New Climate Change Denial Groups Need Your Input
The Copenhagen climate change conference is coming and, quite frankly, I don’t expect it to change a thing: the focus will still be on ensuring economic growth in the face of a heating Earth, and most of the money pledged will go into building walls (both metaphorical and actual) to make people feel like they are being protected from the striking changes in environmental conditions expected when the full impact of climate change starts to hit us. If anything is agreed then it won’t be anything like enough to even slow down the impact of climate change, let alone stop it — as leaders in a world dominated by consumption and industrial might, the decision makers at Copenhagen can either say goodbye to power and the way of life they have become accustomed to; or they can make us all think everything is going to be fine in their hands.
That’s my position, and it isn’t going to change: you have my word. On the other hand, there are an increasing number of good people who really do want to change the way that they live; oridinary people who are growing increasingly restless and just need a bit of help to guide them down the road out of the industrial, consuming way of life. These are the people that the latest climate change denial groups, CO2 Is Green and Plants Need CO2, are determined to push back into the wheels of the machine.
Both of them are fronted by H. Leighton Steward, a geologist and wetland geographer who has taken a recent interest in denying the science of climate change (remember, even the conservative IPCC are more than 90% sure that [civilized] humans are behind the suddenly changing climate). He has the following biography (my emphasis):
Leighton Steward is a geologist, environmentalist, author, and retired energy industry executive. He has written about the reasons for the loss of much of the Mississippi River delta (Louisiana’s National Treasure) and has given advice on how the nation can achieve “no net loss” of wetlands in the future; advice that has been accepted by the EPA and U. S. Corps of Engineers. Leighton was lead author on a book about nutrition and health (Sugar Busters) that gave advice on how to lose weight and prevent and or treat diabetes. The book became a #1 New York Times Best seller for sixteen weeks and made a significant contribution to the changes that have occurred regarding the availability of no-sugar-added, higher fiber, and low-glycemic products in the super markets. More recently, he has written a book (Fire, Ice and Paradise) that is an endeavor to educate the non-scientist about the many causes of global climate change so that the reader will be better prepared to understand what they hear, see, and read about in the media and from the politicians. In recognition of his many environmental efforts, Leighton has received numerous environmental awards, including the regional EPA Administrator’s Award for environmental excellence.
He is Chairman of the Board of The Institute for the Study of Earth and Man at SMU, was Chairman of the National Wetlands Coalition, and was twice Chairman of the Audubon Nature Institute. Leighton currently serves on the boards or boards of visitors of the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, EOG Resources, The Buffalo Bill Historical Center, the Southwest Research Institute, and is an emeritus member of the Tulane University board.
Leighton’s current interest lies in helping to educate the general public and the politicians about the tremendous benefits of carbon dioxide (CO2) as it relates to the plant and animal kingdoms and their related ecosystems and habitats, and the general health of humanity.
That biography, taken from the site, “Plants Need CO2” conveniently forgets to mention a few key things, which are elucidated so well by this more objective version, from the Forbes website:
————————————————————
H. Leighton Steward
Director
EOG Resources, Incorporated
Houston , TX
Sector: BASIC MATERIALS / Independent Oil & Gas
74 Years Old
Mr. Steward is author-partner of Sugar Busters, LLC, a provider of seminars, books and products related to helping people follow a healthy and nutritious lifestyle. He retired from Burlington Resources, Inc., an oil and gas exploration, production and development company, in 2000, where he had served as Vice Chairman since 1997. Mr. Steward is former Chairman of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association and the Natural Gas Supply Association, and is currently an honorary director of the American Petroleum Institute.
————————————————————
Isn’t it strange that he missed out so many things that would link him to the oil and gas industry so intimately; aspecially the API which is one of the most active climate change denial advocacy groups in the world, and whose 1998 Global Science Communications Plan was leaked to DeSmogBlog. Among the explosive statements contained in this pro-oil plan were the following words:
Unless “climate change” becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts. It will be necessary to establish measurements for the science effort to track progress towards achieving the goal and strategic success.
“Victory” was essentially to be achieved when the public were utterly confused about the realities of climate change, and thus could be manipulated to support the views of the oil and gas industry — the “strategic success”.
