Many, if not most, people in America, believe that global warming is a genuine threat to the planet. A carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign has succeeded in shaping public opinion to believe that ice caps are melting, tropical islands are sinking, that coastal cities will be flooded, and weather extremes are but a precursor of calamities to come -- despite solid scientific evidence to the contrary. The scientific community is in absolute agreement that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased dramatically during the 20th century. In the 1970s, a handful of scientists speculated that this increase would cause global cooling. In the 1980s, many of the same scientists decided that the increase of carbon dioxide would cause global warming. The actual scientific data reveals that neither scenario is correct. Actual temperatures have remained essentially constant, with fluctuations well within the range of normal variability. Why, then, are policy makers so eager to wage war on fossil-fuel energy if the actual scientific evidence reveals no damage to the climate?

Ascribing motives to policy makers is a dangerous business. Nevertheless, in view of the persistence with which policy makers insist on the dangers of global warming, when clearly no immediate dangers are in view, and considering the impact of the proposed remedies, some analysis of possible motivation may well be in order.

What is the source of the global warming scare? Who benefits? Who suffers? How does the money flow? Accurate answers to these questions frequently illuminate even the darkest corners of public policy decisions.

The United Nations initiated serious discussion of global warming in the 1980s, first with a World Conference on Climate held in Canada, and then with the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The United Nations, and its accredited NGOs (non-government organizations), with substantial help from Al Gore and Timothy Wirth, have provided the impetus for the global warming propaganda that has circled the globe. Why? If people believe the planet is imperiled, they will accept policies to mitigate the danger.

The propaganda says the planet is warming as the result of increased carbon dioxide emissions. Therefore, carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced. The most effective way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels produce almost 80% of the world's electricity and energize nearly 500 million automobiles worldwide. The United Nations claims the United States, with only 20% of the world's population, is consuming 80% of the world's natural resources, thereby depriving the rest of the world equity of benefit from the earth's resources. The United State's ability to transform natural resources into consumer goods is dependent upon the availability of energy which fuels its gigantic industrial complex. If energy is removed, or priced beyond economic feasibility, consumption will decrease, as will carbon dioxide emissions, and the world will be safe. Or will it?

The global war on energy is declared only on developed nations. In the short term, taxes and other artificial costs applied to energy use, will be available to redistribute to developing nations through an incredible variety of transfer schemes. Since 1994, $2.3 billion has already been transferred by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) in the form of grants for global warming projects. In the longer term, developing nations -- not subject to the draconian emissions standards -- will welcome the new industry that flows from developed countries to the developing countries where energy is available and cheap.

Who benefits? Who suffers? It is clear. Developed nations, the U.S. in particular, suffer; developing nations benefit. And how does the money flow? Through the institution that benefits most, the United Nations. It is the United Nations that will collect the money and distribute the money. And with control of the money flow comes the control of people. Remember the "Golden Rule:" He who has the gold - rules!

HL

We were disappointed to learn that someone is using our Directory edition to solicit networking organizations. They are doing so without our permission or blessing. The Directory is intended to help organizations network; not to sell merchandise. Please check your organization's listing and let us know if any changes are necessary.

The war on energy has begun in earnest, with the announcement by Carol Browner that new air quality standards are in the offing. Two articles discuss the implications of this attack on energy.

The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act will be reintroduced early in the 105th Congress. A broad strategy is developing to get this important legislation enacted.

The feature which starts on page 12 will probably discourage many who are constantly fighting the budget battle. We list 154 GAGs that have assets or income in excess of $5 million.

Two articles focus on the World Food Summit recently concluded in Rome. Berit Kjos analyzes the Summit in the broader context of other UN initiatives.

One of our readers shares correspondence with Al Gore. A series of three letters reveals the arrogance, if not contempt, Gore holds for those who question his actions.

The War on energy

New National Air Quality Standards

By Willy Peterson

ell, they're at it again. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been in the rulemaking process with special interest groups, business, industry, and other public and private organizations, to draft a proposed rule on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter.

Ozone (O₃) is produced in the lower atmosphere by a series of chemical reactions, involving volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), in the presence of high temperatures and sunlight. On hot, sunny days, given the right conditions, some parts of the country experience relatively high levels of ozone, a common precursor to smog. The current limit for ozone is 0.12 ppm (parts per million), sustained for a 1-hour period. EPA's latest proposals range from 0.07 to 0.09 ppm and vary in their testing frequency.

Ironically, many parts of the country will automatically wind up in violation of EPA's proposed levels, due to naturally occurring and highly reactive VOCs given off by a number of biogenic sources, such as trees, shrubs and wetland ecosystems. In some parts of the country, these types of emissions may even account for visible smog and haze that is naturally induced. Ever hear of the Smokey Mountains? Well, it ain't that way from grandpa's old wood-burning stove. That haze was there long before many of our ancestors arrived on the scene.

Nevertheless, the architectural and industrial paint sector, which contributes less than two percent of potentially reactive VOC emissions, has just been trounced by national VOC regulations that will directly result in the loss of savings, product quality and will significantly increase the amount of industrial wastes generated at construction sites. Many of the VOCs traditionally used in this sector are only marginally reactive and then only under conditions optimal for ozone formation. Air chemistry in general and the smog phenomenon in particular is far too complex to simplistically address by a one-size-fits-all national rule. Regional air studies indicate that by shifting the balance from anthropogenic VOCs to some of the more reactive biogenic VOCs, certain parts of the country may even expect to see an overall increase in ozone production, as a direct result of EPA's new VOC rule.

