13-11-10: Curia-General Crt: LJ v Addresseavisen: Aarhus Annulment

IN THE GENERAL COURT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION To the President and Members of the General Court of the European Union Application for Annulment under Article 263 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union

Lara Johnstone, Pro se Applicant v.

1. NO: Adresseavisen 2. NO: Aftenposten 3. NO: Bergens Tidende 4. NO: Dagbladet 5. NO: NRK 6. NO: TV2 7. NO: VG 8. NO: Advokat Foreningen/Bar Association 9. EU: Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC) 10. DE: Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources / Bundesanstalt f端r Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR): Federal Minister of Economics and Technology 11. UK: The Guardian Respondents

Date of Lodgement:

Addressee:

Date: 08 November 2013

Registrar of the Registry Rue du Fort Niedergr端newald L-2925 Luxembourg Tel.: (352) 4303-1 | Fax: (352) 4303 2100 E: GeneralCourt.Registry@curia.europa.eu

Preliminary Procedural Pro Se Exemptions Relief Requested from Court: 1.

Pro Se: In accordance with Article 44 of the General Court Rules of Procedure1 of the European Communities of 2 May 1991, as amended, the applicant, a qualified paralegal, is representing herself.

2.

Electronic Service: For the purposes of these proceedings, in accordance with Article 44 (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Communities of 2 May 1991, as amended, the Applicant agrees to accept service at PO Box 5042, George East, 6539; Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za, respectively for service of process via land or electronic mail.

3.

Electronic served application to court registry to be deemed Original of the document, in terms of Article 43 (7): For conservation and CommonSism Primitivist In Forma Pauperis financial reasons applicant requests the court to consider the electronically served application to the court registry to be deemed the original of the document, in terms of Article 43 (7); and if hardcopy’s are required, timelimits to be considered ITO of Curia Court Rules of Procedure Article 512.

4.

If ruled admissible, electronic services upon defendants, in terms of Article 43(7) read in conjunction with Article 45: For conservation and CommonSism Primitivist In Forma Pauperis financial reasons.

A. Applicant Information: Pro se Representation: Applicant:

Lara Johnstone, Pro Se

Information on Applicant: Name of Applicant:

Lara Johnstone

1

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2008-09/txt7_2008-09-25_14-08-6_431.pdf ITO Curia Rules of Procedure Article 51: Extension on account of distance; and General Court Rules of Procedure: Article 43: Written Procedure.

2

2

Address:

P O Box 5042 George East, 6539 South Africa

Telephone:

+27-44-870 7239

Email:

jmcswan@mweb.co.za

Transparency Copies re: Environment-Scarcity-Conflict issues:

Anders Breivik, c/o Lippestad Attorneys: Anders Breivik PO Box 150 1332 Osteras, Norway c/o: Adv. Geir Lippestad Advokatfirmaet Lippestad Grensen 12, 0159 Oslo post@advokatlippestad.no, geir@advokatlippestad.no, tord@advokatlippestad.no

General Ray ODierno Chief of Staff of the US Army c/o Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 DAPE-HR ( Command Programs ) 2530 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202-3941 Email: USA DCSG-1 (usarmy.pentagon.hqda-dcs-g-1.mbx.commandprograms@mail.mil)

Vladimir Putin President of Russia C/O Kremlin Press Office (press_office@prpress.gov.ru) c/o Russian Embassy, Pretoria P.O. Box 36034, Pretoria 0102, Brooks str., 316, MenloPark Tel. +2712 362-1337 | Fax +2712 362-0116 RU Embassy (ruspospr@mweb.co.za)

Nanette Derenzi Vice Admiral Nanette Derenzi US Navy Judge Advocate General c/o: Knowledge and Information Services 1322 Patterson Ave., Suite 3000 Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066 Comm: (202) 685-5290 JAGIR (JAGIR@jag.navy.mil)

B. Party’s against whom Application is Made: 3

Respondent #1:

Adresseavisen PO Box 3200 sloop, 7003 Trondheim T: 47 07 200 | F: + 47 72 50 Editor: Arne Blix arne.blix@adresseavisen.no

Respondent #2:

Aftenposten Biskop Gunnerus' gate 14A, 0185 OSLO. Tel: 22 86 30 00 Editor: Hilde Haugsgjerd hilde.haugsgjerd@aftenposten.no

Respondent #3:

Bergens Tidende Krinkelkroken 1, Postboks 7240, 5020 Bergen Trine Eilertsen trine.eilertsen@bt.no

Respondent #4:

Dagbladet/Dagbladet.no Boks 1184 Sentrum, 0107 Oslo Tel: 24 00 10 00 John Arne Markussen (@JAMarkussen) (evf@dagbladet.no)

Respondent #5:

NRK PB 8500, Majorstuen, 0340 Oslo Tel: 23 04 70 00 Editor: Hans Tore Bjerkaas hans-tore.bjerkaas@nrk.no

Respondent #6:

TV2 Postboks 7222, 5020 Bergen Tel: 02255 Alf Hildrum alf.hildrum@tv2.no

Respondent #7:

VG Postboks 1185 Sentrum, 0107 Oslo T: 22 00 00 00 | F: 22 42 67 80 Editor: Torry Pedersen torry.pedersen@vg.no

Respondent #8:

AdvokatForeningen/Bar Association The Norwegian Bar Association | Den Norske

4

Contact Persons:

Advokatforening Juristenes Hus Kristian Augusts gate 9, 0164 Oslo. T: 22 03 50 50 | F: 22 11 53 25 Ex.Off: Inger-Johanna Hammer Comm.: Baard Amundsen E: ijh@advokatforeningen.no, ba@advokatforeningen.no, post@advokatforeningen.no Head: Judge Ernst Moe Sec: Beate Sundstrøm Disciplinary Committee | Disiplinærnemnden Kristian Augustsgt. 9 0164 OSLO T. 22 03 50 50 | Fax 22 11 53 25 DisComm: (nemnden@jus.no) JMoe (ernst.moe@domstol.no)

Respondent #9:

Contact Person:

Respondent #10:

Contact Persons:

Respondent #11:

Aarhus Convention Compliance Comm.

Secretary to the Aarhus Convention UN Economic Commission for Europe Environment and Human Settlement Division Room 332, Palais des Nations CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland Phone: +41 22 917 2384 Fax: +41 22 917 0634 public.participation@unece.org Aphrodite Smagadi Aphrodite.Smagadi@unece.org German Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources / Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR): Federal Minister of Economics and Technology Geozentrum Hannover, Stilleweg 2, D-30655 Hannover Dr. Philipp Rösler & Dr. Peter Buchholz / Dr. Thomas Oberthür. E: (energierohstoffe@bgr.de) (poststelle@bgr.de) (Peter.Buchholz@bgr.de) (Thomas.Oberthuer@bgr.de) The Guardian Editor: Alan Rusbridger Kings Place, 90 York Way London N1 9GU Tel: +44(20) 3 353 2000 Alan Rusbridger (alan.rusbridger@theguardian.com)

5

C. Subject-matter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based I. Summary 5.

The Applicant hereby requests access to environment information in terms of Aarhus Convention under Article 2 (3).

6.

Respondents

01-09:

The

Applicant

hereby

requests

access

to

environment information from (a) Respondents #01-07: the editors of mainstream Norwegian media publications: Adresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 and VG (hereinafter “NO Media respondents”)

refused

AdvokatForeningen/Bar

to

disclose;

Association

(b)

Respondents

Disciplinary

#08:

the

Committee

and

Disciplinary Board refused to disclose; (c) #09: the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee refused to order Respondents 01-08 to disclose; and by way of this application for annulment of the decisions by which disclosure was refused; the censorship of which was likely to seriously affect elements of the environment.

7.

The environment information relates to ‘editorial decision making’ to censor information about (a) Environment-Scarcity-Conflict contextual information in their reporting of Anders Breivik’s terrorism trial; the censorship of which was likely to seriously affect elements of the environment;

(ii)

the

Environment-Scarcity-Conflict

arguments

submitted to the Oslo District Court during the Breivik trial.

8.

Respondents: 10: The Applicant hereby requests access to environment information from Respondent #10; which the (hereinafter “DE Resource Academic respondents”) Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources / Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR): Federal Minister of Economics and Technology: Dr. Philipp Rösler & Dr. Peter Buchholz / Dr. Thomas Oberthür; by way of this application for annulment of the decisions by which disclosure of information was

6

refused; the censorship of which was likely to seriously affect elements of the environment.

9.

The Environmental Information requested from, and refused by, Respondent #10; Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources / Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR): Federal Minister of Economics and Technology: Dr. Philipp Rösler & Dr. Peter Buchholz / Dr. Thomas Oberthür; was the peak production and years to global exhaustion dates for various mineral natural resources; and their analysis and conclusions as to how and whether the global exhaustion of these NNR’s will affect the collapse of industrial civilization?

10.

Respondents 11: The Applicant hereby requests access to environment information

from

Respondent

#11;

which

the

journalist:

Glenn

Greenwald3 and editor: Alan Rusbridger of mainstream British media publication: The Guardian (hereinafter “UK Media respondents”) did not disclose in their reporting on the NSA Files4; and by way of this application for annulment of the decisions by which disclosure was refused; the censorship of which was likely to seriously affect elements of the environment.

11.

The environment information relates to ‘editorial decision making’ to censor information about (a) Environment-Scarcity-Conflict contextual information in their reporting of the NSA’s national security motivations for its surveillance practices; (ii) the Environment-Scarcity-Conflict arguments submitted to (a) ACLU et al v Clapper et al: Amicus Application5 to Judge William Pauly, US District Court, Southern District of New York; and (b) First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles et al v National Security Agency, et al: Amicus Application6 to Chief Judge of the Northern District of California; which Tenth Respondent’s journalist and editors are aware of.

3

http://www.theguardian.com/profile/glenn-greenwald http://www.theguardian.com/world/series/nsa-files-live/latest 5 http://tygae.weebly.com/united-states.html 6 http://tygae.weebly.com/united-states.html 4

7

Environmental Information: Media Respondents: 12.

The environmental information requested from all respondents fits the Convention definition of ‘environmental information’ under Article 2 (3) (b) as being an editorial policy ‘cost-benefit economic analysis decision making activity’, the censorship of which aggravates the threat multiplier Impact (I=PAT) Population (P) and Affluence/Consumption (A) causes of ecological overshoot and environmental degradation, which seriously affects (i) the state of elements of the environment, from air, atmosphere, water, soil and land pollution to loss of biological diversity and its components, and the interaction of these elements; (ii) the state of human health and safety as manifested by climate and resource scarcity (oil, water, NNR minerals), resource civil and national war refugees and deaths.

13.

Environment-Scarcity-Conflict refers to extensive documentation from military and intelligence agencies, united nations and governments, NGO’s and academic reports, etc, collectively documenting7 how legislative failure to restrict humanity’s insistence on procreating and consuming above carrying capacity limits, and Socialized Corporate Externality Costs: Trillion Dollar Thefts from Global Natural Capital Commons, has resulted in our ecological overshoot of carrying capacity limits by between 700 to 400,000 percent; including crossing urgent Planetary Boundary Tipping Points: (i) Loss of Biodiversity and Species Extinctions; (ii) Climate Change; (iii) Nitrogen Cycle; (iv) Ocean Acidification; (v) Changes in Land Use; (vi) Global Freshwater Use; (vii) State Shift in the Earth’s Biosphere; (viii) Peak Non-Renewable Natural Resources Scarcity; with devastating current climate-resource-scarcity-

7

For List of Authorities on Environment Scarcity Conflict: see: Annex ???? Request for Written Reasons: Re: Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee 26 April 2013 “manifestly unreasonable” ruling .. (i) Military Doctrine & Academic Theory: Scarcity-Conflict & Media Censorship of Population in ScarcityConflict equation is Manifestly Reasonable (pg.7-11); (ii) Military Doctrine & Academic Theory: Climate Change & National Security: Climate Change acts as a Scarcity and Conflict Threat Multiplier of oil, water and food resource wars and mass migration (p.12-13); (iii) Academic Theory: Media's CensorshipEnvironment Terrorism Connection (p.13-14); (iv) Admirals, Generals, Former CIA Director & News Editor: Censorship-Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection (p.17-29).

