Who Owns the Environmentalist Movement?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

From: 21st Cen­tu­ry, Fall 1992
Who pulls the strings of envi­ron­men­tal groups? The estab­lish­ment fig­ures who fund and con­trol it — from England’s Prince Phillip and the Nether­lands’ Prince Bern­hard, to U.S. cor­po­rate fun­ders like Robert O. Ander­son.

Far from a grass roots move­ment, envi­ron­men­tal­ism is a big busi­ness, fund­ed and direct­ed by the lead­ing fam­i­lies of the U.S. and Euro­pean estab­lish­ments

This arti­cle is adapt­ed from Chap­ter 10 of the Holes in the Ozone Scare: The Sci­en­tif­ic Evi­dence That the Sky Isn’t Falling, pub­lished in June 1992 by 21st Cen­tu­ry and now in its sec­ond print­ing.

Twen­ty-five years ago, those who believed that Moth­er Nature comes first and humankind sec­ond were part of an insignif­i­cant fringe, con­sid­ered rad­i­cal by most Amer­i­cans. These envi­ron­men­tal­ists were vis­i­ble most­ly at the lev­el of the anti­nu­clear street demon­stra­tion, where mar­i­jua­na smoke waft­ed around “Back To Nature” posters on dis­play. Today, how­ev­er, what used to be extrem­ist “envi­ron­men­tal­ist” ide­ol­o­gy has become main­stream, per­me­at­ing Amer­i­can insti­tu­tions at every lev­el, from cor­po­rate board­rooms to the Fed­er­al Reserve, the Con­gress, the White House, the church­es, homes and schools.

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.

No U.N.This net­work of foun­da­tions cre­at­ed envi­ron­men­tal­ism, mov­ing it from a rad­i­cal fringe move­ment into a mass move­ment to sup­port the insti­tu­tion­al­iza­tion of anti-sci­ence, 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. Unless defeat­ed, it will destroy not only the econ­o­my, but also the Judeo-Chris­t­ian cul­ture of the Unit­ed States, and has in fact come per­ilous­ly close to accom­plish­ing this objec­tive already.

The vast wealth of the envi­ron­men­tal­ist groups may come as a shock to most read­ers who believe that these groups are made up of “pub­lic inter­est”, “non­prof­it” orga­ni­za­tions that are mak­ing great sac­ri­fices to save the Earth from a loom­ing dooms­day caused by man’s activ­i­ties. In fact, the envi­ron­men­tal move­ment is one of the most pow­er­ful and lucra­tive busi­ness­es in the world today.

Fund­ing from the Foun­da­tions

There are sev­er­al thou­sand groups in the Unit­ed States today involved in “sav­ing the Earth”. Although all share a com­mon phi­los­o­phy, these groups are of four gen­er­al types: those con­cerned, respec­tive­ly with envi­ron­men­tal prob­lems, pop­u­la­tion con­trol, ani­mal rights, and land trusts. Most of these groups are very secre­tive about their finances, but there is enough evi­dence on the pub­lic record to deter­mine what they are up to.

Table 1 lists the annu­al rev­enues of a sam­pling of 30 envi­ron­men­tal groups. These few groups alone had rev­enues of more than $1.17 bil­lion in 1990. This list, it must be empha­sized, by no means includes all of these envi­ro busi­ness­es. It is esti­mat­ed that there are more than 3,000 so-called non­prof­it envi­ron­men­tal groups in the Unit­ed States today, and most of them take in more than a mil­lion dol­lars a year.

The Glob­al Tomor­row Coali­tion, for exam­ple, is made up of 110 envi­ron­men­tal and pop­u­la­tion-con­trol groups, few of which have rev­enues less than $3 mil­lion per year and land hold­ings of more than 6 mil­lion acres worth bil­lions of dol­lars, is just the best known of more than 900 land trusts now oper­at­ing in the Unit­ed States.

Table 2 lists the grants of 35 foun­da­tions to two heav­i­ly fund­ed and pow­er­ful envi­ron­men­tal­ist groups — the Envi­ron­men­tal Defense Fund and the Nat­ur­al Resources Defense Coun­cil — for the year 1988.

The data avail­able from pub­lic sources show that the total rev­enues of the envi­ron­men­tal­ist move­ment are more than $8.5 bil­lion per year. If the rev­enues of law firms involved in envi­ron­men­tal lit­i­ga­tion and of uni­ver­si­ty envi­ron­men­tal pro­grams were added on, this fig­ure would eas­i­ly dou­ble to more than $16 bil­lion a year. This point is empha­sized in Table 3 which lists the top 15 envi­ron­men­tal groups receiv­ing grants for envi­ron­men­tal law­suits and pro­tec­tion and edu­ca­tion pro­grams.

To get an idea of how much mon­ey this is, the read­er should con­sid­er that this income is larg­er than the Gross Nation­al Prod­uct (GNP) of 56 under­de­vel­oped nations (Table 4). The 48 nations for which the lat­est GNP fig­ures were avail­able have a total pop­u­la­tion of more than 360 mil­lion human beings. Ethiopia, for exam­ple, with a pop­u­la­tion of 47.4 mil­lion human beings, many starv­ing, has a GNP of only $5.7 bil­lion per year. Soma­lia, with 5.9 mil­lion inhab­i­tants, has a GNP that is low­er than the rev­enues of those groups list­ed in Table 1. Not a sin­gle nation in Cen­tral Amer­i­ca or the Caribbean has a GNP greater than the rev­enues of the U.S. envi­ron­men­tal move­ment.

With these mas­sive resources under its con­trol, it is no sur­prise that the envi­ron­men­tal­ist move­ment has been able to set the nation­al pol­i­cy agen­da. There is no trade asso­ci­a­tion in the world with the finan­cial resources and pow­er to match the vast resources of the envi­ron­men­tal lob­by. In addi­tion, it has the sup­port of most of the news media. Oppos­ing views and sci­en­tif­ic refu­ta­tions of envi­ron­men­tal scares are most often sim­ply blacked out.

Where do the envi­ron­men­tal groups get their mon­ey? Dues from mem­bers rep­re­sent an aver­age of 50 per­cent of the income of most groups; most of the rest of the income comes from foun­da­tion grants, cor­po­rate con­tri­bu­tions, and U.S. gov­ern­ment funds. Almost every one of today’s land-trust, envi­ron­men­tal, ani­mal-rights, and pop­u­la­tion-con­trol groups was cre­at­ed with grants from one of the elite foun­da­tions, like the Ford foun­da­tion and the Rock­e­feller Foun­da­tion. These “seed grants” enable the rad­i­cal groups to become estab­lished and start their own fundrais­ing oper­a­tions. These grants are also a seal-of-approval for the oth­er foun­da­tions.

The foun­da­tions also pro­vide fund­ing for spe­cial projects. For exam­ple, the World­watch Insti­tute received $825,000 in foun­da­tion grants in 1988. Almost all of that mon­ey was ear­marked specif­i­cal­ly for the launch­ing of a mag­a­zine, World Watch, which has become influ­en­tial among pol­i­cy-mak­ers, pro­mot­ing the group’s anti­science and antipop­u­la­tion views. The World­watch Institute’s brochures report that it was cre­at­ed by the Rock­e­feller Broth­ers Fund to “alert pol­i­cy mak­ers and the gen­er­al pub­lic to emerg­ing glob­al trends in the avail­abil­i­ty and man­age­ment of resources — both human and nat­ur­al”.

Foun­da­tion grants in the range of $20 to $50 mil­lion for the envi­ron­men­tal cause are no longer a nov­el­ty. In July 1990, the Rock­e­feller Foun­da­tion announced a $50 mil­lion glob­al envi­ron­men­tal pro­gram. The spe­cif­ic pur­pose of the pro­gram is to cre­ate an elite group of indi­vid­u­als in each coun­try whose role is to imple­ment and enforce the inter­na­tion­al envi­ron­men­tal treaties now being nego­ti­at­ed.

