Adastral Park is part of BT’s (formerly British Telecom) Martlesham Heath technology complex, a combination of defence research laboratory and industrial park, situated close to the busy Suffolk town of Ipswich, and adjacent to a large area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. You can find Adastral Park by going to their website, which isn’t very well designed, but is replete with stories about how the staff of Adastral are playing such a big part in keeping the Suffolk coast clean and tidy. This is no coincidence, because when you have so many technology companies on site, dependent on your ignorance of global environmental and human rights issues for their success, then it’s always good to keep casual viewers thinking about nice things.

BT, who own the site, make a huge deal about their environmental credentials, with “Sustainable Business” (there’s an anachronism) right on the front page of their corporate web site, and the following headline statement:

As a company, we are always looking for ways to minimise our impact on the environment.

Indeed, we are very proud of our environmental management track record having set our first carbon reduction target back in 1992.

Now we’re committed to reducing the carbon intensity of our global business by 80 per cent by 2020 – so far we have achieved a 54 per cent reduction by becoming more energy efficient and by increasing our use of renewable energy.

Ah, that phrase “carbon intensity” – used worldwide by expanding economies and companies to pretend they are reducing their net emissions – but let’s ignore that one, because among their many other commitments are included all sorts of schemes for reducing carbon emissions within the business and their products, as well as their data centres. One thing missing, though, seems to be impact on habitat: I wonder why that can be:

A bit of history.

The GPO moved its research centre from Dollis Hill to what is now Adastral Park in the late sixties. One of the main attractions of the site was the amount of flat open land in the area which was essential for radio testing.

Over many years BT have put forward various proposals and plans to expand the business park activities. Nine years ago the first amendment to the Local Plan (dated June 2001) created a framework for expanding the business park but they did not link it to building any residential housing on the site. At the time BT forecast 3000-3500 additional jobs by about 2010 – but in reality we believe there are probably fewer people employed on the site now than in 2001.

As recently as 2007 BT said that they could develop the business park without the need for the income from selling land for housing.

The BT land

Despite what is said in the LDF and various BT documents the open land outside the BT fence IS greenfield. Farming is still carried out on some of it, and a license has been granted for mineral extraction on part. However that license requires that the land be returned to farming at the end of the extraction – the existence of extraction does not mean that it is no longer technically greenfield land.

At its closest the site comes within 88 metres of an AONB, and there are several sites of special status close by, which are home to protected species – eg Newbourne Springs. The new development will increase the local population by about 4,800 people, placing an unnecessary burden on these valuable protected wildlife sites. Proposals to employ a warden will not stop people visiting.

As recently as 2006, SCDC rejected a planning application for 120 log cabins on a site next to Waldringfield Road. The rejection was on the grounds that it was too near the AONB etc, and would result in an unacceptable increase in visitor numbers to those sensitive areas. BT objected to this application

In October 2008 BT wrote to the East of England Regional Assembly in response to a request for landowners to put forward further land for housing up to 2031. BT responded to this request by saying that their site could potentially accommodate up to 3000 – 3500 houses in total – ie around 8500 people – it is inconceivable that this many people would not a have major impact on the nearby natural areas.

That slice of information is from the No Adastral New Town campaign group, who seem to be a bit of a lone voice in protesting against the “development” (i.e. killing off) of a major slice of Suffolk countryside in order to satisfy the perceived need for new housing. Yet, according to Empty Homes, there were about 1,500 empty homes in Ipswich in 2008, along with nearly 1,700 more empty homes in the adjacent Suffolk Coastal district. Bear in mind also, that the projections for new homes are heavily influenced by the lobbying of housing developers, and also the organisations upon whose land the houses could be built upon, and you get a situation which is completely absurd: no new houses needed whatsoever, in reality.

But BT can make a heck of a lot of money out of this, so they are only too willing to toss aside any weasel words (apologies to weasels) they say about their “green” business commitments if it means a hefty amount of money in the company coffers.

If you live anywhere near this area, then please get in touch with the campaign group (more details here) or just go it alone and let everyone know what hypocrites BT and Suffolk Coastal District Council really are.

There is something stirring, and I don’t think it’s just in the air – I think George Monbiot is turning his back on industrial civilization, and about time too. We could do with someone like him in the ranks of the “heretic unbelievers”. Here is his take on the Agreement That Never Was:

Everyone agrees that the new declaration on biodiversity is a triumph. Just one snag: it doesn’t appear to exist.