H. Leighton Steward is a director of this organisation, yet he describes himself as an “environmentalist”.
Given the rather inauspicious motives of the two groups, CO2 Is Green and Plants Need CO2 it’s clear that they are dangerous. I encourage you to spend a little time navigating the sites and seeing exactly how much peer-reviewed science they quote in defence of their position: you will find none. What you will find are lots of former oil cronies and PR companies employed by the oil and gas industry. One of these PR companies is The Patriot Group, whose Principal, Ryan Gravatt has set up a Facebook Group on behalf of Plants Need CO2.
In fact, Facebook is a major part of the efforts of these groups: the CO2 Is Green Facebook Group is rather slick, and has been expertly managed so that “discussions” are filtered to different tabs, and “fans” are banned from posting should they say anything too challenging.
This is where you come in. In order to counter the toxic messages these groups are putting around (remember, they use no objective science and are funded by the oil industry), there are two really good things you could do:
1) Repost the videos and links to their web sites with a clear message that these groups are a complete joke and are surely hoaxes because they are so laughable. Make the same kinds of comments on their YouTube videos and channels:
http://www.youtube.com/user/co2isgreen
http://www.youtube.com/user/plantsneedco2
2) Join the Facebook groups and cause havoc. Post contrary comments and links (if you are allowed to) everywhere:
CO2 Is Green: http://www.facebook.com/pages/CO2-is-Green/129006936661
Plants Need CO2: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=115687686620
Have fun!
.
Keith Farnish is an environmental blogger and campaigner who has written a book which might help fix this mess, called “Time’s Up! An Uncivilized Solution To A Global Crisis.“
Sacred Demise by Carolyn Baker – A Review
I’m staring at a bit of a dog-eared wreck, to be honest; but it’s the words that matter, providing I can still read them. The thing is, my copy of Carolyn Baker’s Sacred Demise has followed me around on walks, road journeys, train trips, in the rain, in the sun, under trees, over hills and in dirty streets littered with Coke cans and paper. I had to finish it, despite it not being an obvious thing of beauty; despite it being a book that I learnt to fear as much as embrace with love and empathy – some things are just necessary, like hugging your children and eating your greens.
Sacred Demise is not an easy book to read; for sure, Carolyn’s words trip across the page, often with a delightful spring in their step, but then without warning they cross your path and send you flying into the nearest ditch, leaving you wondering how you ended up there. The idea of accepting the end of civilization as inevitable can be approached pragmatically, in the style of Dmitry Orlov, which is ideal for those who are mentally prepared; but for the vast majority of us who still identify – deep down – with the culture we were born into, you don’t only need rope and handholds to descend the Dark Mountain: you need the will to get you through the journey.
This is not a book to read quickly. Do it right and for the most part you will be reflecting on and writing about what you have just read. Each chapter ends with a set of questions that take into account the previous text, and which ask you to consider your feelings and physical situation – in effect, how ready are you? From a technical point of view, Sacred Demise could have been laid out in a manner that emphasises the importance of this self-reflection process better: perhaps a separate workbook, larger pages for journaling – but to give Carolyn her due, she does provide note space, and the book is, to all intents and purposes, self published (yes, I was rather surprised too).
One thing that Carolyn Baker does do very well is express complex and emotive ideas in an easy to understand way, far better – if I may be so bold – than some of the writers that she quotes from. She does have an occasional tendency to present ideas of faith as fact, for instance in quoting Eckhart Tolle, she states: “While it is true that we are more than our bodies,” which is a fine topic for discussion, but not something that would be welcome on the table of many modern philosophers. There is also an element of parochialism in some of the text, as though the civilized world consists of America and nothing else – more of an irritant than a major flaw, being English myself, but nevertheless something that could alienate non-American readers.
But these are minor flaws in a superb book. Sacred Demise is little short of seminal; the start, perhaps, of a way of writing and speaking that is paramount at the end of the Age of Empire. There are far too many lucid and memorable moments to quote them all, but if I had to choose a passage that sums up what Sacred Demise means to me, it would be this, from the cathartic chapter, “Hospice as Holy Ground”:
Had civilization not spent the last five thousand years attempting to murder the indigenous self inherent in all humans, we would not have to be told, as native peoples and the more-than-human world do not, that most of the time, life on this planet is challenging, painful, scary, sad, and sometimes enraging. What our indigenous ancestors had and still have to sustain them through the dark times was ritual and community. Our work is to embrace and refine both instead of intractably clinging to a “positive attitude” in the face of out-of-control, incalculable abuse and devastation.