Kath­leen Teltsch report­ed in the New York times (July 24, 1990):

As an ini­tial step, the five-year pro­gram will assist hun­dreds of young sci­en­tists and pol­i­cy mak­ers in devel­op­ing coun­tries to cre­ate a world­wide net­work of trained envi­ron­men­tal lead­ers, who will meet reg­u­lar­ly at work­shops, shar­ing infor­ma­tion and dis­cussing strat­e­gy.

Through the inter­na­tion­al net­work, the foun­da­tion wants to encour­age efforts to build envi­ron­men­tal pro­tec­tion into gov­ern­ments’ long-range eco­nom­ic plan­ning. Oth­er major ele­ments would pro­mote the draft­ing of inter­na­tion­al treaties to deal with for­est, land, and water preser­va­tion, and haz­ardous waste dis­pos­al”

The foun­da­tions are run by America’s top patri­cian fam­i­lies. These fam­i­lies chan­nel bil­lions of dol­lars into the orga­ni­za­tions and caus­es they wish to sup­port every year, and there­by exert enor­mous polit­i­cal clout. By decid­ing who and what gets fund­ed, they deter­mine the polit­i­cal issues up front in Wash­ing­ton, which are then vot­ed on by Con­gress. It is all tax free, since the foun­da­tions are tax-exempt. The boards of direc­tors of the large foun­da­tions are made up of some of the most pow­er­ful indi­vid­u­als in this coun­try, and they always over­lap with pow­er bro­kers in gov­ern­ment and indus­try.

One such indi­vid­ual was Thorn­ton F. Brad­shaw, who, until his recent death, was chair­man and pro­gram direc­tor of the MacArthur foun­da­tion and a trustee of the Rock­e­feller Broth­ers Fund and the Con­ser­va­tion Foun­da­tion. At the same time, Brad­shaw was chair­man of the RCA Cor­po­ra­tion and a direc­tor of NBC, the Atlantic Rich­field corp., Cham­pi­on Inter­na­tion­al, and first Boston, Inc. Brad­shaw was also a mem­ber of the Malthu­sian Club of Rome and direc­tor of the Aspen Insti­tute of Human­is­tic Stud­ies, orga­ni­za­tions that have played a crit­i­cal role in spread­ing the “lim­its to growth” ide­ol­o­gy of the envi­ron­men­tal move­ment.

Anoth­er indi­vid­ual per­haps bet­ter known to read­ers is Hen­ry A. Kissinger, for­mer U.s. sec­re­tary of state and a trustee of the Rock­e­feller Broth­ers Fund. For years Kissinger was the direc­tor of the fund’s spe­cial Stud­ies Project, which was in charge of spe­cial oper­a­tions.

Cor­po­rate Con­tri­bu­tions

Anoth­er huge source of con­tri­bu­tions to the envi­ron­men­tal move­ment is pri­vate cor­po­ra­tions. Unlike tax-exempt foun­da­tions, how­ev­er, cor­po­ra­tions are not required by law to report what they do with their mon­ey, so it is dif­fi­cult for an inde­pen­dent researcher to esti­mate the lev­el of fund­ing for the envi­ron­men­tal­ist move­ment from busi­ness and indus­try. There are watch­dog groups, how­ev­er, that have inves­ti­gat­ed these mon­ey flows and come up with star­tling­ly large fig­ures.

For exam­ple, the April 1991 newslet­ter of the Cap­i­tal Research Cen­ter in Wash­ing­ton, D.C., which mon­i­tors trends in cor­po­rate giv­ing, scathing­ly denounces those cor­po­ra­tions it has dis­cov­ered financ­ing the envi­ron­men­tal­ists. The newslet­ter states that oil com­pa­nies “are heavy finan­cial sup­port­ers of the very advo­ca­cy groups which oppose activ­i­ties essen­tial to their abil­i­ty to meet con­sumer needs”.

Fur­ther, it reports, “The Nature Conservancy’s 1990 report reflects con­tri­bu­tions of over $1,000,000 from Amo­co, over $135,000 from Arco, over 4100,000 from BP Explo­ration and BP Oil, more than $3,200,000 (in real estate) from Chevron, over $10,000 from Cono­co and Phillips Petro­le­um and over $260,000 from Exxon”.

From the scant infor­ma­tion pub­licly avail­able (large­ly annu­al reports from the major envi­ron­men­tal groups), one can con­ser­v­a­tive­ly esti­mate that cor­po­ra­tions con­tribute more than $200 mil­lion a year to the envi­ron­men­tal­ist move­ment.

This should come as no sur­prise. Over the past 20 years, giant cor­po­ra­tions have dis­cov­ered that by using envi­ron­men­tal reg­u­la­tions they can bank­rupt their com­pe­ti­tion, the small- and medi­um-sized firms that are the most active and tech­no­log­i­cal­ly inno­v­a­tive part of the U.S. econ­o­my.

Com­pli­ance with envi­ron­men­tal reg­u­la­tions is also big busi­ness. Accord­ing to offi­cial fig­ures from the fed­er­al government’s Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency (EPA), it costs the U.S. econ­o­my $131 bil­lion today to com­ply with envi­ron­men­tal reg­u­la­tions. That fig­ure will have risen to more than $300 bil­lion a year by the year 2000. The expen­di­tures are a net drain on the econ­o­my, but while the nation is bank­rupt­ed, some­one is prof­it­ing from the ser­vices and equip­ment sold. A look at clas­si­fied adver­tise­ments in the papers today reveals that com­pa­nies involved in envi­ron­men­tal com­pli­ance are grow­ing fast. Many of these cor­po­ra­tions are con­tribut­ing to the envi­ron­men­tal move­ment.

Funds from the U.S. Gov­ern­ment

There is a third area of fund­ing for the envi­ron­men­tal move­ment: the U.S. gov­ern­ment itself. As report­ed in detail by Peter Met­zger, for­mer sci­ence edi­tor of the Rocky Moun­tain News, there are now thou­sands of pro­fes­sion­al envi­ron­men­tal­ists ensconced in the U.S. gov­ern­ment. These envi­ron­men­tal­ists chan­nel hun­dreds of mil­lions of dol­lars in grants and favors to envi­ron­men­tal­ists and envi­ron­men­tal groups under all kinds of guis­es. In a 1991 news­pa­per series, colum­nist War­ren Brookes exposed how the fed­er­al Bureau of Land Man­age­ment [BLM] used the Nature Con­ser­van­cy as a land bro­ker, giv­ing the anti­growth orga­ni­za­tion hand­some prof­its.

The EPA doles out huge amounts of mon­ey to envi­ron­men­tal groups to con­duct “stud­ies” of the impact of glob­al warm­ing and ozone deple­tion. Pres­i­dent Bush has made the Glob­al Cli­mate Change pro­gram a pri­or­i­ty, so while the Space Sta­tion, vac­ci­na­tions for chil­dren, and oth­er cru­cial projects have been vir­tu­al­ly elim­i­nat­ed from the bud­get, $1.3 bil­lion is avail­able for stud­ies of how man is foul­ing the Earth. Sim­i­lar­ly, sci­en­tists who chal­lenge glob­al warm­ing and ozone deple­tion as hoax­es do not receive a pen­ny in fund­ing, while those who scream dooms­day receive tens of mil­lions in research grants from the “cli­mate change” pro­gram.

How much fund­ing do the envi­ron­men­tal­ists receive from the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment? Offi­cial­ly, the U.S. gov­ern­ment gives away more than $3 bil­lion a year in grants to sup­port envi­ron­men­tal groups and projects. The actu­al total, how­ev­er, is impos­si­ble to esti­mate. A top-rank­ing offi­cial of the depart­ment of Ener­gy who spent two years attempt­ing to cut off tens of mil­lions of dol­lars in “pork bar­rel” grants going to envi­ron­men­tal­ist groups, dis­cov­ered that for each grant she was elim­i­nat­ing, envi­ron­men­tal­ist moles in the depart­ment added sev­er­al new ones. The offi­cial resigned in dis­gust.

