Climate Change Economy Ellen Brown Original

Ellen Brown: Wall Street’s Latest Scheme Is Monetizing Nature Itself

Just in time for the UN’s policy push for “30 x 30” – 30% of the earth to be “conserved” by 2030 – a new Wall Street asset class puts up for sale the processes underpinning all life.
[Terrapin Flyer / CC BY-SA 2.0]

By Ellen Brown / Original to ScheerPost

A month before the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (known as COP26) kicked off in Scotland, a new asset class was launched by the New York Stock Exchange that will “open up a new feeding ground for predatory Wall Street banks and financial institutions that will allow them to dominate not just the human economy, but the entire natural world.” So writes Whitney Webb in an article titled “Wall Street’s Takeover of Nature Advances with Launch of New Asset Class”:

Called a natural asset company, or NAC, the vehicle will allow for the formation of specialized corporations “that hold the rights to the ecosystem services produced on a given chunk of land, services like carbon sequestration or clean water.” These NACs will then maintain, manage and grow the natural assets they commodify, with the end goal of maximizing the aspects of that natural asset that are deemed by the company to be profitable.

The vehicle is allegedly designed to preserve and restore Nature’s assets; but when Wall Street gets involved, profit and exploitation are not far behind. Webb writes:

[E]ven the creators of NACs admit that the ultimate goal is to extract near-infinite profits from the natural processes they seek to quantify and then monetize….

Framed with the lofty talk of “sustainability” and “conservation”, media reports on the move in outlets like Fortune couldn’t avoid noting that NACs open the doors to “a new form of sustainable investment” which “has enthralled the likes of BlackRock CEO Larry Fink over the past several years even though there remain big, unanswered questions about it.” 

BlackRock is the world’s largest asset manager, with nearly $9.5 trillion under management. That is more than the gross domestic product of every country in the world except the U.S. and China. BlackRock also runs a massive technology platform that oversees at least $21.6 trillion in assets. It and two other megalithic asset managers, State Street and Vanguard (BlackRock’s largest shareholder), already effectively own much of the world. Adding “natural asset companies” to their portfolios could make them owners of the foundations of all life. 

A $4 Quadrillion Asset — The Earth Itself

Partnering with the New York Stock Exchange team launching the NAC is the Intrinsic Exchange Group (IEG), major investors in which are the Rockefeller Foundation and the Inter-American Development Bank, notorious for imposing neo-colonialist agendas through debt entrapment. According to IEG’s website:

We are pioneering a new asset class based on natural assets and the mechanism to convert them to financial capital. These assets are essential, making life on Earth possible and enjoyable. They include biological systems that provide clean air, water, foods, medicines, a stable climate, human health and societal potential.

The potential of this asset class is immense. Nature’s economy is larger than our current industrial economy ….

The immense potential of “Nature’s Economy” is estimated by IEG at $4,000 trillion ($4 quadrillion). 

Webb cites researcher and journalist Cory Morningstar, who maintains that one of the aims of creating “Nature’s Economy” and packaging it via NACs is to drastically advance massive land grab efforts made by Wall Street and the oligarch class in recent years, including those made by Wall Street firms and billionaires like Bill Gates during the COVID crisis. The land grabs facilitated through the development of NACs, however, will largely target indigenous communities in the developing world. Morningstar observes:

The public launch of NACs strategically preceded the fifteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the biggest biodiversity conference in a decade. Under the pretext of turning 30% of the globe into “protected areas”, the largest global land grab in history is underway. Built on a foundation of white supremacy, this proposal will displace hundreds of millions, furthering the ongoing genocide of Indigenous peoples.

The UN’s “30 x 30”

The land grab of which Morningstar speaks is embodied in a draft agreement called the “Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework,” currently being negotiated among the 186 governments that are signatories to the Convention for Biological Diversity. Part I of its 15th meeting (COP15) closed on October 15, just ahead of COP26 (the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties) hosted in Glasgow from October 31 through November 12. COP26 focuses on climate change, while COP 15 focuses on preserving diversity. Part II of COP15 will be held in 2022. The draft text for the COP 15 nature pact includes a core pledge to protect at least 30% of the planet’s land and oceans by 2030.

In September 2020, 128 environmental and human rights NGOs and experts warned that the 30 x 30 plan could result in severe human rights violations and irreversible social harm for some of the world’s poorest people. Based on figures from a paper published in the academic journal Nature, they argued that the new target could displace or dispossess as many as 300 million people. Stephen Corry of Survival International contended: 

The call to make 30% of the globe into “Protected Areas” is really a colossal land grab as big as Europe’s colonial era, and it’ll bring as much suffering and death. Let’s not be fooled by the hype from the conservation NGOs and their UN and government funders. This has nothing to do with climate change, protecting biodiversity or avoiding pandemics – in fact it’s more likely to make all of them worse. It’s really all about money, land and resource control, and an all out assault on human diversity. This planned dispossession of hundreds of millions of people risks eradicating human diversity and self-sufficiency – the real keys to our being able to slow climate change and protect biodiversity.

30 x 30 in the United States

The 30 x 30 target was incorporated in President Biden’s Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad dated January 27, 2021, which includes at Sec. 219 “the goal of conserving at least 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030.” 

How that is to be done is not clearly specified, but proponents insist it is not a “land grab.” Critics, however, contend there is no other way to pull it off. Only about 12% of land and water in the U.S. is now considered to be “in conservation,” including wilderness lands, national parks, national wildlife refuges, state parks, national monuments, and private lands with permanent conservation easements (contracts to surrender a portion of property rights to a land trust or the federal government). According to environmental expert Dr. Bonner Cohen, raising that figure to 30%, adding 600 million acres to the total, “means putting this land and water (mostly land) off limits to any productive use in perpetuity. To accomplish this goal, the federal government will have to buy up – through eminent domain or other pressures on landowners making them ‘willing sellers’ of their property – millions of acres of private land.”

In July 2021, 15 governors wrote to the Administration opposing the plan, led by Gov. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska. Ricketts said in a press release

This requires restricting a land area the size of the State of Nebraska every year, each year, for the next nine years, or in other words a landmass twice the size of Texas by 2030.

This goal is especially radical given that the President has no constitutional authority to take action to conserve 30% of the land and water. 

The Real Threat to Mother Nature

The federal government may have no constitutional authority to take the land, but a megalithic private firm such as BlackRock could do it simply by making farmers and local residents an offer they can’t refuse. This ploy has already been demonstrated in the housing market. 

