan, are studying the impact on the area’s wildlife.

In a previous study, the group suggested that eating leaves with high levels of radiation seriously affected the pale grass blue butterfly. Their new study investigated the effect of eating leaves with much lower levels of radiation, which had been collected in 2012, a year after the disaster, from six areas that were 59km to 1760km from the site.

Their study showed that even in these comparatively low levels of radiation, there was an observable difference in the butterflies’ lifespan, depending on the dose of caesium radiation in their food, which ranged from 0.2 to 161bq/kg. For comparison, leaves collected in the months after the disaster around 20km from the site had radiation in the thousands of Bq/kg. Butterflies fed leaves with higher caesium radiation doses were also smaller and some had morphological abnormalities such as unusually shaped wings.

Professor Joji Otaki, University of Rukyus, says: “Wildlife has probably been damaged even at relatively low doses of radiation, and our research showed that sensitivity varies among individuals within a species.”

In the second part of the experiment, the researchers looked at the next generation of butterflies. These were split into groups fed an uncontaminated diet, and those fed the same diets as their parents.

The offspring fed an uncontaminated diet had a similar lifespan, irrespective of the amount of radiation their parents had been exposed to. The only effect seemed to be that those whose parents had been exposed to higher caesium diets had smaller forewings. But those fed the same contaminated diet as their parents showed magnified effects.

The authors say that this shows that the effects of eating contaminated food can be significant, and that they can be passed on, but are minimized if the next generation have an unaffected diet.

Professor Otaki says: “Our study demonstrated that eating contaminated foods could cause serious negative effects on organisms. Such negative effects may be passed down the generations. On the bright side, eating non-contaminated food improves the negative effects, even in the next generation.”


Source: Stone Hearth News