Had I read this at the beginning of the book, then I may have given up there and then, but the aim of Sacred Demise is not a quick grab-you-by-the-arms and haul you up into the safety of the tree canopy; instead, it is a journey, and a damn hard one at that if you are not prepared to open up and accept the fate of civilization. This means that this book is perhaps not the first thing you should read when approaching the subject of ecological collapse and your place in the future; on the other hand, if you don’t read Sacred Demise then you had better be ready for the shock of your life when the collapse comes.
Keith Farnish, author of “Time’s Up! An Incivilized Solution to a Global Crisis“
Donald Trump Is A Money-Obsessed Prick (Come On Don, Sue Me!)
It only takes a small thorn to hurt a lot, especially if that thorn is pushed into a very sensitive part of your body. One day, one of these thorns is going to hurt Donald Trump so much that he realises what a supercilious, money-obsessed prick he is being, and there are plenty of people, not just in the north-east of Scotland who are working to get them in the right place. But for now, Trump doesn’t worry about thorns, for he has bulldozers, earth-movers, concrete mixers and all the chemicals he could wish for in order to liquidate and destroy an irreplacible piece of the Scottish coast so that he can construct his dream golf course.
More than that, he has the lascivious, wet-lipped attention of a host of Scottish politicians, mouths open waiting for the dew-drops of wealth to plop onto their tongues from their sugar-daddy Trump. He gets whatever he wants because he is very rich indeed. The little people don’t stand a chance, and the wildlife and landscape will be changed according to Trump’s grand plan.
Here’s a little background from a previous article I wrote on The Sietch:
I have just got off the phone after speaking to Neil Hobday, the Project Director for the proposed Trump Golf links golf resort development in eastern Scotland. I would like to say that he seemed a reasonable man, but that would be untrue because despite trying to interest him in the views of the rest of life on the irrepairable damage that will be caused to 1400 acres of pristine sand dune habitat, he was clearly stuck in the lie that the economy was far more important than our life support system. He really believed that tourism and leisure was more important than habitat – a view that is shared by most of us in this culture of consumption. Poor guy: brainwashed from birth to be morally bankrupt.
So, here’s the deal Neil. You go ahead with the project, described on the Trump Golf Scotland web site thus: “The development will also include a luxurious clubhouse with sea views, a 450 room, five-star resort hotel with associated conference and banquet facilities, full-service spa, tennis courts and recreational facilities, a state-of-the-art golf academy, maintenance facility with turf grass research center, 36 luxury four- and eight-bedroom golf lodges, as well as 950 holiday homes with sea views. Future plans include additional residential units.” Go on, tell Mr Trump with his billions of dollars in property investments, private jets, yachts, golf courses, pesticides, bulldozers, irrigation, herbicides and worldview about as compatible with the world as a gun aimed at a cat’s head that Keith said it was okay. Go on, roll out the fairways, greens and tees, have a good time breaking the ecological web.
I forgot to mention that a deal has two sides to it. So, you go ahead with the development, but Trump has to choose one member of his family to be sacrificed, and do it himself. I’m being generous here – imagine the families of the animals being torn out of their homes, what do you imagine they will feel?
The project moves on in haste, and not even the fact that a great chunk of land Trump wants for his expanding empire is owned by four people who have no intention of ever selling it: the little people have to understand that when so much money is at stake, it’s a simple case of utilising Compulsory Purchase Orders, and there is nothing the little people can do. Never mind that Compulsory Purchase is a process reserved for wartime and the development of “critical national infrastructure” – godammit! this is critical; this is a billionaire’s golf course!
Donald Trump has won another crucial victory in his bid to build the “world’s greatest golf course” after planners approved his plans to expand the £1bn project onto land which is owned by his fiercest opponents.
The billionaire property developer has been allowed to exploit a quirk of Scottish planning law after Aberdeenshire council gave him outline permission to develop six plots of land he does not yet own, including the 25-acre property owned by Michael Forbes, his most famous critic.
The decision immediately provoked a furious row, with affected landowners promising to take legal action against the council to prevent it taking the next step – trying to seize their land using compulsory purchase powers.