According to a survey reported in The Guardian on October 12, 2021, nearly 40% of U.S. households are facing serious financial problems, including struggling to afford medical care and food; and 30% of lower income households (those earning under $50,000 per year) said they had lost all their savings during the coronavirus pandemic. In the first quarter of 2021, 15% of U.S. home sales went to large corporate investors including BlackRock, which beat out families in search of homes just by offering substantially more than the asking price. Sometimes whole neighborhoods were bought up at once for conversion into rental properties. 

BlackRock’s chairman Larry Fink is on the board of the World Economic Forum, which until recently featured a controversial promotional video declaring “You will own nothing, and you’ll be happy.”

We all want a clean environment, and we want to preserve species biodiversity. But that includes human biodiversity – acknowledging the rights of rural landowners and Indigenous peoples, the land’s natural stewards. The greatest threat to the land is not the people living on it but those well-heeled investors who swoop in to buy up the rights to it, financializing the earth for profit. 

Not just private property but those public lands and infrastructure once known as “the commons” are now under threat. We face an existential moment in our economic history, in which accumulated private wealth is acquiring carte blanche control of the essentials of life. Whether that juggernaut can be stopped remains to be seen, but the first step in any defensive action is to be aware of the threat at our doorsteps.

Ellen Brown
Ellen Brown

Ellen Brown is a regular contributor to ScheerPost. She is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including the best-selling Web of Debt. Her latest book is Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age and her 400+ blog articles are at


  1. To be filed under “you can’t make this stuff up”. Good post Ellen. We are so going extinct, just don’t believe at this point that another outcome is even possible. I don’t understand why that has to be the case, but that seems to be an accurate, sober, assessment at this point.

    1. Thanks. I haven’t given up yet. We’re going through a massive awakening, largely due to the Internet. The printing press triggered one such awakening; translating the Bible into English was another. The Internet has given us access to a world of info we didn’t have before. How we stop Big Money from returning us to feudal status is still a mystery, but if enough people know what is going on, I think we can rise up en masse and prevail.

      1. Yanis Varoufakis claims that capitalism is already dead, and has been replaced by technofeudalism:
        I don’t think people, like many in the audience, want to understand what he is saying because it’s too dystopian, but if we don’t “we’ll all be killed” (he joked- I assume- half seriously.)

      2. Thank you Ellen, this announcement comes on the heels of Wall Street’s Water Assets class. There is another alternative that you may be interested in. Another equation that tangibly challenges Wall Street’s approach– We must prevent our ecological accounts from being absorbed by Wall Street.

      3. It’s these kinds of utilities that appear to check off the environmental sustainability box in ESG reporting, but it does so at the expense of people and their rights to access. So I cannot help but wonder if much of the US international military base building near aquifers, or the licenses given to industries that contaminate our ground water, inflates the commodity scarcity pricing of water, and if it does, what does that do to how we access water?

      4. While the Gillens and Page Princeton study shows “representative” democracy completely captured by plutocrats, direct democracy (in the 24 states with it) is working for the people, winding down the drug war and gerrymandering, raising minimum wages, etc.

        Here in Boulder I spearheaded the country’s first ONLINE petitioning for direct democracy, which makes is available to people without money to hire petitioners:

        Switzerland, the world capital of direct democracy for centuries, never required “circulators” to witness and notarize petitions, which are just left in stores and offices for folks to read and sign at leisure. So they vote FOUR times a year on a slew of local, regional and national issues. And it runs like a Swiss watch.

    2. Holy shit. Great article Ellen, thank you.

      I’ve come to think essentially what we’re fighting on all these different fronts is human nature itself. The worst aspects of human nature, including: avarice, hubris, selfishness, ignorance, laziness…manifesting as exploitation.

      Human nature isn’t going anywhere, but we could better regulate to mitigate the worst aspects of human nature, so the more benevolent of our qualities are able to thrive. To do this means identifying which way the predator class is currently gaming the system. Thank you for doing exactly that.

      1. There is no such thing as “human nature.” That’s just an excuse for bad behavior. Some humans are kind, some are cruel, etc. Which is human nature? Different societies create different types of humans in this regard, so it’s not “human nature,” it’s the societal system we live in. And then there are the exceptional people who don’t fit their society’s norms (“exceptional not meaning “better,” just different).

        Humans can choose whether to focus on ego, intellect, and materialism, or wisdom, empathy, and expanding consciousness. We all do some of each to some extent, but it’s the proportions that matter.

        I agree that we should have strong regulations to curb the worst behaviors by humans. But far better would be a society that encourages the best behaviors and discourages the worst ones. In those societies, the bad behaviors and attitudes you mention are far more uncommon.

        One last thing: This Protestant work ethic obsession with “laziness” is really offensive to anyone with any sense of living naturally. Did you know that in some natural societies, doing “nothing” is considered the highest thing you can do? THAT’s the proper attitude. Advocating that everyone work hard constantly is just acting as a tool of the ruling class. The less humans do the better, starting with all the great harms that we do to the natural world.

      2. I think Henry George was right when he wrote that the basic axiom of human behavior is that we seek to satisfy our desires with the least exertion; and, therefore, we exhibit a strong tendency to try to monopolize nature, production of wealth and money. Too often government is revealed to be in league with monopolistic interests.

  2. Seems like old news. The coined phrase, “green-washing,” also tied to “blue-washing,” and then, “pink-washing,” all old news from ecosocialists who have been studying this blight on human and nature kind by the capitalists, the elites, and their armies of Eichmann’s. Turning a buck at any cost is not new. A sucker born every second is now a sucker born every nanosecond, but again, not new.

    We can write write write, and still, the reality is that a Gates will use two super yachts to go to Turkey for his exclusive 66th birthday, on his quest for more “farmland.” Yachts for his gross kind, and then the 30 bodyguards.

    A new asset class was launched by the New York Stock Exchange that will “open up a new feeding ground for predatory Wall Street banks and financial institutions that will allow them to DECIMATE not just the human economy, but the entire natural world.”

    They are in the business of disruptive evil work, and again, we can write write write, but the reality is new news is old news.

    These marketers and Eichmann Armies for the elite, well, this is their soft shoe language: “The cost of the transition has decreased because of the decline in the costs of key technologies (onshore wind farms, solar photovoltaic cells, batteries, etc.).”

