Theorists "global crises" have concluded that the Earth's population should be reduced to one billion people. This concept, known as the "golden billion", also appeared in the depths of the Club of Rome. But it is not modeled opportunity tolerable existence for all people. Since, according to the concept, resources, and safety factors of the Earth can provide a high quality of life for one billion, to the extent of such a limit, and it is necessary, according to developers, to reduce the population of the Earth.
This concept is perfect and frankly inhumane. It actually justifies the war and other such methods to reduce the population. Moreover, though is the value of one billion, know that this figure is inflated. Just at the time of conception of the population enrolled in the elite group on welfare, just so it was. And interestingly, in the strategies of "sustainable development" of many of them (the U.S., Germany, Sweden and others) without any concepts implicitly carried the same idea: a successful future — only for the elite.
The script outputs to the desired size is quite simple. At the first stage of the "golden billion" living work of several billions of people in the "rest of humanity" to meet their needs through the material resources of the planet. A reduction in the number of the "rest of mankind" easily achieved "skidyvaniem" there polluting industries and hazardous technologies. Serves the same purpose as supporting corrupt regimes, to plunder the country's money, imposing reduction programs, various social events. By the way, Russia and the country — its former friends — among the first candidates for extinction.
A very big question: how he "billion" is going to survive, if the majority of resources, including labor, will die? Civilized developers of the concept similar to biotechnologists, who raised the deadly virus to bully its neighbors, and believe that as long as they do wash their hands, it does not get to them. Gets, to be sure. Already got.
It is worth mentioning that the environmental security of one country or group of countries is actually an illusion, as the dominant global environmental threat factor. Local improvements, achieved the destruction of ecosystems and the uncontrolled use of natural resources and energy from other regions, still pull down the global ecosystem and overall survival. In response, the existing social structures now will resist, or the values and ideals of nations will be broken and the form of exploitation will be fundamentally different, despite the hopes of developers script "golden billion". Can not plan for them to be stable no matter what the weather, and especially in a crisis. Besides, it does not take into account the feedbacks, which also inevitably leads to an error in the assessment of results. Such a strange thing to say, "international terrorism "- an example of a" feedback "in response to the implementation of the global program of the" golden billion ".
So that the concept of the "golden billion", developed by the advocates of "global crisis", it is a dead end. No better and come up with the followers of the theory of "horn of plenty" version, that the Earth's resources are sufficient to meet the needs of all mankind in the present and the future at the level already achieved in the richest countries. The fundamental error of this version is that the world population in the foreseeable future will not exceed ten billion. These estimates do not conform with the calculation of the carrying capacity, which may, without prejudice to sustain themselves only half a billion people.
To explain what this thing is an example. You have decided to spend the winter in the country and in accordance with the products brought there, for example, two times more than you need. Just in case. And at the beginning of winter to you raided guests — about twenty — and progostili to two weeks. It is clear that you support them. But if you perform your plan — to spend the winter in the country? Of course not. And with the current population. Feed him for a while you can. But it can not survive.
But this version also contains another mistake. Its creators believe that the non-renewable resources used in their insignificant part. What, for example, even in depleted oil fields for more than 50% of the resources left in the ground and can be pumped out from there, and that mining is usually at depths of 200-300 m, whereas there is a technology of drilling up to 10 miles. Error in the following: for the extraction of resources to spend resources. When extracted requires the same rate, the procedure becomes meaningless. It's like burning hundred-ruble note to find a hundred-ruble note.
It remains to us to note that neither the theory of the "golden billion", nor a "10 billion" is not true. This is an example of errors in ecological theories. Again deadlock.
But over the last ten to fifteen years have been taken and some practical steps to solve problems! First of all I should say about the UN Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro. She proposed the so-called sustainable development. It reads as follows:
1. All people have a fundamental right to an environment that is conducive to their health and well-being.
2. States retain and use the environment and natural resources for present and future generations.
What is the right way! Argue with any of these or other findings of the conference quite simply impossible. Environmental requirements must themselves organically linked to the requirements of economic development. The Company voluntarily throws away the spontaneous development of and changes to the collective social management at the international level on the basis of reasonable consent! Security environment is becoming universal value! Who is against? All in favor.