8

conflict and refugees, and impending threat multiplier aggravation of crisis of ‘scarcity-conflict’ death spiral consequences.

14.

Media Censorship of Environment-Scarcity-Conflict refers to a corporate media

socialized

externality

cost.

Like

all

corporations,

media

corporations work to maximize their profits, by maximizing revenues while minimizing costs, by externalizing – avoid paying – as many costs as possible, externalizing them to society. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)8 puts a value on the ecological services provided to humanity. They have found that 3,000 listed companies around the world

were

responsible

for

over

$2

trillion

in

environmental

“externalities” (i.e. costs that have to be borne by society from ignored factors, or “social costs”). This is equivalent to 7% of their combined revenues and up to a third of their combined profits. They do it because 8

http://www.teebweb.org/

9

the system allows them to do it. To stop this we need to recognize natural capital, build it into our systems. When we measure GDP, as a measure of our economic performance at the national level, we should include our biggest asset at the country level, our natural capital and the state of its improved biodiversity health, or destruction. When we measure corporate performances we don't include our impacts on nature and water and biodiversity and what the business costs society.

15.

Journalists are aware of how population and consumption affect ecological overshoot, scarcity and scarcity induced conflict, but avoid including such context to socio-political problem stories, because it

10

directly and indirectly9 conflicts with their population and consumption growth profit motives. Respondent 10 is acutely aware of that there are no corporate consequences for environmental destruction10; and Military authorities concerns related to these Scarcity Conflict issues 11. Numerous studies such as Dr. Michael Maher’s study: How and Why Journalists Avoid Population - Environment Connection (PDF12), document how the mainstream media’s conscious censorship of the population/consumptionovershoot-scarcity-conflict contextual connection in their reporting on environment, scarcity and conflict related events, is a significant cause of the public’s general ecological illiterate inability to make informed environmental decisions, ignorance of the ecological overshoot state of our planet, and its impending scarcity-conflict consequences. Dr. Maher did a random sample of 150 stories about urban sprawl, endangered species and water shortages, and found that only 1 in ten framed population growth as a source of the problem. Other studies conducted by Media Matters in the US show that (i) in recent 2013 wildfire coverage, only 6 percent of total wildfire items mentioned climate change13; (ii) in Midwest flood coverage, only 3 percent of stories mentioned climate change14; (iii) in 2012, the nightly news covered the royal family more than climate change15; (iv) a recent study documenting the warmest year on record

9

Advertisers prefer not to advertise in news media which honestly encourage readers to consume responsibly, by contextually linking the role of overconsumption to the ecological overshoot socio-political problems being experienced by citizens. Many citizens indoctrinated with political correct thinking, also marketed by media and corporations, prefer not to offend readers who prefer to be ecologically illiterate intellectual ostriches who are not confronted with the reality that their consumption and procreation contributes to problems resulting from ecological overshoot. Such readers/viewers would prefer to be told that their consumption or procreation above carrying capacity limits has nothing to do with ecological overshoot related socio-political problems, which are someone else’s fault, preferably someone else from a different ethnicity, culture, religion or ideology.

10 Andrew Simms (18 Feb 2010): The Price for Environmental Destruction? There is None; The Guardian 11Nafeez Ahmed (14 June 2013): Pentagon bracing for public dissent over climate and energy shocks; (4 July 2013): Egypt’s new age of unrest is a test of things to come; Guardian 12 13-05-12 ACCC-82: Written Reasons: Annex C: Maher, Michael (1997/03): How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection: University of Southwestern Louisiana, Population and Environment, Volume 18, Number 4, March 1977; Reprinted in 1997 by the Carrying Capacity Network, Focus, 18 (2), 21-37. issuu.com/jsror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection 13 (i) Fitzsimmons Jill (9 May 2013): "New Normal" of California Wildfirers Doesn't Make the News; Media Matters (ii) Greenberg Max (3 July 2013): Study: Media Still Largely Fail to Put Wildfires in Climate Context; Media Matters 14 Fitzsimmons Jill (7 May 2013): Study: Media Ignore Climate Context of Midwest Floods; Media Matters 15 Fitzsimmons Jill (14 May 2013): Nightly News Covered the Royal Family More than Climate Change in 2012; Media Matters

11

received cool media coverage16, almost entirely censoring scientists from climate change discussion17; (v) in 2012, the Kardashians got 40 times more news coverage than ocean acidification, which affects over 50% of US fishery revenues18; (vi) in 2012, TV media covered Joe Biden’s smile nearly twice as much as climate change19, and Paul Ryan’s workout, three times more than record Arctic Sea Ice loss20.

16.

The Aarhus Convention repeatedly emphasises its concerns about the importance of enabling citizens’ access to accurate, comprehensive and upto-date environmental information, to enhance the quality and the implementation of decisions and decision-making and to strengthen public support for decisions on the environment, which contribute to public awareness of environmental issues; its desire to promote environmental education to further the understanding of the environment and sustainable development and to encourage widespread public awareness of, and participation in, decisions affecting the environment and sustainable development, and the importance of fully integrating environmental considerations in governmental decision-making and the consequent need for public authorities to be in possession of accurate, comprehensive and up-todate environmental information.

17.

A media publication’s accurate contextual environmental information is to a citizen’s healthy, constructive problem solving decision-making, no different what an organic farmer’s food is to a body’s cells energy conversion decision-making and problem solving. Similarly a media publication’s inaccurate information-food, including where the inaccuracy results

from

the

intentional

omission

of

important

contextual

16

(i) Fitzsimmons Jill (8 January 2013): Study: Warmest Year on record received Cool Climate Coverage; Media Matters; (ii) Fitzsimmons Jill (11 March 2013): CBS Ignores Study Finding Temperatures Are Highest in 4,000 Years, Media Matters 17 Fitzsimmons Jill (15 August 2012): Study: TV Media Ignore Climate Change in Coverage of Record July Heat; Media Matters 18 Theel Shauna (27 June 2012): Study: Kardashians Get 40 Times More News Coverage than Ocean Acidification ; Media Matters 19 Fitzsimmons Jill (13 November 2012): Study: TV Media covered Biden's Smile nearly twice as much as Climate Change; Media Matters http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/11/13/study-tv-media-coveredbidens-smile-nearly-twic/191341 20 Fitzsimmons Jill (27 September 2012): Study: TV News covered Paul Ryan's Workout 3x More than Record Arctic Sea Ice Loss; Media Matters.

12

environmental information, is as toxic and debilitating to an individual’s decision making and problem solving, or collectively to a citizenry’s decision-making and problem solving, as a farmer’s toxic pesticide or genetically modified biological foodstuffs can be.

Environmental Information: NO Bar Association Respondents: 18.

The Environmental Information requested from, and refused by, the Bar Association, were Environmental Justifications proving that their Environmental Complaints policy, which refuses to accept complaints in digital format; was the best conservation of natural resources policy.

Environmental Information: DE Resource Academic Respondents:

19.

The Environmental Information requested from, and refused by, Respondent #10; Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources / Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR): Federal Minister of Economics and Technology: Dr. Philipp Rösler & Dr. Peter Buchholz / Dr. Thomas Oberthür were: (A) What are the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources dates for the peak production and years to global exhaustion for: (a) Antimony; (b) Bauxite; (c) Bismuth; (d) Cadmium; (e) Chromium; (f) Cobalt; (g) Copper; (h) Fluorspar; (i) Graphite (Natural); (j) Iron Ore; (k) Lead; (l) Lithium; (m) Manganese; (n) Molybdenum; (o) Nickel; (p) Niobium; (q) Rhenium; (r) Silver; (s) Thalium; (t) Tin; (u) Tungsten; (v) Uranium; (w) Zinc; (x) Zirconium?; Note: Mr. Chris Clugston’s book: Scarcity: A Comprehensive Analysis of

Non-renewable

Natural

Resource

(NNR)

Scarcity’s

Consequences21, concludes that the following NNR’s have globally peaked in production, are ‘critically scarce’, with the following amount of years to global exhaustion: (a) Antimony: 8 yrs; (b) Bauxite: 40 years; (c) Bismuth: 17 years; (d) Cadmium: 25 years; (e) Chromium: 26 years; (f) Cobalt: 26 years; (g) Copper: 27 years; (h) Fluorspar: 23 years; (i) Graphite (Natural): 23 years; (j) Iron Ore: 15 years; (k) Lead: 17 years; (l) Lithium: 8 years; (m) Manganese: 17 years; (n) Molybdenum: 20 years; (o) 21

http://www.nnrscarcity.com/

13

Nickel: 30 years; (p) Niobium: 15 years; (q) Rhenium: 22 years; (r) Silver: 11 years; (s) Thalium: 38 years; (t) Tin: 18 years; (u) Tungsten: 32 years; (v) Uranium: 34 years; (w) Zinc: 13 years; (x) Zirconium: 19 years; (B) If you agree with Mr. Clugston’s aforementioned peak production statistics for aforementioned NNR’s, based upon data from USGS, EIA, BEA, BLS, Fed, CBO, FBI, IEA, UN, World Bank, etc; what is the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources analysis and conclusions as to how the global exhaustion of these NNR’s will have on industrial civilization? Do you dispute Mr. Clugston’s conclusions that “all industrialized and industrializing nations, irrespective of their economic and political orientations, are unsustainable and will collapse, by 2050, as a consequence of their dependence upon increasingly scarce NNRs.” If so, based upon what information or research studies?

14

II. Factual background: Respondents #-01-07: NO Media Respondents: 20.

On 22 July 2011 Anders Breivik exploded a fertilizer truck bomb in Oslo, killing eight and injuring at least 209; and conducted a mass assassination at a summer camp organized by the AUF, on the island of Utøya, which he justified in court and his Manifesto: 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence on the grounds of necessity to: (1) Resist Eurabia and that (2) Gov & Media Censorship of debate and discussion of the consequences of Demographic/Immigration

issues required Ultra

violence to Access International Publicity.

21.

On 30 November 2011, applicant filed an application (PDF22) for a writ of Habeus Mentem on behalf of Anders Breivik psycho-cultural integrity right to a free and fair trial; copies sent to 1,283 Norwegian Editors and Journalists23 on 07 December 2011, which argued, among others that the roots of terrorism – from Breivik’s ‘right wing’ to Mandela and Guevara’s left wing – are frequently a result of the Mainstream Media’s censorship of non-violent Ecocentric problem solving, to facilitate a socio-political pressure cooker reality for their “If it Bleads, It Leads” corporate propaganda

profits

deliberately

and

from

terrorism

intentionally

violence.

Mainstream

aggravate

media

overpopulation,

overconsumption and resource scarcity social conflict, by providing preferential access to public discourse resources to corporate parties who advocate on behalf of population growth and consumptionism, while silencing those opposing overpopulation and overconsumption; as documented Dr. Michael Maher’s study: How and Why Journalists Avoid Population - Environment Connection (PDF24).

22

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/111130_breivik-habeus http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2011/12/111207_habeusmedia.html 24 13-05-12 ACCC-82: Written Reasons: Annex C: Maher, Michael (1997/03): How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection: University of Southwestern Louisiana, Population and

23

15

22.

On 15 April 2012, applicant filed an Application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae (PDF25), to the Oslo District Court Registrar. Copies were sent to 1,384 Norwegian Editors and Journalists26 on 16 April 2012. The EcoFeminist Amicus argued that it was Patriarchal Masculine Insecurity, not Feminism, which was a direct and indirect root cause and aggravating factor for the destruction of Western Civilization, enabling third world overpopulation (third world immigration) and first world’s overconsumption (Peak Oil and Peak Non Renewable Natural Resources), as a result of western civilizations patriarchal jurisprudence’s refusal to limit procreation and consumption to carrying capacity limits.