The envi­ron­men­tal­ist cap­ture of Wash­ing­ton, which was con­sol­i­dat­ed dur­ing the Carter admin­is­tra­tion, pro­duced rad­i­cal changes in the Wash­ing­ton, D.C. estab­lish­ment. This process of sub­ver­sion was described by [Peter] Met­zger in a speech giv­en in 1980, titled “Gov­ern­ment-fund­ed Activism: Hid­ing Behind the Pub­lic Inter­est.

For the first time in his­to­ry, a pres­i­den­tial admin­is­tra­tion is fund­ing a polit­i­cal move­ment ded­i­cat­ed to destroy­ing many of the insti­tu­tions and prin­ci­ples of Amer­i­can soci­ety. Activist orga­ni­za­tions, cre­at­ed, trained, and fund­ed at tax­pay­ers’ expense, and claim­ing to rep­re­sent the pub­lic inter­est, are attack­ing our eco­nom­ic sys­tem and advo­cat­ing its replace­ment by a new form of gov­ern­ment. Not only is this being done by means already adju­di­cat­ed as being uncon­sti­tu­tion­al, but it is being done with­out the con­sent of Con­gress, the knowl­edge of the pub­lic, or the atten­tion of the press.

It all began when Pres­i­dent Carter hired indi­vid­u­als promi­nent­ly iden­ti­fied with the protest or adver­sary cul­ture… the appoint­ment [by the Carter admin­is­tra­tion] of sev­er­al hun­dred lead­ing activists to key reg­u­la­to­ry and pol­i­cy-mak­ing posi­tions in Wash­ing­ton result­ed in their use of the fed­er­al reg­u­la­to­ry bureau­cra­cy in order to achieve their per­son­al and ide­o­log­i­cal goals.

Already accom­plished is the vir­tu­al paral­y­sis of new fed­er­al coal leas­ing, con­ven­tion­al elec­tric gen­er­at­ing plant licens­ing in many areas, fed­er­al min­er­als land leas­ing and water devel­op­ment, indus­tri­al export­ing with­out com­plex envi­ron­men­tal hear­ings, and the halt­ing of new nuclear pow­er plant con­struc­tion…

The con­se­quences of those sub-cab­i­net appointees hav­ing then made their own appoint­ments, and those hav­ing then made theirs, so that now, there are thou­sands of [envi­ron­men­tal­ist] rep­re­sen­ta­tives in gov­ern­ment…”

Accord­ing to Met­zger, this new class,

enshrined in the uni­ver­si­ties, the news media, and espe­cial­ly the fed­er­al bureau­cra­cy, has become one of the most pow­er­ful of the spe­cial inter­ests.”

Two Case Stud­ies

Let us con­sid­er two case stud­ies of how foun­da­tion-fund­ed envi­ron­men­tal­ist orga­ni­za­tions have vir­tu­al­ly tak­en over nation­al pol­i­cy.

The Wash­ing­ton, D.C.-based Envi­ron­men­tal Defense Fund (EDF) was cre­at­ed in 1969. The cov­er sto­ry is that it sprang from America’s grass roots, after a group of Long Island cit­i­zens began hav­ing cof­fee clatch­es to dis­cuss the threat of tox­ic chem­i­cals. The truth is that EDF was cre­at­ed by grants from the lead­ing East­ern Estab­lish­ment foun­da­tions and these foun­da­tions have con­tin­ued to sup­port it.

The Ford Foun­da­tion gave EDF its seed mon­ey in 1969. In 1988, EDF received $500,000 from the ford Foun­da­tion, $1,000,000 from the William Bing­ham Foun­da­tion, $75,000 from the Joyce Foun­da­tion, $150,000 from the Mott Foun­da­tion, and $25,000 from the Carnegie Foun­da­tion, among oth­ers. Today, EDF has sev­en offices nation­wide, more than 150,000 mem­bers, and an annu­al oper­at­ing bud­get of $17 mil­lion.

The EDF made its name in the fight to ban DDT, which it accom­plished with the help of Nat­ur­al Resources Defense Coun­cil lit­i­ga­tion in 1972 — and with the coop­er­a­tion of the EPA’s admin­is­tra­tor, William Ruck­elshaus. Ruck­elshaus ignored the sci­en­tif­ic evi­dence pre­sent­ed dur­ing sev­en months of EPA hear­ings on DDT, and he ignored the deci­sion of the EPA’s hear­ing exam­in­er not to ban DDT; instead, for what he admit­ted were polit­i­cal rea­sons, he banned this life-sav­ing insec­ti­cide that was turn­ing the tide on malar­ia. Thus “pub­lic per­cep­tion” became estab­lished as more impor­tant than sci­en­tif­ic evi­dence in envi­ron­men­tal deci­sions.

In 1986, EDF helped to draft California’s first sweep­ing envi­ron­men­tal reg­u­la­tions in the form of the bal­lot ini­tia­tive known as Propo­si­tion 65, which restrict­ed the use of dozens of chem­i­cals in indus­try and agri­cul­ture and has cost the Cal­i­for­nia econ­o­my bil­lions.

EDF’s goals for the 1990s include: defend­ing against the so-called green­house effect; sav­ing sea tur­tles and por­pois­es by shut­ting down the fish­ing indus­try; ban­ning CFCs world­wide by the year 2000; sav­ing the world’s rain forests; pass­ing leg­is­la­tion to pre­vent so-called acid rain; set­ting aside Antarc­ti­ca as a per­ma­nent wildlife reserve; extend­ing the chem­i­cal bans in California’s Propo­si­tion 65 to the entire nation; and recy­cling all house­hold and indus­tri­al waste mate­r­i­al.

The Nat­ur­al Resources Defense Coun­cil (NRDC), one of sev­er­al of the legal arms of the envi­ron­men­tal­ist move­ment, was found­ed in 1970 with a mas­sive infu­sion of funds from the Ford Foun­da­tion. Togeth­er with the Legal Defense Fund of the Sier­ra Club and the Nation­al Audobon Soci­ety, the NRDC took to the courts, fil­ing dozens of law­suits to block dams, shut down nuclear pow­er-plant con­struc­tion, and derail high­way devel­op­ment projects.

The NRDC and its cohorts also tar­get­ed fed­er­al reg­u­la­tors in the Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency and oth­er offices, forc­ing tight­ened con­trols on pol­lu­tion and demand­ing the enforce­ment of statu­to­ry rules for clean air and rivers. The Clean Air Act of 1970 was a first fruit of these efforts.

Who funds these mul­ti-mil­lion-dol­lar court bat­tles? In 1988, the NRDC received grants of $75,000 from the Edu­ca­tion­al Foun­da­tion of Amer­i­ca, $600,000 from the MacArthur Foun­da­tion, $165,000 from the W. Alton Jones Foun­da­tion, and $850,000 from the Bei­necke Foun­da­tion.

A good chunk of this mon­ey ends up in the expense accounts and salaries of the East­ern Estab­lish­ment big­wigs who run the envi­ron­men­tal­ist advo­ca­cy groups — or in the pock­ets of their lawyers. A 1990 cov­er sto­ry in Forbes mag­a­zine reports that the orga­ni­za­tion­al net­work of con­sumer and envi­ron­men­tal­ist activist Ralph Nad­er is worth close to $10 mil­lion and receives ardent sup­port in its anti-indus­try law­suits from a cir­cle of plain­tiff attor­neys with mul­ti-mil­lion-dol­lar annu­al incomes (see Brimelow and Spencer 1990)

Nad­er him­self lives very well off the pub­lic­i­ty stirred up from court cas­es. “Oh, God, lim­ou­sines and noth­ing but the best hotels”, Forbes quotes a for­mer state Tri­al Lawyers Asso­ci­a­tion offi­cial. “We got quite a bill when he [Nad­er] was in town”. Nad­er lives in a $1.5 mil­lion town­house in Wash­ing­ton, D.C. (owned by his sis­ter) and com­mands up to five-fig­ure fees each for between 50 and 100 speak­ing appear­ances per year.

(Pho­to cap­tion) The Nation­al Wildlife Federation’s Jay Hair, like oth­er lead­ers of envi­ron­men­tal empires, com­mands a six-fig­ure salary — $200,000. How­ev­er, his actu­al income is much high­er because it includes earn­ings from his mem­ber­ship on the boards of cor­po­ra­tions and oth­er envi­ron­men­tal groups. On aver­age, envi­ron­men­tal exec­u­tives have salaries in the range of $150,000 to $200,000 a year, exclud­ing ben­e­fits and income from oth­er sources.