The move brings Trump a step closer to eventually demolishing Forbes’s home, which sits at the heart of his planned resort, next to a proposed golfing academy and the second hole of the main 18-hole championship course, and within sight of the proposed five-star hotel.
Forbes’s land includes his mother’s static caravan, old out-buildings and rusting tractors used for fishing off the nearby coast, but the salmon fisherman has repeatedly rejected Trump’s offers, leading the tycoon to lambast Forbes and condemn his property as “a disgrace” two years ago.
Speaking from his home, Forbes said he was not surprised by the outcome of today’s hearing and restated that he would not be selling his property.
“I hope it goes to compulsory purchase now, I want it to go to compulsory purchase because it will drag on for years.
“They won the public inquiry because they said they had enough land, they didn’t need anyone else’s land, so there should be another public inquiry.
“It’s a vengeance thing now, it’s become personal to Trump I think. He wants everybody who went against him all out, because he’s a child.”
Only two owners of the six plots of land affected – the council itself, and a driving school instructor who lives next to Forbes – are believed to want to sell.
Trump now has to persuade councillors to use their compulsory purchase orders to seize the other four plots, including Forbes’s land and the house at Hermit Point owned by the anti-Trump campaigner David Milne. Many councillors are thought to be deeply unhappy at the proposal, which is expected to be debated by Aberdeenshire council next month.
Forbes was not at the hearing, but another affected resident, Susan Munro, 56, who has lived at Leyton Cottage for 28 years, said Trump had promised her that he did not need her land. “The last thing Mr Trump said to me was, ‘Susan, I don’t need your house, I don’t need your land, I have plenty, we’ll be good neighbours’.
“It’s been my home for almost 30 years, but the council will just give in to Trump. It’s our heritage, a protected bit of land, I think it’s a disgrace we sold out to the Yanks.”
Milne, who owns an old coastguard station close to Trump’s proposed timeshare blocks, said he and his neighbours would challenge the decision in court.
“My home is not for sale, my intention at the end of the day is to leave there horizontally in a box. I can’t make it any clearer than that,” he said.
He said the Scottish government’s decision last December to grant Trump permission for his resort “specifically excluded” his land and the other contested plots, and that Aberdeenshire planning department had been wrong to say that Trump did not need to provide environmental impact studies to support his new applications.
The developer’s son, Donald Trump Jr, said he was “very happy at the decision” and that the family would try to reach a deal with the residents. Trump’s consultants “have been tasked to develop and come up with the best masterplan possible and that entails these pieces of land. They are critical to the process,” he said.
George Sorial, the Trump organisation’s managing director of international development, said the organisation was in talks with the property owners “The discussions are ongoing, we are still talking to all the neighbours and that’s a process. Irrespective of what happened today, that will be ongoing. If we can resolve this amicably and fairly, that’s what we intend on doing.”
The two men made an unexpected visit to Forbes’s estate today. The pair arrived in casual clothes and driving a green farm buggy, but after an anxious wait at the door, they were chased off by Forbes who unleashed a torrent of abuse at them. Sorial said as they left: “This is what we have to deal with.”
Oh, Sorial, how very naive of you. Forbes is not the only person resisting this; from his example so much more resistance can flow. Try this campaign for size (and for anyone else reading this, join the campaign!)
Link: http://www.trippinguptrump.com
Waxman-Markey Bill: A Suicidal Move For Humanity
If I wasn’t such a cynic, I swear I wouldn’t have believed my eyes when I saw Greenpeace on the same side as the American Petroleum Institute and the National Pork Producers Council. But then I looked in the other column, and found that the Sierra Club and the Union Of Concerned Scientists were siding with Rio Tinto and DuPont. What the hell!?
The title of this article is a big giveaway, but that doesn’t make the split between different interest groups any less remarkable: take a look at http://maplight.org/map/us/bill/83265/default for yourself.
It’s really difficult to summarise Waxman-Markey, or the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 in a few sentences, but David at The Good Human has done a decent job, so if you want to read what it’s all about then go here first. But why would a Bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions cause such a remarkable alignment of apparently opposing interests? The clue is in the subtitle:
To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy.