23.

On 10 May 2012, applicant filed an Application to Review the Oslo District Court refusal to process or respond to her applications (PDF27) to the Norway Supreme Court Registrar.

24.

On 14 May 2012 copies of the 22 April 2012: Earth Day report: Acquittal or Firing Squad: If it Bleeds, it Leads, Media's Population Terrorism Connection (PDF28) were distributed to: 1,278 Norwegian Editors and Journalists29.

The report included summaries of aforementioned

applications, and a list of names of the Norwegian media to whom the applications had been sent.

25.

On 25 May 2012, applicant submitted a request for environmental information to the Media respondents, requesting their editorial decisionmaking

to

censor

information

about

the

Media’s

Environment-

Population-Terrorism Connection, during Breivik’s Terrorism trial; and their decision-making to censor information regarding the EcoFeminist Applications to the Oslo District Court on behalf of a free and fair trial, from their readers. The editors refused to provide the requested information, by ignoring the request.

Environment, Volume 18, Number 4, March 1977; Reprinted in 1997 by the Carrying Capacity Network, Focus, 18 (2), 21-37. issuu.com/jsror/docs/mahertm_journo-env-pop-connection 25 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120414_amicus 26 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/04/120416_amicus_1384media.html 27 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120510_breivik-dgr-ecofem 28 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120422_bleads-leads 29 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/05/120514_1278media.html

16

26.

On 19 June 2012, communicator submitted an Appeal (PDF30) to the Environmental Appeals Board (Klagenemnda for miljøinformasjon31).

27.

On 10 September 2012, the Secretariat of the Environmental Appeals Board32 issued a ruling33 (PDF34) that applicants Appeal was ‘unjustified’, as not meeting the definition for ‘environmental information’. Request for written reasons clarifying how applicants environmental information n was ‘unjustified’ resulted in a ruling of ‘clearly had to be denied’. Request for written reasons clarifying why the complaint ‘clearly had to be denied’ were refused.

28.

On 11 November 2012, Applicant filed an Appeal (PDF35) to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. On 27 November 2012, the Parliamentary Ombudsman ruled (PDF36) that “The Ombudsman has reviewed your complaint and the enclosed documents, and your complaint does not give reasons to initiate further investigations regarding the Appeals Board case processing or decision.”

Respondents #-08: NO Bar Association: 29.

Between 28 May and 18 June 2012, Communicator filed 170 Disciplinary

Complaints

with

the

Norwegian

Bar

Association:

Disciplinary Committee37 and the Disciplinary Board for Advocates38, against attorneys representing Defendant Anders Breivik, as well as the 22 July victims families.

30.

On 19 June 2012, the Disciplinary Committee and Board refused to process Communicator’s Disciplinary Complaints, signed and submitted to them in digital format, per email, demanding a complainant “send two

30

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/180612_env-app-brd http://www.miljoklagenemnda.no/ 32 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/media-censorship.html 33 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/09/120910_eab-ba-media1.html 34 http://www.miljoklagenemnda.no/Vedtak/Sak_2012_2_og_5.pdf http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-11-06_envappbrd_decision.pdf 35 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121112_po-eab 36 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-11-27_20121987_env_appeals_board.pdf 37 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/06/120618_166complaints.html 38 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/06/120618_advdiscbrd.html 31

17

[printed hard] copies of the signed written complaint enclosed with any documentation, in duplicate.”

31.

On 20 June 2012, applicant submitted to both Disciplinary Committee (PDF39) and the Disciplinary Board (PDF40), a Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) RE: Complaints filed against Attorneys for Defendant (4) and Victims Families (166) in Norway v. Breivik matter, to please provide the Bar Associations Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for their complaints policy.

32.

On 10 July 2012, The Bar Association responded41 that they have no Environmental Justifications for their complaints policy refusing to accept digital complaints electronically, but insist that it be followed, irrespective of lacking any environmental justifications for it.

Respondents #-09: ACCC: 33.

On 11 March 2013, applicant filed a complaint42 against the NO Media respondents

and

NO

Bar

Association

respondents

with

Aarhus

Respondent. The complaint against the Media respondents alleged that the

Media

Respondent’s

editorial

decision-making

to

censor

(i)

Environment-Scarcity-Conflict contextual information in their reporting of Anders Breivik’s terrorism trial; and (ii) information about the Environment-Scarcity-Conflict argument submitted to the Oslo District Court during the Breivik trial; amounted to Non-compliance to Access to Information and Access to Justice, in terms of the Aarhus Convention.

This

application

is

hereinafter

referred

to

as

the

“Aarhus

Communication” (PDF: Summary43; Communication44; incl. Annexures A-H45) (pg.167).

39

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120620_nadvfor-dc http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120620_jmoe-dbrd 41 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/07/120710_discbrd.html 42 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/unece-aarhus-comp-comm.html 43 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/13-03-11_aarhus-conventioncompliance-comm_summary.pdf 40

18

34.

On 26 April 2013, correspondence (PDF46) from Aarhus respondent denied the application for environmental information as “manifestly unreasonable”.

35.

On 12 May 2013, applicant submitted an appeal (PDF47) to Aarhus respondent requesting written reasons for the “manifestly unreasonable” ruling. The appeal argued that the Media’s Censorship-EnvironmentPopulation-Terrorism Connection is manifestly reasonable, considering extensive military doctrine and academic theory documentation related to Scarcity-Conflict & Media Censorship of Population in Scarcity-Conflict equation in their reporting on environmental, scarcity and conflict related events. In fact, the arguments that climate change is a national security threat, are based upon climate change acting as a scarcity and conflict threat multiplier of oil, water and food resource wars and mass migration. Additionally the argument of Norwegian media censorship is even shared by a survivor of Utoya terrorism, Mr. Bjorn Ihler, whose Center for Free and Creative Expression was founded as a response to Norway’s addiction to censorship and based upon his support for the Censorship-Terrorism Connection argument.

36.

On 09 July 2013, Aarhus respondent responded (PDF48) that “The Committee considered the communication manifestly unreasonable because the communication had failed to provide for clear, obvious and evident reasons on how the requests of the communicant to the media industry and the bar association fell within the ambit of the Convention.”

37.

On 09 July 2013, applicant responded by requesting confirmation that:

38.

Please confirm:

44

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/13-03-11_aarhus-conventioncompliance-communication.pdf 45 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/130110_echr_lj-v-no?mode=window&viewMode=singlePage 46 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/13-0423_accc_cc40_ece.mp.pp.c.1.2013.2.pdf 47 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/13-05-12__accc-82_jvnorway_reqwritten-reasons.pdf 48 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/13-0709_accc_commc82admissibilityquestioncc41.pdf

19

39.

“The Committee considered the communication manifestly unreasonable because the communication had failed to provide for clear, obvious and evident reasons on how the requests of the communicant to the media industry and the bar association fell within the ambit of the Convention.”

40.

The Committee is alleging that my requests for environmental information submitted to the media industry and bar association does not meet the committee’s interpretation of the convention’s definition of ‘environmental information’.

41.

The Committee is also alleging that if or where anyone submits any request to any public body for environmental information, and such body pretends or sincerely does not agree with the communicant’s definition of ‘environmental information’, then the particular body can simply ignore the request, and refuse to answer it, and the Committee will endorse such behaviour from public bodies.

42.

Please clarify if this is an accurate interpretation of the vague and ambiguous unclear statements by Ms. Magadi.

43.

On 10 July 2013, respondent responded:

44.

The letter is based on the outcome of the Committee's discussion. The reasons are clear. The file has now been closed.

45.

On 10 July 2013, Applicant responded:

46.

Since the Committee insists on closing the file, and refusing to process my communication, you leave me no options, but to file an application with the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union for an Application for Annulment under Article 263 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union.

47.

In the absence of clarification by yourself or the Committee, I shall interpret your statement “The reasons are clear” as confirmation of “The Committee is alleging that my requests for environmental information submitted to the media industry and bar association does not meet the

20

committee’s interpretation of the convention’s definition of ‘environmental information.”

Respondents #10: DE Resource Academic Respondents: 48.

On 16 March 2013, Applicant filed a request to the Ministry of Environment (PDF49); who, on 11 June 2013, referred Applicant to the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources.

49.

On 11 June 2013, Applicant filed a request (PDF50) for access to environment information in terms of Aarhus Convention51 Article 4: Request for Environment Information in terms of Aarhus Convention Article 4: Access to Environment Information: (i) Peak Production & Years to Global Exhaustion of various NNR Minerals & (ii) Conclusions of Peak NNR consequences for industrial civilization.

50.

On 17 June Mr. Thomas Oberthür, acknowledged receipt. On 07 November 2013, Applicant informed Respondent of her interpretation as to the refusal to provide such information would be referred to the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union; under Article 263 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union.

Respondents #11: UK Media Respondents: 51.

On 27 October 2013, Applicant filed a request (PDF52) for access to environment information in terms of Aarhus Convention53 Article 4 from UK Media Respondents; as to the journalistic and editorial decisionmaking failure to report on Environment-Scarcity-Conflict (such as for example in As Europe erupts over US spying, NSA chief says government must stop media54) and its consequences issues as a possible motive for intelligence agency surveillance, in their reporting on

49

http://www.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-03-16_aarhusccc_de-min-env_reqforenvinfo.pdf http://tygae.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-06-11_aarhusccc_de-bgrgeosnatres_reqforenvinfo.pdf 51 http://www.unece.org/env/pp/treatytext.html 52 http://tygae.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-10-26_guardian_aarhusc_env-info-request.pdf 53 http://www.unece.org/env/pp/treatytext.html 54 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/25/europe-erupts-nsa-spying-chief-government 50

21

Mr. Snowden’s disclosure of the NSA Files55; to be received by the latest 28 November 2013.

52.

On 02 November 2013, Applicant reminded the respondents of the request for access to environmental information; and notified them that in the absence of any acknowledged receipt, and response from the Guardian, by 04 November 2013; informing applicant by when they shall provide the requested information; it shall be concluded that the Guardian refuse to provide the requested information; and the matter shall be referred to the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union. No response was received from the respondents.

III. Statement of alleged violation(s) and/or relevant arguments III.A Aarhus and NO Media Respondents violation of Aarhus Convention Article 2 and 4(7): 53.

If the environmental information requested fits the specific justifications provided for in Article 4(4), which justify any public authorities to refuse any request for access to information, then Article 4(7) provides for the correct response for any public authority to refuse any request for environmental information: “A refusal of a request shall be in writing if the request was in writing or the applicant so requests. A refusal shall state the reasons for the refusal and give information on access to the review procedure provided for in accordance with article 9. The refusal shall be made as soon as possible and at the latest within one month, unless the complexity of the information justifies an extension of this period up to two months after the request. The applicant shall be informed of any extension and of the reasons justifying it.”

55

http://www.theguardian.com/world/series/nsa-files-live/latest

22

54.

Consequently if, any media respondent had believed that applicant’s request for environmental information ‘had failed to provide for clear, obvious and evident reasons on how the request fell within the ambit of the Convention”, they could have relied upon Article 4(3)(b) “The request is manifestly unreasonable or formulated in too general a manner”; and should have provided such refusal in writing with the reasons for such refusal.

55.

No media respondent ever responded with any written refusal providing any information related to their justifications for refusing the requested environmental information.

56.

Clearly the media respondents violated Article 4(7) in failing to provide written reasons clarifying their alleged reasons for refusing the environmental information requested.

57.

The Aarhus Respondents failure to hold the Media respondents responsible for providing applicant a written response clarifying their reasons justifying their refusal, as required in Article 2 and 4(7) is a violation of Article 4(7).

III.B Aarhus and NO Bar Association Respondents violation of Aarhus Convention Article 2 and 4(7): 58.