Oth­er envi­ron­men­tal­ist orga­ni­za­tion lead­ers also main­tain an expen­sive lifestyle. In August 1983, reporter Nan­cy Shute gave a col­or­ful descrip­tion of the envi­ron­men­tal­ists-turned-estab­lish­ment who had tak­en over Wash­ing­ton. Under the head­line “Bam­bi Goes to Wash­ing­ton”, Shute writes in Nation­al Review:

On Decem­ber 1, 1982, bare­ly two years after Ronald Reagan’s elec­tion, hun­dreds of Wash­ing­ton lawyers and lob­by­ists munched pears and cheese and sipped Bloody Marys under the sparkling crys­tal chan­de­liers at the Orga­ni­za­tion of the Amer­i­can States (oas.org) head­quar­ters, just two blocks from the White House. The con­ver­sa­tion turned to pol­i­tics, as do all Wash­ing­ton cock­tail-par­ty con­ver­sa­tions.

But the women in pearls and men in dark suits who shout­ed to be heard over the sev­en piece dance band rep­re­sent­ed not Exxon or U.S. Steel or Gen­er­al Motors, but the nations’ envi­ron­men­tal lob­by, cel­e­brat­ing the tenth birth­day of the Envi­ron­men­tal Pol­i­cy Cen­ter, an influ­en­tial Wash­ing­ton lob­by­ing group and research insti­tute.

In the 13 years since Earth Day, the envi­ron­men­tal pres­ence in the cap­i­tal has grown from a rag­tag band ded­i­cat­ed to sav­ing trees and whales to a for­mi­da­ble Wash­ing­ton insti­tu­tion.

Much of the envi­ron­men­tal wind­fall has been spent on sleek new offices, on high-pro­file lob­by­ists like for­mer sen­a­tor Gay­lord Nel­son and Carter Admin­is­tra­tion Inte­ri­or Sec­re­tary Cecil Andrus… on high-priced econ­o­mists and lawyers, and on mil­lions of direct-mail pleas for more cash…” [p.924]

These envi­ron­men­tal­ists are unabashed about their afflu­ence. Their con­fer­ences have become noto­ri­ous for their plush locales (Switzer­land, Bev­er­ly Hills, Sun­dance and Aspen, for exam­ple).

The Cam­paign against CFCs

Both the EDF and NRDC played a lead­ing role in the pro­pa­gan­da and legal cam­paign to ban CFCs.

In June 1974, Sher­wood Row­land and Mario Molina’s dooms­day paper claim­ing CFCs would deplete the ozone lay­er was pub­lished in Nature. At that moment, how­ev­er, the hottest top­ic in the news media was that chlo­rine emis­sions from the Space Shut­tle would wipe out the ozone lay­er. It was not until Sep­tem­ber 1974, that arti­cles on the CFCs threat start­ed to appear.

In Novem­ber 1974, the Nat­ur­al Resources Defense Coun­cil joined the ozone debate, call­ing for an imme­di­ate ban on CFCs. In June 1975, the NRDC sued the Con­sumer Prod­ucts Safe­ty Com­mis­sion for a ban on CFCs used in aerosol spray cans. The law­suit was reject­ed by the com­mis­sion in July 1975, on grounds that there was insuf­fi­cient evi­dence that CFCs harm the atmos­phere.

At that point, EPA admin­is­tra­tor Rus­sell E. Train inter­vened on behalf of the NRDC and pro­po­nents of the ozone deple­tion the­o­ry, call­ing for all nations to coop­er­ate in estab­lish­ing world­wide guide­lines on CFCs to avoid envi­ron­men­tal dis­as­ter. Today Rus­sell E. Train is head of the World Wildlife Fund/Conservation Foun­da­tion, a trustee of the Rock­e­feller Broth­ers Fund, and a top-rank­ing mem­ber of both the Tri­lat­er­al Com­mis­sion and the New York Coun­cil on For­eign Rela­tions.

For the next two years, debate raged on the future of CFCs, with the NRDC, lav­ish­ly fund­ed by the Ford and Rock­e­feller Foun­da­tions, play­ing a major role. While Pres­i­dent Ford’s top sci­ence advis­ers said the evi­dence was still not strong enough for an imme­di­ate ban on CFCs, oth­er mem­bers of the admin­is­tra­tion moved to imple­ment such a ban. Once of them was Rus­sell W. Peter­son, chair­man of the White House Coun­cil on Envi­ron­men­tal Qual­i­ty, who worked for a ban on the use of CFCs in aerosol cans as a first step toward the total ban­ning of CFCs. Peter­son made it clear that it did not mat­ter that there was no sci­en­tif­ic evi­dence against CFCs. Accord­ing to Sharon Roan in Ozone Cri­sis, Peter­son told the press:

I believe firm­ly that we can­not afford to give chem­i­cals the same con­sti­tu­tion­al rights that we enjoy under the law. Chem­i­cals are not inno­cent until proven guilty” (p. 83).

Peter­son today is the head of the Nation­al Audubon Soci­ety.

In Octo­ber 1978, CFCs used as pro­pel­lants in aerosol cans were banned in the Unit­ed States.

The CFCs issue lay dor­mant for the next sev­er­al years, until Novem­ber 1984, when the NRDC start­ed a new phase on the assault on CFCs with a suit against the EPA. The suit sought to force the EPA to place a cap on over­all CFC pro­duc­tion, as man­dat­ed under the EPA’s Phase Two pro­pos­als. The NRDC argued that under the Clean Air Act, the EPA was required to reg­u­late CFCs if they were deemed harm­ful to the envi­ron­ment. The group claimed the EPA had acknowl­edged this in its 1980 pro­posed reg­u­la­tions, which had not been imple­ment­ed dur­ing the first four years of the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion.

As the NRDC relaunched its cam­paign against CFCs, a major polit­i­cal change was tak­ing place in Wash­ing­ton, D.C. The lead­ing pro­po­nents of tech­nol­o­gy, the space pro­gram, and eco­nom­ic devel­op­ment in the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion had been oust­ed by a series of media-orches­trat­ed scan­dals == Inte­ri­or Sec­re­tary James Watt, NASA Admin­is­tra­tor James Beg­gs, and EPA Chief Anne Bur­ford. Bur­ford was replaced by the mul­ti­mil­lion­aire cor­po­rate envi­ron­men­tal­ist, William Ruck­elshaus, his sec­ond term as EPA admin­is­tra­tion.

There was still no cred­i­ble sci­en­tif­ic evi­dence against CFCs; sup­pos­ed­ly this changed in May 1985 with the pub­li­ca­tion of Joseph Farman’s dooms­day ozone-hole paper in Nature mag­a­zine. This arti­cle enabled the envi­ron­men­tal lob­by to start cre­at­ing hys­te­ria about CFCs once more, which set the wheels into motion that led to the sign­ing of the Mon­tre­al Pro­to­col in 1987.

In Sep­tem­ber 1986, the DuPont Com­pa­ny announced its sup­port for the ban­ning of CFCs. By sum­mer 1987, the envi­ron­men­tal onslaught against CFCs was in full gear under the lead­er­ship of the well-fund­ed NRDC. It was at that moment that the World Resources Insti­tute received a $25 mil­lion grant from the MacArthur Foun­da­tion. Accord­ing to Sharon Roan’s book, Ozone Cri­sis (page 204):

Econ­o­mist Daniel J. Dudek of the Envi­ron­men­tal Defense Fund pro­vid­ed a study on the cost of reduc­ing ozone deple­tion… At the World Resources Insti­tute and World­watch Insti­tute, stud­ies were com­plet­ed to alert Amer­i­cans to the effects of var­i­ous ozone con­trol poli­cies. The Envi­ron­men­tal Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, and Sier­ra Club ini­ti­at­ed pub­lic edu­ca­tion cam­paigns and began pres­sur­ing indus­try to own up to its respon­si­bil­i­ty.”