Some scientists are beginning to look into a rather new field of research that will consider the role of anthropogenic VOCs as a source of nutrients, contributing much needed carbon, to a variety of otherwise nutrient-starved aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This is really not as implausible as it may appear on the surface. Consider the fact that one of the latest fads to revolutionize our current inventory of pollution treatment and environmental remediation technology is known as bioremediation, which among other features, mimics natural nutrient acquisition strategies in order to treat VOC emissions in water and air. Simple bacteria are used to consume organic solvents that wind up in municipal wastewater streams. Peat moss beds infused with bacteria and fungus are installed in emissions stacks, rendering the fumes harmless carbon dioxide and water. Aquatic plants are commonly used in treatment ponds to break down VOCs through enzymatic reaction to facilitate absorption of the simpler carbon chains that are yielded. If humans have been so successful at utilizing these natural processes to treat industrial and municipal wastes, imagine how efficient our natural ecosystems must be at capitalizing on many of our diluted and degraded emissions of organic compounds. The efficiency of natural ecosystems, which are in a much better position to capitalize on available organic material, provides a helpful insight as to why there does not seem to be any environmental build-up of VOCs, which are often simplistically categorized as "toxic chemical wastes."

The classic precursors to smog, VOCs and NOx, are both by-products of automobile exhaust. That is one reason why Al Gore believes the automobile to be the number one enemy of the earth. Fossil fuel plants and incinerators are also emitters of NOx. Regardless of the forest's eager uptake of nitrogen, don't think for a minute that our power plants will escape the expensive burden of capture and disposal of nitrogen oxide fumes. The power industry is already engaged in emission trading with other companies to help defray the high cost of making electricity available to you and me.

Trees to become polluters

In addition to the new ozone standard, a new particulate matter standard is on the table. Currently limited to PM-10 (greater than 10 micron diameter), the new proposal will limit the emissions and/or formation of particulates down to 2.5 microns. Ironically, the trees are out of compliance again. New research shows that virtually all leaf-producing plants and cacti utilize a similar transport system for the uptake, utilization and emission of minerals and metal ions from the soil. At the end of the transport process to the leaves, excess heavy metals are apparently sequestered by organic acids within a waxy build-up that eventually becomes crystallized at the leaf surface, whereupon they can be shed back into the topsoil by rain, breezes or other factors. These crystals are picked up by wind currents to join other aerosols, concentrating in air zones heavy enough to impart a bluish haze that characterizes the visual splendor of certain mountain regions.

Back in the old days, prospectors were limited to the tell-tale signs of stream bed tailings to track potential veins of ore deposits. Now, high-tech prospectors can literally filter the air from low-flying aircrafts, analyzing crystalline plant aerosols, to determine the geologic profile of a particular region. Given the unique botanical, meteorological and geophysical characteristics of any region, these natural aerosols can easily overshadow anthropogenic sources of particulates and even contribute significant levels of lead and other heavy metals to an area's air quality. According to one local scientist, average particle sizes for these aerosols range from 1-3 microns, right in the range of EPA's proposed NAAWs limit. Once again, our forests along with many other natural sources of fine particulates, including dusts and pollen will be guilty of violating EPA's new air standards, regardless of human activity in those areas. Nevertheless, humans usually bear the blame as well as the burden for compliance. Could it be that the planting of a garden may one day require an air permit to allow for the production of particulate air pollution that might threaten state access to federal highway funds?

And what about the health effects from our current "heavy" days for ozone? Consider that these days occur during hot, dry periods where there is little air movement and there are lots of precursor emissions taking place. In Kansas City, during our worst days, while the print and broadcast media were panicking about ozone-related stress, citizens most likely suffered far more noticeable health effects from heat, humidity, pollen, molds, and dust, than ozone could have realistically caused at those levels. The anxiety from driving past warning signs posted along highways caused me far more noticeable irritation than trace levels of natural sanitizing compounds produced by natural processes.

According to toxicologist Irvine Sax, acute (immediate, temporary) noticeable health effects, such as headache or respiratory tract irritation may occur around eight times higher than EPA's current limit. Although the main issue appears to be driven by concerns for the hypersensitive victims of respiratory disease, studies have failed to show a clear line of demarcation indicating what level of ozone actually causes a statistically significant increase in hospital visits from respiratory disease victims. Many of these people are just as likely to be suffering from other factors of ozone-related climate than the nearly natural levels of ozone so often blamed for their condition. According to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CSAC), EPA's scientific review board on this particular air standard, a 33% drop from the current limit on ozone (0.12 ppm) would only yield a 0.3% reduction in hospital visits for asthmatics in the New York City area. Such an insignificant response is anticipated for all types of study groups that were evaluated, from children to athletes, which was what led the CASC to conclude that studies fail to show any significant increase in protection to public health from the newly proposed ozone standards.

At this point we must ask ourselves, "Is the risk worth the cost?" A study by Sierra Research found that in Chicago alone, for a perceived health benefit of $33 million, compliance to a new ozone standard could cost upwards of $7 billion. The Lake Michigan region could wind up spending over $14 billion to achieve improvements in their air quality that would arguably be undetectable by anybody's standards. These estimations do not even factor in the likely mass transit of business from American soil for less regulated foreign markets.

The truly sad part of this story is not the pollution, or lack thereof, it is the regulatory consequences of the new standards. In an attempt to control anthropogenic contributors to ozone formation in regional air zones, the EPA effectively has the authority to demand State Implementation Plans (SIPs) that will theoretically ensure compliance with federal air quality standards. State plans will vary from region to region but failure to meet the standards will inevitably bring stricter measures. Aside from the typical measures offered by states to meet new limits, such as energy taxes, reformulated gasoline, vapor recovery systems, and bans on outdoor barbecues, we can expect to see a severe impact on smaller businesses and industry, ranging from the local hardware store to the bakery, to the auto repair shop. The new ozone limit appears to have its most significant impact on the petroleum-based infrastructure at large.

New Jersey already has a law on the books that threatens to implement roadside emissions testing for any car over four years old. Failure could result in penalties ranging from citations to immediate impoundment. Licensing and registration will be contingent upon the results of strict emissions guidelines. Owners of older, worn or maladjusted vehicles will suffer greatly from this law. Some exemptions may be granted for collector cars that meet strict definitions, but many drivers will simply be unable to afford the cost of emissions-compliant driving.