The Aarhus Respondents failure to hold the Bar Association respondents responsible for providing applicant a written response clarifying their reasons justifying their refusal to provide the requested environmental information, as required in Article 2 and 4(7) is a violation of Article 4(7).

III.C

DE

Resource

Academic

Respondents

violation

of

Aarhus

Convention Article 2 and 4(7): 59.

The Respondents failure to provide the applicant the requested environmental information or a written response clarifying their reasons justifying

their

refusal

to

provide

the

requested

environmental

information, as required in Article 2 and 4(7) is a violation of Article 4(7).

23

III.D UK Media Respondents violation of Aarhus Convention Article 2 and 4(7): 60.

The Respondents failure to provide the applicant the requested environmental information or a written response clarifying their reasons justifying

their

refusal

to

provide

the

requested

environmental

information, as required in Article 2 and 4(7) is a violation of Article 4(7).

III.E

Aarhus

Respondents

erroneous

narrow

interpretation

of

Convention’s ‘Environmental Information’ definition: 61.

The Aarhus convention defines environmental information in Article 2 (3):

62.

“Environmental information” means any information in written, visual, aural, electronic or any other material form on:

63.

(a) The state of elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites, biological diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms, and the interaction among these elements;

64.

(b) Factors, such as substances, energy, noise and radiation, and activities or

measures,

including

administrative

measures,

environmental

agreements, policies, legislation, plans and programmes, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment within the scope of subparagraph (a) above, and cost-benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions used in environmental decision-making; 65.

(c) The state of human health and safety, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures, inasmuch as they are or may be affected by the state of the elements of the environment or, through these elements, by the factors, activities or measures referred to in subparagraph (b) above.

66.

Applicant submits that the environmental information requested from the media respondents meets the Aarhus ‘environmental information’

24

definition in terms of being (a) activities or measures, including administrative measures, environmental agreements, policies, legislation, plans and programmes, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment and (b) cost-benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions used in environmental decision-making.

67.

Specifically the ‘editorial decision making’ to censor information about (a) Environment-Scarcity-Conflict contextual information in their reporting of

Anders

Breivik’s

terrorism

trial;

(ii)

information

about

the

Environment-Scarcity-Conflict argument submitted to the Oslo District Court during the Breivik trial; fits the Convention definition of ‘environmental information’ under Article 2 (3) (b) as being an editorial policy ‘cost-benefit economic analysis decision making activity’, the censorship of which aggravates the threat multiplier Impact (I=PAT) Population (P) and Affluence/Consumption (A) causes of ecological overshoot and environmental degradation, which seriously affects (i) the state of elements of the environment, from air, atmosphere, water, soil and land pollution to loss of biological diversity and its components, and the interaction of these elements; (ii) the state of human health and safety as manifested by climate and resource scarcity (oil, water, nnr minerals), resource civil and national war refugees and deaths.

III.E.a. Aarhus ‘Environmental Information’ to be broadly interpreted: 68.

Applicant submits that the environmental information requested from the media respondents most definitely meets a broad interpretation of the Aarhus ‘environmental information’ definition, considering the Aarhus Conventions goals for such a broad interpretation:

69.

Article 1: Objective: In order to contribute to the protection of the right of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being, each Party shall guarantee the rights of access to information, public participation in decisionmaking, and access to justice in environmental matters in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, with specific reference to:

25

70.

Affirming the need to protect, preserve and improve the state of the environment and to ensure sustainable and environmentally sound development,

71.

Recognizing that adequate protection of the environment is essential to human well-being and the enjoyment of basic human rights, including the right to life itself,

72.

Recognizing also that every person has the right to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being, and the duty, both individually and in association with others, to protect and improve the environment for the benefit of present and future generations,

73.

Considering that, to be able to assert this right and observe this duty, citizens must have access to information, be entitled to participate in decision-making and have access to justice in environmental matters, and acknowledging in this regard that citizens may need assistance in order to exercise their rights,

74.

Recognizing that, in the field of the environment, improved access to information and public participation in decision-making enhance the quality and the implementation of decisions, contribute to public awareness of environmental issues, give the public the opportunity to express its concerns and enable public authorities to take due account of such concerns,

75.

Aiming thereby to further the accountability of and transparency in decision-making and to strengthen public support for decisions on the environment,

76.

Recognizing the desirability of transparency in all branches of government and inviting legislative bodies to implement the principles of this Convention in their proceedings,

26

77.

Recognizing also that the public needs to be aware of the procedures for participation in environmental decision-making, have free access to them and know how to use them,

78.

Recognizing further the importance of the respective roles that individual citizens, non-governmental organizations and the private sector can play in environmental protection,

79.

Desiring to promote environmental education to further the understanding of the environment and sustainable development and to encourage widespread public awareness of, and participation in, decisions affecting the environment and sustainable development,

80.

Noting, in this context, the importance of making use of the media and of electronic or other, future forms of communication,

81.

Recognizing

the

importance

of

fully

integrating

environmental

considerations in governmental decision-making and the consequent need for public authorities to be in possession of accurate, comprehensive and up-todate environmental information, 82.

Acknowledging that public authorities hold environmental information in the public interest,

83.

Concerned that effective judicial mechanisms should be accessible to the public, including organizations, so that its legitimate interests are protected and the law is enforced,

84.

Noting the importance of adequate product information being provided to consumers to enable them to make informed environmental choices,

III.E.b.

Authorities

‘Environmental

Information’

to

be

broadly

interpreted: 85.

Fiona Marshall, Environmental Affairs Officer from the Aarhus Convention Secretariat’s, The Aarhus Convention and Biosafety56

56

http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/bs/bswspa-lmos-01/other/bswspa-lmos-01-presentation-02-en.pdf

27

submission to the Convention on Biological Diversity, argues that: “Environmental information [in the Aarhus Convention is] widely defined: Includes (among other things) any information in any form on the state of elements of the environment, eg air, atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites, biological diversity, including genetically modified organisms, and the interaction between these elements.”

86.

The UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology's Postnote on the Aarhus Convention57 states: “There is currently a perceived lack of trust between people and their governments, especially where environmental matters are concerned. The Århus Convention is seen as an important tool for improving this situation. [..] The definition of “environmental information” is intentionally kept broad.. ..] Friends of the Earth (FoE) has positively commented on the EIRs’ success in transposing Århus’ first pillar into UK legislation. The far-reaching definition of environmental information in the EIRs is seen as the cause of their effectiveness.”

87.

The OSCE Mission to Serbia's Strategy for Implementing the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters – The Aarhus Convention58, states:

88.

“Public authorities at all levels require established policies and mechanisms from which high-quality environmental information can be routinely provided and disseminated to the public in user-friendly manner, while making full use of electronic tools where available. To this end, the Strategy proposes establishing minimum legislative support for as broad a definition of ‘environmental information’ as can be found in both the Aarhus Convention and EU acquis. Th is will not only enhance Aarhus Convention implementation, but will also encourage EU-level cooperation in many areas.. (pg.10)

57 58

January 2006, Number 256 http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn256.pdf http://www.osce.org/serbia/89086?download=true

28

89.

The Aarhus Convention heralds an aspiration to contribute to democratic and sustainable development. It is one of the clearest statements in international law to date of a fundamental right to a healthy environment.

It establishes environmental rights as a basic human right, and stresses the importance of access to information, access to justice and public participation as basic conditions towards achieving sustainable and environmentally sound development. This is achieved through a broad definition of ‘environmental information’ that includes not only the quality of the environment, but factors that influence environment, along with information related to health and safety and economic and policy formation. (pg.13)

90.

The Aarhus Convention enshrines ‘environmental rights’ as a basic human right, and identifies access to information, public participation and access to justice as fundamental conditions for achieving sustainable and environmentally sound development. The Aarhus Convention’s legal distinction lies in its broad definition of ‘environmental information’, which includes not only quality of environment, but factors that influence environment, economic and policy information, and related health and safety concerns.” (pg.20)

91.

Environmental Information: A broad definition referring not just to information on the state of the environment or information held by an environment ministry, but includes information on: environmental quality and emissions; factors that influence environmental quality and health; and information concerning decision making and analysis. (pg.22)

92.

A definition of what relates to environment is of central importance for determining

the

scope

of

the

Convention,

and

a

definition

of

environmental information is a minimum requirement, though parties may use a broader definition. (pg.23) 93.

Jeremy Wates, Secretary to the Convention Environment and Human Settlements Division, UN Economic Commission for Europe, argues in

29

The Aarhus Convention59, in a submission to ECLAC-PARTICIPA, in Chile on 8-9 October 2002, that: “Broad definition of environmental information”.

III.E.c. Aarhus Case Law ‘Environmental Information’ to be broadly interpreted: 94.

The ‘editorial decision making’60 environmental information requested from the Media Editors, fits the Convention definition of ‘environmental information’ as ruled in: European Community ACCC/C/2007/21, ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2009/2/Add.1, 11 December 2009, para. 30:

95.

“[…] (b) The argument of the Party concerned that almost none of the finance contract constitutes environmental information in the sense of the Convention appears to be based on a narrow interpretation of the definition of “environmental information”. That definition includes “factors … and activities or measures … affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment....” A list of examples of types of “activities or measures” that fall within the definition (“administrative measures, environmental agreements, policies, legislation, plans and programmes”) is preceded by the word “including”, implying that this is a non-exhaustive list and recognizing that other types of activities or measures that affect or are likely to affect the environment are covered by the definition. Thus, financing agreements, even though not listed explicitly in the definition, may sometimes amount to “measures … that affect or are likely to affect the elements of the environment”. For example, if a financing agreement deals with specific measures concerning the environment, such as the protection of a natural site, it is to be seen as containing environmental information. Therefore, whether the provisions of a financing agreement are to be regarded as environmental information cannot be decided in a general manner, but has to be determined on a case-by-case basis”.

59

http://www.eclac.org/dmaah/noticias/discursos/2/11732/j_wates_en.pdf “editorial decision-making to censor information about the Media’s Environment-PopulationTerrorism Connection, during a Norwegian Terrorism trial being publicized by international media on the international stage; and their decision-making to censor information regarding the EcoFeminist Applications to the Oslo District Court on behalf of a free and fair trial, for the Feminist hating ‘right wing’ terrorist, from their readers.”

60

30

III.F. Environmental Protection as a Principle of International Law & sine qua non for all other constitutional rights: 96.

The Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the GabcikovoNagymaros Project61 (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) argues – like ecology – that a healthy ecological environment, with due regard for maintaining consumption and procreation below carrying capacity limits is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights. (b) Environmental International Law

Protection

as

a

Principle

of

The protection of the environment is likewise a vital part of contemporary human rights doctrine, for it is a sine qua non for numerous human rights such as the right to health and the right to life itself. It is scarcely necessary to elaborate on this, as damage to the environment can impair and undermine all the human rights spoken of in the Universal Declaration and other human rights instruments.

III.G. Curia Court’s recognition of Aarhus Convention’s recognition of Environmental Protection as a Principle of International Law & sine qua non for all other constitutional rights: 97.

In the 14 June 2012 Judgement of the General Court (Seventh Chamber), in the matter between Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v. European Commission, supported by Kingdom of Netherlands, European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Case T-396/09); the court ruled62 that:

a.

Thus, it emerges from the sixth and eighth recitals in the preamble to the Aarhus Convention

that the authors of that convention,

‘[r]ecognising that adequate protection of the environment is essential to human well-being and the enjoyment of basic human rights, including the right to life itself’, consider that, ‘to be able to assert this 61

Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/92/7383.pdf 62

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=123823&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mo de=doc&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3936156

31

right and observe this duty, citizens must have access to information, be entitled to participate in decision-making and have access to justice in environmental matters, … acknowledging in this regard that citizens may need assistance in order to exercise their rights’. Moreover, the ninth recital to the Aarhus Convention states that ‘in the field of the environment, improved access to information and public participation in decision-making enhance the quality and the implementation of decisions, contribute to public awareness of environmental issues, give the public the opportunity to express its concerns and enable public authorities to take due account of such concerns’.