In Sep­tem­ber 1987, the Mon­tre­al Pro­to­col was signed, call­ing for a 50 per­cent ban on CFCs by the year 2000.

[CDR Note: In 1995 Ari­zona State Leg­is­la­ture passed a bill (HB 2236) — a one pager — which allowed the pos­ses­sion, use, man­u­fac­ture, pur­chase, instal­la­tion, trans­porta­tion and sale of chlo­rofluro­car­bons (name­ly fre­on), while pro­hibit­ing any penal­ty, fine or retal­ia­to­ry action against any per­son or polit­i­cal sub­di­vi­sion (local gov­ern­ment) of the state who or which did any of the above. Gov­er­nor Fife Syming­ton signed the bill into law on April 15, 1995 and very short­ly there­after was out of office on alleged charges of mis­use of cam­paign funds, or some sil­ly non­sense.

Accord­ing to a report we’ve obtained, sci­en­tif­ic stud­ies have debunked the the­o­ry that CFC’s from fre­on were respon­si­ble for the hole in the ozone lay­er. The hole is caused from lack of sun­light at the polar areas dur­ing the long-night sea­son. When the sun returns, the hole repairs itself. It is a repet­i­tive process. The stud­ies claim that CFCs from vol­ca­noes and oth­er nat­ur­al phe­nom­e­na are released into the atmos­phere at a much high­er rate than those [CFCs] released by fre­on.

It is most prob­a­ble that since DuPont’s patent on fre­on was about to expire — at which time any com­pa­ny could man­u­fac­ture fre­on — the timed release of the ozone-hole scare played a two-fold role; that is, for­ward­ing the envi­ron­men­tal­ist move­ment and cater­ing to the inter­ests of the transna­tion­al DuPont com­pa­ny. We under­stand that the new coolant approved for use is also a DuPont patent­ed prod­uct; was nev­er test­ed for envi­ron­men­tal safe­ty; is much less effi­cient; uses more elec­tric­i­ty to cool; is caus­tic to equip­ment, reduc­ing the life of equip­ment; and can­not be used in present equip­ment so will ulti­mate­ly cost home­own­ers and busi­ness­es bil­lions to mod­i­fy or change out equip­ment.]

The First Earth Day

First demon­stra­tors who put spot­ted owls first, envi­ron­men­tal­ists define peo­ple as the ene­my.

At the same time that the envi­ron­men­tal orga­ni­za­tions were becom­ing a well-fund­ed big busi­ness, their pro­pa­gan­da out­put was used to cre­ate pop­u­lar sup­port for the envi­ron­men­tal­ist cause in the Unit­ed States. A turn­ing point in the trans­for­ma­tion of the envi­ron­men­tal­ist fringe into a rad­i­cal­ized mass move­ment was Earth Day 1970.

On April 22, 1970, thou­sands of col­lege stu­dents and curi­ous onlook­ers turned out to par­tic­i­pate in the wide­ly pub­li­cized Earth Day fes­tiv­i­ties in dozens of major U.S. cities. Fold music, anti­nu­clear slo­gans, “Love Your Moth­er Plan­et Earth” posters and col­lege stu­dents were every­where. On the sur­face it appeared to most observers that the nation­wide ral­lies rep­re­sent­ed a grass roots move­ment to protest “the destruc­tion of the envi­ron­ment”. Noth­ing could be fur­ther from the truth. The Earth Day pub­lic­i­ty stunt was part of a high­ly coor­di­nat­ed effort to cre­ate a cli­mate of sym­pa­thy for Malthu­sian zero growth, where none yet exist­ed in the Unit­ed States.

Earth Day was part­ly bankrolled by a $200,000 per­son­al grant from Robert O. Ander­son, at the time the pres­i­dent of Atlantic Rich­field Oil Cor­po­ra­tion, the pres­i­dent of the Aspen Insti­tute for Human­is­tic Stud­ies, and a per­son­al pro­tégé of Uni­ver­si­ty of Chica­go zero-growth ide­o­logue Robert May­nard Hutchins. Ander­son and the Aspen Insti­tute played a cru­cial role in the launch­ing of a world­wide envi­ron­men­tal­ist move­ment, and Earth Day was a big step along the way.

Coin­ci­dent with the Earth Day effort, The Pro­gres­sive, a 70-year-old pub­li­ca­tion of the U.S. branch of the Fabi­an social­ist move­ment of H.G. Wells, Bertrand Rus­sell, and Julian and Aldous Hux­ley, devot­ed its entire issue to a spe­cial report on “The Cri­sis of Sur­vival”. Among the envi­ron­men­tal­ist ide­o­logues who con­tributed to this spe­cial issue were Ralph Nad­er and Paul Ehrlich. Denis Hayes, a Stan­ford Uni­ver­si­ty grad­u­ate who would lat­er become the envi­ron­men­tal­ist-in-res­i­dence at the World­watch Insti­tute, wrote the keynote arti­cle on Earth Day. He stat­ed:

April 22 is a tool — some­thing that can be used to focus the atten­tion of soci­ety on where we are head­ing. It’s a chance to start get­ting a han­dle on it all; a rejec­tion of the sil­ly idea that big­ger is bet­ter, and faster is bet­ter, world with­out lim­its, amen.

This has nev­er been true. It pre­sumes a mas­tery by Man over nature, and over Nature’s laws. Instead of seek­ing har­mo­ny, man has sought to sub­due the whole world. The con­se­quences of this are begin­ning to come home. And time is run­ning out.”

In 1970, most Amer­i­cans would have sum­mar­i­ly reject­ed this pes­simistic view. But, by the time the orga­niz­ers of Earth Day 1970 were plan­ning 20th anniver­sary cel­e­bra­tions of the event for 1990, the envi­ron­men­tal­ist hoax had been sold to the pop­u­la­tion of the Unit­ed States. In the months before Earth Day 1990, every ele­men­tary and sec­ondary school in the nation was pro­vid­ed with a spe­cial Earth Day prepa­ra­tion cur­ricu­lum from the envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency. EPA spokes­men toured the nation. Tele­vi­sion, mag­a­zines, and news­pa­pers from the nation­al to local lev­el report­ed and edi­to­ri­al­ized on the event. State and town gov­ern­ments pro­mot­ed it with pub­lic funds.

On Earth Day 1990, accord­ing to a spokesman for Friends of the Earth (a lead­ing arm of the envi­ron­men­tal­ist lob­by also financed by Robert O. Ander­son), “one of the largest demon­stra­tions ever” was held in Wash­ing­ton, D.C. and tens of thou­sands of peo­ple, rep­re­sent­ing “all types of envi­ron­men­tal groups from all over the Unit­ed States and inter­na­tion­al­ly” were there. Small­er cel­e­bra­tions were held in lit­er­al­ly thou­sands of state cap­i­tals, towns, and cities across the Unit­ed States. A mass move­ment against sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, and eco­nom­ic growth had been con­sol­i­dat­ed in the Unit­ed States.

Next Comes Geno­cide

In 1989, Egypt­ian Pres­i­dent Hos­ni Mubarak esti­mat­ed that 500 mil­lion peo­ple in the Third World had starved to death in the decade of the 1980’s; cur­rent esti­mates by the Unit­ed Nations Children’s Emer­gency Fund (UNICEF) are that 40,000 chil­dren under the age of five starve to death every day. Most of these deaths can be attrib­uted direct­ly or indi­rect­ly to debt ser­vice and “tech­no­log­i­cal apartheid”, poli­cies that pre­vent mod­ern tech­nolo­gies — such as water treat­ment plants, nuclear ener­gy, refrig­er­a­tion, mech­a­nized agri­cul­ture, pes­ti­cides, and fer­til­iz­ers — from being used in Third World coun­tries. These poli­cies were con­sid­ered colo­nial­ist in past decades; today, they are pro­mot­ed by envi­ron­men­tal groups in indus­tri­al­ized nations, under the guise of sav­ing the Earth from pol­lu­tion.