Many are wondering why we need a standard to control air-borne particulates. The argument is posed that as smog continues to grow throughout the day, small respirable particulates are formed that can cause significant health effects, therefore we must control the precursors to smog, as well as particulates. However, due to the difficulty of distinguishing between human-formed and naturally-occurring microscopic air-borne particles, all particulates over 2.5 microns will contribute to a region's violation of the EPA rule.

As I was studying some maps, provided courtesy of the American Petroleum Institute, I noticed that most of the counties that would fail the new PM-10 standard would be confined to the western half of the U.S., in deserts, mining areas, and some mountain zones, just where one would expect to find a great deal of dust. Forecasted violations of the PM-2.5 standard would add to those, the heavily forested areas of Oregon, Washington, Northern California and much of the Eastern half of the U.S., in areas where we would expect billions of trees to scatter their bountiful portions of tiny crystalline particulates. All states East of the Mississippi River would contain pockets of non-attainment zones, including most of the New England region. In effect, no portion of the country will escape non-attainment status with EPA's new law, which will most certainly bring all states under onerous and continual enforcement action.

Mining and construction

In addition to the regulations related to smog, the new PM standard will be pointed at mining, construction and the transportation industry. The current standard that is just now starting to phase in will have severe impact on our society in ways too difficult to thoroughly predict. Busses, heavy industrial trucks and trailers will be pulled from service if they aren't retrofitted with HEPA filtration equipment. Soon to follow will be EPA hazardous waste training, record keeping and disposal costs for contaminated filters that will most likely be classified under RCRA. Who can afford to gear up for such a heavy regulatory burden? Large corporations to medium-sized businesses that have staffs of regulatory compliance specialists, are already able to meet this demand. Mom and pop will most likely go belly-up. And all this without even dropping the limit from 10 to 2 microns, and we haven't even begun to discuss the impact on mining and construction at large.

With regards to ozone standards, the Los Angeles air region is by far the most extreme non-attainment area in the country. Following that comes Chicago, Houston, and New York, under the "severe" non-attainment areas. Total counties that technically remain in the non-attainment status number 75. A proposed ozone limit of 0.08 ppm for 1-hour period would extend the non-compliance areas to 214, covering south-central Texas to the Great lakes and the Eastern half of the country, dragging the surrounding rural areas into the metros' regulatory demise. Many of the expected non-attainment zones will have no explainable human activity to account for their suddenly "polluted" conditions.

If the NAAQS proposals that are on the table become law, counties in violation will account for approximately half of the land mass of the United States of America. Every state in the nation will be cast into a perpetual non-attainment status with no realistic chance of escape, regardless of their State Implementation Plans or activities at the local level.

What is even more significant than the potential for police state policies or the push for collectivist political and economic agendas is the impression that a misinformed public receives when they are painfully reminded that their state or county is in constant violation our national "environmental standards." How can any reasonable government official honestly address the issues when he or she could so easily be characterized as an environmental sadist, eager to "roll back our laws that protect the earth." This kind of nagging biocentric mindset, is the most profound side-effect of EPA's proposed ozone standards, especially in light of "government reinvention," which is gradually turning the reins over to public stakeholders, decision-makers, and community activists, frequently described as "civil society."

In summary, what we have here in EPA's hypothetical NAAQS proposal is the proverbial one-two punch at our American civilization, that when enforced, could severely cripple the economy, manufacturing sector and limit our ability to carry on our current and relatively clean way of life, for marginally foreseeable benefits. This proposal is all about power. If we are to survive this continued onslaught by the EPA, we must get Congress to revisit the new Clean Air Act and undo the needless destruction that is implicit in its current form.

Endnotes

1. Since ozone may have a half-life of a few minutes, pending atmospheric conditions, daily levels may fluctuate greatly.

2. Compare 0.10 for Kansas City with 0.19 for Los Angeles to note the significant variation that occurs between these two areas, rendering a single federal limit misguided and poorly founded for such a complex geographical diversity as exists in America. The Los Angeles Basin is and has long been our most extreme case for ozone and smog. It would be absurd to enforce a standard addressing the problems in Los Angeles to Kansas City or even St. Louis, with such divergent natural and societal conditions.

3. N. Irving Sax, Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, Van Nostrand Reinhold, Third Edition, 1963, p. 989.

(For a free complete, documented analysis of this issue, write Willy Peterson, P.O. Box 242, Bonner Springs, KS 66012 (913) 441-1710).

The war on energy

Locating the Battle Fields

Carol Browner's new proposed standards to reduce low-level ozone and particulates may well be the shot heard 'round the world as the opening salvo in the escalating war on fossil-fuel energy. For years, anti-energy forces have been mobilizing their forces, accumulating their resources, refining their strategies, and have now launched their attack. For many observers, the objectives of the anti-energy forces are simply too bizarre to be taken seriously. For those who have studied the intelligence reports, no other conclusion can be reached: fossil-fuel energy must be removed from developed countries.

The EPA justifies its new proposed standard with ambiguous assertions that too many people are suffering from microscopic particulates. It is not known how many people are affected or which particulates are the culprits. No one knows how much it will cost to achieve the standards Browner has proposed. These important unknowns are unimportant to the anti-energy forces. Neither benefit to the public nor cost to the economy are of concern. The objective is clearly to reduce or eliminate the use of fossil-fuel energy in developed countries. The two immediate targets are automobiles and electricity. The methodology is to make use of both automobiles and electricity too expensive for all but the ultra-rich, or those who are exempted by governmental decree. The underlying justification for the attack on energy is the threat of global warming.

Protecting America

Article IV, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution is quite clear: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needed Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States...." Forty-seven Biosphere Reserves and 20 World Heritage Sites have been designated in the United States. These designations bring very specific land use management requirements. Congress has not been involved in either the designation or the regulation of any of these designated properties. The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, introduced by Don Young (R-AK), would simply require that any American land designated for any purpose by an organization of the United Nations - be approved by Congress.