III.H.

Aarhus

Convention’s

Implementation

Guide

recognition

of

Environmental Protection as a Principle of International Law & sine qua non for all other constitutional rights: 98.

According to the Aarhus Implementation Guide (PDF63), the Aarhus Convention is not only an environmental agreement; it is also a Convention

about

government

accountability,

transparency

and

responsiveness. The Convention: (i) Links environmental rights and human rights; (ii) Acknowledges that we owe an obligation to future generations; (iii) Links government accountability and environmental protection; (v) Focuses on interactions between the public and public authorities in a democratic context.

III.I. Aarhus Convention Compliance Comm. failure to provide Written Reasons is a violation of Aarhus Convention Written Reason principles enunciated in Art. 4: 1.i; 2, 7; Art 6: 9; Art 9: 1; Annex II.1: 99.

I imagine, it would be ‘manifestly unreasonable’ to believe that the legislator’s

of

the

Aarhus

Convention

would

repeatedly

require

Corporations, Public Authorities and Appeal Tribunals, to abide by the recognized

practice

of

providing

applicants

for

Environmental

Information, with written reasons for their decisions (Article 4: 1.i; 2, 7; Article 6: 9; Article 9: 1; Annex II.1); and to exclude Aarhus Convention 63

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/acig.pdf

32

Compliance Committee Members from this same standard of transparent decision-making.64 100. It is further ‘manifestly discriminatory’ to provide communicants whose communications are accepted for hearing, with ‘long lists of written reasons why their communication was considered admissible’; but to deny those whose complaints are not deemed admissible, with the same written reasons justifying denying them access to adjudication of their Aarhus convention rights.

III.J. NeoLiberal Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee’s history of providing written reasons to Neo-liberal communicants indicates possible Neo-liberal discrimination towards CommonSism communicant, which in the absence of justification therefore, is a violation of nondiscrimination principles enunciated in Art. 3.9: 101. Twenty of the eighty-two communications submitted to the Aarhus Convention

Compliance

Liberal/Conservative

Pacifist

Committee, Compulsive

comprised

of

Neo-

Developmentism/Egoist

Consumptionism Environmentalists; have been found inadmissible. All other Communicator’s appear to have been Neo-Liberal Mainstream Environmentalists; Communicator is the only CommonSist (CommonsLibertarian). 65 102. Only two were found inadmissible for reasons that they were ‘manifestly unreasonable’. a.

2012-75: UK: Terence Ewing was allegedly “manifestly unreasonable” because ‘the proceedings on the adoption of the plan were still ongoing and the content of the communication was very close to the content of communication

ACCC/C/2011/61,

which

was

currently

under

consideration by the Committee.”

64

12 May 2013: Request for Written Reasons: Re: Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee 26 April 2013 “manifestly unreasonable” ruling .. (pg.29-30) 65 12 May 2013: Request for Written Reasons: Re: Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee 26 April 2013 “manifestly unreasonable” ruling .. (pg.30-42)

33

b.

013-82: Norway: Lara Johnstone was simply ‘manifestly unreasonable’ without any ‘because …...’ reasons provided.

IV. Final decision & responses: Respondent 9: Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee: 103. 26 April 2013: Aarhus CCC Order (PDF66) denied the application for environmental information as “manifestly unreasonable”.

104. 12 May 2013: Applicant Appeal: Request for Written Reasons (PDF67) The appeal argued that the Media’s Censorship-Environment-PopulationTerrorism Connection is manifestly reasonable, considering extensive military doctrine and academic theory documentation related to ScarcityConflict & Media Censorship of Population in Scarcity-Conflict equation in their reporting on environmental, scarcity and conflict related events.

In fact, the arguments that climate change is a national security threat, are based upon climate change acting as a scarcity and conflict threat multiplier of oil, water and food resource wars and mass migration.

Additionally the argument of Norwegian media censorship is even shared by a survivor of Utoya terrorism, Mr. Bjorn Ihler, whose Center for Free and Creative Expression was founded as a response to Norway’s addiction to censorship and based upon his support for the Censorship-Terrorism Connection argument.

105. 09 July 2013: Aarhus CCC Order (PDF68): “The Committee considered the communication manifestly unreasonable because the communication had failed to provide for clear, obvious and evident reasons on how the requests of the communicant to the media industry and the bar association fell within the ambit of the Convention.”

66

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/13-0423_accc_cc40_ece.mp.pp.c.1.2013.2.pdf 67 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/13-05-12__accc-82_jvnorway_reqwritten-reasons.pdf 68 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/13-0709_accc_commc82admissibilityquestioncc41.pdf

34

106. On 09 July 2013, Aarhus respondent responded (PDF69) that “The Committee considered the communication manifestly unreasonable because the communication had failed to provide for clear, obvious and evident reasons on how the requests of the communicant to the media industry and the bar association fell within the ambit of the Convention.”

107. On 09 July 2013, applicant responded by requesting confirmation that: 108. Please confirm: 109. “The Committee considered the communication manifestly unreasonable because the communication had failed to provide for clear, obvious and evident reasons on how the requests of the communicant to the media industry and the bar association fell within the ambit of the Convention.”

110. The Committee is alleging that my requests for environmental information submitted to the media industry and bar association does not meet the committee’s interpretation of the convention’s definition of ‘environmental information’.

111. The Committee is also alleging that if or where anyone submits any request to any public body for environmental information, and such body pretends or sincerely does not agree with the communicant’s definition of ‘environmental information’, then the particular body can simply ignore the request, and refuse to answer it, and the Committee will endorse such behaviour from public bodies.

112. Please clarify if this is an accurate interpretation of the vague and ambiguous unclear statements by Ms. Magadi.

113. On 10 July 2013, respondent responded: 114. The letter is based on the outcome of the Committee's discussion. The reasons are clear. The file has now been closed.

115. On 10 July 2013, Applicant responded: 69

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/13-0709_accc_commc82admissibilityquestioncc41.pdf

35

116. Since the Committee insists on closing the file, and refusing to process my communication, you leave me no options, but to file an application with the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union for an Application for Annulment under Article 263 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union.

117. In the absence of clarification by yourself or the Committee, I shall interpret your statement “The reasons are clear” as confirmation of “The Committee is alleging that my requests for environmental information submitted to the media industry and bar association does not meet the committee’s interpretation of the convention’s definition of ‘environmental information.”

Respondent 10: DE Resource Academic Respondents: 118. Except for 17 June 2012 acknowledged receipt; no additional response was received from DE Resource Academic respondents, to 11 June 2013 request for environmental information.

119. On

07 November 2013,

Applicant informed Respondent of her

interpretation as to the refusal to provide such information would be referred to the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union; under Article 263 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union.

Respondent 11: UK Media Respondents: 120. No response was received from UK Media respondents, to 27 October 2013 request for environmental information.

121. On

02 November 2013,

Applicant informed Respondent of her

interpretation as to the refusal to provide such information would be referred to the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union; under Article 263 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union.

36

V. Other decisions: 122. 19 June 2012: Appeal to NO Environmental Appeals Board / Klagenemnda for miljøinformasjon70 (PDF71): Appeal against NO Media and Bar Association respondents refusal to provide requested environmental information.

123. 10 September 2012: Secretariat of the Environmental Appeals Board72 ruling73 (PDF74): Applicants Appeal was ‘unjustified’, as not meeting the definition for ‘environmental information’. Request for written reasons clarifying how applicants environmental information was ‘unjustified’ resulted in no such reasons, but a ruling of ‘clearly had to be denied’. Request for written reasons clarifying why the complaint ‘clearly had to be denied’ were refused.

124. 11 November 2012: Appeal to Parliamentary Ombudsman (PDF75): Appeal of Environment Appeals Board’s Refusal to provide written reasons to the Parliamentary Ombudsman; as violation of right to written reasons for administrative orders.

125. 27 November 2012: Parliamentary Ombudsman order (PDF76): Order states that “The Ombudsman has reviewed your complaint and the enclosed documents, and your complaint does not give reasons to initiate further investigations regarding the Appeals Board case processing or decision.”

D. Form of Orders sought by the Applicant:

70

http://www.miljoklagenemnda.no/ http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/180612_env-app-brd 72 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/media-censorship.html 73 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/09/120910_eab-ba-media1.html 74 http://www.miljoklagenemnda.no/Vedtak/Sak_2012_2_og_5.pdf http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-11-06_envappbrd_decision.pdf 75 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121112_po-eab 76 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-11-27_20121987_env_appeals_board.pdf 71

37

VI. Statement of the object of the application: 126. Respondents

01-09:

The

Applicant

hereby

requests

access

to

environment information from (a) Respondents #01-07: the editors of mainstream Norwegian media publications: Adresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 and VG (hereinafter “NO Media respondents”)

refused

AdvokatForeningen/Bar

to

disclose;

Association

(b)

Respondents

Disciplinary

#08:

the

Committee

and

Disciplinary Board refused to disclose; (c) #09: the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee refused to order Respondents 01-08 to disclose; and by way of this application for annulment of the decisions by which disclosure was refused; the censorship of which was and is likely to seriously affect elements of the environment.

127. Respondents: 10: The Applicant hereby requests access to environment information from Respondent #10; which the (hereinafter “DE Resource Academic respondents”) Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources / Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR): Federal Minister of Economics and Technology: Dr. Philipp Rösler & Dr. Peter Buchholz / Dr. Thomas Oberthür; by way of this application for annulment of the decisions by which disclosure of information was refused; the censorship of which was and is likely to seriously affect elements of the environment.

128. Respondents 11: The Applicant hereby requests access to environment information

from

Respondent

#11;

which

the

journalist:

Glenn

Greenwald77 and editor: Alan Rusbridger of mainstream British media publication: The Guardian (hereinafter “UK Media respondents”) did not disclose in their reporting on the NSA Files78; and by way of this application for annulment of the decisions by which disclosure was refused; the censorship of which was and is likely to seriously affect elements of the environment.

77 78

http://www.theguardian.com/profile/glenn-greenwald http://www.theguardian.com/world/series/nsa-files-live/latest

38

E. Evidence Offered in Support VII. List of available documents (among others): 129. 06 May 2010: South African Concourt order: Lara Johnstone member of Radical Honesty culture and religion (PDF79) 130. 30 November 2011 application to Oslo District Court (PDF80) for a writ of Habeus Mentem on behalf of Anders Breivik psycho-cultural integrity right to a free and fair trial.

131. 15 April 2012 Application to proceed as an Amicus Curiae (PDF81), to the Oslo District Court Registrar.

132. 10 May 2012 Application to Norway Supreme Court registrar: Review Oslo District Court refusal to process or respond to her applications (PDF82).

133. 14 May 2012 The 22 April 2012: Earth Day report: Acquittal or Firing Squad: If it Bleeds, it Leads, Media's Population Terrorism Connection (PDF83) was distributed to: 1,278 Norwegian Editors and Journalists 84.

134. 25 May 2012, requests for environmental information submitted to NO Media respondents, requesting their editorial decision-making to censor information provided to them in Earth Day Report, about the Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism

Connection,

during

Breivik’s

Terrorism trial.

135. 28 May - 18 June 2012 170 Disciplinary Complaints filed with the Norwegian

Bar

Association:

Disciplinary

Committee85

and

the

Disciplinary Board for Advocates86.

79

http://www.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/10-05-06__cct2310_concourt_radicalhonestyamicusorder.pdf 80 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/111130_breivik-habeus 81 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120414_amicus 82 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120510_breivik-dgr-ecofem 83 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120422_bleads-leads 84 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/05/120514_1278media.html 85 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/06/120618_166complaints.html 86 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/06/120618_advdiscbrd.html

39

136. 19 June 2012 Bar Association Disciplinary Committee and Board refused to process Communicator’s Disciplinary Complaints.

137. 19 June 2012 Appeal to NO Environmental Appeals Board re NO Media respondents (PDF87).