[CDR Note: See relat­ed arti­cle: Tox­ic Wastes ‘Recy­cled’ As Fer­til­iz­er Threat­en U.S. Farms — Food Sup­ply

Many envi­ron­men­tal­ists have no idea of the con­se­quences of their belief sys­tem for the peo­ple of the Third World, but it is clear that those at the top of the envi­ron­men­tal­ist move­ment are wit­ting in their advo­ca­cy of poli­cies that ulti­mate­ly kill peo­ple. We know this is the case because many of the envi­ron­men­tal­ist pol­i­cy-mak­ers say so pub­licly. It is not sim­ply that the ban on CFCs will kill peo­ple and that the top envi­ron­men­tal­ists know that it will kill peo­ple.

The fact is that the top ozone deple­tion pro­pa­gan­dists at the World Wildlife Fund, the Club of Rome, the Pop­u­la­tion Cri­sis Committee/Draper Fund, and oth­er elite bod­ies want it to kill peo­ple. Depop­u­la­tion is one of the rea­sons they devised the ozone hoax in the first place. By scar­ing the gen­er­al pop­u­la­tion with sto­ries of immi­nent cat­a­stro­phe, these pol­i­cy-mak­ers intend to jus­ti­fy adop­tion of strin­gent mea­sures that will cur­tail eco­nom­ic growth and pop­u­la­tion. The ozone hole is just one of sev­er­al such scare sto­ries.

On July 24, 1980, the U.S. State Depart­ment unveiled the Glob­al 2000 Report to the Pres­i­dent. It had been in prepa­ra­tion by the White House Coun­cil on envi­ron­men­tal Qual­i­ty and the State Depart­ment, employ­ing scores of gov­ern­ment per­son­nel and hun­dreds of out­side con­sul­tants since the ear­ly days of the Carter admin­is­tra­tion — an admin­is­tra­tion dom­i­nat­ed by elite mem­bers of David Rockefeller’s Tri­lat­er­al Com­mis­sion. The report was a long-ind­ed pro­pos­al that “pop­u­la­tion con­trol” — a euphemism for killing peo­ple — be made the cor­ner­stone of the poli­cies of all U.S. pres­i­dents from that time for­ward.

Per­vad­ing the report and sev­er­al com­pan­ion doc­u­ments were lurid pre­dic­tions: crises in water resources, severe ener­gy short­ages, short­falls in strate­gi­cal­ly vital raw mate­ri­als — all blamed on “pop­u­la­tion growth”.

The report argued that with­out coun­ter­vail­ing action, by the year 2000 there will be 2 to 4 bil­lion peo­ple too many. There­fore, the report said, it is required that gov­ern­ment implic­it­ly direct all poli­cies domes­tic and for­eign toward the elim­i­na­tion of 2 to 4 bil­lion peo­ple by the year 2000.

The ratio­nale for propos­ing a crime of such great mag­ni­tude is the sim­ple — and total­ly wrong — Malthu­sian ide­ol­o­gy that claims pop­u­la­tion growth inher­ent­ly exhausts “nat­ur­al resources” and there are, there­fore, “lim­its to growth”, as the Club of Rome has insist­ed.

In the real world of human pro­duc­tion of the means of human exis­tence, there is no cor­re­la­tion between “nat­ur­al resources” and human pop­u­la­tion poten­tial, for the sim­ple rea­son that resources are not real­ly “nat­ur­al”. The resources for human exis­tence are defined by human sci­ence and tech­nol­o­gy, and the devel­op­ment of sci­ence and tech­nol­o­gy defines whole new arrays of “resources” for the soci­eties that avail them­selves of such progress. For exam­ple, oil was there “nat­u­ral­ly”, but if did not exist as a resource for humankind until the tech­nol­o­gy — com­bus­tion engines, and so on — exist­ed to make it a resource. Before that, it was a black mud that usu­al­ly meant ruina­tion of farm fields.

This means two things. First, there are no “lim­its to growth”. There are only lim­its with­in the con­fines of a giv­en array of tech­nol­o­gy. So, unless sci­en­tif­ic and tech­no­log­i­cal progress were stopped dead, there could nev­er be an absolute lim­it to “resources” for human life. There can nev­er be such a thing as absolute “over­pop­u­la­tion” of the human species.

Sec­ond, were mod­ern agri­cul­tur­al and indus­tri­al capa­bil­i­ties, even as they exist in indus­tri­al­ized nations today, dif­fused through­out the Third World, we would dis­cov­er that not only do we have ample resources for year-2000 pop­u­la­tion lev­els, but we also have too few peo­ple to oper­ate advanced agro-indus­tri­al facil­i­ties at opti­mum capac­i­ty. If we took account of in-sight tech­no­log­i­cal advances, we would dis­cov­er that underpop­u­la­tion is the main prob­lem we face.

The Glob­al 2000 Report, how­ev­er, assumed no dif­fu­sion of mod­ern agro-indus­tri­al capa­bil­i­ties to the Third World. Instead, it assumed that the Third World would be denied even avail­able forms of tech­nol­o­gy.

In addi­tion, it assumed no progress beyond exist­ing sci­en­tif­ic and tech­no­log­i­cal arse­nals. The over pop­u­la­tion fore­cast fol­lows neat­ly from these assump­tions: The report assumes that sci­ence and tech­nol­o­gy have been forced to come to a stop, in order to assert that by the year 2000, there will be 2 to 4 bil­lion more peo­ple than the world econ­o­my can sus­tain. The report neglects to point out that if sci­ence and tech­nol­o­gy were not to be forced into stag­na­tion, the globe’s pop­u­la­tion would have much brighter prospects.

In oth­er words, the Glob­al 2000 Report is sim­ply a state­ment of pol­i­cy intent for geno­cide, not a sci­en­tif­ic fore­cast at all. It reveals in a unique way the depop­u­la­tion aims of those also behind the ozone-deple­tion hoax.

By the time Glob­al 2000 was issued, whole sec­tions of the U.S. gov­ern­ment exist­ed sole­ly to imple­ment its rec­om­men­da­tion: depop­u­la­tion. The role of Richard Elliott Benedick, who nego­ti­at­ed the Mon­tre­al Pro­to­col for the Unit­ed States, must be empha­sized again. Benedick has spent most of his gov­ern­ment career as head of the State Depart­ment Pop­u­la­tion Office, pro­mot­ing poli­cies to reduce the size of the world’s pop­u­la­tion.

Lest the skep­ti­cal read­er think we exag­ger­ate, lis­ten to Thomas Fer­gu­son, a Benedick col­league and head of the Latin Amer­i­can desk at Benedick’s Office of Pop­u­la­tion Affairs. Fer­gu­son made these com­ments on State Depart­ment pol­i­cy toward the civ­il war in El Sal­va­do (as report­ed by Exec­u­tive Intel­li­gence Review, 1981, p. 43):

Once pop­u­la­tion is out of con­trol, it requires author­i­tar­i­an gov­ern­ment, even fas­cism, to reduce it. The pro­fes­sion­als are not inter­est­ed in low­er­ing pop­u­la­tion for human­i­tar­i­an rea­sons… In El Sal­vador, there is no place for these peo­ple — peri­od. No place.

Look at Viet­nam. We stud­ied the thing. That area was also over­pop­u­lat­ed and a prob­lem. We thought that the war would low­er rates, and we were wrong. To real­ly reduce pop­u­la­tion quick­ly, you have to pull all the males into the fight­ing and you have to kill sig­nif­i­cant num­bers of fer­tile age females. You know, as long as you have a large num­ber of fer­tile females, you will have a prob­lem…

In El Sal­vador, you are killing a small num­ber of males and not enough females to do the job on the pop­u­la­tion. The quick­est way to reduce pop­u­la­tion is through famine, like in Africa, or through dis­ease., like the Black Death.

What might hap­pen in El Sal­vador is that the war might dis­rupt the dis­tri­b­u­tion of food: The pop­u­la­tion could weak­en itself, you could have dis­ease and star­va­tion. Then you can suc­cess­ful­ly cre­ate a ten­den­cy for pop­u­la­tion rates to decline rapid­ly… but oth­er­wise, peo­ple breed like ani­mals.”