    +However, it is important to recognize that these costs are kept artificially low because of the very low wages paid to miners of key minerals and metals that power these technologies (such as cobalt miners in the Democratic Republic of the Congo) and because of the paltry royalty payments collected by countries of the South for these raw materials. If the real costs were paid, the transition would be more expensive, and the countries of the South would have resources to pay for the shift without reliance upon the climate fund.+ Vijay Prashad

    Eco-pornography by any other word!

    1. Yes old news that we are being raped and pillaged in the name of doing good, but until we know the fine details we’re pretty much unable to do anything about it.

      1. But new news with this perverse man (sic) running the gain of function corona show. What sort of world would let this guy get a world stage and so much influence? Oh, the thought experiment: if we were transported back in time, to Nazi Germany, who would do the right thing? And I don’t mean debating Hitler. How about this new Walk Street scam? Endless germ warfare.

      2. I agree that this conglomerate of agencies played rather fast and loose with the definition of GOF studies which are supposedly forbidden by law – but the excuse that whatever they did was in the name of researching pathogens or potential pathogens with the aim of preventing them seems to have allowed them under the radar screen …

        I think that the bigger issue is one of genetic engineering itself – that is what we need an open discussion about, playing with the building blocks of life when we don’t know wtf we are doing – opening Pandora’s Box – and when what is pursued in a “search for knowledge”, even with the “best of intentions” (and we know where that leads), is wedded to patents on knowledge …. all manner of “critters” crawl out of the box ….

  3. Oh, an easy but very sick to the stomach watch on what is that Monopoly,

    This brilliant documentary by Tim Gielen reveals how a small group of super rich criminals have been buying virtually everything on earth, until they own it all. From media, health care, travel, food industry, governments… That allows them to control the whole world. Because of this they are trying to impose the New World Order.

    Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, George Soros, …

    This incredibly eye opening documentary reveals something astonishing: the majority of our world is owned by the very same people. Because of this they can control the entire world and impose their wicked agenda onto all of humanity. This is the time to expose them and to rise up as one to defend our freedom.

    The name of the two companies who virtually owns the world’ are Vanguard and BlackRock. They are at the heart of the Deep State or Cabal. Their plan is the Great Reset where they want to enslave every human on earth.

    Share this video wherever you can!

    1. I watched this whole long video. There is important information in this video, but it is difficult to separate truth from conspiracy theory as in so many of these movies. I would need to take a course to discuss every aspect of this video.

      1. I agree with you. We are bombarded by the disclosure of all manner of secret conspiracies against the public good. History is filled with the details of how ruthless people used whatever means to grab power, accumulate personal wealth and do so without any concern for others or the life-supporting capacity of the planet. Are we now past the point of no-return?

  4. Read “The Overstory” if you haven’t already. We realized that the only places not overrun are in hard to get to poor rural areas where they haven’t yet overbuilt for a rich market — but they will come for those places. They are chewing everything up.

  5. Even retrograde New York Post — These billionaires, multimillionaires and their Eichmann’s are criminals —

    Gates set off on his environmental crusade aboard a superyacht, which environmentalists say are among the world’s worst ecological offenders. According to Turkish news reports, he sailed the azure waters of the Aegean on LANA, a 354-foot yacht described as “one of the most luxurious superyachts in the world.” The boat includes eight staterooms, a golf range, a cinema room, a pool and massage rooms. It accommodates 12 guests and 31 crew members, and rents for more than $2 million a week, according to a Monaco-based yacht rental service.

    The Lana and Wayfinder super yachts are some of the most exclusive yachts in the world and dump 7,020 tons of CO2 a year, making it by far the worst asset to own from an environmental standpoint.
    Superyachts like LANA (top) and the Wayfinder are some of the most exclusive in the world and dump 7,020 tons of CO2 a year, making them the worst asset to own from an environmental standpoint.

    LANA was followed by the Wayfinder — a 223-foot luxury “supply boat” that is believed to be owned by the billionaire and was used to house his 30 bodyguards for the weeklong trip, according to Turkish news reports.

    A representative for Gates did not reply to requests for comment.

    “A superyacht with a permanent crew, helicopter pad, submarines and pools emits about 7,020 tons of CO2 a year … making it by far the worst asset to own from an environmental standpoint,” wrote climate experts Richard Wilk and Beatriz Barros at the University of Indiana’s Department of Anthropology. Wilk told The Post that the average person’s CO2 emissions in a year are between 5 and 10 tons.

    “Gates has publicly admitted that he’s a hypocrite on climate change,” said Wilk. “On the one hand, he’s been doing a lot of outreach on the state of the world, but then [his actions show] he’s not going to give up his lifestyle. It’s a real contradiction.”

  6. ‘So Biden’s Executive Order will in corporate this travesty – If confronted by the “facts” of the matter – I’m sure he would say “Gee, i wasn’t aware, nobody told me about this!”, as he signs another set of oil and gas leases …

  7. Retaining rural rights is not as straight-forward as it seems.
    A few years ago, Clive Bundy held a standoff with local law enforcement because he didn’t want to pay grazing fees on “public” land. Should he be allowed to have his cattle graze for free on land that belongs to everyone, if his cattle grazing means other cattle, or wild buffalo, can’t graze on the same grass?
    And if a handful of indigenous people monopolize 1000s of acres of resource-rich land, depriving the rest of us of its wealth, and paying nothing to do so, is that just? Would you feel the same about someone who just inherited a Park Avenue apartment and didn’t have to pay for it? All land belonged to someone, until it didn’t.
    I agree Blackrock should not own it. And I agree that people who cannot pay for land, water, and air, that used to be free, should not be deprived of it. There is no “cheaper substitute” for water, for example (don’t say “soda” since besides being very bad for you, it uses lots of water too). They will die without it.
    But somehow, some way, people have to start paying for all those “externalities” that humans have thoughtlessly used and abused for our entire history. Nature is not free. It has a value, actually more than a quadrillion dollars, since without it, you die. It’s value is infinite.

    1. That would be true for land that is already in the public domain, but the concern is that private lands, including indigenous lands, will be subject to land grabs that are justified as necessary for “conservation” and “diversity.” Here’s an article I just received as a forward that makes the point —

      1. So now you’re denigrating Greta Thunberg and Jane Goodall? You just proved my point, see my comment below.

    2. All good points, Scott. As we know, markets do establish a monetary value for control over nature. When we agree as a society (through government) to set aside parts of nature from any human development, we must recognize that this has a tendency to increase the monetary value of nature that is not so protected. And, yes, this value does not rightfully belong to any individual or private entity, as it is not produced by any individual or private entity but by a combination of general demand and the investment in public goods and services that make locations in our towns and cities desirable places to live and conduct commerce.