Wealthy GAGs: Income or Assets over $5 million

(Organizations that listed "Preservation of Natural Resources" as a primary activity on their IRS 990 form. Only organizations with income or assets in excess of $5 million are listed here.)

SOURCE: INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS FILE

Key: 1. Year founded; 2. Last report filed;3. Donations tax deductible

ORGANIZATION	LOCATION		INCOME	ASSETS	1	2	3
AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION	WASHINGTON	DC	5,421,194	3,532,463	62	Jun 95	Y
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION	PITTSBURGH	PA	6,472,130	4,808,296	52	Apr 95	Y
AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL FUND	WASHINGTON	DC	5,095,941	3,667,335	73	Jun 95	Y
AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION	ENGLEWOOD	CO	6,268,939	6,409,846	42	Jun 95	Y
AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST	WASHINGTON	DC	4,997,531	11,425,411	85	Sep 95	Y
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC	WASHINGTON	DC	5,685,451	3,268,165	43	Sep 95	N
AMERICANA FOUNDATION 71089	NOVI	MI	615,077	14,038,534	79	Dec 95	Y
ANDROSCOGGIN VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS	AUBURN	ME	1,823,442	5,620,533	71	Sep 95	Y
ANIMAS FOUNDATION	ST LOUIS	MO	33,735,893	34,757,019	94	Feb 95	Y
APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB	BOSTON	MA	14,654,419	17,637,906	34	Dec 94	Y
ARCHBOLD EXPEDITIONS	VENUS	FL	4,185,059	26,898,424	87	Dec 94	Y
ASPETUCK LAND TRUST INC	WESTPORT	CT	1,620,575	8,387,189	67	Dec 94	Y
ASS'N OF CONCERNED CHRISTIANS FOR EMERGING SOCIAL SERVICES	CONSHOHOCKEN	PA	5,545,162	594,251	76	Jun 95	Y
AUDUBON INSTITUTE INC	NEW ORLEANS	LA	6,463,956	12,264,841	95	Dec 94	Y
AUDUBON CANYON RANCH INC	STINSON BEACH	CA	8,297,325	10,327,151	64	Jun 95	Y
AUDUBON SOCIETY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE	CONCORD	NH	1,980,690	6,265,243	44	Mar 95	Y
BERRY COLLEGE BUSINESS SERVICES OFFICE	MOUNT BERRY	GA	38,136,553	115,042,601	26	Jun 95	Y
BLOCK ISLAND CONSERVANCY INC	BLOCK ISLAND	RI	1,133,506	5,048,188	73	Jun 95	Y
BRANDYWINE CONSERVANCY INC	CHADDS FORD	PA	12,070,374	37,487,315	67	Dec 94	Y
C O L FOUNDATION	ENGLEWOOD	CO	84,584	16,251,586	88	Dec 94	Y
CAESAR KLEBERG FOUNDATION FOR WILDLIFE CONSERVATION	SAN ANTONIO	TX	7,682,313	18,209,392	52	Dec 95	Y
CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS FOUNDATION	KENTFIELD	CA	1,225,812	5,300,733	69	Jun 95	Y
CENTER FOR PLANT CONSERVATION INC	ST LOUIS	MO	6,269,256	2,408,656	84	Dec 94	Y
CHARLES EDISON FUND	EAST ORANGE	NJ	10,771,576	25,249,571	52	Dec 94	Y
CHATHAM CONSERVATION FOUNDATION INC	CHATHAM	MA	231,716	8,948,750	63	Jul 95	Y
CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION INC	ANNAPOLIS	MD	13,954,767	25,751,180	66	Jun 95	Y
CHESAPEAKE BAY TRUST	ANNAPOLIS	MD	1,646,965	7,281,931	86	Jun 95	Y
CHICAGO ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY	BROOKFIELD	IL	291,878,226	91,641,231	41	Dec 94	Y
CHIPPEWA NATURE CENTER INC	MIDLAND	MI	7,401,155	18,150,515	66	Dec 95	Y
COASTAL LAND TRUST INC	MOBILE	AL	3,548,476	5,805,039	83	Dec 94	Y
COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION	HOUSTON	TX	6,139,826	1,649,457	78	Dec 94	Y
COLORADO OUTWARD BOUND SCHOOL	DENVER	CO	6,205,679	5,526,491	63	Dec 95	Y
CONSERVANCY INC	NAPLES	FL	5,128,833	8,182,541	71	Jun 95	Y
CORPORATION OF YADDO	SARATOGA SPRINGS	NY	4,258,446	6,413,859	79	Dec 94	Y
DAVIS & WEBER COUNTIES CANAL CO	SUNSET	UT	1,231,951	16,745,853	23	Oct 95	N
DAYTON MUSEUM AND SOCIETY OF NATURAL HISTORY	DAYTON	OH	1,573,043	9,309,223	58	Dec 94	Y
DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE INC	WASHINGTON	DC	7,835,235	6,348,884	48	Dec 94	Y
DELAWARE WILD LANDS INC 350	ODESSA	DE	1,185,672	11,003,135	62	Dec 95	Y
DISTRICT COOING ST PAUL INC	ST PAUL	MN	2,211,365	26,723,960	90	Sep 95	Y
DOVER LAND CONSERVATION TRUST	DOVER	MA	711,419	5,385,496	65	Dec 95	Y
DUCKS UNLIMITED INC	MEMPHIS	TN	83,668,609	29,043,738	56	Feb 95	Y
EAST BAY ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY	OAKLAND	CA	3,590,859	5,356,443	53	Jun 95	Y
EDWARD JOHN NOBLE FOUNDATION INC	RIDGEFIELD	CT	54,089,161	98,231,589	81	Dec 94	Y
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN	ANN ARBOR	MI	72,570,386	91,089,790	73	Sep 94	Y
ENVIRONMENTAL ENDOWMENT FOR NEW JERSEY INC	PENNINGTON	NJ	267,546	5,056,517	93	Apr 95	Y
ESSEX COUNTY GREEN BELT ASSOCIATION INC	ESSEX	MA	531,738	7,920,935	65	Dec 94	Y
FERNBANK INC	ATLANTA	GA	7,476,458	37,377,092	42	Dec 94	Y
FONDS NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE	ROCKVILLE CENTRE	NY	85,977,330	35,050,781	75	Sep 94	Y