Ferguson’s lev­el of moral deprav­i­ty is not unique among gov­ern­ment pol­i­cy-mak­ers. Lis­ten to William Pad­dock, an advis­er to the State Depart­ment under both Hen­ry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance. In spring 1981, Pad­dock told a George­town Uni­ver­si­ty sem­i­nar that 3.5 mil­lion of El Salvador’s 4 mil­lion peo­ple should be elim­i­nat­ed, and would be, pro­vid­ed that there was “con­tin­u­ous tur­moil and civ­il strife, which is the only solu­tion to the over­pop­u­la­tion prob­lem.”

Pad­dock con­tin­ued:

The Unit­ed States should sup­port the cur­rent mil­i­tary dic­ta­tor­ship, because that is what is required… But we should also open up con­tacts with the oppo­si­tion, because they will even­tu­al­ly come to pow­er. As we do that, we should work with their oppo­si­tion, because we will need to bring them to pow­er. That is what our pol­i­cy is, that is what it must be… an end­less cycle.”

Read­ers are encour­aged to seek out and read the doc­u­men­ta­tion for them­selves in offi­cial gov­ern­ment doc­u­ments. For exam­ple, Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Study Mem­o­ran­dum 200: Impli­ca­tions of World­wide Pop­u­la­tion Growth for U.S. Secu­ri­ty and Over­seas Inter­ests, a recent­ly declas­si­fied memo writ­ten by Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Advis­ers Brent Scow­croft and Hen­ry Kissinger in 1974, states specif­i­cal­ly that pop­u­la­tion growth in the devel­op­ing sec­tor is a nation­al secu­ri­ty threat to the Unit­ed States, and must be cur­tailed as a mat­ter of America’s for­eign pol­i­cy. Under the rubric of this doc­u­ment, the Unit­ed States has worked inter­na­tion­al­ly to cut the growth and over­all size of the dark­er-skinned peo­ples of the Third World — an explic­it­ly racist pol­i­cy.*

Notes______________________________

This pol­i­cy against the Third World and “less advan­taged pop­u­la­tions” is being imple­ment­ed on a scale nev­er seen before but, in fact, it is noth­ing new. His­to­ri­an Anton Chaitkin doc­u­ment­ed recent­ly that the pol­i­cy-mak­ers gath­ered around George Bush, the fam­i­ly of the Pres­i­dent, and the Anglo-Amer­i­can finan­cial estab­lish­ment behind the Bush admin­is­tra­tion, are the same group of peo­ple who put the racist Adolf Hitler into pow­er and copied his eugen­ics poli­cies in prac­tice in the Unit­ed States. The con­tin­ue to pro­mul­gate the pol­i­cy of Hit­lerite “eugen­ics” or race purifi­ca­tion under the new label of pop­u­la­tion con­trol and in the name of “sav­ing the envi­ron­ment”.

Bush’s work for pop­u­la­tion con­trol goes back to the 1960s, when he was the first con­gress­man to intro­duce nation­al pop­u­la­tion-con­trol leg­is­la­tion. Bush was also a con­spic­u­ous activist for pop­u­la­tion reduc­tion when he was U.S. ambas­sador to the Unit­ed Nations from 1971 to 1972. In 1972, prod­ded by Bush and oth­ers, the U. S. Agency for Inter­na­tion­al Devel­op­ment (AID) began fund­ing the Ser­il­iza­tion League of Amer­i­ca to ster­il­ize non­whites.

In his intro­duc­tion to the 1973 book The World Pop­u­la­tion Cri­sis: The U.S. Response, by Phyl­lis Piotrow, Bush wrote that “one of the major chal­lenges of the 1970s… will be to curb the world’s fer­til­i­ty”.

In 1988, U.S. AID made a new con­tract with the Ster­il­iza­tion League, com­mit­ting the U.S. gov­ern­ment to spend $80 mil­lion over five years. This con­tract is not list­ed in the pub­lic U.S. AID bud­getary lit­er­a­ture, yet the group says that 87 per­cent of its for­eign oper­a­tions are fund­ed by the U.S. gov­ern­ment.

The ster­il­iza­tion pro­gram is based on decep­tion.

The U. S. AID tells Con­gress and the pub­lic, that since the Rea­gan and Bush admin­is­tra­tions have been opposed to abor­tions, tax mon­ey that would have fund­ed abor­tions in for­eign coun­tries has been divert­ed to “fam­i­ly plan­ning activ­i­ties”. They fail to explain that in addi­tion to buy­ing 7 bil­lion con­doms, the pro­gram funds sur­gi­cal ster­il­iza­tion of grow­ing num­bers of the Third World Pop­u­la­tion.

References________________________

Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer, 1990. “Ralph Nad­er, Inc.”, Forbes (9–17) pp 117–122 (cov­er sto­ry)

Anton chaitkin and Web­ster Tarp­ley, 1992. George Bush; The Unau­tho­rized Biog­ra­phy. In Press.

Coun­cil on Envi­ron­men­tal Qual­i­ty, 1980. “The Glob­al 2000 Report to the Pres­i­dent: Enter­ing the Twen­ty-first Cen­tu­ry”, Wash­ing­ton D.C.

Exec­u­tive Intel­li­gence Review, 1981. The Con­spir­a­cy Behind the Tri­lat­er­al Com­mis­sion, New York.

Joseph Far­man et al. 1985. “Large loss­es of total ozone in Antar­ti­ca reveal sea­son­al CLOx/NOx Inter­ac­tion”, Nature, Vol. 315 (Jan 24), pp 207–210.

Peter Met­zger, 1980. “Gov­ern­ment-Fund­ed Activism: Hid­ing behind the Pub­lic Inter­est”. Present at the 47th Annu­al Con­fer­ence of the South­west­ern Elec­tric Exchange in Boca Raton, Flori­da (March 26).

Mario J. Moli­na and F.S. Row­land, 1974. “Stratos­pher­ic sink for chlor­fluromethanes: chlo­rine atom­ic-atal­ysed {sic} destruc­tion of ozone”, Nature, Vol. 249 (June 28), pp 810–812.

Kath­leen Mur­phy, 1979. “The 1980s Project: Blue­print for ‘Con­trolled Dis­in­te­gra­tion’ “, Fusion (Octo­ber), pp. 36–47.

Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Study Mem­o­ran­dum 20, 1974, Impli­ca­tions of World­wide Pop­u­la­tion Growth for U.S. Secu­ri­ty and Over­seas Inter­ests, Wash­ing­ton, D.C.

William Pad­dock, 1981. “The Demo­graph­ic and Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Inpli­ca­tions of the Sal­va­do Rev­o­lu­tion”. Wash­ing­ton, D.C.; George­town Cen­ter for Strate­gic and Inter­na­tion­al Stud­ies Sem­i­nar (Feb. 27).

Sharon Road. 1989. Ozone Cri­sis: The 15-Year Evo­lu­tion of a Sud­den Glob­al Emer­gency. New York; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Lydia Schul­man, 1981. “Glob­al 2000: Will the Zero-Growthers cap­ture the White House? Fusion Mag­a­zine (May), pp. 18–19.

The State Department’s Office of Pop­u­la­tion Affairs: Depop­u­lat­ing by ‘War and Famine’ “, 1981. Fusion mag­a­zine (June), pp. 20–23.

Nan­cy Shute, 1983. “The Green­ing of James Watt”, Nation­al Review (Aug 5), pp 924–928

Kath­leen Teltsch, 1990. “Rock­e­feller Foun­da­tion Starts Ecol­o­gy Effort”, The New York Times, July 24.