    3. The Bundy issue, despite how it’s characterized by the media and other people who only see money, was first & foremost an issue of environmental destruction. The grazing industry has caused more damage to the western U.S. than any other industry — probably more than all other industries put together since cattle are everywhere. Judging by your last sentence, you realize that you can’t put a monetary price on natural things like land, air, water, or wildlife. If so, then you should also realize that the issue here isn’t that Bundy didn’t pay the highly discounted fees for ruining OUR public lands with his damn cattle, it’s that he or anyone else was allowed to graze cattle in the first place.

      I totally agree that externalities should have to be paid for. I think that both those who profit from environmental destruction and those who benefit by consuming the products that do so should pay, and they should pay quite substantially. For example, gasoline should be $20/gallon to attempt to fix all of the harms that driving does, starting with oil drilling, building roads, and burning fossil fuels. A $20/gallon gasoline tax would certainly incentivize people to change their lifestyles, and would incentivize the restructuring of society away from being based on driving. That’s just one example of a major externality that people get away with for free, but this is what it means “on the ground.”

  8. The creation of artificial wealth and the pursuit and accumulation of it led to the end of most life on earth thanks to those oh so clever humans. The only true wealth is a healthy ecosystem untouched by the avarice of a$$hole$.

  9. Thanks, Ellen. This scheme is even more blatant than investing in technology to own the rights to life itself. Of course, this has been going on for a long time. Just look at RoundUp.

    They hang the man and flog the woman who steal the goose from off the common,
    But let the greater criminal loose who steals the commons from the goose.

  10. I commend Ellen for being able to pierce the viel of evil with a friendly name that makes it hard to fight. We are trained to think that our constitution “might” be sanctioned by god himself. That set of laws has made it so that at 28 trillion of debt, we can never pay it back. Our constitution is just another “elitest” form of government that benefits the ruling class and their cronies, ie anyone with a title to their name. Guess who gets to pay back all of the money that the elitests have borrowed….yep the taxpaer and his decendants. There is a solution that can get us out of this swamp. ….Direct democracy where only those that pay taxes get to vote. The biggest commie in the world warned us that when loosers could vote themselves a paycheck, democracy is dead. Hello, democrats proved that in the last election. Trump sucked too….borrowing money to give rich taxbreaks. The only thing that will work is taking away the governments right to tax us. Let them make a deal with us to get our money.

  11. The true nature and ideology of the author and those who agree with this column can be boiled down to this one paragraph:

    “We all want a clean environment, and we want to preserve species biodiversity. But that includes human biodiversity – acknowledging the rights of rural landowners and Indigenous peoples, the land’s natural stewards. The greatest threat to the land is not the people living on it but those well-heeled investors who swoop in to buy up the rights to it, financializing the earth for profit.”

    Well yes, everyone but sociopaths and psychopaths wants a clean and healthy environment. That’s not the issue. The issue is what do you prioritize: the natural environment and all life there, or humans? You can’t have both, because all humans except for the tiny fraction of 1% of humans who live as hunter-gatherers harm the natural environment just by being there. (Not even all hunter-gatherers are harmless to the natural world, but I won’t get into that here.)

    Landowners? Support of this evil concept makes you part of the problem. TRADITIONAL indigenous people — and that’s what’s important, not merely whether people are indigenous — do not recognize the concept of land ownership. That concept is anti-Earth; as a Native told me once, if anything, the land owns you, not the other way around.

    “Natural stewards” of land? No such thing. Ecosystems and other species have been around far longer than humans, and the only effects that humans have had on them are negative, harmful, and destructive. The land doesn’t need humans stewardship, it needs to be left alone by humans, simple as that.

    The “greatest threat” to any natural land IS people, that’s not even debatable. Of course the rich & powerful are the worst kind of people and individually they do more harm than regular or poor people, so they are also and always a threat. But to claim that people — who dig into and harm the Earth for multiple reasons (agriculture, mining, drilling, fracking), who log, who graze harmful non-native animals like cattle and domestic sheep — are not a threat is ludicrous.

    I really wish leftists would stop writing and talking about environmental issues, because they neither know nor care anything about the natural environment. The two biggest problems on the planet — human overpopulation and overconsumption, the latter including consumption of things we should not be consuming like fossil fuels and trees — are not even mentioned here. Leftists have the anti-environmental attitude of being anthropocentric, just like right wingers do, and they are generally therefore no better on environmental issues than right wingers. Stick to writing about left/right issues and leave the articles & columns about the natural environment to those of us who actually know and care about it.

    P.S. To be clear, I do not in any way support rich jerks getting their hands on land and kicking off the inhabitants just to do other types of harm to the land and the life on it. But if people — ALL people — can be removed and the land restored to its natural state without humans, that would be great. Of course I have no confidence that the rich would do that, because to them everything is about money (as it is to some extent with most people, including clearly the author of this column).

      1. Attitudes like “Mother Nature will take care of that” or humans can’t hurt the Earth are very anti-nature, anti-life, and anti-environment. I grieve for the Earth and its ecosystems that humans have and are still destroying, and for all the plants & animals that humans kill (other than to directly eat them). It’s obvious that humans have the ability to wipe ourselves out, but all Nature can do is react; it can’t undo the destruction of ecosystems or bring back the plants and animals killed or species made extinct.

      2. That response was in response to your post – “But if people — ALL people — can be removed and the land restored to its natural state without humans, that would be great”
        So tell me, which response was more … “… very anti-nature, anti-life, and anti-environment”, yours or mine, when all mine said was that Mother Nature seemed to be in the process of taking care of the “human problem” you identified

      3. My statement is about as pro-nature as it gets. You tell me, what does “Not to worry, Mother Nature will take care of that” imply? Because to me it necessarily implies that we need not alter our beliefs, feelings, or actions because nature can take care of itself, so it’s totally OK for humans to act as harmfully as they want.

        If you meant that nature — whatever that is BTW, not sure exactly what you mean — will remove humans from the planet if they don’t stop destroying it, then we’re in agreement, though that’s an undeniable fact.