FOREST PARK FOUNDATION	PEORIA	IL	1,186,093	13,595,356	52	Jun 95	Y
FRED C & MARY R KOCH FOUNDATION INC	WICHITA	KS	591,382	5,361,676	55	Dec 95	Y
FRIENDS OF OPAL CREEK	MILL CITY	OR	104,056	10,513,264	90	Dec 94	Y
FUND FOR ANIMALS INC	NEW YORK	NY	14,892,491	11,390,784	68	Dec 94	Y
GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION	ANN ARBOR	MI	14,659,323	10,021,928	87	Sep 94	Y
GREENPEACE FUND INC	WASHINGTON	DC	8,910,589	15,119,776	79	Dec 94	Y
GREENWICH LAND TRUST INC	GREENWICH	CT	611,461	9,965,272	77	Dec 94	Y
HELEN V FROEHLICH FOUNDATION	CHICAGO	IL	18,491,854	18,051,175	93	May 94	Y
HERITAGE CONSERVANCY	DOYLESTOWN	PA	1,227,157	10,480,847	60	Dec 94	Y
ICHAUWAY INC	NEWTON	GA	26,302,496	12,171,194	88	Dec 95	Y
IDYLLWILD ARTS FOUNDATION	IDYLLWILD	CA	7,618,072	10,222,363	51	Aug 94	Y
INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY ECONOMICS INC	SPRINGFIELD	MA	1,454,029	12,551,469	77	Dec 94	Y
ISAAC W BERNHEIM FOUNDATION INC	CLERMONT	KY	4,789,491	6,440,662	30	Dec 95	Y
JACKSON HOLE PRESERVE INC	NEW YORK	NY	3,014,661	10,426,198	42	Dec 94	Y
MAINE AUDUBON SOCIETY	FALMOUTH	ME	2,053,719	5,639,344	40	Apr 95	Y
MAINE COAST HERITAGE TRUST	NORTHEAST HARBOR	ME	2,799,795	10,521,384	71	Dec 94	Y
MAX MCGRAW WILDLIFE FOUNDATION	DUNDEE	IL	6,434,319	14,037,211	65	Apr 95	Y
MAYMONT FOUNDATION	RICHMOND	VA	1,909,835	6,365,004	59	Jun 95	Y
MCLEAN FUND	SIMSBURY	CT	16,842,300	27,978,805	68	Sep 94	Y
MENNEN ENVIRONMENTAL FOUNDATION INC	ST HELENA	CA	11,503,892	4,846,709	95	Dec 94	Y
MINNESOTA FOUNDATION	ST PAUL	MN	22,324,882	27,076,588	59	Dec 94	Y
MORTON ARBORETUM	LISLE	IL	18,697,403	134,501,527	25	Dec 94	Y
MUSEUM OF SCIENCE & HISTORY OF JACKSONVILLE INC	JACKSONVILLE	FL	2,550,856	5,449,501	51	Sep 95	Y
NANTUCKET CONSERVATION FOUNDATION INC	NANTUCKET	MA	1,539,881	59,748,629	64	Jul 95	Y
NATIONAL TRUST FOR SCOTLAND FOR PLACES OF HISTORICAL INTEREST	SCOTLAND	XX	29,044,248	47,644,502	56	Oct 94	N
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS INC	LEAGUE CITY	TX	6,356,710	2,331,008	50	Dec 94	Y
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ENDOWMENT INC	WASHINGTON	DC	41,248,582	63,700,428	59	Aug 95	Y
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC	NEW YORK	NY	106,646,318	98,945,506	72	Jun 95	Y
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE PAPER IND FOR AIR & STREAM IMPROVEMENT	RESEARCH TRANGLE PK	NC	12,137,601	5,819,077	44	Mar 95	N
NATIONAL TREE TRUST	WASHINGTON	DC	7,446,632	19,840,719	91	Dec 94	Y
NATIONAL WILD TURKEY FEDERATION INC	EDGEFIELD	SC	11,051,432	4,153,353	93	Aug 95	Y
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION	WASHINGTON	DC	104,287,919	52,732,890	43	Aug 95	Y
NATURAL LANDS TR	PHILADELPHIA	PA	1,793,639	7,680,171	63	Jun 95	Y
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC	NEW YORK	NY	25,911,824	38,192,947	70	Jun 95	Y
NATURAL LANDS TRUST INCORPORATED	MEDIA	PA	4,268,002	46,591,319	64	Dec 94	Y
NATURE CONSERVANCY INC	ARLINGTON	VA	882,040,841	1,120,094,965	54	Jun 95	Y
NEW ENGLAND FORESTRY FOUNDATION INC	CAMBRIDGE	MA	2,239,072	14,108,428	52	Dec 94	Y
NEW CYCLE FOUNDATION	BOSTON	MA	510,715	6,793,194	85	Dec 94	Y
NEW YORK BOTANICAL GARDEN	BRONX	NY	58,898,151	63,622,077	25	Jun 94	Y
NEW YORK ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY	BRONX	NY	321,655,200	141,274,787	39	Jun 95	Y
NEW JERSEY AUDUBON SOCIETY	FRANKLIN LAKES	NJ	2,665,892	14,405,329	37	Aug 94	Y
NEW ENGLAND WILD FLOWER SOCIETY	FRAMINGHAM	MA	1,624,758	5,803,646	55	Sep 95	Y
NEW CANAAN LAND CONSERVATION TRUST INC	NEW CANAAN	CT	1,273,183	5,208,073	67	May 95	Y
NEW JERSEY CONSERVATION FOUNDATION	MORRISTOWN	NJ	3,801,713	18,937,862	65	Dec 94	Y
NORCROSS WILDLIFE FOUNDATION INC	NEW YORK	NY	16,221,186	42,749,767	66	Dec 94	Y
NORTH DAKOTAWETLANDS TRUST INC	BISMARCK	ND	7,163,816	1,796,033	87	Dec 93	Y
NORTH AMERICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION INC	DEERFIELD	IL	1,804,748	5,597,491	48	Dec 94	Y
NORTHWEST AREA FDN FIRST TRUST CO	ST PAUL	MN	23,922,553	311,574,982	47	Feb 95	Y
NRA SPECIAL CONTRIBUTION FUND NRA WHITTINGTON CENTER	RATON	NM	2,069,009	9,932,109	74	Dec 95	Y
ORLEANS CONSERVATION TRUST	SO ORLEANS	MA	29,429	20,359,194	70	Dec 94	Y
PARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS INC	AUSTIN	TX	3,961,310	6,996,649	91	Apr 95	Y
PECONIC LAND TRUST INCORPORATED	SOUTHAMPTON	NY	1,495,640	25,152,160	89	Dec 94	Y
PENNSYLVANIA HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY	PHILADELPHIA	PA	12,824,915	10,674,331	52	Jun 95	Y
