Thank you for taking action, and for making it easy for me to join you and add my voice to send our concerns to the decision makers.

We do need to act now to stop climate change. Here is the easiest way to stop 51% of ghg emissions.
www.51percent.org

The environmental movement is a mess. Many groups appear to be acting like marketing wallahs for the wind and timber industries, in fact any industry that wants to fund them appears acceptable but the reality is ......

1) old forests are being chopped with silly certificates offered as Green

2) Protected birds and bats are chopped with silly claims of wind power being Greem.

I cannot support anything that so called "green" groups claim to do - the trust has gone. Instead I have chosen my own campaign with the public to raise awareness of cosy financial deals with industry that seem to result in the destruction of pristine eco systems.

We don't need to be a member of those organizations that are making group action to stop this climate change. Because as individuals we can make our own actions, even those simpler things can help. Even minute contribution to make this world green and preserve what is left to us by the effects of Climate change can help the world. As long us saving the world is our goal there will be no problem even if we move as individuals and little by little.

Madness from the tiny minority of humanity (ie, thieves of the highest order, scoundrels and mad men) who dishonestly commandeer a lion’s share of the world’s wealth, depravedly ‘bonus’ themselves for doing so, dishonorably make the rules by which all human beings live and deplorably rule the world primarily for the own benefit of themselves and their minions.

Words to live by from these self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe among us:

Go forth and multiply. We Masters rule. Forget about humanity.

Plunder, gorge yourselves and hoard ’til you are sated. Satisfy your unfulfilled wishes. Greed rules. Forget about humanity.

Build McMansions, pleasure centers, hideaways from the world, skyscrapers, faster cars, bigger cars, mega-yachts and polluting aircraft for personal aggrandizement and gratification. Greed rules and rules absolutely. Forget about humanity.

In times of danger to self and others, with a single exception, you have an inviolate “duty to warn”. In the “stand alone” case the rule is to be set aside: You can forget about humanity.

Now, instead of being firmly "against the conversion of natural forests to forest plantations," as the original text stated, the new draft promises to "promote actions" that "do not provide incentives for conversion of natural forests."
---------------------------------------------------------

Reuters
Fri Nov 6, 2009

Forestry talks end in toothless pact in Barcelona
By Stacy Feldman

BARCELONA (SolveClimate) - Hopes for a strong global deal that would pay poor nations to stop deforestation hit a new low on Friday after negotiators released a draft proposal that lacks teeth.

The new text on reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation, or REDD, contains no international rules to enforce forest protection in countries that would get billions of dollars to implement REDD.

Most of those nations have weak legal enforcement of their own.

That makes the agreement "worth no more than the paper it is written on," said Rosalind Reeve of London-based Global Witness. "The text, as it stands, reflects a strong push to receive REDD funds with no oversight."

Deforestation contributes about 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to UN figures.

World leaders decided at the Bali climate change talks in 2007 to include a forest component to the climate treaty that was to be formalized in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Progress in the REDD negotiations had long been seen as being further along than the sluggish Copenhagen talks overall. But this week in Barcelona, forest advocates expressed disappointment in the way REDD was being shaped.

They cited one small victory: A provision to stop countries from razing carbon-absorbing natural forests to grow palm oil plantations in their place was put back in, only in a much weaker from.

The "conversion safeguard," as it is known, was removed from the negotiating text at the Bangkok climate talks in October by the European Union.

Now, instead of being firmly "against the conversion of natural forests to forest plantations," as the original text stated, the new draft promises to "promote actions" that "do not provide incentives for conversion of natural forests."

Critics argue the language leaves too much room for ambiguity.

"Right now, we have a pretty worthless safeguard and no rules to implement it, at a time when we need strong safeguards and strong rules are needed, said Roman Czebiniak, political advisor on climate change and forests for Greenpeace International.

It's a little bit of a chicken and an egg problem, as Davyth Stewart, an attorney for Global Witness, explained: Even if the safeguard language gets strengthened and sticks, without compliance, "who's going to make sure countries are not turning their natural forests into plantations?"

The new safeguard language is also in brackets in the negotiating text - as is much of the REDD proposal - which means it's still up for debate. It could be sliced again, or improved.

The forecast for improvements on REDD when talks convene on December 7 in Copenhagen are mixed.

This text released at the end of the Barcelona talks is not the last word, Czebiniak said. "Real safeguard text and real monitoring can still could get in," and they just may, he said.

"The public thinks we're here to protect tropical forests. I don't see anyone accepting a deal whose purpose does not do that," Czebiniak said.

Nathaniel Dyer of Rainforest UK was not as optimistic. "A REDD deal might end up as a green-washing exercising if there is no legally binding climate change agreement at Copenhagen," he said.

The entry by Sylvia Wallace posted November 11 is as naive as anyone can be on this matter. However, it is the only entry that makes sense, that if each concerned global citizen were to act in the best interest of reversing climate conditions, we may just see improvement and traction on these efforts. It starts with one person changing the way they live their lives, as responsibly as they can towards the natural systems around us, and it becomes viral. Many more see the benefit, see past the financial gains, which are temporary in nature. hoorah, Ms. Wallance!

I think more focus should be put on preserving and enhancing existing forests rather than cutting them down and trying to make it sound ok by planting new trees somewhere else (which take decades to grow).

I read your statement on Copenhagen,I do agree there should be some preservaction with some of your larger forests and continue with adding smaller ones but emissions should be dealt with from all angles even if there small steps at a time,that way the cost would not be so high and you might be able to see results sooner,I have one question though why do you bring in corruption twice in your statement are you trying to say that the board whose involved are corrupt?