References:

1. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/countries-join-forces-to-save-life-on-earth-2120487.html

2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/29/nagoya-biodiversity-summit-deal

3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8098540/Landmark-UN-Nagoya-biodiversity-deal-agreed-to-save-natural-world.html

4. http://www.cbd.int/doc/press/2010/pr-2010-10-29-cop-10-en.pdf

5. On Sunday I emailed all the addresses given by the CBD. On Monday I phoned the secretariat several times: it was unable to put me through to anyone who could tell me where the declaration was. I also left a message on the press officer’s mobile phone and landline. The secretariat either would not or could not give me any other numbers to try.

6. I spoke to the Defra press office on Monday.

7. See document 3 on this page: http://www.cbd.int/cop10/doc/

8. These quotes are repeated in the preamble to the draft declaration – as above.

9. http://www.wwf.org.uk/news_feed.cfm?uNewsID=4194&uAction=showComments

10. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/04/biodiversity-100-actions-europe

11. http://www.teebweb.org/

12. All these examples can be found in TEEB’s summary for policy makers: http://www.teebweb.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=I4Y2nqqIiCg%3D

I like the BBC. It manages to do a very difficult job being the national, public-funded broadcaster of the UK, while at the same time generally refusing to kow-tow to the demands of the state and it’s corporate owners. On the other hand there is a lot to criticise the BBC for, in particular its insistance that economic growth is a good thing, and that Strictly Come Dancing / The Apprentice contestants qualify as subjects for the news.

Sometimes, though, the BBC does stupid things just because it fails to research something properly. Take today’s episode of the really quite interesting radio programme, Material World, which you can listen to for the next week by clicking on the link below (the question is raised about 25 minutes in):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vhg9y

The item in question concerned carbon capture and storage, which had been correctly identified by a listener as a commercial failure waiting to happen, to which everyone involved in opposing the industrial system would no doubt add is just another way of keeping the machine of destruction running.

The respondant was Professor R. Stuart Haszeldine, announced as Professor of Carbon Capture & Storage at Edinburgh University. He responded that although there were potential losses in energy, big improvements would be made in the future. The technology was certainly not commercially problematic.

What the BBC failed to point out was that Professor Haszeldine’s full title is Scottish Power Professor of Carbon Capture & Storage, Edinburgh University: just two more words, but two words that reveal a huge conflict of interest. A quick internet search uncovers this recent announcement by Scottish Power:

ScottishPower Sponsors UK’s First Academic Alliance to Focus on Carbon Capture and Storage

9 September 2010

ScottishPower has announced its sponsorship of the UK’s first alliance between industry and academia to focus specifically on carbon capture and storage (CCS), which is the ground-breaking technology designed to remove CO2 from the exhaust gasses at fossil fuelled power stations. This will be known as the ScottishPower Academic Alliance, SPAA.

SPAA has been designed to match the needs of the UK’s fast developing CCS industry with the research capacity of some of the country’s leading academics from Imperial College London and the University of Edinburgh. It will focus specifically on technical innovation around the capture and offshore storage of CO2, the policy and regulatory aspects of CCS and look at what the UK needs to do to capitalise on the commercial opportunities the technology offers – especially in developing a national skills capacity.

ScottishPower is investing almost GBP5 million over the next five years which will fund up to 12 full-time researchers working at University of Edinburgh and Imperial College London. ScottishPower will seek to leverage this funding through further contributions from Government and international sponsors which it hopes will consolidate the UK’s growing reputation as a centre of excellence for this embryonic industry.

Nick Horler, ScottishPower’s Chief Executive, said: “This is a terrific step forward for ScottishPower and will help us in our ambitions to make CCS a reality in the UK by 2014. I am enormously proud to be associated with the work of some of the world’s leading authorities on CCS. Their input will be vital to improve our understanding of this essential technology and help us to reduce CO2 emissions and tackle climate change.”

Professor Stuart Haszeldine, ScottishPower Chair of CCS at University of Edinburgh, said: “Developing a CCS industry in the UK will capitalise on our established offshore and engineering expertise and make a significant contribution to the economy of the country, creating new jobs and skills. I am pleased to be building on the CCS research results the University of Edinburgh has already achieved with ScottishPower, and to welcome Imperial College London as partners. The expertise of all three organisations will help to maintain the UK’s leading position in CCS.”