PENNYPACK ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION TR	HUNTINGDON VALLEY	PA	1,390,165	6,986,738	71	Jun 95	Y
PEREGRINE FUND INC	BOISE	ID	5,015,742	7,525,022	75	Sep 95	Y
PINE TREE CONSERVATION SOCIETY INC	NEW YORK	NY	2,662,351	10,151,466	72	Dec 94	Y
PLYMOUTH COUNTY WILDLANDS TRUST ASKER	DUXBURY	MA	776,948	7,863,949	73	Dec 94	Y
PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND AQUACULTURE CORP	CORDOVA	AK	10,977,926	33,843,081	75	Jun 95	Y
RED CLAY RESERVATION INC	WILMINGTON	DE	462,923	6,368,150	63	Dec 94	Y
REDDING LAND TRUST INCORPORATED	REDDING	CT	41,465	6,447,481	66	Dec 94	Y
ROB & BESSIE WELDER WILDLIFE FOUNDATION	VICTORIA	TX	5,061,839	13,750,788	55	Dec 94	Y
ROBERT R YOUNG FOUNDATION	GREENWICH	CT	2,544,182	29,804,298	59	Dec 94	Y
ROBERT N DOWNS MEMORIAL CONSERVANCY INC	WILMINGTON	DE	150,333	19,179,897	89	Mar 95	Y
SACHARUNA FOUNDATION	BOSTON	MA	2,655,305	9,531,956	85	Dec 94	Y
SANIBEL-CAPTIVA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION INC	SANIBEL	FL	1,518,867	5,576,412	68	Jun 95	Y
SANTA CATALINA ISLAND CONSERVANCY	AVALON	CA	6,703,981	12,976,686	73	Dec 94	Y
SCONSET TRUST INC	NANTUCKET	MA	1,440,421	5,800,749	85	Dec 94	Y
SOCIETY PROTECTION NEW HAMPSHIRE FORESTS	CONCORD	NH	2,815,262	19,454,946	86	Apr 95	Y
SOLANO COUNTY FARMLANDS & OPEN SPACE FOUNDATION	FAIRFIELD	CA	240,880	6,124,234	86	Jun 95	Y
SOUTH FLORIDA FAIR AND EXPOSITIONS INC	WEST PALM BEACH	FL	4,466,921	9,608,232	53	Mar 95	Y
SOUTHWEST PARKS & MONUMENTS ASSOCIATION	TUCSON	AZ	8,806,328	8,074,443	42	Sep 95	Y
STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC	CHARLESTOWN	NH	8,642,553	3,587,249	65	Sep 95	Y
SWEET WATER TR	NEW YORK	NY	547,006	11,339,538	91	Dec 94	Y
TALIESIN PRESERVATION COMMISSION INC	SPRING GREEN	WI	817,213	5,082,037	90	Dec 94	Y
TALL TIMBERS RESEARCH INC	TALLAHASSEE	FL	5,236,942	11,326,033	60	Dec 94	Y
TENNESSEE RIVER GORGE TRUST	CHATTANOOGA	TN	809,235	6,957,280	86	Dec 95	Y
THE BRAINERD FOUNDATION	SEATTLE	WA	35,466,995	35,613,599	95	Dec 94	Y
THE MOUNTAINEERS	SEATTLE	WA	5,362,328	4,244,458	78	Sep 94	N
THE HOMELAND FOUNDATION	LAGUNA BEACH	CA	9,477,564	17,901,215	86	Dec 94	Y
THE HIGH DESERT MUSEUM	BEND	OR	4,139,023	13,800,340	76	Apr 95	Y
THE CONNECTICUT AUDUBON SOCIETY INCORPORATED	FAIRFIELD	CT	2,790,980	10,161,865	42	Apr 95	Y
TROUT UNLIMITED NATIONAL OFFICE	ARLINGTON	VA	5,335,819	2,404,773	72	Sep 95	Y
TRUSTEES OF RESERVATIONS	BEVERLY	MA	18,223,970	69,189,049	35	Mar 95	Y
TUPANCY-HARRIS FOUNDATION OF 1986	BOSTON	MA	1,257,616	11,680,664	87	Dec 95	Y
UNION FOUNDATION	WARREN	NJ	930,425	9,887,129	53	Nov 95	Y
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA FOUNDATION	TUCSON	AZ	33,858,945	3,812,214	62	Jun 95	Y
VERMONT LAND TRUST	MONTPELIER	VT	7,878,568	6,949,466	77	Jun 95	Y
VIRGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL ENDOWMENT	RICHMOND	VA	15,155,720	16,396,371	77	Mar 95	N
WALTHOUR MOSS FOUNDATION B B & T TRUST	PINEHURST	NC	367,905	7,140,587	74	Dec 94	Y
WATERFOWL RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC	NEW YORK	NY	8,613,953	7,028,484	56	Dec 93	Y
WEANTINOGE HERITAGE INC	NEW MILFORD	CT	3,137,979	8,202,055	66	Sep 94	Y
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA CONSERVANCY	PITTSBURGH	PA	5,544,986	36,929,698	51	Dec 94	Y
WESTERN FOUNDATION OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY	CAMARILLO	CA	822,681	7,283,441	58	Dec 94	Y
WETLANDS AMERICA TRUST INC	MEMPHIS	TN	3,137,519	10,048,121	85	Feb 95	Y
WHITE MEMORIAL FOUNDATION INC	LITCHFIELD	CT	1,057,261	7,274,199	47	Dec 94	N
WILDERNESS SOCIETY	WASHINGTON	DC	17,192,190	9,224,194	42	Sep 95	Y
WILLIAM H MINER FOUNDATION	CHICAGO	IL	12,187,665	37,621,992	50	Dec 94	Y
WILLIAM PENN FOUNDATION	PHILADELPHIA	PA	110,598,679	637,877,646	47	Dec 95	Y
WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE FOUNDATION INC	GREEN BAY	WI	1,333,854	11,661,918	64	Dec 94	Y
WISSAHICKON VALLEY WATERSHED ASSOCIATION INC	AMBLER	PA	799,537	7,479,847	60	Dec 94	Y
WITTE MUSEUM	SAN ANTONIO	TX	4,647,331	11,193,444	32	Sep 94	Y
WOODMEN OF THE WORLD OMAHA WOODMEN LIFE INSURANCE SOCIETY	OMAHA	NE	771,475,995	3,690,708,224	41	Dec 94	Y
WORCESTER NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY	WORCESTER	MA	9,435,144	13,818,142	33	Dec 94	Y
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC	WASHINGTON	DC	132,874,116	62,558,896	91	Jun 95	Y
WRIGLEY MEMORIAL GARDEN FOUNDATION	AVALON	CA	743,472	9,667,884	69	Dec 94	Y
ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF FLORIDA	MIAMI	FL	6,204,743	5,845,579	58	Sep 94	Y
TOTALS			4,042,294,445	8,665,050,901