      4. Your last paragraph encapsulates my meaning – which you could have discovered simply by asking …

  12. ‘DO-WE-KNOW-WHO-WE-ARE-?’ I appreciate this article but it follows a widespread pattern of bemoaning our status as the perpetual disappointed passive reactive protester under this regressive colonial ‘exogenous’ (Latin ‘other-generated’) regime, bewailing another of endless personal & environmental insults. Its time for each & all of us, right where we live & work to animate our own talents, goods, resources & dreams. This comment is to bring awareness to ancient ‘indigenous’ (L ‘self-generating’) economic practices, which empower humanity from-the-tree-roots or bottom-up.
    THE INDIGENOUS GREAT-GOOD-WAY-OF-KINDNESS: All humanity’s ancient ‘indigenous’ law & custom starts with the ~100 (50-150) Multihome-Dwelling-Complex (eg. Longhouse-apartment, Pueblo-townhouse & Kanata-village-cluster) where 70% of humanity live today. Rather than starting with the lofty goal of changing the world from on high (Oh! what would we do?), how about starting doing what we can, where we are with what we have below. We are all originally indigenous peoples from every quarter on earth, but have been indoctrinated & co-opted to think & act only with the exogenous mindset.
    Indigenous cultural process structured upon the Multihome, is a set of interdisciplinary economic & management tools available to all of us right where we are, improving our immediate personal, family & ‘community’ (L ‘com’ = ‘together’ + ‘munus’ = ‘gift-or-service’) lives & livelihood. Multihomes form intimate, intergenerational, female-male, interdisciplinary, critical-mass, economies-of-scale in the millions-of-dollars. The average size of multihome is 32 dwelling-units or ~100 people. 20% of people living in multihomes today are intentionally living in extended-family, intergenerational proximity for collaboration & cultural pleasure. All humanity’s worldwide indigenous ancestors structured ‘economic’ (Greek ‘oikos’ = ‘home’ + ‘namein’ = ‘care-&-nurture’) livelihood around the ~100 person multihome. Indigenous interdisciplinary process is called ‘The-Circle-of-Life’.
    The 2nd part of the Great-good-way is indigenous worldwide time-based equivalency accounting upon the String-Shell (eg. Wampum on Turtle-Island/North-America, Quipu in South-America & Cowrie in Europe, Asia such as ‘Bei’ in China, Africa, Australia & all of the islands.)
    India achieved ‘Swaraj’ (Hindi ‘self-rule’) through the economic engine of ‘Swadeshi’ (H. ‘indigenous’ aka ‘self-sufficiency’). We can understand the time-line of this ancient pre-colonial movement through Mohandas Gandhi’s adoption of these economic strategies in 1917, 2 years after his return from South-Africa in 1915. It took Gandhi, trained as a British lawyer 2 years to deconstruct his own disempowered colonial indoctrination. Gandhi became a leading animator of Swadeshi, through his own example, by adopting the spinning-wheel, growing-gardens, making salt-from-the-sea, living in multihome (H. Ashram) & healing with traditional Indian herbs. Gandhi acted! with talk & writings secondary. Gandhi lived what he advocated such as to a British governor “Regard human-labour as more even than money & you have an untapped & inexhaustible source of income”. in collective livelihood action, Indians animated a healthy livelihood economy & recaptured pride. Through market margins of 5%, with their innate inefficiencies of transport & heavy centralized planning, 100s of empire 5-Eyes: Canadian, US, British, Australian & New-Zealand companies went bankrupt. In 1947, these 5-Eyes had no economic choice but to recognize India’s Swaraj.
    DO-WE-KNOW-WHO-WE-ARE-? a web-based Community Economy software program to 1) CATALOGUE local talents, goods, services, resources & dreams, 2) MAP collaborative relationships, 3) ACCOUNT for transactions & contributions, 4) COMMUNICATE locally with record keeping, interpersonal & company agreements/contract development, bridge building & conflict resolution among family, friends & neighbours.
    Let us join by emulating all humanity’s indigenous people & successfully liberating ourselves.

  13. ‘The fire next time’ will be a massive solar flare creating a cyber apocalypse that ends our modern civilization that is exploiting and ravaging our world. We have prepared for the destruction of our modern world with the cyber control of the technology on which it depends; a cyber control totally vulnerable to a long overdue massive solar flare.

    1. You are absolutely correct – and if it is not a solar flare, it will be some teenager in his parents’ basement (remember the flash crash on WS a few years ago). The folly of running so many of our, quite literally, essential services, with a technology that is so vulnerable to disruption with a few key strokes anywhere on the planet has never ceased to amaze me … Indeed, as they say, humans can make mistakes but it takes a computer to really foul things up – esp. when that computer will, eventually, be hacked …

  14. “All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” Adam Smith

    “Accumulation of wealth at one pole is at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole.” Karl Marx

    The 1980 US Supreme Court case Diamond v. Chakrabarty remains a little known momentous turning point relevant to what Ellen Brown covers here. Chakrabarty, a genetic engineer employed by General Electric (“We Bring Good Things to Life”), developed a bacterium for treating oil spills. After an appeals process with the US Patent Office over its decision to deny a patent for this microbe on grounds that living things cannot be patented, SCOTUS decided in Chakrabarty’s/GE’s favor. Seven years later, the US Patent Office decreed that anything in the world that’s alive, except a full-growth human being, may be patented.

    Another turning point occurred in 1992, on the heels of the Cold War’s conclusion and in anticipation of the New American Century with the “end of history” (Fukuyama), at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) or Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to address issues like alleged CO2-based climate change and biological diversity or biodiversity for a supposedly sustainable world in the 21st century (Agenda 21). What the legally binding Convention on Biological Diversity boiled down to was the ‘conservation’ and ‘sustainable’ use of biodiversity by means of biotechnology and the patenting of genetic resources related to agriculture (as with genetically engineered seeds from Monsanto/Bayer or lab-grown meat from Gates), drugs and medicines (as with vaccines), and raw materials for industry. Agenda 21 was updated in 2015 by the 2030 Agenda and the digitalization of genetic resources, and is currently being refined since 2020 to include special attention to pandemic pathogens.

    In short, all species of life are now set to be digitally sequenced and databased as assets of ruling private property interests for ‘licensing’, or rent, to ‘inhabitants’, or serfs, of a global ‘commons’, or techno-feudal social system, all being converted to synthetic life forms, especially as the mapping of all DNA on earth is now underway. This ownership and control of life includes us, with the mapping of the human genome completed in the 1990s, the mapping of the human brain nearing completion, and the genetic modification of our ‘species’, or eventually patented mutants, currently underway with the ‘vaccines’, or mRNA agents, being rolled out across the planet.