138. 20 June 2012 request for Environmental Information to Bar Association Disciplinary Committee (PDF88) and the Disciplinary Board (PDF89).

139. 10 July 2012 Bar Association ‘no justifications’ response90.

140. 10 September 2012 Secretariat of the Environmental Appeals Board ruling91 (PDF92).

141. 11 November 2012 Appeal to Parliamentary Ombudsman (PDF93).

142. 10 January 2013 Complaint94 to European Court of Human Rights (ECHR): Violations of Right to an Effective Remedy, by Supreme Court Secretary General and Parliamentary Ombudsman of Breivik’s right to free and fair trial (PDF).

143. 11 March 2013 communication95 complaint to Aarhus Respondent (PDF: Summary96; Communication97; incl. Annexures A-H98) (pg.167).

144. 16 March 2013 request for Environmental Information to DE Ministry of Environment (PDF99).

145. 07 April 2013 acknowledged receipt by ECHR of Johnstone v Norway: Case 16325-13 (PDF100).

146. 26 April 2013 Aarhus ‘manifestly unreasonable’ order (PDF101).

87

http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/180612_env-app-brd http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120620_nadvfor-dc 89 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/120620_jmoe-dbrd 90 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/07/120710_discbrd.html 91 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/1/post/2012/09/120910_eab-ba-media1.html 92 http://www.miljoklagenemnda.no/Vedtak/Sak_2012_2_og_5.pdf http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/12-11-06_envappbrd_decision.pdf 93 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/121112_po-eab 94 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/eu-court-human-rights.html 95 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/unece-aarhus-comp-comm.html 96 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/13-03-11_aarhus-conventioncompliance-comm_summary.pdf 97 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/13-03-11_aarhus-conventioncompliance-communication.pdf 98 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/130110_echr_lj-v-no?mode=window&viewMode=singlePage 99 http://www.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-03-16_aarhusccc_de-min-env_reqforenvinfo.pdf 100 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/13-04-07_echr_16325-13_johnstonev-norway.pdf 88

40

147. 12 May 2013 Appeal for Written Reasons to Aarhus (PDF102).

148. 11 June 2013 request for Environmental Information to DE Ministry of Environment (PDF103).

149. 09-10

July

2013

correspondence

from

Aarhus

(PDF104)

and

interpretation thereof responses (See above under ‘Final Decision and Responses’).

150. 27 October 2013 request for Environment Information to UK Media respondents (PDF105).

151. 04 November 2013 Final Notice of Request to UK Media respondents.

152. 07 November 2013 Final Notice of Request to DE Resource Academic respondents.

VIII. Declaration and signature: I hereby declare that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information I have given in the present application form is correct.

Place: GEORGE, SOUTH AFRICA

Date: 10 NOVEMBER 2013

______________________________________________ Signature of Applicant: Lara Johnstone, Alien on Pale Blue Dot Disclosure: Please note (i) Declaration of JAG Lt. Cdr. Lara Braveheart, to US Navy Judge Advocate General: Vice Admiral Nanette Derenzi: RE: NSA Æquilibriæx Sustainable Security Theses Ecology of Peace campaign (PDF106); 101

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/13-0423_accc_cc40_ece.mp.pp.c.1.2013.2.pdf 102 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/1 3072327/13-05-12__accc-82_jvnorway_req-written-reasons.pdf 103 http://www.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-03-16_aarhusccc_de-min-env_reqforenvinfo.pdf 104 http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/0/7/13072327/13-0709_accc_commc82admissibilityquestioncc41.pdf 105 http://tygae.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-10-26_guardian_aarhusc_env-info-request.pdf 106 http://tygae.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-08-03_jag_07-146_jag_vadm-n-derenzi.pdf

41

(ii) Declaration of Lara Johnstone with regard to Authorizing National Security Agency Psychotronic Surveillance (PDF107); (iii) Declaration of FSB Lt. Cdr. Felix Starinov Bochkareva, to Lt. General Vladimir G Kulishov, Head of Border Guard Service, Vice Director of FSB of Russia; CC: Olga Yegorova, Chair of the Moscow City Court; President Vladimir Putin, Kremlin; FSB Æquilibriæx Sustainable Security Theses Ecology of Peace campaign (PDF108).

107 108

http://tygae.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-07-07_us-va_snowden_nsa-surveil-affid.pdf http://www.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-09-21_jag-07-146_fsb_ltg-vladimir-g-kulishov.pdf

42

IN THE GENERAL COURT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION To the President and Members of the General Court of the European Union Application for Annulment under Article 263 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union

Lara Johnstone, Pro se Applicant v.

Adresseavisen; Aftenposten; Bergens Tidende; Dagbladet; NRK; TV2; VG; Advokat Foreningen / Bar Association; Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC); Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources / Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR): Federal Minister of Economics and Technology; The Guardian Respondents

APPLICANT’S CONSENT TO ALL AMICUS CURIAE ARGUMENTS

Applicant herewith consents to any party who wishes to file an Amicus Curiae Brief to the court, in this matter, irrespective of the content of their argument.

Lara Johnstone, In Forma Pauperis, Pro Se P O Box 5042, George East, 6539, South Africa Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za Date of Lodgement:

Addressee:

Date: 10 November 2013

Registrar of the Registry Rue du Fort Niedergrünewald L-2925 Luxembourg E: GeneralCourt.Registry@curia.europa.eu

Radical Honoursty Culture Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party CommonSism: Common Sense Guerrylla Laws for a Sustainable Commons AEquilibriaex: balanced Eco/Anthropocentric law www.guerrylla -law.co.nr

11 June 2013 Dr. Philipp Rösler & Dr. Peter Buchholz / Dr. Thomas Oberthür Federal Minister of Economics and Technology Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources / Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR) Geozentrum Hannover, Stilleweg 2, D-30655 Hannover PR: Phone: +49(0)511-643-0 | Fax: +49(0)511-643-2304 PB: Phone: +49 (0)30 36993 228 | Fax: +49 (0)30 36993 100 TO: Phone: +49-(0)511-643-2231 | Fax: +49-(0)511-643-2304 E: (energierohstoffe@bgr.de) (poststelle@bgr.de) (Peter.Buchholz@bgr.de) (Thomas.Oberthuer@bgr.de) CC: Peter Altmaier (@peteraltmaier) Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety Stresemannstraße 128, 10117 Berlin T: +49 (0) 3018 305-0 | F: +49 (0) 3018 305-4375 BMU: (service@bmu.bund.de) Request for Environment Information in terms of Aarhus Convention Article 4: Access to Environment Information: (i) Peak Production & Years to Global Exhaustion of various NNR Minerals & (ii) Conclusions of Peak NNR consequences for industrial civilization.

After reading the Der Spiegel article: The Price of Green Energy: Is Germany Killing the Environment to Save It?1. I filed a request for Environment Information, in terms of the Aarhus Convention2 Article 4, with the Ministry of Environment, who referred me to the Ministry of Economics and Technology: Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources.

I took a look around the BGR website – particularly Mineral Economics3 and Raw Materials Research4 – and noticed the following statements: ―From a purely http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-renewable-energy-policy-takes-toll-on-natureconservation-a-888094.html 2 http://www.unece.org/env/pp/treatytext.html 3 http://www.bgr.bund.de/EN/Themen/Min_rohstoffe/Rohstoffwirtschaft/rohstoffwirtschaft_node_en.html 1

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

geological point of view the supply of mineral resources is largely sufficient.

However, in the short to medium term the technical provisions for supply may cause supply bottlenecks‖5; and ―The global reserves and resources of mineral raw materials such as metals, industrial minerals, rocks and soils are not exactly scarce. They are, however, not renewable and are thus finite.‖6

My Environmental Information questions are: [1] What are the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources dates for the peak production and years to global exhaustion for: (a) Antimony; (b) Bauxite; (c) Bismuth; (d) Cadmium; (e) Chromium; (f) Cobalt; (g) Copper; (h) Fluorspar; (i) Graphite (Natural); (j) Iron Ore; (k) Lead; (l) Lithium; (m) Manganese; (n) Molybdenum; (o) Nickel; (p) Niobium; (q) Rhenium; (r) Silver; (s) Thalium; (t) Tin; (u) Tungsten; (v) Uranium; (w) Zinc; (x) Zirconium?

Note: Mr. Chris Clugston‘s book: Scarcity: A Comprehensive Analysis of Nonrenewable Natural Resource (NNR) Scarcity’s Consequences7, concludes that the following NNR‘s have globally peaked in production, are ‗critically scarce‘, with the following amount of years to global exhaustion: (a) Antimony: 8 yrs; (b) Bauxite: 40 years; (c) Bismuth: 17 years; (d) Cadmium: 25 years; (e) Chromium: 26 years; (f) Cobalt: 26 years; (g) Copper: 27 years; (h) Fluorspar: 23 years; (i) Graphite (Natural): 23 years; (j) Iron Ore: 15 years; (k) Lead: 17 years; (l) Lithium: 8 years; (m) Manganese: 17 years; (n) Molybdenum: 20 years; (o) Nickel: 30 years; (p) Niobium: 15 years; (q) Rhenium: 22 years; (r) Silver: 11 years; (s) Thalium: 38 years; (t) Tin: 18 years; (u) Tungsten: 32 years; (v) Uranium: 34 years; (w) Zinc: 13 years; (x) Zirconium: 19 years.

[2] If you agree with Mr. Clugston‘s aforementioned peak production statistics for aforementioned NNR‘s, based upon data from USGS, EIA, BEA, BLS, Fed, CBO, FBI, IEA, UN, World Bank, etc; what is the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources analysis and conclusions as to how the global exhaustion of www.bgr.bund.de/EN/Themen/Min_rohstoffe/Rohstoff_forsch/rohstoff_forsch_inhalt_en.html?nn=1548104 www.bgr.bund.de/EN/Themen/Min_rohstoffe/Rohstoffwirtschaft/rohstoffwirtschaft_node_en.html 6 www.bgr.bund.de/EN/Themen/Min_rohstoffe/Rohstoff_forsch/rohstoff_forsch_inhalt_en.html?nn=1548104 7 http://www.nnrscarcity.com/ 4 5

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

these NNR‘s will have on industrial civilization? Do you dispute Mr. Clugston‘s conclusions that ―all industrialized and industrializing nations, irrespective of their economic and political orientations, are unsustainable and will collapse, by 2050, as a consequence of their dependence upon increasingly scarce NNRs.‖ If so, based upon what information or research studies?

[2.1] Scarcity concludes ―Our Next Normal is Catastrophe‖: Our AnthroCorpocentric worldview does not recognize that ―from a broader ecological perspective, all human economics and politics are irrelevant,‖ to ―paraphrase Thoreau, we are ‗thrashing at the economic and political branches of our predicament, rather than hacking at the ecological root.‘‖8 [2.2] ―Because the underlying cause associated with our transition from prosperity to austerity is ecological (geological), not economic or political, our incessant barrage of economic and political ―fixes‖ are misguided and inconsequential. Our national economies are not ―broken‖; they are ―dying of slow starvation‖ for lack of sufficient economically viable NNR inputs.

[2.3] ―Our industrial lifestyle paradigm, which is enabled by enormous quantities of finite, non-replenishing, and increasingly scarce NNRs, is unsustainable, i.e. physically impossible – going forward.9 [2.4] ―Global humanity‗s steadily deteriorating condition will culminate in selfinflicted global societal collapse, almost certainly by the year 2050. We will not accept gracefully our new normal of ever-increasing, geologically-imposed austerity; nor will we suffer voluntarily the horrifically painful population level reductions and material living standard degradation associated with our inevitable transition to a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm.

[2.5] ―All industrialized and industrializing nations, irrespective of their economic and political orientations, are unsustainable and will collapse in the nottoo-distant future as a consequence of their dependence upon increasingly scarce NNRs. [2.6] We can voluntarily reduce population and consumption, or NNR scarcity depletion will force it upon us, in our inevitable transition to a sustainable, preindustrial lifestyle paradigm.