UN conference that began training in 1989. During 1990-1991, the experts from around the world worked out an agreement difficult, cooking together in Rio. Studied options for preventing deterioration of the soil, air and water, conservation of forests and biodiversity. The issues of poverty and over-consumption, health, education, urban and rural areas. We determined the role of government, business, trade unions, academics, etc.
Based on the fact that "sustainable development" — a way to deal with poverty, and the destruction of the environment, developed a document entitled "Agenda for the XXI Century." Participants believed that by adopting this "agenda …" industrialized countries recognize that they must play a more important role in improving the environment than poor countries which pollute its relatively smaller and increase financial aid to other countries for such development, which has a smaller environmental impact. It was agreed that the evaluation of the success of economic development mainly by the amount of money it brings, is wrong. Accounting system of national wealth must also take into account the full value of natural resources and the full cost of environmental degradation.
It was said that those who pollute should, in principle, bear the costs of eliminating pollution. Environmental assessment must be made prior to the implementation of projects. Governments should reduce or eliminate subsidies that do not meet the goals of sustainable development.
In short, the ideas and objectives, The Forum, were very, very good, and the meeting at the highest level on the planet Earth in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro was more than representative. High-level officials from 179 governments, hundreds of officials from UN agencies, local authorities, business, academia, non-governmental and other interests. In meetings, lectures, workshops and exhibitions for the public attended 18,000 participants from 166 countries and 400 000 visitors. Events in Rio journalists covered the 8000, and the work of the Conference followed almost the entire world. This was truly a grand forum, and he made a very good decision! ..
However, U.S. President George W. Bush said before the meeting, he would not sign any treaty that adversely affect the economic interests of the United States. In November 2001, the States again, said they would not sign any international documents on the results of the conference in Morocco, providing responsibility major air pollutants. Here you have the good wishes, and the belief in the "mind of man", and a secure future …
Shortly after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the new U.S. President Bill Clinton made an official statement about the environmental policies of the country. It turns out that the United States as a world leader, the only superpower, is not going to care about the fate of the entire world. They are only interested in their welfare. The main directions of the U.S. strategy, according to Clinton, should be to strengthen the competitiveness of U.S. companies and capture leadership in the world market of environmental technologies and services. And the scale of this market can be judged by American experts, determine the demand for it to be about $ 500 billion.
Orientation of the policy is clear. What, now popular products and technologies of environmental trends? Very good. States taking over the market. And at the same time refuse to sign the developed world community vital Convention for the Conservation of Nature. As you can see, the market economy, in any case, even if it is a market of environmental goods and services is prirodorazrushayuschey structure.
The U.S. Agency for International Development in late 1992 launched a project to improve the environment in the countries of the CIS. Among the Agency's programs and programs have been introduced in public education of the population of the CIS states, how to understand environmental problems and how to solve them. In April 1993, adopted a program of "Technology solutions to international environmental problems", in which the United States offered to other countries already tested highly efficient technology "to address key environmental issues" in energy, industry and agriculture, as well as in forestry and preserving the diversity of living nature.
All this would be fine if such activities are complemented by a reduction in consumption in the U.S.! But there is something else. Ecological consciousness of the Russian population is not Russian, and foreign government, and America itself, consuming more than 40% of the world's resources, teaching others how to save nature, buying technology and products it is. A win-win policy, if we forget that nature once put these market players to the final mat.
There is a substitution of concepts. Instead of co-existence, agreed with those of nature, humanity offer coexistence, consistent with the interests of America. And in the process, many countries, including Russia, to impose unacceptable or unworkable international obligations to engage in non-priority programs for them, interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states.
Of course, the competition around potential markets for environmental technologies involved and other blood — ME USA, industrialized countries. And it is clear that in order to achieve their own goals, all these make the environment in a politicized institution. And this has a negative impact on the level of objectivity of many studies, undermines the credibility of science. In the statements of American Scientists recognize the release of anthropogenic loads beyond assimilative capacity of the biosphere are combined with the possibility of justification environmentally sustainable world economy. Placed next to calls for voluntary reductions in the levels of consumption of energy and natural resources, and the agreement on the economic growth in both developing and developed countries?