    As academic apologist for the World Economic Forum and Great Reset Yuval Harari puts it, we must no longer think of ourselves as mysterious souls, or autonomous beings possessing inalienable rights and freedoms, but as hackable animals. And indeed, the goal of this transhumanist agenda is to make the entire earth hackable, drawing on potentials of nanotechnology to reconstitute life as machinery at the most elemental molecular and atomic levels. Welcome to the Matrix.

    There’s a trap that’s long been laid for us by the “masters (or monsters) of mankind.” And the parallel lines of its development, from monetizing to digitizing nature and more, are now converging to irreversibly lock us down in absolute “misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation.” Understanding how they’re connected – “to be aware of the threat at our doorsteps” (Brown) – is a necessary first step in fighting the future. Otherwise, “imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever” (Orwell).

    (See also Iain Davis’ “Seizing Everything: The Theft of the Global Commons – Part 1” in OffGuardian, one valuable source for making connections.)

    1. I agree with much of what you say, but I would like to drill down a bit more on the issue of vaccines – precisely how will our DNA be altered by the mRNA versions – in a targeted or haphazard manner? I think viral genes have been influencing human and other DNA for as long as there have been humans … Having said that I, too, am opposed to this vaccine platform for other reasons – mainly because of its “high tech” nature – such that their formulation is by a highly exclusionary process – unavailable for easy replication by the rest of the world – i.e. in a format designed to be a money maker, as it has been, for a few private companies.

      I believe in vaccines – they go back a long way, before folks saw them as a means for making money – and to add insult to injury, the current ones are leaky and don’t last that long – making it “necessary” to make new ones – kaching! There are more tried and true platforms, if fighting pandemics are really what it’s all about – e.g ones made from the killed/inactivated virus itself, and there are some companies who are working on them – so why do we only finance and contract for the current ones, hmmm,

      I did get vaccinated with the J&J – not ideal but closer, i thought, to Pfizer, – because, for all their faults, they do seem to decrease severe disease and death from this virus, I do care about other folks – and my ability to transmit this disease to them.

      I think – in our critiques of this system which is, indeed, invading, internally and externally, all our lives with technologies, we, you and I, that is, we don’t have control over – we need be careful that we don’t flush everything down the sewer …

      1. At this point, monoclonal antibodies for treating infected people seems like a much better option that largely ineffective and very short-lived vaccines.

      2. Don’t remember the brand name, but it’s the drug that Trump was treated with. It looks like it’s highly effective so long as you take it soon after being infected.

        Of course it’s better to prevent getting the disease in the first place, but the vaccines don’t prevent you from getting it. Your question presents a false choice. The only thing the vaccines do is prevent you from being so sick you have to be hospitalized, or from dying.

      3. Trump was treated with several things – which one did you have in mind ….
        Never said one had to make a choice between prevention and treatment – I would rather prevent getting a disease than have to be treated for it … but of course, to each his own ….
        As to the vaccines – we need better ones …

      4. Thanks for your reply. Regarding some of your points, due to lack of transparency, and accountability, we simply can’t be sure what people are being injected with, and whether there’s select or random distribution of products, if not placebos. On a related note, FDA approval of Pfizer’s Comirnaty means nothing, as it’s not available, and simply seems a sleazy cover for continuing to administer the Pfizer/BioNTech product, which under emergency use authorization and unlike the FDA approval provides Pfizer with total legal immunity. Pfizer (on track to rake in $36 billion in sales by year’s end) seems poised to monopolize the market among pharma companies, and its contracts with national governments exert dictatorial power over them. Controversy over exclusionary intellectual property seems contrived to displace attention from the nature of the product itself, as well as setting up the scenario for even greater profits should the vaccination campaign become even more extensive worldwide than it already is.

        Orwell’s observation of who controls the past controls the future, and who controls the present controls the past, or Marx’s on how the ruling ideas of every age are the ideas of the ruling class, or the more colloquial ‘history is written by the victors’ is worth recalling here.

        When it comes to vaccines in general, there’s been a steady repression of dissent, namely from terrain theory, to the dominant yet still dubious germ theory and the idea that viruses lead to disease, as well as the correlative theory of vaccination, rather than standards of public health like sanitation and unpolluted environments, as curative, palliative, or preventive. This includes repression of counter-evidence to the dominant theory, as for instance the absence of empirical verification for the claim, to take the most popularized or propagandized example, that Jonas Salk’s vaccine saved people from polio, when in fact it was introduced when polio already was on the wane, and even contributed to new if not worse cases (as has more recently been demonstrated, among other grisly eugenic effects like sterilization, with Gates Foundation programs in Africa and India).

        Notably, there also have been challenges to the narrative of the (misnamed) Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918, with which Covid-19 has been compared, at least initially when inflated mathematical projections of death from thoroughly discredited yet still officially backed and Gates-funded Neil Ferguson of the UK’s Imperial College, along with Gates-funded IHME at the University of Washington, were instrumental in creating panic and legitimating lockdowns by governments. The tens of millions of deaths at that earlier time have been linked to repeated vaccination of WWI soldiers and then others. Is that history going to be repeated in the present?

        A principal reason for the ascendancy of germ theory and vaccination is the monopolization of medicine by the pharmaceutical industry, beginning with John D. Rockefeller’s expansion of oil production into pharmaceutical derivatives and accompanying colonization of the practice of medicine, from control of medical schools to creation of the AMA enabling the licensing of professionals practicing allopathic medicine and the crucial publication of the (Carnegie Foundation) Flexner Report, rather than more natural methods whose practitioners were and still are marginalized if not denied licensing or even subjected to modern with hunts by the established authorities. Like the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation has been a central player behind the p(l)andemic response; see especially the “Lock Step” scenario in its 2010 “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development” which lays out details such as extensive digital surveillance and security for a far more authoritarian and controlled world – in the interest of capital development.

        As for the present, and unprecedented, global vaccination campaign, dissent from the dominant narrative, in which corporate media (including Big Tech), corporate science, and the corporate state have assumed totalitarian uniformity, can be hard to come across. Even official admissions which betray the narrative, such as the fact these injections of mRNA genetic engineering representing anything but conventional vaccines do not provide immunity but only reduced symptoms while still permitting if not increasing transmissibility (i.e., making the vaxxed, not the unvaxxed, ‘superspreaders’), have been dispatched down the memory hole.