Thanks for that unbiased and balanced opinion on CCS, Stuart; and thanks BBC for that superb boost to Scottish Power’s CCS efforts – truly an excellent investment on the part of the energy industry…

UPDATE: As a result of a formal complaint that I made (and possibly this article) the text accompanying the podcast has been amended to read: “…and Professor Stuart Haszeldine, whose chair at Edinburgh University is supported by Scottish Power for research into carbon capture and storage.” I suspect this kind of oversight will not happen that often now.

From the wonderful London Mining Network comes this report of the BHP Billiton. I have emphasised key phrases that demonstrate the hypocrisy of one of the most destructive companies ever to grace planet Earth.

At today’s London AGM of the world’s biggest mining company, BHP Billiton, new company chair Jac Nasser and CEO Marius Kloppers spoke at length about climate change. They explained that the company fully accepts the science and believes that greenhouse gas emissions need to be limited so that the increase in average atmospheric temperatures can be held at two degrees above the pre-industrial average.

BHP Billiton sees itself as indispensable to the prosperity of the world. Millions of the world’s poor are apparently relying on it to help them embrace the urbanised life of high consumption which it believes to be their destiny. Those who have a different view – like Indigenous communities in Kalimantan or small farmers in Colombia – have to be moved out of the way. BHP Billiton plans to continue mining, burning and irradiating its way towards a vision of the future that its board finds inspiring and which many of its critics reject as apocalyptic.

A set of case studies related to the behaviour of BHP Billiton, entitled “BHP Billiton 2009-10 – other sides to the story: case studies questioning the company’s record on human rights, transparency and ecological justice”, can be downloaded via this link (MS Word Doc)

*Note: National governments formalise corporate policy.

Northern Arizona University have been given $1 million by the National Science Foundation to create a program to teach rural and indigenous people (you know, those people whose land was stolen from them in order to extract minerals and oil, and grow industrial scale crops) science and technology.

The National Science Foundation is a US government institution that exists to promote industrial science for the benefit of the industrial system. It was founded in 1950 with the following Mission:

“To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense….”

(The full text of the National Science Foundation act of 1950 can be found here)

Dig deeper and apart from the sinister undertones of “secure the national defense…” we find the following statement which sums up very well what the true rational of NSF is:

The National Science Board (Board) firmly believes that to ensure the long-term prosperity of our Nation, we must renew our collective commitment to excellence in education and the development
of scientific talent.

A key component of innovation is the development of new products, services, and processes essential
to the Nation’s international leadership. Just as in generations past, there are talented students from every demographic and from every part of our Country who with hard work and with the proper opportunities will form the next generation of STEM innovators. The vital importance of innovation to the U.S. economy led the Board to embark on a 2-year exploration of this issue.

In the NAU statement (reproduced below in full) the authors not only reflect the desire to encourage economic growth through science but, and even more abhorrently, are determined to exploit the generosity of indigenous teachers in order to feed back into native cultures a new desire for industrial scientific principles. In short, because indigenous cultures value sustainability above all other aspects of life, then they are clearly in conflict with the desires of a rapacious industrial nation, and therefore must be taught that industrial civilization is the only way of living.

A $1 million grant from the National Science Foundation is putting Northern Arizona University in a leading role to increase public understanding of global climate change and help prepare the next generation of scientists and educators.

As one of 15 institutions nationwide that was awarded NSF funding as part of the foundation’s Climate Change Education Partnership program, NAU will focus its outreach effort on Native American and rural communities on the Colorado Plateau, targeting students who are historically underrepresented in science and math education.

“One of the things this grant allows us to do is go into these rural communities and meet with teachers and leaders to teach about climate change science and solutions in culturally and regionally relevant ways,” said Jane Marks, NAU biology professor and principal investigator for the project.

Marks said the constantly evolving nature of scientific research makes it a challenge to introduce school-age children to cutting-edge science—a matter complicated by the interdisciplinary nature of climate science, which does not fit neatly into any given science class.
“The topic of climate change has become so politically charged,” she added. “Misinformation and biases often lead to the perception that climate change either is not a real problem or that it is a problem too large to solve.”