Coming soon...

Similar information will soon be available for every NGO that files a Form 990 with the Internal Revenue Service. The information will be on freedom.org, along with an incredible array of additional information that may be searched, downloaded, and utilized by participating individuals and organizations.

World Food Summit

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) hopes to reduce world hunger from an estimated 800 million people to 400 million people by the year 2015. Heads of state and high-ranking ministers from nearly 180 nations gathered in Rome, Italy November 13-16 to adopt the Rome Declaration on World Food Security and a World Food Summit Plan of Action. The documents are heralded as the blueprint to food security. The Plan of Action calls for land reform, education, equity, gender equality, family planning, technology transfer, sustainable agriculture, and in general, for the implementation of the various UN treaties and documents developed through UN conferences during the 1990s. Staged against the nightly reports from Rwanda and Zaire which brought into American homes, images of hundreds of thousands of starving refugees, the World Food Summit made a powerful appeal to end hunger.

To end hunger in the world, according to the FAO, the United Nations program must be fully implemented. The UN program, however, is substantially more than the 43-page document adopted in Rome. The UN program is a massive agenda that seeks to bring the entire world under UN policies, enforced by national governments, implemented through the collaborative efforts of national and local governments and "civil society" organizations. The World Food Summit documents call for the full implementation of: The Convention on the Rights of the Child; The Convention on Biological Diversity; The Convention on Desertification; The Framework Convention on Climate Change; The Convention on the Law of the Seas; and more than 20 additional Declarations and Plans of Action adopted by UN organizations and Conferences. Collectively, these UN treaties and declarations, if fully implemented, would transform the world into a global community under the direct control of the United Nations system.

Many Americans, including many Congressmen, find this assertion too bizarre to be credible. In fact, such claims are often rejected out of hand as the radical babblings of black-helicopter freaks. Even Rush Limbaugh, the self-appointed guardian of conservativsm in America, says he doesn't care about the UN. It's powerless, inefficient, he says, and he just doesn't care about the UN. These are the attitudes that have allowed the United Nations organizations to make great strides in recent years toward the achievement of their goals. Americans can already see and feel the impact of UN policies, but more often than not, the cause is seldom connected to the United Nations.

One of the most significant systemic changes that is under way in America is the process by which public policy decisions are made. The democratic political process is a source of American pride. The one-man-one-vote principle is deeply embedded in our history. As loud, dirty, and raucus as it may be, it is the best system yet devised to force consensus and provide accountability. That very system is now under attack. Elected officials are being bypassed. Public policy is being formulated by non-elected, carefully selected individuals who are accountable to no one. It is a process deliberately developed and promoted by the United Nations organizations and is now being expanded into domestic policy decisions. It is called "consensus building" through collaboration among governments and "civil society."

Virtually every action item in the World Food Summit document is preceeded by the phrase: "governments, in partnership with all actors of civil society, will...." All the treaties, and all the Plans of Action specify a role for "civil society." The President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), created as the result of Agenda 21, another UN Declaration, says "We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions; more rapid change; and more sensible use of human, natural, and financial resources in achieving our goals." What is this "civil society?" What is this collaborative process?

"Civil society" is defined in a variety of UN documents to be non-government organizations (NGOs). Not just any NGO, but NGOs that have been accredited by the UN or NGOs that are directly affiliated with an NGO that is accredited by the UN. Unaffiliated NGOs are considered to be "populist activist organizations" that can destroy in a minute the work of a decade of deliberations. The UN allows only accredited NGOs to participate in deliberations leading to the development of its declarations. Although the World Food Summit document addresses such divergent issues as education, family planning, and ecosystem management, only NGOs involved in food production and distribution were accredited to attend the conference. And only selected NGOs were chosen to participate in discussions. Dissenting voices were systematically prevented from participating in the process. It is through this process of selective participation that the UN is able to claim democratic involvement by "civil society." These same accredited NGOs are then chosen as recipients of UN grants to help implement the Plans of Action adopted by the various conferences.