Table 1

Envi­ron­men­tal Groups

(U.S. dol­lars, 1990, 1991)

______________________

Orga­ni­za­tion Rev­enues

_____

African Wildlife Foun­da­tion $ 4,676,000

Amer­i­can Humane Asso­ci­a­tion 3,000,000

Cen­ter for Marine Con­ser­va­tion 3,600,000

Clean Water Action 9,000,000

Con­ser­va­tion Inter­na­tion­al 8,288,216

The Cousteau Soci­ety 14,576,328

Defend­ers of Wildlife 6,454,240

Earth Island Insti­tute 1,300,000

Envi­ron­men­tal Defense Fund 16,900,000

Green­peace Inter­na­tion­al 100,000,000

Humane soci­ety 19,237,791

Inform 1,500,000

Inter­na­tion­al Fund for Ani­mal Wel­fare 4,916,491

Nation­al Arbor Day Foun­da­tion 14,700,000

Nation­al Audobon Soci­ety 37,000,000

Nation­al Parks Con­ser­va­tion Assoc. 8,717,104

Nation­al Wildlife Fed­er­a­tion 77,180,104

Nat­ur­al Resources Defense Coun­cil 16,926,305

Nature Con­ser­van­cy 254,251,717

North Shore ani­mal League 26,125,383

Planned Par­ent­hood 383,000,000

Pop­u­la­tion Cri­sis Com­mit­tee 4,000,000

Rails-to-Trails Con­ser­van­cy 1,544,293

Sier­ra club 40,659,100

Sier­ra Club Legal Defense Fund 8,783,902

Stu­dent Con­ser­va­tion Asso­ci­a­tion, inc. 3,800,000

Trust for Pub­lic Land 23,516,506

Wilder­ness Soci­ety 17,903,091

Wildlife Con­ser­va­tion Inter­na­tion­al 4,500,000

WWF/Conservation Foun­da­tion 60,000,000

Zero Pop­u­la­tion Growth 1,600,000

Total $1,177,656,571

_____

Sources: Buzz­work, September/October 1991- Chron­i­cle of Phil­an­thropy March, 13, 1992

TABLE 2

WHO OWNS THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT?

FOUNDATION GRANTS TO EDF AND NRDC

(U.S. dol­lars, 1988)

________________________________

Foun­da­tion EDF NRDC

_____

Bei­necke foun­da­tion, Inc. 850,000

Carnegie Cor­po­ra­tion of New York 25,000

Clark Foun­da­tion 150,000

Colum­bia Foun­da­tion 30,000

Cox Char­i­ta­ble Trust 38,000

Dia­mond Foun­da­tion 50,000

Dodge Foun­da­tion, Geral­dine 75,000 10,000

Edu­ca­tion­al Foun­da­tion of Amer­i­ca 30,000 75,000

Ford Foun­da­tion 500,000

Ger­bode Foun­da­tion 50,000 40,000

Gund Foun­da­tion 85,000 40,000

Hard­er Foun­da­tion 200,000

Joyce Foun­da­tion 75,000 30,000

MacArthur Foun­da­tion 600,000

Mertz-Gilmore Foun­da­tion 75,000 80,000

Mil­bank Memo­r­i­al Fund 50,000

Mor­gan guar­an­ty char­i­ta­ble Trust 5,000 6,000

Mott Foun­da­tion, Charles Stew­art 150,000 40,000

New Hope Foun­da­tion, Inc. 45,000

New York Com­mu­ni­ty Trust 35,000

Noble foun­da­tion, Inc. 20,000 35,000

North­west Area foun­da­tion 100,000

Packard Foun­da­tion 50,000 37,000

Prospect Hill Foun­da­tion 45,000

Pub­lic Wel­fare Foun­da­tion 150,000

Robert Ster­ling Clark Foun­da­tion 50,000 40,000

Rock­e­feller Broth­ers Fund 75,000

San Fran­cis­co Foun­da­tion 50,000

Scher­man Foun­da­tion 40,000 50,000

Schu­mann foun­da­tion 50,000

Steele-Reese Foun­da­tion 100,000

Vic­to­ria Foun­da­tion 35,000 35,000

Vir­ginia Envi­ron­men­tal Endow­ment 25,000

W. Alton Jones Foun­da­tion 100,000 165,000

Wal­lace Genet­ic Foun­da­tion 80,000 65,000

William Bing­ham Foun­da­tion 1,000,000 150,000

Total* 2,885,000 3,236,000

_____

*The total includes some small­er foun­da­tion grants not list­ed here.

Source: The Foun­da­tion Grants Index — 1989, 1990

TABLE 3

TOP 15 RECIPIENTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, PROTECTION, AND EDUCATION

————————————————————————————————————–

Recip­i­ent Foun­da­tion Grant in $

World Resources Insti­tute MacArthur Foun­da­tion 15,000,000
World Resources Insti­tute MacArthur Foun­da­tion 10,000,000

Nature Con­ser­van­cy R.K. Mel­lon Foun­da­tion 4,050,000

Nature Con­ser­van­cy Cham­plin Foun­da­tions 2,000,000

Ore­gon Coast Aquar­i­um Fred Mey­er Char­i­ta­ble Trust 1,500,000 Inter­na­tion­al Irri­ga­tion Mgmt Inst. Ford Foun­da­tion 1,500,000

Open Space Insti­tute R.K. Mel­lon Foun­da­tion 1,400,000

Internat’l Irri­ga­tion Mgmt. Inst. Rock­e­feller Foun­da­tion 1,200,000

Chica­go Zoo­log­i­cal soci­ety MacArthur Foun­da­tion 1,000,000

Native Amer­i­can Rights Foun­da­tion Ford foun­da­tion 1,000,000

Wilder­ness Soci­ety R.K. Mel­lon Foun­da­tion 800,000

World Resources Insti­tute A.W. Mel­lon Foun­da­tion 800,000

Uni­ver­si­ty of Arkansas W.K. Kel­logg Foun­da­tion 764,060

Nation­al Park Ser­vice Pills­bury Co. Foun­da­tion 750,000

Nation­al Audobon soci­ety A.W. Mel­lon Foun­da­tion 750,000

_______

SOURCE: Envi­ron­men­tal Grant Asso­ci­a­tion Direc­to­ry, 1989

TABLE 4

Under­de­vel­oped Nations Whose Gross Nation­al Prod­uct (GNP) Is Less Than

The Annu­al Rev­enues of U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS (1990)

———————————————————————————————–

Coun­try GNP (bil­lions $ Pop­u­la­tion

Bhutan 0.25 1.4

Laos 0.70 3.9

Lesotho 0.71 1.7

Chad 0.86 5.4

Mau­ri­ta­nia 0.91 1.9

Soma­lia 1.00 5.9

Yemen 1.03 2.4

Cen­tral African Repub­lic 1.10 2.9

Botswana 1.21 1.2

Burun­di 1.22 5.1

Togo 1.26 3.4

Malawi 1.36 8.0

Mozam­bique 1.49 14.9

Benin 1.72 4.4

Burk­i­na Faso 1.70 8.5

Mali 1.84 8.0

Con­go 1.91 2.1

Mada­gas­car 1.96 10.9

Mau­ril­ius 1.96 1.1

Rwan­da 2.14 6.7

Niger 2.19 7.3

Zam­bia 2.20 7.6

Guinea 2.32 5.4

Haiti 2.39 6.3

Jamaica 2.57 2.4

Papua New Guinea 3.00 3.7

Nepal 3.24 18.0

Gabon 3.27 1.1

Bolivia 3.03 6.9

Tan­za­nia 3.95 24.7

Trinidad and Toba­go 4.02 1.2

Hon­duras 4.13 4.8

Ugan­da 4.54 16.2

Sene­gal 4.55 7.0

Cos­ta Rica 4.56 2.7

El Sal­vador 4.70 5.0

Paraguay 4.72 4.0

Pana­ma 4.88 2.3

Domini­can Repub­lic 4.97 6.9

Ghana 5.60 14.0

Ethiopia 5.69 47.4

Jor­dan 5.85 3.9

Sri Lan­ka 6.97 16.6

Oman 7.00 1.4

Uruguay 7.66 3.1

Guatemala 7.83 8.7

Kenya 8.29 22.4

Ivory Coast 8.62 11.2

en

Fig­ures were not avail­able for Afghanistan, Kam­puchea, Liberia, Sier­ra Leone, Ango­la, Lebanon, Nicaragua and Viet­nam. Source: World Devel­op­ment Report 1990: Pover­ty, The World Bank (New York, Lon­don, Oxford Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 1990