        Keep in mind, too, that Operation Warp Speed involved rollout of these products in a matter of months, contrary to the R&D of 10-15 years for conventional vaccines, under strictest secrecy of the medical-military industrial complex, skipping typical animal trials and going straight to (rigged) human trials (now invalidated with the injection of placebo groups) and then the general population, makes this all experimental on a staggering scale, and with no transparency. So gathering information and establishing conclusive evidence, from DNA altering effects, like follow-up on patterns of birth deformities and stillbirths from mothers injected during pregnancy, to ingredients and properties of contents from limited vials able to be obtained as well as injected patients, like blood-clotting, immuno-compromising spike proteins or graphene oxide nanotechnology, remains a work in progress. On the other hand, past R&D for a coronavirus vaccine over the past couple of decades, including mRNA methods, demonstrates from the deaths of all animal test subjects that antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) or pathogenic priming is likely, with some dissenting doctors providing potential remedies and treatments (along with recommendations to not get any further injections, as with ‘boosters’).

        Some of these doctors and other researchers may be found in a series of interviews for the upcoming November 20th release of the documentary “Planet Lockdown.” You also can come across such primary sources as well as broad and in-depth coverage on OffGuardian. I also recommend Children’s Health Defense, The Highwire (also Vaxxed documentary)/Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), National Vaccine Information Center,, Mikki Willis’ docs and book on ‘Plandemic’, Global Research, Swiss Policy Research, The Last American Vagabond, Unlimited Hangout, Corbett Report, Rutherford Institute, Dr. Joseph Mercola…all of which I may not be in complete agreement with while still finding useful, critical information.

        Best wishes.

      5. Wow! You are all over the map here – it does appear that you are using sources, though I am not familiar with all of them, that appear to back up what is rather clearly, to me, an anti-vaxx position to the point of appearing to claim that pandemic diseases are caused by vaccinations themselves! And the length of your post with all its points also indicates to me that this is not the first time you have used it. With all that in mind, though many, if not most, of your points could be rather easily and extensively refuted, there is no point in my attempting to do so here – it’s rather clear to me that there is nothing I could say, no “facts” i could present, that would sway, let alone convince, you toward anything other than what you have chosen to believe. I have been here before and, like so much of our discourse these days, on so many subjects, comes down to “he said, she said” where quantity, not quality, of argument is considered of import ….

        Nevertheless, there are a couple of of observations that occurred to me
        ” …. due to lack of transparency, and accountability, we simply can’t be sure what people are being injected with,”
        I suggest that such a lack applies to anything you eat, as well, unless of course, you grow all your own food, in soil that you know the content of – yet you do eat, I assume. I would also assume that you know the content of all the air you breathe, and water you drink. Actually we can’t really be “sure” of anything , can we, to the extent that you seem to demand of vaccines. So the idea that we shouldn’t put something in our body that hasn’t been verified as “pure”, by whom using what standards, I might ask – seems a rather rickety point to hang an argument on …

        ” …. dominant yet still dubious germ theory and the idea that viruses lead to disease You seem to prefer treatments to vaccines – but what causes the disease you are treating? I might guess that you eschew antibiotics as treatments, because they work to kill or inactivate things you seem to say don’t exist. And, in any case why did that wonderful “organ” of our bodies, the immune system, evolve over the millennia – what’s it for, what does it do, how does it work?

        “Vaxxed v unvaxxed” as “superspreaders – I think you would have a hard time proving that one – but to the extent that vaxxed people spread the disease, I posit it is because they have made a faulty assumption – that these vaccines prevent infection , they do not, and anyone infected can transmit – the vaccines help to neutralize, but not sterilize – they have been demonstrated to reduce hospitalizations and death. So folks seem to be thinking that once vaccinated, they don’t need to engage in good ole fashion NPIs, like mask wearing, but I suspect you are opposed to masks as well because they either don’t work, although multiple studies have shown that masks of proper material and fit do work to reduce transmission of viral particles to a significant degree, or given your apparent belief that “germs” don’t cause disease anyway, who needs ’em (the masks).

        As for ADE – that is one of the reasons the first round of trials is done – to evaluate safety – any indication of ADE means the vaccine is trashed –

        Look, I have critiques of these vaccines as well – because, IMO, they chose an insufficient variety of viral RNA epitopes to induce a more sufficient immune response – the virus, as “germs” will do, given a chance to evolve because it was allowed to spread among so many, happened upon a way to get around the vaccine – from the first appearance of the Delta variant, it was clear that the vaccine immunity was “diminished” – so, do we need no vaccines or better ones … where is all the research using the old tried and true vaccine platform – killed/inactivated virus? (I have heard the bit about polio vaccines spreading polio – but I ask, was it the live viral one, or the killed/inactivated one – from what I have read it is the former)

        After going round Robin Hood’s barn, we get back to at least part of the point of Ellen’s post – corps with a lot of money use it to make more – by “influencing” politicians, to press for approval of and then buy a lot of products produced using hi tech methods that require expensive, exclusive (patentable) processes, that cannot be easily or cheaply reproduced.

        So I think our critiques should be not in terms of whether the concept of vaccines, per se, are bad (they go back hundreds of years) – but whether we the people cede power to large corporations who are not really interested in producing the best product, but one they can make the most money out of ..

  15. I am reminded of Groo the Wanderer issue 55, The Island of Felicidad.

    Groo goes to an island, and hearing a little information about the wants and complaints of the islanders, goes and tries to ‘solve’ their ‘problems.’ He overharvests or slays species after species and destroys the environment on the island in the process, never intending harm, only trying to maximize one benefit at a time.

    1. The correct moral or lesson to draw from stories like that is that we should live as lightly on the Earth as we can, not overpopulate, and not overconsume. Problem is, humans have been overpopulating and overconsuming starting with agriculture 10-12,000 years ago. The Groo story is the story of agricultural societies.

  16. It seems self-evident that capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction. Like Hedges and others have commented, capitalism is on life-support, needing the Treasury to survive, which is like going to Mom and Dad constantly to pay for the kids’ destructive habits.

    There can be unintended consequences to any experiment, and what Ellen talks about is capitalism’s experiment on a world scale. Sure, BlackRock can have its day in the sun, but anyone sympathetic to this news site will not see this system as in any way sustainable, let alone moral.