This new decision process is being implemented in America. The PCSD report contains 154 specific action items, 67 of which can be implemented administratively without any Congressional oversight or involvement. Many are being implemented now. One group of recommendations calls for the creation of "Sustainable Communities." The process involves the identification of a "civil society" organization to receive a grant from the government for the purpose of developing a "visioning council" for a targeted community. The visioning council typically will consist of individuals who represent "civil society" organizations, non-elected government officials, and a few token residents. The function of the council is to develop a Plan of Action for the targeted community. The plan, of course, embraces the principles and plans that come from the PCSD report, which come ultimately, from Agenda 21, and other UN documents such as the Rome Declaration of World Food Security. The process is designed to give the appearance of democratic participation and public input, while carefully preventing participation by those who may dissent from the predetermined outcome.

Another major objective of the World Food Summit documents is to promote land use reform. Land is essential to the production of food. In much of the world, individuals have no hope of having land of their own on which to produce food. The objective of the UN is to make land available for use by people who need food, under the management of UN-approved NGOs in collaboration with local "civil society." It is crucial that Americans understand what is meant by "land use reform" in the context of UN documents. Both the Conventions on Biological Diversity, and on Desertification contain provisions for land use reform as envisioned by the United Nations.

Land is seen by the UN to be a "global commons" that should not be owned by individuals. Land is a public resource which must be controlled by government. Government should allocate land use to individuals based on their productivity. Private ownership of land is an obstacle to food security, in the eyes of the UN. As early as 1976, the UN officially condemned the practice of private land ownership in the declaration adopted at Habitat I, which said:

" Private land ownership is a principal instrument of accumulating wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. Public control of land is therefore indispensable. Public ownership of land is justified in favor of the common good, rather than to protect the interests of the already priviledged."

The Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Global Biodiversity Assessment, the UN's 1140-page instruction book for implementing the treaty, call for the conversion of "at least 50%" of the land area in the United States to be converted to wilderness, off limits to human beings. An additional 25% of the land area is to be designated as "buffer zones" that are to be managed collaboratively. People are to be relocated into "sustainable communities," the design for which is presented the the President's Council on Sustainable Development report, Sustainable America: A New Consensus.

The most significant event at the Rome Conference, according to the reports in the media, was the agreement by the Pope to visit Cuba. Virtually nothing was reported about the Declaration and Plan of Action, and certainly nothing was reported about the impact these UN policies will have on America. Each world conference, each declaration and each plan of action weaves the web of global governance. The World Food Summit was another major step toward the ultimate objective.

Rome Summit Speeds UN Agenda

By Berit Kjos

"Where the Buffalo Roam: Reclaiming the Great Plains." The Title of the cover article in the TWA magazine intrigued me. Flying east across the Great Plains toward Minneapolis, I scanned the quilt-like farmland below and wondered which part might be reclaimed for the bison.

The article began with a full sized picture of an old red barn in a golden field. "An abandoned farm in Mayville, North Dakota," explained the caption, "signifies the decline in self-sustaining agriculture on the Great Plains." Under a photo of grazing buffaloes was written, "Buffalo are integral to the region's health."

Abandoned farms in Mayville? No health without bison?

Since my husband grew up in Mayville, I knew well that no one abandons farms in this fertile valley. But contrary facts matter little to political activists with a green agenda. These deceptive photos help "prove" the existence of a crisis. They provide the persuasive "information" needed to "raise consciousness," produce consensus, validate centralized land management, and speed compliance with unthinkable controls. I read on:

"Human design, not natural selection, will be responsible for the great buffalo herds of the 21st century. They are part of a plan to reconstruct nature...already well along in the initial stages of implementation."

The grander scheme, led by President Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) together with the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, means restoring wolves, owls, snails, bugs and bacteria to an idealized version of their former state. Whole ecosystems, not just parts, must be reconstructed -- often at the expense of private land owners.

With the United Nations' World Food Summit (WFS) on my mind, I pondered an obvious paradox: how would UN visionaries and their environmental partners reconcile (1) their desire to return fertile farmland back to buffalo grazing land with (2) their demand for a global welfare system's promising "food security" for all?

Restructuring nature

The vision of buffalo herds roaming free throughout the plains was birthed by academics Deborah and Frank Popper in distant New Jersey. They interpreted statistics showing reduced population in many rural communities to mean that farming the Plains had been an ill-conceived notion from the beginning. "The best use for the Great Plains," argued the Poppers, was to ban farming altogether, create a "Buffalo Commons," and restore the land to its original condition. Other land-use planners from distant states agreed. But farmers were afraid.

"We're tremendously concerned about losing our property rights," said Mike Schmidt, a South Dakota rancher. "Right now, two things are particularly scary for us -- endangered species and wetlands. Essentially, they can determine how you use your land."

Schmidt has reason to fear. The "Buffalo Commons" envisioned by idealistic planners is huge enough to touch everyone. "To really do any good, we have to plan over large geographies," says Bruce Stein, the director of external affairs for conservation science at The Nature Conservancy, a powerful advocacy group for ecosystem planning. "A natural system needs room to function."

A "healthy Great Plains would encompass every square meter of the Plains, from the prairie provinces of Canada through Oklahoma and Texas," added Glen Martin, who wrote the TWA article. It would include Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, and the Dakotas as well as the "adjacent ecosystems, such as the boreal forests of northern Michigan and Minnesota and aspen groves of the eastern slopes of the Rockies. Some Great Plains species need more than one habitat to thrive."

So do some humans, but that matters little.

Aware of opposition, restoration scholars are willing to start small: by connecting big chucks of biodiverse ecosystems with corridors to aid animal migrations. This agenda matches that of the Wildlands Project conceived by convicted "eco-warrior" Dave Foreman, who co-founded the militant eco-group Earth First! and now serves on the board of the Sierra Club.