In an effort to tackle these challenges, Marks and a team of NAU researchers from the Merriam Powell Center for Environmental Research, the Program in Community Culture and Environment, the Center for Science Teaching and Learning, the Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals, the Department of Applied Indigenous Studies and the School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability will use the new funding over the next two years to design a middle- through high-school climate change curriculum for the region.

If successful, the team will be eligible for long-term funding from the NSF to implement the program across the Colorado Plateau.

Drawing on the traditional knowledge and relationships that members of Native communities have with the land and its resources, the researchers will incorporate these ideologies into the curriculum.

“We will call on local people, including Native artists, musicians and community leaders, to generate an excitement and interest among the region’s young people about alternative energies, conservation and land use,” Marks said.

Rom Coles, director of the Program in Community Culture and the Environment, said one of the most innovative pieces of the program is that it will “connect the teaching of climate to many of the bold initiatives being advanced by people in the non-profit, private and public sectors to generate a green economy based on energy alternatives that are not carbon-intensive, such as solar and wind power.”

An added goal is to spark an interest among Native and rural students in science, technology, engineering and math—also called STEM disciplines—which Marks said will connect these underserved populations to vital economic and career opportunities.

Words fail me in expressing how deep my loathing is for this brainwashing program. All I really need to do is quote again from the article: “An added goal is to spark an interest among Native and rural students in science, technology, engineering and math—also called STEM disciplines—which Marks said will connect these underserved populations to vital economic and career opportunities.”

For thousands of years indigenous people have known how to live without screwing up their land, so it’s about time NAU taught them how to screw it up good and proper.

If anyone sends anything to you asking to join the Million Letter March, treat it like spam.

Look, I’m being serious: it’s the idea of Lester Brown, head of the Earth Policy Institute, who’s primary driver doesn’t appear to be saving the global ecology or humanity in general, but saving civilization. Yep, that’s right: civilization – that thing which is utterly incompatible with saving humanity or the global ecology.

He has teamed up with our friend Bill McKibben and Jim Hansen (or perhaps press-ganged the latter) to start a campaign to raise some kind of fee or other to put into renewable energy and stop cap and trade. In a world where climate science permitted the current levels of greenhouse gases without causing the atmospheric-climate system to produce a global mass extinction echoeing the end of the Permian Era (90% of all life on Earth gone) then that would be fine: just go for it Lester, Bill and Jim; keep us writing those letters to “our” Senators (as opposed to the Senators who have always worked for corporations?) and pretend political changes will have any effect on our future at all.

But this is not a world like that, it is reality: a reality where we have to finally realise that NOTHING WITHIN THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL-POLITICAL SYSTEM OFFERS US A SURVIVABLE FUTURE!

Still want to be all symbolic and lovely? Watch the excruciating video the Million Letter March has produced, and see if you can see anything at all which would make a blind bit of difference to greenhouse gas levels:

And is it just me or are there just a few too many creepy moments there?

I have been sent a link to this wonderful “rant” – no, it’s not a rant, it’s telling it like it is – on the Powershift forum.

Here’s the Richard Curtis video he refers to, and if Mr Curtis would like my opinions on 10:10 then I would love him to bring his little red button to my house so we can discuss it…

Yeah, but what about the climate impact of the detergents and water to clean up afterwards? ;-)

This is just sick; not the fake blood (cinematic suicide bomber chic?), but the whole belief in piffling measures like low energy lights and the like as being the way we can cut emissions. We have to offer a vision outside of the present consumer paradigm that encourages a shift in lifestyle rather than the substitution of existing consumption trends. Actions like this are a simplistic exhortation to change brand or product, not to change the nature of the human system and its impacts on the biosphere. And if, in the rhetoric of “10:10”, this is just something easy to get people interested, that’s absurd too — a lot of recent work on issues around behavioural economics demonstrate that such incantations to change only work where the change is insignificant or equivalent, but fail when it requires a real and difficult realignment of lifestyle patterns.

I’ve just been sent the blurb — AGAIN — on the Crude Awakening demo in London — http://www.crudeawakening.org.uk/

Yet another example of people who want to “save the planet” and keep their iPods (OK, I’m generalising on that point!), when in fact it’s their atrophied, consumer-oriented outlook on the potential of their lives that’s the problem. Their perception of the drivers for the “problems” they seek solutions to are wholly divorced from reality, and rely on the simplistic media-spun agenda that is shaped by the very same forces that they state their opposition to. E.g., there’s no discussion of the resource supply issues related to oil (and other) as a source of energy — why do you think the industry is drilling in deep water/the Arctic in the first place?

There is no climate solution within the paradigm of consumption; that’s a demonstrable fact. We have to shift our lifestyles to a new economic and organisational structure that restricts demand, but unfortunately none of the self-proclaimed leaders of the eco-establishment appear to have the guts to promote such a concept at the leading edge of their agenda (of course, you might find such exhortations in the small print, but they won’t lead their sound-bites on this approach).

It doesn’t matter if, at present, most people “won’t like it”; it’s the only option that is able to address the drivers of the human suicide cult called “growth economics” — physical reality doesn’t negotiate, doesn’t compromise with ‘political reality’, and for that reason the eco-establishment as much as the political and economic establishment are going to be thrown into crisis by these trends as they arrive over the next two or three decades. Personally I think I’d rather be disliked for making a case based on evidence rather than promoting an eco-delusion assimilated by market forces. More importantly, people might not “like it” today, but if that argument is not put because of the movement’s adherence to the shibboleth of growth then the public will never have the choice of considering any option other than the market-centric solutions offered by all mainstream parties/groups.

As far as I can see, initiatives like this are just spinning a delusional rope that will in the near future hang them! Clearly, in the reversal of McLuhan’s observation, “the message has become the media”; and in the process the actions that they promote are conceptual extrapolations of reality (aka. ‘hyperreality’), not a realistic commentary on our situation that the public are able to assimilate and act upon. These “environmentalists” should stop using the Web 2.0/digital media that are driving IT emissions up and resource availability down, ditch their mobile phones and other lifestyle gadgets, and start living a more simpler way of life where we reduce consumption not for the motivation of “reducing emissions” (which, by many measures, does not have this effect on the economy as a whole) but rather to avoid the need to earn income and therefore the need to work long hours — in the process creating the spare time to engage in more activities that create a less consumptive and more local/resilient system, thus creating a feedback loop that reduces their lifestyle impacts further.

Simplicity is the future, not the illusion of some carbon-friendly ecotopia.

Another 10% next year? I don’t think so.

> Dear Keith,

> For your next high-fashion piece, consider REVEAL, the hottest eco-luxury handbags. made of recycled plastic bottles. REVEAL just launched their new Recycled Collection, and it’s perfect for women who are SEXY with SUBSTANCE. You know which women we are referring to. it’s your super stylish and smart girlfriend who manages to look hot while she juggles the balance of life, with an amazing career, adventure, friends, and travel, all while caring about the planet. Sound familiar? Yes. we are talking about you, too.

> I’d like to introduce REVEAL bags, an innovative, sustainable handbag and accessories line. The line features eco-luxury fashion accessories for the modern and mobile lifestyle. REVEAL’s earth and animal friendly products include women’s handbags and wallets, men’s messenger bags and bamboo accessories, and eco-modern mobile accessories for your iPad and iPhone. With REVEAL, you don’t have to choose between fashion and a better planet.

> All REVEAL products are meticulously designed to represent the real you – a fashion-forward trendsetter who cares about our planet and believes that together we can make a difference. To review the entire collection, please visit: www.revealshop.com.

> Rachel Wiley

> (619) 955-5285 Office
> (717) 676-8198 Cell
> 350 W. Ash St. #103
> San Diego, CA 92101
> www.oliveprsolutions.com

— ——–

Dear Rachel

For your next undermining piece, consider THE UNSUITABLOG, the hottest anti-hypocrisy website…made of recycled words. THE UNSUITABLOG just launched its new article called “Unfashion”, and it’s perfect for people who are RADICAL with PASSION. You know which people we are referring to…it’s your super sustainable and smart friend who manages to undermine the industrial-capitalist system while he or she juggles the balance of life, with amazing home cooked meals, rewilding, community, and localisation, all the while ignoring the fake-green corporate PR system. Sound familiar? Yes… we are talking about you, too.

I’d like to introduce THE UNSUITABLOG, an innovative, anti-capitalist website. It features articles that expose the hypocritical greenwashing of the corporate world. THE UNSUITABLOG’s radical and informative articles include monthly guides to Undermining the industrial system, guest articles from fellow anti-greenwashers, and investigative journalism to expose hypocritical organisations. With THE UNSUITABLOG you don’t have to choose between great reading and a better planet.

Many UNSUITABLOG articles have been meticulously written to expose the true face of the fashion industry – an ever-growing, ever-destroying consumer behemoth which will stop at nothing in its hypocrisy to protect the lie that profit and economic growth are essential to society. To review the latest one, please visit: http://thesietch.org/mysietch/keith/2010/09/19/monthly-undermining-task-septemberoctober-2010-unfashion/

Keith

Everything’s fine on the Alabama coast, especially at Gulf Shores / Orange Beach, especially now it’s Shrimp Festival time. Hey! Those persistent organic toxins aren’t going to eat themselves:

Yes, that really was posted on YouTube in the last few days, [dreamily] almost as though nothing had happened in the Gulf…

Jerry Cope at Huffington Post seems a little suspicious:

In its continuing effort to protect the public from toxic chemical exposure due to crude oil and Corexit dispersants, the City Of Orange Beach, Alabama, is hosting the Thunder on the Gulf boat races to bookend the 39th Annual National Shrimp Festival the weekend of Oct. 15. Although the vast majority of locals will not go in the water or on the beaches much less consume seafood caught in the Gulf, thanks to enthusiastic misinformation from authorities and intentionally lax testing methods such as the infamous “smell test,” tens of thousands of people will be exposed to toxic chemicals through inhalation, skin absorption and ingestion.

And it’s thanks to Jerry, and his damn suspicions that I have no option but to repost this redux version of the above…

Not too sure about the politics of the poster, but I think it would be rather fun if everyone posted these two videos together, just to show a few people what propaganda really looks like:

The original (the lie): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08GhZHgIt7A

The spoof (the truth): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxz5pD5TCS8

From my friend David at The Good Human comes the opening gambit of a big investigation into The Nature Conservancy. This will be worth watching…

Seems The Nature Conservancy, an “enviro” org with billions of dollars in assets, has some very good rich friends who spend their days destroying the environment and our food supply. I was able to get access to their donor list from 2009, (which isn’t on their site, contrary to popular belief) and most of the list is a veritable who’s-who of planet destroyers:

Monsanto
Cargill
Shell
Chevron
ConocoPhillips
Altria
Nestle

And many, many more. The most awkward part, at least to me? The Nature Conservancy also has a “Leadership Council” which is, according to them, “one of the world’s leading corporate forums focusing on the challenges confronting biodiversity preservation, habitat conservation and natural resource management.” Who would you imagine would be on this council? Whomever you are thinking about, you are dead wrong. Because here are some names from the council list:

Altria Group [a.k.a. Philip Morris]
BP
Cargill
Chevron
The Dow Chemical Company
ExxonMobil Corporation
Monsanto Company
Nestlé Waters North America

Notice any similarities between the donor list and those listed on the council? Yea, me too. That’s some leadership council on environmental issues!

If you remember, The Nature Conservancy took a lot of heat back in May for the fact that they “gave BP a seat on its International Leadership Council and has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years.” This is what got me interested in looking into their corporate donors in the first place. And while looking for that information, I have discovered other strange improprieties involving TNC – land donations, trustee land sales on the cheap, charges of drilling for gas under the breeding grounds of endangered birds, and assorted other stories that struck me as quite odd for an environmental organization to be involved in. Most of this stuff is easily found in the search engines, but it is going to take a while to put everything together that we are researching.

So, why am I doing this? Because I think it is important for people to know where some of these groups get their money from. Too often, we as environmentalists donate money to these orgs in hope that they are doing the right thing; but after seeing the millions that a company like Monsanto gives to TNC (while Monsanto hires Blackwater to spy on environmentalists), I have my doubts about just who is in charge here. Monsanto has been on a mission to turn all of our food into GMO’s that they own the rights to, and suing farmers who grow crops from accidentally blown-in seeds, and yet TNC takes their millions and seemingly remains quiet about just how bad Monsanto is – while the rest of us complain daily about Monsanto. Something stinks here.

That, my friends, is why I am interested in this. And I hope you will stay tuned for more info as we gather it and publish it, and please feel free to send along anything you find that fits into this story.