Of the four key points, only one of them indicates a desire to protect the natural environment in any way; the other three, in order: promote economic growth, promote economic growth and promote economic growth. The main supporters of the Bill are therefore, unsurprisingly, all those companies and lobby groups that sit in the mainstream of the global market, among them some of the most destructive companies ever to disgrace the planet. In the best traditions of greenwash, the “environmental” supporters are largely organisations that have historically been comfortable working with these corporate monsters.
“So what’s wrong with economic growth?” you may ask. You can go to The Earth Blog for the full story, but here is a quick extract:
Trade is synonymous with Economic activity in the modern, globalized world. Unlike the self-sufficient Amazonian tribe that finds all it needs within walking distance, nations are no longer content to remain within their Economic borders: they cannot gain the diversity and level of growth they “need” simply by using (and exhausting) what they have, especially not if their consumers have become accustomed to a materially high standard of living. They must trade to create the necessary flow of materials, goods and capital to feed a growing Economy. More that just this, though, as corporations demand transparent borders and global channels, they – not the national governments – end up dictating the way the Economy operates: workers in China, raw materials in Uganda, oil in Saudi Arabia, customers in the USA – no problem! Who needs local economies when you can have a global Economy?
So Trade is the measure of the strength of the Economy and, as only a person immersed in an ocean of denial could refute, the production of Carbon Dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere, the oceans and the exhausted biosphere is a direct function of the power of that economic machine.
The listed opponents are those groups that either oppose any attempt to cut greenhouse gases (which makes them look pretty stupid, considering the nature of some of the supporters) or have seen through the pseudo-environmental veneer of the Bill and stared into its pro-industrial, inhuman heart. You only have to consider the trivial greenhouse gas cuts that are being bandied around — anywhere between 12% and 17% by 2020 — in relation to the urgent need to cut emissions by a minimum of 95% in the USA by 2030, to realise that support of Waxman-Markey is support for the continued, irreversible destruction of the global ecology and thus humanity itself.
James Hansen puts it like this:
Burning just the oil and gas sitting in known fields will drive atmospheric CO2 well over 400 ppm and ignite a devil’s cauldron of melted icecaps, bubbling permafrost, and combustible forests from which there will be no turning back. But if we cut off the largest source of carbon dioxide, coal, we have a chance to bring CO2 back to 350 ppm and still lower through agricultural and forestry practices that increase carbon storage in trees and soil.
The essential step, then, is to phase out coal emissions over the next two decades. And to declare off limits artificial high-carbon fuels such as tar sands and shale while moving to phase out dependence on conventional petroleum as well.
This requires nothing less than an energy revolution based on efficiency and carbon-free energy sources. Alas, we won’t get there with the Waxman-Markey bill, a monstrous absurdity hatched in Washington after energetic insemination by special interests.
For all its “green” aura, Waxman-Markey locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands it with a Ponzi-like “cap-and-trade” scheme.
As I explained in “Time’s Up!” there are, in fact, no solutions to our terrible position that lie within the realms of Industrial Civilization: the addiction this system has to economic growth means that it has to effectively gut itself before it can ever be sustainable; nevertheless, a good start would be to recognise that nothing that is being supported by such chemical and carbon monoliths as DuPont, Ford and Alcoa, has any chance of giving us a survivable future.
If you still support Waxman-Markey after this, then I can only assume you have a death wish.
The Coming Insurrection: A Tiny Book That Could Change The World
There is such a thing as “word exhaustion”, the feeling of weariness that comes over a reader when they feel that a piece of text has outstayed its welcome and the author should probably learn at what point the reader is likely to lose interest. I have a two volume version of “The World As Will And Representation” by Schopenhauer on my bookcase, which runs to 1200 pages — I barely made my way through the explanation of what The Will entails before giving up; The Coming Insurrection is ninety pages long, and is sufficient to start a world-changing revolution.