    Part of the issue is that we all work (or invest) to live, and directly or indirectly help keep the system going. It’s very difficult to pull away from society, as we cannot live well or long on our own, and try to create alternatives.

  17. In the case of the environment, if there is money to be made, someone will exploit it. Though it’s disappointing, it’s not surprising. Nothing else matters but making the almighty dollar at any cost.

    One of my favorite authors on the economy hit it spot on with honesty and insight while admittedly having a wait-and-see approach on how this plays out. Why Ms. Brown hasn’t achieved more notoriety is beyond me.

    1. The problem is that money exists at all. An even more fundamental problem is that many thousands of years ago, humans went down the path of obsession with ego, intellect, and unnatural/harmful manipulation of the physical/natural world. We could have gone down the path of focusing on wisdom, empathy (for all life, not just humans), and focusing on expanding our consciousness instead (which a tiny minority have done), but alas we didn’t and now here we are.

  18. SH:

    There’s no “Reply” option to your last post above, so here’s some response. First, I’m no more “all over the map,” as you said, than yourself. My points, after all, largely were responses to yours. That would also seem to make it rather difficult for me to be recycling a post I’ve used before, as you said.

    I see you sum up some grounds for skepticism when it comes to the dominant narrative of germ theory (dubious as a sufficient explanation of disease) and vaccination in terms of my being anti-vaxx, That itself may echo the dominant narrative, given how ‘anti-vaxxers’, ‘anti-science’ and associated triggers have been weaponized by pharmaceutical interests to influence public opinion to assume unquestioning belief, without factual basis or any inclination to seek one, when it comes to the putative wonders of vaccines and miracles of modern medicine, which if anything might recall the mystifications of medieval religion. The last decade alone, dubbed the Decade of Vaccines by big pharma front man Gates, saw a more concerted campaign through the media controlled by both him and pharma to make any dissent to vaccines more of the same old quackery that allopathic medicine has long laid at the door of naturopathy, despite the massive fraud as well as iatrogenesis of the medical industrial complex.

    The promotion of vaccines upon captive consumers is part of the medical industry’s drug pushing in general, which makes Americans the most heavily medicated population on the planet and legalized drugs far more injurious and lethal than illicit trade. But the vaccine market is especially egregious with respect to this history of corporate corruption and criminality. Noteworthy is the 1986 SCOTUS decision to grant legal immunity (perhaps the only kind pharma really cares about) to manufacturers of vaccines for injuries and deaths from their products, or poisons for those who are aware of the ingredients, many carcinogenic (e.g., aluminum, mercury, sterilization agents, MSG, formaldehyde, GMOs, squalene).

    Thereafter, the rollout of vaccines upon the general population exploded, particularly targeting children (and schools as strategic inroads for broader mandates), such that by now any child following protocol will have received at least 72 injections by the time s/he reaches 18 years of age. Of course, since then the exponential rise of autism and other chronic illnesses, now affecting at least half the children in the US, is nothing more than anti-vaxxer, anti-science ‘misinformation’, and the unlikelihood of any serious scientific study into such matters by those controlling the funding for such enables ongoing dismissals of the documented evidence along lines of correlation not being causation, etc.

    An interesting footnote on background to 1986 is the 1976 (not the 2009) Swine Flu fraud, which led to significant lawsuits for damages from vaccine injury and death, contributing to the lobbying, or bribing, for legal immunity. A 60-Minutes investigative expose from that time provides a stark contrast to today’s mindless media cheerleading for vaccines. Notably, after approximately 50 deaths nationwide, the vaccination campaign then was halted. Currently, the reports of injuries (800,000+) and deaths (close to 20,000) from the covid ‘vaccines’ (or gene editing) as these continue to be pushed exceed all injuries and deaths since the VAERS reporting system was established after 1986 (with an estimate as low as 1% of all actual injuries and deaths accounted for by this system).

    Most of what you assert sounds like it has been gathered from mainstream media sources rather than investigation of sources independent of the corporate interests promoting the ‘pandemic’, like those I recommended, where you will find research into other claims you make, such as cross-national and cross-regional studies showing excess illness and mortality correlated with higher vaccination rates, and longstanding studies from the WHO and CDC themselves, some of which have been disappeared, showing the ineffectiveness of masks, including statements from Fauci and warning labels from OSHA to that effect. And the reason animal trials were skipped for the covid non-vaccines is because, as noted already, it was well-established that ADE would lead to their tests subjects’ deaths, thus endangering warp(ed) speed rollout, and so it was straight to human lab rats, and continuing.

    Until your easy refutations are forthcoming, these things are not just a matter of opinion or belief or ‘he-said/she-said’, especially when sources of profit – and power – are lying on an unprecedented, totalitarian scale. Yes, we are lied to about the food we eat, the water we drink, the air we breathe, and on and on. But that’s hardly an argument for stepping further into darkness and surrendering our right of bodily autonomy to biotechnological colonization of the species by those who already have demonstrated our welfare is of little to no value for them.

    1. It is you who are the wrong kind of green. What’s most important here is the Earth and all life on it, not certain groups of humans. Removing humans from ecosystems would be a great thing for those beings. Unless you can show that the people who support removal of humans don’t actually propose restoration of ecosystems, but instead would just do another type of harm or harms, you’re on the wrong side here. Of course the people who’ve lived the least unnaturally are the ones living on the land in the best shape for restoration and with the greatest biodiversity, but unless those people are hunter-gatherers, they are doing harm and should be removed.

      Eventually, ALL land should be restored to the greatest extent possible to its natural state, and all humans should greatly reduce their population and consumption. But we have to start somewhere, and we also should prioritize areas with great biodiversity and in the best shape in order to save as much as possible of the natural world that humans have almost completely destroyed.

  19. I’m glad you’ve written about this. I’ve done what I can to support Cory’s work on the development of natural capital thinking over the last few years. As a member of the Wrong Kind of Green critical thinking collective I’m obliged to consider where we are in relation to a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Nature. Sadly that objective was lost just weeks ago at the IUCN World Congress. I wrote about the cross over between rights of nature and natural capital early last year. Fellow Scheer Post writer Chris Hedges gets a mention in that blog post. You might want to raise with him the issue of the ‘Conservation Industrial Complex’ mentioned in Derrick Jensen’s ‘Open Letter to Reclaim Environmentalism’.

  20. this is not new, once upon a time, a few centuries ago, people did not own land, not until someone/group decided they did own it, and proceeded to take from those who did not have a concept of land ownership

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: