This is too good to pass up.
What exactly is the drive behind gaining control over the ecosystem? How is it that every microscopic detail is captured under a vague title which is ultimately a concept where every detail has to be managed?
Well, the name given to this concept is called ecosystem services. This is a notion that every ecosystem detail "services" humans. Say what?
While the Portneuf River flooded Pocatello several times over the years, 1910 & 11, 1912, and 1944-45, the 1962-1963 flood was "the greatest ever experienced", "with damage estimated more than $10 million", and declared a disaster area. Pocatelloans actively engaged to protect fellow citizens. The flood was sadly far more widespread than just Pocatello.
Following the massive devastation of those floods the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was brought in to build a concrete channel, also known as a flume, that would control future flooding. Debris build up had also been a problem on the Portneuf from various items being thrown into the river, and bank overgrowth, both creating a bottleneck in the flow. Skunk overflow was even a problem on the banks! All of these issues could be, AND WERE, solved with the channel.
Ok, ok, now we know some Portneuf River history. What does that have to do with ecosystem services?
Allegedly in Pocatello, "people", or 95% of "stakeholders" want the river "restored". Ninety people responded out of a population of approximately 54,000. One third of those respondents work for the government, another one third are environmentalists. That makes 30 people in each group, great survey sample. Restoring “the natural water course of the Portneuf was also highly rated" while maintaining flood control. Are you kidding? Look at the historical facts of letting the river return to its natural water course.
Managing Idaho's Landscapes for Ecosystem Services (MILES) is the group behind changing the Portneuf through their "river vision study" and connecting "people to ecosystem services". Perhaps it would be fair to say the citizens in 1962 were very closely "connected" to the river.
Among other definitions, ecosystem services are defined as benefits that humans derive from the ecosystem. Benefits such as food, air, water, and flood control. Flood control? MILES includes raw materials and medicinal resources, and adds disease control. In this organization's mind, ecosystems act as "regulators" that provide the benefits. But what would the ecosystem be without the additional "social" benefits such as recreation, tourism, mental health, aesthetics and inspiration, and spirituality. Of course habitats are also part of these services while protecting the "genetic diversity". Ergo, these "services" must be restored and protected.
Now it just so happens the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) all promote the fantasy of ecosystem services, naming just a few federal agencies. But the real meat of ecosystem services comes from the United Nations (UN).
The notion of ecosystem services arose out of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), launched by the UN in 2005. On page 1 the definition is pretty much the same as MILES, noting the "ability of ecosystems to deliver services can be assessed" and that "People seek many services from ecosystems". The MEA separates the services into categories (pg 57):
Provisioning - Products obtained from ecosystems
Regulating - Benefits obtained from regulation of ecosystem processes
Cultural - Non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems
Supporting - Services necessary for production of all other ecosystem services.
Still the same as MILES. Somehow the UN equates ecosystem services (pg 78) to "freedoms and choice" and drivers of ecosystems changes are primarily from local, national, and international groups (pg 90). Those 90 survey respondents represent the "local drivers" regarding the Portneuf.
There are some other interesting aspects to this report. On page 7, "The
relative influence of individual nation-states has diminished with the
growth of power and influence of a far more complex array of institutions,
including regional governments, multinational companies, the United
Nations, and civil society organizations." A reference to the United States and growing UN influence in our government and over our lives? And how about that corporate influence?
And going back to that tiresome UN social justice theme on page 14, "Unequal access to ecosystem services has often elevated the well-being of small segments of the population at the expense of others."
Without going into the excruciatingly painful details of all the UN organizations, here is a list involved in the MEA, including the United States. As previously noted federal agencies, who all partner with the UN, are also engaged in pushing ecosystem services onto us. Plus, Goal 15.1 in Agenda 2030 is to "... ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services...". And of course, the Portneuf River in southeast Idaho has been declared a basin and "watershed" needing restoration.
Of the three Agenda 21 pillars, social, economic, and environment, two are often integrated, social and economic, referred to as socio-economic. As seen here, the MILES program is part of this integrated concept.
Where is the UN influence coming from in the MILES program? One of its funding sources is the National Science Foundation (NSF). And the NSA actively works with UN organizations. Take the money, push the ideology.
Now, this ecosystem services nonsense would not even be an issue if it weren't for the UN. The UN wants us to believe that disasters of all types are lurking around the corner and immediate action must be taken to address climate change to stave off such destruction. Just one more scare tactic the UN lays on us to justify taking control. The notion that there will be increasing floods is nothing more than a bunch of rubbish, there have always been devastating floods. This Department of Interior report discusses far western state flooding in 1964-1965 stating on page A1, "The floods of December 1964 and January 1965 in the Far Western States were extreme". And this was after the 1962-63 floods. Now how could that be without climate change, isn't the worst to come? Or maybe it was just the fact that the particular climate activities, in combination with the river itself, was just nature doing her thing? Man, in his wisdom, came up with a workable solution, to build a flume only as the river flowed through the city, leaving the river alone to its forces once out of the city. Now because of the UN it all has to be undone. Let those UN supporters go talk to people who suffered through that flood, it is most likely they will get an earful. Ecosystem services? To serve humans? Those citizens were not served by that flood.
Ecosystem services is a warped falsehood, reversing how humans really care for the environment, we service it. We care for the environment when mother nature becomes destructive, not only to itself, but also to us. If the Portneuf had been allowed to once again run wild after the floods there would have been further massive environmental destruction along with destruction to humans. Pocatello citizens took care of their own, the way it should be, not from outside UN or government influences dictating decisions or how lives should be lived.
If Idahoans believe that the UN has no influence in their lives, it is right at their back door, they had better wake up. Idaho is under siege, it has blatantly been taken over, with more to come.
This website is non-partisan and is solely dedicated to removing the harmful controls placed on our state and nation through Agenda 21 and its associated programs. We invite all Idahoans to join us in this fight for freedom!