Overview of Chris Clugston’s: Scarcity: Scarcity: Overview: 8 9

Clugston, C: Scarcity: Preface, pg. 103-104 Clugston, C: Scarcity: Preface, pg. 103-104

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

Mr. Clugston‘s10 Domestic (US) & Global NNR Scarcity Analysis is based upon his analysis of the criticality and scarcity associated with each of the 89 analyzed NNRs, using data from USGS, EIA, BEA, BLS, Fed, CBO, FBI, IEA, UN, World Bank, etc; and concludes in general that ―absent some combination of immediate and drastic reductions in our global NNR utilization levels, ... we will experience escalating international and intranational conflicts during the coming decades over increasingly scarce NNR‗s, which will devolve into global societal collapse, almost certainly by the year 2050.‖11 Scarcity‘s Global NNR Scarcity Analysis (pg.51-59) (pg 41-4912) summarizes global criticality and scarcity associated with each of the 89 analyzed NNR‘s: (a) An overwhelming majority, 63 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, were considered ―scarce‖ globally in 2008, immediately prior to the Great Recession; (b) A significant number, 28 of the 89 analyzed NNRs have peaked: are ―almost certain‖ to remain scarce permanently going forward; and a sizeable number, 16 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, will ―likely‖ remain scarce permanently; and (c) Global extraction/production levels associated with 39 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, are considered ―at risk‖.

NNR‘s at risk – i.e. years to global exhaustion of reserves – are: (a) Antimony: 8 yrs (used for starter lights ignition batteries in cars and trucks; (b) Bauxite: 40 years (only economically viable feedstock for aluminium); (c) Bismuth: 17 years (non-toxic substitute for lead in solder and plumbing fixtures); (d) Cadmium: 25 years; (e) Chromium: 26 years (stainless steel, jet engines and gas turbines); (f) Coal: 40 years (electricity generation); (g) Cobalt: 26 years (gas turbine blades, jet aircraft engines, batteries); (h) Copper: 27 years; (i) Fluorspar: 23 years (feedstock for fluorine bearing chemicals, aluminium and uranium processing); (j) Graphite (Natural): 23 years; (k) Iron Ore: 15 years (only feedstock for iron and steel); (l) Lead: 17 years; (m) Lithium: 8 years (aircraft parts, mobile phones, batteries for electrical vehicles); (n) Manganese: 17 years (stainless steel, gasoline additive, dry cell batteries); (o) Molybdenum: 20 years (aircraft parts, electrical contacts, industrial motors, tool steels); (p) Natural Gas: 34 years; (q) Nickel: 30 years; (r) Niobium: 15 years (jet and rocket engines, turbines, superconducting magnets); (s) Oil: 39 years; (t) Rhenium: 22 years (petroleum refining, jet engines, gas turbine blades); (u) Silver: 11 years; (v) Thalium: 38 years; (w) Tin: 18 years; (x) Tungsten: 32 years; (y) Uranium: 34 years (primary energy source, weapons); (z) Zinc: 13 years; (aa) Zirconium: 19 years (nuclear power plants, jet engines, gas turbine blades).

Clugston, Chris: Scarcity: Humanity‗s Final Chapter: The realities, choices and likely outcomes associated with ever-increasing non-renewable natural resource scarcity (Booklocker.com Inc 2012). Scarcity is a comprehensive, multidisciplinary assessment of the realities, choices, and likely outcomes associated with everincreasing non-renewable natural resource (NNR) scarcity. NNRs are the fossil fuels, metals, and non-metallic minerals that enable our industrialized existence.

11 Clugston, C: Scarcity: Preface, pg. ix 12 issuu.com/js-ror/docs/clugston_scarcity_pg31-55 10

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

Scarcity concludes ―Our Next Normal is Catastrophe‖: Our AnthroCorpocentric worldview does not recognize that ―from a broader ecological perspective, all human economics and politics are irrelevant,‖ to ―paraphrase Thoreau, we are ‗thrashing at the economic and political branches of our predicament, rather than hacking at the ecological root.‘‖13 ―Because the underlying cause associated with our transition from prosperity to austerity is ecological (geological), not economic or political, our incessant barrage of economic and political ―fixes‖ are misguided and inconsequential. Our national economies are not ―broken‖; they are ―dying of slow starvation‖ for lack of sufficient economically viable NNR inputs. ―Our industrial lifestyle paradigm, which is enabled by enormous quantities of finite, non-replenishing, and increasingly scarce NNRs, is unsustainable, i.e. physically impossible – going forward.14 ―Global humanity‗s steadily deteriorating condition will culminate in self-inflicted global societal collapse, almost certainly by the year 2050. We will not accept gracefully our new normal of ever-increasing, geologically-imposed austerity; nor will we suffer voluntarily the horrifically painful population level reductions and material living standard degradation associated with our inevitable transition to a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm. ―All industrialized and industrializing nations, irrespective of their economic and political orientations, are unsustainable and will collapse in the not-too-distant future as a consequence of their dependence upon increasingly scarce NNRs. We can voluntarily reduce population and consumption, or NNR scarcity depletion will force it upon us, in our inevitable transition to a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm.

Natural Resources and Human Evolution: During the past 2+ million years, humanity—Homo sapiens and our hominid predecessors—evolved through three major lifestyle paradigms: hunter-gatherer, agrarian, and industrial.

Each of the three paradigms is readily distinguishable from the other two in terms of its worldview, natural resource utilization behavior, and resulting level of societal wellbeing—i.e., attainable population levels and material living standards.

The Hunter-Gatherer Lifestyle Paradigm: 13 14

Clugston, C: Scarcity: Preface, pg. 103-104 Clugston, C: Scarcity: Preface, pg. 103-104

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

The hunter-gatherer (HG) lifestyle paradigm spanned over 2 million years, from the time that our hominid ancestors first stood erect on the continent of Africa to approximately 8,000 BC. HG societies consisted of small nomadic clans, typically numbering between 50 and 100 individuals, who subsisted primarily on naturally occurring vegetation and wildlife.

The HG lifestyle can best be described as subsistence living for a relatively constant population that probably never exceeded 5 million globally. Hunter-gatherers produced few manmade goods beyond the necessities required for their immediate survival, and they generated no appreciable wealth surplus.

The HG worldview revered Nature as the provider of life and subsistence, a perspective that fostered a passive lifestyle orientation through which huntergatherers sought to live—albeit somewhat exploitatively—within the environmental context defined by Nature. The HG resource mix consisted almost entirely of renewable natural resources such as water and naturally occurring edible plant life and wildlife.

The Agrarian Lifestyle Paradigm: The agrarian lifestyle paradigm commenced in approximately 8,000 BC and lasted until approximately 1700 AD, when England initiated what was to become the industrial revolution.

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

Agrarian societies existed primarily by raising cultivated crops and domesticated livestock.

The agrarian worldview perceived Nature as something to be augmented through human effort, by domesticating naturally occurring plant and animal species. The agrarian lifestyle orientation was proactive in the sense that it sought to improve upon what Nature provided.

While modest wealth surpluses were sometimes generated by agrarian populations, agrarian existence typically offered little more in the way of material living standards for the vast majority of agrarian populations than did the HG lifestyle— although the global agrarian population did increase significantly, reaching nearly 800 million by 1750 AD. The agrarian resource mix consisted primarily of RNRs, which were increasingly overexploited by ever-expanding, permanently-settled agrarian populations. As agrarian cultivation and grazing practices became increasingly intensive, renewable natural resource reserves were increasingly depleted and natural habitats were increasingly degraded as well.

The Industrial Lifestyle Paradigm: The inception of the industrial lifestyle paradigm occurred with England‘s industrial revolution in the early 18th century, less than 300 years ago.

Today, over 1.5 billion people—approximately 22% of the world‘s 6.9 billion total population—is considered ―industrialized‖; and nearly three times that many people actively aspire to an industrialized way of life.

Our industrialized world is characterized by an incomprehensibly complex mosaic of interdependent yet independently operating human and non-human entities and infrastructure.

These entities must function continuously, efficiently, and collectively at the local, regional, national, and global levels in order to convert natural resource inputs into the myriad goods and services that enable our modern industrial way of life.

[Note that failures within the industrial mosaic can disrupt, temporarily or permanently, the flow of societal essentials—water, food, energy, shelter, and clothing—to broad segments of our global population.]

Tremendous wealth surpluses are typically generated by industrialized societies; such wealth surpluses are actually required to enable the historically unprecedented material living standards enjoyed by increasingly large segments of ever-expanding industrialized populations.

The industrialized worldview perceives Nature as something to be harnessed through industrial processes and infrastructure, in order to enhance the human PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

condition. It is an exploitive worldview that seeks to use natural resources and habitats as the means to continuously improve human societal wellbeing—that is, to provide continuously improving material living standards for ever-increasing numbers of ever-expanding human populations.

The resource mix associated with today‘s industrialized societies is heavily skewed toward nonrenewable natural resources, which, in addition to renewable natural resources and natural habitats, have been increasingly overexploited since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

It is precisely this persistent overexploitation of natural resources and natural habitats—especially NNRs—that has enabled the ―success‖ associated with the industrial lifestyle paradigm—success being defined here as continuous increases in both human population levels and human material living standards.

Nonrenewable Natural Resources—the Enablers of Industrialization: Our industrial lifestyle paradigm is enabled by nonrenewable natural resources (NNRs)—energy resources, metals, and minerals. Both the support infrastructure within industrialized nations and the raw material inputs into industrialized economies consist almost entirely of NNRs; NNRs are the primary sources of the tremendous wealth surpluses required to perpetuate industrialized societies.

As a case in point, the percentage of NNR inputs into the US economy increased from less than 10% in the year 1800, which corresponds roughly with the inception of the American industrial revolution, to approximately 95% today. Between 1800 and today, America‘s total annual NNR utilization level increased from approximately 4 million tons to nearly 7 billion tons—an increase of over 1700 times!

In the absence of enormous and ever-increasing NNR supplies, the 1.2 billion people who currently enjoy an industrialized way of life will cease to do so; and the billions of people aspiring to an industrialized way of life will fail to realize their goal.

NNR Scarcity: As their name implies, NNRs are finite—they are not replenished by Nature; and they are scarce—economically viable NNR deposits are rare. Persistent extraction (production) will therefore deplete recoverable NNR reserves to exhaustion. [Note: the terms NNR ―production‖ and NNR ―extraction‖ are used interchangeably throughout the paper. Although ―extraction‖ is the proper term—humans do not produce NNRs—the term ―production‖ has gained wide acceptance within the NNR extraction industries.]

The typical NNR depletion cycle is characterized by: a period of ―continuously more and more‖, as the easily accessible, high quality, low cost resources are extracted; PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

followed by a ―supply peak‖,8 or maximum attainable extraction level; followed by a period of ―continuously less and less‖, as the less accessible, lower quality, higher cost resources are extracted.

Since the inception of our industrial revolution, humanity has been the beneficiary of ―continuously more and more‖ with respect to available NNR supplies.

Unfortunately, in the process of reaping the benefits associated with ―continuously more and more‖, we have been eliminating—persistently and systematically—the very natural resources upon which our industrialized way of life depends.

Increasingly, global NNR supplies are transitioning from ―continuously more and more‖ to ―continuously less and less‖, as they peak and go into terminal decline. As a result, NNRs are becoming increasingly scarce—ever-tightening global NNR supplies are struggling to keep pace with ever-increasing global demand.

The Analysis: The following Global Nonrenewable Natural Resource Scarcity Assessment quantifies the magnitude associated with increasing global NNR scarcity and the probabilities associated with imminent and permanent global NNR supply PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

shortfalls. The assessment consists of two analyses, both of which are based on US Geological Survey (USGS) and US Energy Information Administration (EIA) data.

The Global NNR Scarcity Analysis assesses the incidence of global scarcity associated with each of 57 NNRs during the period of global economic growth (20002008) prior to the Great Recession.

The Global NNR Supply Shortfall Analysis assesses the probability of a permanent global supply shortfall associated with each of 26 NNRs between now and the year 2030.

Global NNR Supply Shortfall Analysis Findings: Fifty (50) of the 57 NNRs (88%) analyzed in the Global NNR Scarcity Analysis experienced global scarcity—and therefore experienced temporary (at least) global supply shortfalls—during the 2000-2008 period. Twenty three (23) of the 26 NNRs (88%) analyzed in the Global NNR Supply Shortfall Analysis are likely to experience permanent global supply shortfalls by the year 2030. Each permanent NNR supply shortfall represents another crack in the foundation of our globalizing industrial lifestyle paradigm; at issue is which crack or combination of cracks will cause the structure to collapse?

Permanent global supply shortfalls associated with a single critical NNR or with a very few secondary NNRs can be sufficient to cause significant lifestyle disruptions—population level reductions and/or material living standard degradation.

A permanent shortfall in the global supply of oil, for example, would be sufficient to cause significant local, national, and/or global lifestyle disruptions, or outright global societal collapse; as would permanent global supply shortfalls associated with 2-3 critical NNRs such as potassium, phosphate rock, and (fixed) nitrogen; as would concurrent permanent global supply shortfalls associated with 4-5 secondary NNRs such as the alloys, catalysts, and reagents that enable the effective use of critical NNRs. Given our vulnerability to an ever-increasing number of imminent and permanent global NNR supply shortfalls, the likelihood that the mix and volume of shortfalls will reach their ―critical mass‖ is a question of ―when‖, not ―if‖.

Implications of Increasing Global NNR Scarcity: Increasing NNR Scarcity: Available supplies associated with an overwhelming majority of NNRs—including bauxite, copper, iron ore, magnesium, manganese, nickel, phosphate rock, potash, rare earth metals, tin, and zinc—have reached their domestic US peak extraction levels, and are in terminal decline.16 Based on the evidence presented above,

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

available supplies associated with a vast majority of NNRs are becoming increasingly scarce globally as well.

Because global NNR supplies are transitioning from ―continuously more and more‖ to ―continuously less and less‖, our global societal wellbeing levels— our economic activity levels, population levels, and material living standards—are transitioning from ―continuously more and more‖ to ―continuously less and less‖ as well.

Sustainability is Inevitable: ―Business as usual‖ (industrialism), ―stasis‖ (no growth), ―downscaling‖ (reducing NNR utilization), and ―moving toward sustainability‖ (feel good initiatives) are not options; we will be sustainable…

Unintended Consequences: It is difficult to argue that our incessant quest for global industrialization and the natural resource utilization behavior that enables our quest are inherently evil. We have simply applied our everexpanding knowledge and technology over the past several centuries toward dramatically improving our level of societal wellbeing, through our ever-increasing utilization of NNRs. However, despite our possibly justifiable naïveté during our meteoric rise to ―exceptionalism‖, and despite the fact that our predicament was undoubtedly an unintended consequence of our efforts to continuously improve the material living standards enjoyed by our ever-expanding global population; globally available, economically viable supplies associated with the NNRs required to perpetuate our industrial lifestyle paradigm will not be sufficient going forward.

Dated at George, South Africa: 11 June 2013

Lara Johnstone, Pro Se MILINT Earth Day15 Encl: Excerpts from Scarcity, by Chris Clugston

15

http://tygae.weebly.com/milint-earth-day.html

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539, RSA * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

26 October 2013 Glenn Greenwald & Ed: Alan Rusbridger The Guardian Kings Place, 90 York Way London N1 9GU Tel: +44(20) 3 353 2000 Glenn Greenwald (Glenn.Greenwald@guardiannews.com) Alan Rusbridger (alan.rusbridger@theguardian.com) CC: National Security Agency: General K. Alexander Request for access to environment information in terms of Aarhus Convention under Article 4: Access to Environment Information.

I request access to environment information in terms of Aarhus Convention1 Article 4 from Mr. Greenwald and The Guardian (Mr. Rusbridger) as to the journalistic and editorial decision-making failure to report on EnvironmentScarcity-Conflict (such as for example in As Europe erupts over US spying, NSA chief says government must stop media2) and its consequences issues as a possible motive for intelligence agency surveillance, in their reporting on Mr. Snowden’s disclosure of the NSA Files3; to be provided to me by the latest 28 November 2013.

The environment information relates to ‘editorial decision making’ to censor information about (a) Environment-Scarcity-Conflict contextual information in their reporting of the NSA’s national security motivations for its surveillance practices; (ii) the Environment-Scarcity-Conflict arguments submitted to the following NSA/Snowden related surveillance issue courts: (a) Amicus submission to USA v Snowden (PDF4); before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson, US District Court Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria; United States Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Virginia; (b) Amicus submission to ACLU et al v Clapper et al (PDF5); in the Southern District Court of New York, before Judge William H Pauly, US District Court, S. District of New York; (c) Amicus 1

http://www.unece.org/env/pp/treatytext.html http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/25/europe-erupts-nsa-spying-chief-government 3 http://www.theguardian.com/world/series/nsa-files-live/latest 4 http://tygae.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-07-07_us-va_snowden_nom-amicus-crtsvc.pdf 5 http://tygae.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-07-20_ny_aclu-v-clapper_nom-amicus-svc.pdf

2

PO Box 5042, George East, 6539, RSA | Tel: +27(44) 870 7239 | Cel + 27(71) 170 1954

submission to First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles vs National Security Agency et al, 13-CV-03287 (PDF6); in the Northern District Court of California; which the journalist and editors are aware of.

The environmental information requested fits the Convention definition of ‘environmental information’ under Article 2 (3) (b) as being an editorial policy ‘cost-benefit economic analysis decision making activity’, the censorship of which aggravates the threat multiplier Impact (I=PAT) Population (P) and Affluence/Consumption (A) causes of ecological overshoot and environmental degradation, which seriously affects (i) the state of elements of the environment, from air, atmosphere, water, soil and land pollution to loss of biological diversity and its components, and the interaction of these elements; (ii) the state of human health and safety as manifested by climate and resource scarcity (oil, water, NNR minerals), resource civil and national war refugees and deaths.

Environment-Scarcity-Conflict refers to extensive documentation from military and intelligence agencies, united nations and governments, NGO’s and academic reports, etc, collectively documenting how legislative failure to restrict 6

http://tygae.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-07-22_ca_fuc-v-nsa_nom-amicus-svc.pdf

PO Box 5042, George East, 6539, RSA | Tel: +27(44) 870 7239 | Cel + 27(71) 170 1954

humanity’s insistence on procreating and consuming above carrying capacity limits, and Socialized Corporate Externality Costs: Trillion Dollar Thefts from Global Natural Capital Commons, has resulted in our ecological overshoot of carrying capacity limits by between 700 to 400,000 percent; including crossing urgent Planetary Boundary Tipping Points: (i) Loss of Biodiversity and Species Extinctions; (ii) Climate Change; (iii) Nitrogen Cycle; (iv) Ocean Acidification; (v) Changes in Land Use; (vi) Global Freshwater Use; (vii) State Shift in the Earth’s Biosphere; (viii) Peak Non-Renewable Natural Resources Scarcity; with devastating current climate-resource-scarcity-conflict and refugees, and impending threat multiplier aggravation of crisis of ‘scarcity-conflict’ death spiral consequences.

Media Censorship of Environment-Scarcity-Conflict refers to a corporate media socialized externality cost. Like all corporations, media corporations work to maximize their profits, by maximizing revenues while minimizing costs, by externalizing – avoid paying – as many costs as possible, externalizing them to society. Journalists are aware of how population and consumption affect ecological overshoot, scarcity and scarcity induced conflict, but avoid including such context to socio-political problem stories, because it directly and indirectly7 conflicts with their population and consumption growth profit motives.

Numerous studies such as Dr. Michael Maher’s study: How and Why Journalists Avoid Population - Environment Connection (PDF8), document how the mainstream media’s conscious censorship of the population/consumptionovershoot-scarcity-conflict contextual connection in their reporting on environment, scarcity and conflict related events, is a significant cause of the public’s general ecological illiterate inability to make informed environmental decisions, ignorance of the ecological overshoot state of our planet, and its impending scarcity-conflict consequences. Dr. Maher did a random sample of 150 stories about urban sprawl, endangered species and water shortages, and found that only 1 in ten framed population growth as a source of the problem.

Sincerely, Lara Johnstone MILINT Earth Day

7

Advertisers prefer not to advertise in news media which honestly encourage readers to consume responsibly, by contextually linking the role of overconsumption to the ecological overshoot socio-political problems being experienced by citizens. Many citizens indoctrinated with political correct thinking, also marketed by media and corporations, prefer not to offend readers who prefer to be ecologically illiterate intellectual ostriches who are not confronted with the reality that their consumption and procreation contributes to problems resulting from ecological overshoot. Such readers/viewers would prefer to be told that their consumption or procreation above carrying capacity limits has nothing to do with ecological overshoot related socio-political problems, which are someone else’s fault, preferably someone else from a different ethnicity, culture, religion or ideology.

8 How and Why Journalists Avoid Population-Environment Connection, www.scribd.com/doc/33694415

PO Box 5042, George East, 6539, RSA | Tel: +27(44) 870 7239 | Cel + 27(71) 170 1954

LUXEMBOURG

OEI1J Cb HA EBPO{1ECKH CbIO3 TRIBUNAL GENERAL DE LA UNION EUROPEA TRIBUNAL EVROPSKE UNIE DEN EUROPLISKE UNIONS RET GERICHT DER EUROPAISCHEN UNION EUROOPA LIIDU ULDKOHUS FENIKO IKATHPIO THZ EYPDFIA KHI ENOH GENERAL COURT OF ThE EUROPEAN UNION TRIBUNAL DL LUNION EUROPEENNE CIJIRT GHINEARALTA AN AONTAIS EORPAIGI-I OPCI SUD EUROPSKE UNIJE TRIBUNALE DELLUNIONE EUROPEA

EIROPAS sAvIENIBAs VISPAREJA TIESi\ EUROPOS SJUNGOS BEN DRASIS TEISMAS AZ EUROPA1 UNIO TORVENYSZEKE IL-OORTI OENERAL1 TAL-UNJONI EWROPEA GERECHT VAN DE EUROPESE UNIE SD UNII EUROPEJSKIEJ TRIBUNAL GERAL DA UNIAO EUROPEIA TRIBUNALUL UNIUNII EUROPENE VEOBECNY SUD EUROPSKEJ UNIE SPLONO SOD1E EVROPSKE UNIJE EUROOPAN UNIONIN YLEINEN TUOMIOISTUIN EURO PEISKA UNIONENS TRIBUNAL

Luxembourg, 14/11/2013 Ms Lara Johnstone jmcswan@mweb.co.za

Dear Madam,

The Registrar of the General Court acknowledges receipt of your email of 09/11/2013.

Your attention is specifically drawn to the fact that the General Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes between individuals (natural or legal persons) and institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union.

However, the General Court does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of national courts or tribunals, or to rule on the lawfulness of provisions, decisions or measures adopted by national authorities of a Member State. Nor does the General Court have jurisdiction to hear and determine actions brought against decisions taken by international bodies which are not within the institutional system of the European Union, such as the European Court of Human Rights.

Furthermore, in order to bring an action that is within the jurisdiction of the General Court, the applicant must be represented by a lawyer authorised to practise in a Member State.

An application which is not signed by a lawyer cannot be registered.

Having regard to the above considerations, the Registrar regrets to inform you that the General Court can take no action on your email.

_ivE.OULON -

Ruifl

DU FORT NIEDERERUNEWALD

1-2925 LUXEMBOuRO

Registrar

TELEPHONE: (+352) 4303-1

-

TELEFAX:(+352) 4303-2100