https://x.com/_Escapekey_/status/1781667401609658447
The 'forgotten'
WHO Commission on Health and the Environment report released in
1992;'Our Planet, Our Health' -
Rio 1992 is primarily known due to the formulation of Agenda 21 (with considerable input from the ICSU), and the carbon agenda unfolding through the establishment of the
UNFCCC, which is a function to control emissions, and hence, private enterprise. Less known is the
Convention on Biological Diversity, the 'solution' to the issue established by the UNFCCC, which through a stakeholder economy, sets out to monetise nature though the GEF for its 'ecosystem services', typically pledged as UNESCO Biosphere Reserves.
This document describes itself as the follow-up to Brundtland's 1987 landmark report; 'Our Common Future', and on that account alone, it deserves attention. Another reason is provided by the introductory summary, and I quote -
'Integrating development, the environment, and health'.
So if you in a contemporary settings see some ludicrous claim of health risk because of the concentration of plant food in the air, this is very much a major stop on a reverse, chronological trail.
-
First off, the usual reduction of population growth is outlined, along with
overconsumption and waste generation. And while the former entails educating women and delivering abortions, the latter largely comes down to
creating awareness of conservation, and
incentivising through financial means.
Organisational changes are envisaged within government structures, where those at the local levels will be held to account, while simultaneously, more weight should be put on the 'scientific evidence' during the 'decision making' process. And in order to achieve 'better science' the only way is for the
scientific community to cooperate with international agencies, and NGOs.
As for those governments, a commitment is required to support health promotion along with conservation efforts, and higher priority should be given to
'laying the foundation of international consensus on a large range of environmental, health, and economic issues' (another 'consensus', but the obligatory 'it's critical' claim strangely missing). Further, action programmes should be rolled out... until the world's population is stabilised. (Slightly editorialised, but hey)
Chapter 8 -
Transboundary and International Problems strictly ties in with the agenda, as not only the long-range transport of air pollutants detailed, but ozone depletion,
climate change, ocean pollution, and even
biodiversity is dragged in - and this most impressively then drags in
zoonotic pathogens, which predictably leads to
vaccines.
Finally, all major accidents involving exposure to chemicals should be
recorded in a central database, along with remedial actions taken.
And as for the
WHO - they should develop closer bonds with international organisations working in the fields of development and the environment, leading to a continuous flow of information.
1992 also conflated health and environment through the WHO
This led to 1997 H5N1 which was BS, ESWI’s (WHO) pandemic plan in 1999,
2004 One Health through 2001 Pilanesberg, and onto 2009 bs flu season, and then 2020 scamdemic and treaty 2024
It all makes sense.
1968 UNESCO biosphere conference
1979 ‘carbon consensus’
1987 4th World Wilderness
1992 Rio
1995 Our Global Neighbourhood
2000 [WIP]
2009 Copenhagen Accord
