In the serene, John Bauer-like surroundings of Ösjönäs in central Sweden I spent half a day, saturday march 21st, listening to Polly Higgins a British barrister who claims to speak on behalf of nature. All of the other participants of the 40 or so audience, were already saved believers that Earth is going to be ruined very soon if we do not relinquish individual freedoms to the high priests of the intrinsicalist church. These were the gnomes and trolls sitting next to me.
Here are my notes on what I wanted to look for, listen for, in her lecture on ecocide march 21st. I had read the invitation and the brief in Swedish about her work. It stated among other things that she is a leading international “rock star” of environtmentalism. I knew that she would be coming to this meeting from a series of meetings with Swedish ministers (politicians) and civil servants working with environmental laws. She would have told them about the law she wants to see enacted throughout the world and how she would like today’s laws and philosophy around environmental law interpreted.
I will write at least four pieces about this meeting. Below are the facts I intended to keep in mind and if opportunity arose ask her about.
Status Quo will never “happen”! As change is the only constant in nature, status quo will have to be forced to occur. Eternal change is the only sustainability of life.
Nature can not die. It can not be eradicated from the planet. Nature and even life, will always prevail. Life is motion. Motion is change. Change is the consquence of life. To eradicate change would mean death to all life.
Julian L Simon has checked all the claims of species extinction. He found that on average one species per year goes extinct. That number has been rather constant over time, with or without human influence.
The erosion of farmable soil is less than the reproduction/creation of new soil.
The global population growth has never been exponential.
Thomas Malthus has been proven fundamentally wrong over and over again.
Intrinsicalism is the willful denial of the right to private property. It is the end of individual human rights and the triumph of the numbers of ignorant masses over constitutional law. It is truly the dictatorship of the proletariat. In one word, Tyranny!
High flyers seek to swindle property owners to cede their right to care for or speak for their own properties, to NGOs and professional lobbyists. This is an infringement on private liberties, on our negative rights.
NGO:s are no real legal stakeholders where private property is concerned. Only interested parties have legal and moral rights to make decissions and challenge such decissions.
If you wish to decide over a piece of land, buy it, and take the full responsibilities of ownership. Don’t endeavour to usurp it, as this shall for ever taint the ethics of your rule.
There is no man made climate change. There has not been any significant temperature change the last 18 years. NASA/GISS, Had/Crut offers no explanations as to why their predictions all have been totally wrong.
Carbondioxide is the gas of life through photosynthesis. The world has become greener the last twenty years. Harvests rising, feeding more people.
Heraclitus got it right 2500 years ago, Panta Rei, You can not go into the same river twice.
In Swedish this experience is expressed as årsmån (explanation in english), the entire span of normal natural variations.
Charles Darwin proved, aside from the evolution (that means change, by the way) of species, that corall islands follow the ocean’s rising and falling throughout history. Hence there is no point in talking about sustainability, when you are suggesting to stop the changes.
We have no precise records, in the modern scientific meaning of the term, of climate or climate change at all, really. The satellite measurments, that are the only thing that comes close, are still to new, to recent.
Sustainability is a BS word in the call for the impossible status quo in nature.
I sat front row taking notes and occasionally asking questions or commenting. In the intermission she sat down beside me asking questions, because I had asked interesting questions. I took that as a confirmation that I was the only one present asking relevant questions or posing informed statements.
She noticed this memo and asked to read it, then she wanted to have it e-mailed to her. I have added a few lines for clarity. So she is by now well informed of my views. I even clarified it by saying that I have to stop her from getting her law in place.