It is unknown how and how to accept and agree on measures to reduce anthropogenic pressure to an acceptable level. There is no global control system of carrying capacity of the planet, not to account the actual use of country-specific environmental capacity of the Earth, and even the right of States to use this potential is not distributed. Despite the widespread recognition that the state does not have sovereignty over the destruction and depletion of shared resources — the atmosphere and oceans (agree with that even the United States) is stored mode "common pot" from which everyone draws much as you can. And who has more "spoon", the more draws. As a result, the total potential is based on the right of a strong, and operated and over the top, and inefficient.
In the biosphere spaces beyond national jurisdiction, thrown off waste from human activities, and most of all take off their industrial countries led by the U.S.. And they did not rush to establish the proportion of such relief, knowing that in all fairness, their share would have been lower than the actual discharges.
In short, humanity does not know the size of anthropogenic pressures, which will begin after the collapse of, or time-to this level and should not be breaking any rules with nature, and if you are told that certain "rules" are, believe it not. Sustainability criteria converted into a primary indicator of the state of competitiveness in foreign markets, and no more!
Yes, indeed, to establish objective and extremely strict international environmental standards of product quality and services. For what? For the protection of nature? No, they just replace the traditional protectionist barriers to trade and are often just as unfounded.
Suppose in America have developed a certain environmental standard. International treaties recognize this standard. A country does not have a proper industrial base to create products that meet the standard. So, to sell these goods abroad it can not, and in the country too. So through the adoption of environmental standards set diktat over countries not reach the level of those standards, they fall in import dependence and deprived of any opportunity to develop. It is unfair, but it is useless to argue: the strongest wins.
A concrete example. The international community wants to reduce aircraft noise. Russian companies are quickly going to have to spend huge money, otherwise they are not allowed into the airspace of other countries. Another example is willing to cut emissions of greenhouse gases (primarily CO), and eliminate the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs, halons), contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer. Russia had to stop the production of Freon that underlie a number of key industries, especially refrigeration and fire protection systems, without which it can not function or scope of production and storage of food, no fire safety system for civil and military facilities. For conversion in need cost billions, yes he is not real at all within the prescribed time we …
The most paradoxical: among scientists still disagree about the role and the more decisive significance of milling — ones for the formation of holes in the ozone layer over one or other parts of the Earth!
Another goal, covered environmental rhetoric — the military-political. "The international community" supit eyebrows, indicating Russia in its military-industrial complex as the largest source of man-made damage to the environment and human health. Deliberate policy of the West in this direction is from the early 1990's. In doing so, the U.S. used the bombs with uranium rods in the bombing of Yugoslavia was bombed chemical plants in Iraq, etc. We think that in the coming year there will be many new examples.
And people do not bother to wonder why, worrying about our health, we are forced to disarm, but they do not?
The programs of environmental aid to Russia (and not only Russian) dominates the energy direction. In the 1991 European Energy Charter, the assertion that Western capital and expertise to be used for the study of energy reserves in the CIS. Why? To ensure that, where would meet the future energy needs of the West. It is significant that the Charter emphasizes the importance of energy conservation measures in Eastern Europe and the CIS, not to mention the need for a similar strategy for the West. We, therefore, need to keep, they are — to consume. After all, it is they "golden billion"And we are expendable. So about what rights of nature and humanity in general the question, but only and exclusively on the survival of several community organizations.
Moreover, American leaders do not hide what are going to achieve their programs. Assistance they provide to Russia in environmental protection and better use of energy, "is a contribution not only to the implementation of American values, but also to protect U.S. security." This — the survival of the financial structure, based on the U.S. dollar — is the real goal, not saving nature and humanity.
Thus, the West has successfully used "green" weapon to put pressure on others. And as far as he is committed to "green" ideology? It would seem that the question blank. We are all aware of the environmental sensitivity of the civil society of the West. Today, "green" has become an influential political movement, and the environmental theme is one of the main places in the media reports. But judging by the policies pursued by these states, then there is a solid practicality, fundamentally antiekologichny. And he stands on three pillars, the same ones who generated cash interest. This is a fight for life (competition), pursuing self-interest. It is the idea of freedom, the flip side the desire for power over everything, especially resources for their own survival. It is, finally, the idea of progress — the need for continued expansion.
Finances are in the "crotch" a new structure, "world opinion." He is attracted to the impact on their opponents, be it socialist countries during the "cold war", or developing country, or countries with economies in transition at this stage. Development of concepts of "sustainable development" and environmental rights of the individual gave the perfect tool for official intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states and the imposition of sanctions in the event of default of their obligations under this global strategy.
To intervene in the affairs of others, including Russia, have a variety of ways. If there are a fair amount of our establishment pro-Western figures can be expected to provoke environmental claims from various non-governmental organizations and citizens to the Russian state, bringing him international claims on other countries for violations of their environmental rights in the transboundary effects. Possible to collect information on foreign soil (espionage), the establishment of international control, the imposition of measures out of the crisis, the imposition of sanctions. Finally — once the rules set the United States — can be institutionalized aggression, as in the case of Yugoslavia, and even one-sided, as in the case of Iraq. And all of this will cover care for nature!
Well developed at the Rio Conference global sustainable development strategy is easily converted into a source of international tension, instability and conflict.
Of course, this rat race in anticipation of universal catastrophe has nothing to do with the interests of nature, nor the salvation of mankind as a species of living beings. And we will say that. Market, a particular subsystem of civilization is concerned only with its survival and the struggle for self use any tools. A man in this fight — be it a businessman or a U.S. president — not even a tool. Screw it, let the thinking, let him make the right conclusions — screw, does not affect the mechanism.
In Rio de Janeiro, hundreds of "cogs" voted for the recognition of industrial civilization prirodorazrushi without foundation. The Secretary-General of the Conference, Maurice Strong, said: "The Western model of development is no longer suitable for anyone. The only opportunity to address global issues of the day — is sustainable development". That is, such development, that meets the needs of the present, but without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Have you changed anything after these confessions, and these decisions? Yes, they were invented interesting criteria of economic development. It became clear that factors such as gross national product and gross domestic product, outdated and does not adequately describe the reality. Indeed, in the framework of their economic growth looks too narrow, it means the development of resource-and energy-intensive part of the economy, reducing the resource base of the country, but common sense dictates that in regard to resource country the shrinking resource base becomes poorer. That is country with traditionally calculated sustainable growth is not rich, because advances by reducing the natural resource base, and that leads to a lower quality of life.
That's why it was decided that the economic growth — not the main indicator of development. Those are really pollution, moral statistics (crime statistics) — in short, everything that characterizes the quality of life. On this basis, the UN proposed a system of integrated environmental and economic accounts, among them — the human development index and the index of sustainable economic welfare. All these figures are gradually gaining ground along with GDP and GNP, and as an alternative to them.
And this, of course, good. Also an achievement. But unfortunately, "Vaska listens, but eating": proposed new criteria for development? Well, have fun out there, at their conferences. We will be guided by economic logic. And those heads of financial and economic structures that are so reason, not even to blame for that. The search for malicious intent in their behavior simply irrelevant: their logic is incompatible six environmental criteria, and that's it. In some people (scientists, environmentalists, certainly smart people) — the concept and the conference; others (financiers, too smart people) — money.
Countries receiving loans and advice of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), are forced to focus its business activities on the export and must stabilize finances and pay debts. And this leads to the "environmental dumping" on a huge scale. Their products, and in general the economy "compressed" in full. Dirty place with very low production costs for environmental protection. Forced to grant concessions. And they agree, because otherwise there is no money, and do seek, in what would earn. For example, export the "successes" in Chile related to mass deforestation relict forests of the south and the devastating catch fish for fishmeal.
A similar pattern, if the case interferes World Bank. Investment in the development of the Amazon with his participation amounted to 10 billion dollars. The scale of deforestation were so great that only one project "clean" area subject to equal France and Germany combined. And near the town of Maraba started to build metallurgical plant with capacity of 35 million tonnes per year, which will work with charcoal, obtained by cutting 3,500 sq. km of rainforest each year. And all the products are destined for export from the country. The scale of the environmental footprint of the project is so enormous, that do not fit into the usual concept.
The IMF and the World Bank — International financial instruments of multinational corporations. TNCs have a lot of tools! Another one of them — the Inter-American Development Bank. According to him, in 1993, in 26 countries in Latin America, with an average export growth of over 5% per year growth in per capita income was 1%. They live there with only exports, who grabbed the other 4%? Certainly not the Africans and Indians …
Blurred view of the sovereignty of any country. They turn into a space in which there are "economic operators" that produce goods to meet the consumer demand of the global market. No relation to the needs of people living in this country, these industries do not have.