Written in the aftermath of the 2005 Paris riots by a French group calling themselves The Invisible Committee, The Coming Insurrection really only has one aim: to prepare the burgeoning, but clearly disorientated, radical elements of urban society for a period of rapid social change. In the words of the “authors”:
It is no longer a matter of foretelling the collapse or depicting the possibilities of joy. Whether it comes sooner or later, the point is to prepare for it. It’s not a question of providing a schema for what an insurrection should be, but of taking the possibility of an uprising for what it never should have ceased being: a vital impulse of youth as much as a popular wisdom. If one knows how to move, the absence of a schema is not an obstacle but an opportunity. For the insurgents, it is the sole space that can guarantee the essential: keeping the initiative. What remains to be created, to be tended as one tends a fire, is a certain outlook, a certain tactical fever, which once it has emerged, even now, reveals itself as determinant – and a constant source of determination. Already certain questions have been revived that only yesterday may have seemed grotesque or outmoded; they need to be seized upon, not in order to respond to them definitively, but to make them live.
What is remarkable about this statement, from the introduction, is how self-limiting it appears to be: there are no policies, no agendas, there is no call for collective action or organisation; just a set of statements that declare what is and what must be in the barest, most stripped down manner. Yet, within this austere text is an energy and motivation entirely missing from any of the so-called “programs for change” that are published on an almost annual basis by the social and environmental mainstream. There is also a turn of phrase that is utterly poetic but somehow manages to remain far removed from the romantic visions of the French enlightenment.
Social change was never so clearly, and appetisingly stated.
And perhaps that is what prompted Glenn Beck of Fox News to decry the formerly low-key booklet as a “dangerous leftist book” and “a call to arms for violent revolution”. In his panicky opinion piece, Beck quotes a section from The Coming Insurrection thus:
Take up arms. Do everything possible to make their use unnecessary. There is no such thing as a peaceful insurrection. Weapons are necessary.
What he does not do is quote the rest of the paragraph, which is taken from a relatively small section near the end of the text concerning the need to defend against the almost inevitable militerisation of any government reaction to potential uprising. Had he done so, he would have had to have quoted as follows:
There is no such thing as a peaceful insurrection. Weapons are necessary: it’s a question of doing everything possible to make using them unnecessary. An insurrection is more about taking up arms and maintaining an “armed presence” than it is about armed struggle. We need to distinguish clearly between being armed and the use of arms. Weapons are a constant in revolutionary situations, but their use is infrequent and rarely decisive at key turning points: August 10th 1792, March 18th 1871, October 1917. When power is in the gutter, it’s enough to walk over it.
Because of the distance that separates us from them, weapons have taken on a kind of double character of fascination and disgust that can be overcome only by handling them. An authentic pacifism cannot mean refusing weapons, but only refusing to use them.
In other words: “Accept that weapons may be necessary, but only use them as a last resort.” This is not some mindless rant by gun-toting revolutionaries; it is a beautifully written, carefully thought out digest of a set of pertinent ideas in dire need of communication. French text is sublime at its best, although terrifically difficult to translate while still keeping its original meaning: what I find particularly heartening is the effort that has gone into the English language translation; it still feels French; you can almost smell the damp corners of the squats, and taste the bitter dregs of coffee at the bottom of the cups recently emptied by those people who are likely to have a hand in whatever comes afterwards in their parts of the city.
Of course there are problems, but these are few: uppermost is the bloody-minded determination to remain in the aforementioned squats and abandoned office buildings in order to remove the power base that has turned humanity into an apathetic mass of automata. Those who wish to take up the call in the cities will either be incredibly brave or incredibly foolish; but there are other ways, and this is perhaps the omission that will put many readers off. Those that have to stomach to face the system head-on are to be praised, but not at the expense of those who wish to persue other, less confrontational forms of rebellion.
Less critical, but nevertheless worth mentioning, is the term “Ecology” earlier in the text, which is met with scorn because it is seen to legitimise the separation between nature and humanity. This seems to be no more than a translation issue, for the term “L’Ecologie” in French has been usurped to have the same meaning as the English “Environmentalism”. In this sense the criticism is justified, for the modern environmental movement across the Industrial West has little to do with the ecology that humanity is utterly dependent upon.
Regardless of whether you disagree with the need for fundamental, self-imposed social change or not, The Coming Insurrection needs to be read to be fully understood; it will only take you a short while to read, but like it or not, it will affect you.
To buy the booklet, go to Amazon.com. Alternatively you can read the full text online, or download both the French and English text (in booklet form for printing) from the Support the Tarnac 9 website.
Keith Farnish is author of “Time’s Up! An Uncivilized Solution To A Global Crisis“
RSS XML Feed
