Global Environmental Monitoring System

This won’t be a long article. In fact, there’s really only one document I wish to source for this one, and it took hours to track down. Google? No. Wayback? No. Yahoo? No. Bing? No.

I eventually started trying to guess the filename. After a handful of tries, I was in luck.

-

First off, I strongly recommend you read the first article, which is over here.

The document in question can be located here. Make sure to download. Titled ‘UNEP/GC/24’, and released Feb 21, 1974.

APPROVAL OF ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME, IN THE LIGHT, INTER ALIA, OF THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUND PROGRAMME

I won’t cover this in detail, as much is identical to that seen in the prior article. I will focus on the few parts which matter the most.

-

It kicks off as expected. They seek to develop a global environment monitoring programme, allegedly to detect environmental changes and assess impact on man.

See, it’s to protect you.

And they even included a list of priority pollutants, which was expanded to include other related environmental factors.

It’s easy to find it, when you know what to look for.

Objectives include protecting you and your health, well-being, safety, and liberty… and the wise management of the environment and its resource by… advacing knowledge on changes in the environment and the impact of these on man’s health and well-being. Nations which join, incur an obligation to promptly exchange information.

Programme goals include an expanded human health warning system, and assessment of global atmospheric pollution and its impact on climate.

In terms of criteria, first phase priority is to establish a list of pollutants and other related environmental factors, where criteria includes -

‘The severity of actual and potential effect on man’s health and well-being and on climate or on terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems…‘

‘Actual or projected concentration trends in the environment and/or in man‘

Read those two again. They both include guesswork. Who creates said projections?

We then have other related environmental factors, which include

‘Indicators of pollution when a pollutant itself is not easily measurable‘

‘Indicators of health on man, animal and plants, such as disease incidence, drug resistance and genetic load‘

So a mere bad round of - say - influenza would trigger this? Who creates said indicators, and who judge when they trigger?

But wait - there’s more -

‘… there are a few physical factors which may be considered as pollutants by themselves… heat… noise…‘

Which idiot voted for this? Who the hell can’t tell that something isn’t really badly off?

The design and implementation includes networks at global, regional, and local levels; these need to monitor a wide variety of variables in air, water, soil, food, or biota - including man.

And this is - and I quote - ‘to make GEMS a truly global system‘

Incremental implementation through existing networks, and gradual harmonisation efforts.

Other aspects in chapter 3 of the report include monitoring of environmental parameters other than priority pollutants. These include natural disasters, with a particular emphasis on early warning systems.

The - somewhat restated purpose - includes utilisation and conservation of natural resources, preservation of wildlife, desertification, depletion of soils, forests, and grasslands, epidemics, and physical factors such as noise and heat.

Epidemics. There it is, right next to the suggestions courtesy of Mad Magazine.

The recommendation goes even further out, stating that health status indicators need inclusion, with emphasis on high-risk groups.

And just to wrap this up, because surely no-one can question this by now - the future work section includes prior document modifications, and even drags in the SCOPE 3 report.

Finally, other forms of assistance to developing nations include training programmes, cash-for-implementation bribery schemes, and local educational facilities to ensure the survival of their global surveillance program.

-

In the event you didn’t quite grasp all of that - because I acknowledge it’s been fairly technical - virtually as soon as the first edition of the programme had passed, they modified the treaty documents, shovelled human health in as a factor along with absurdities like noise and heat, offered to bribe developing nations in return for implementation, only for this to carry with it an obligation for data transparency.

Global surveillance was off to a promising start.

-

The human health angle would go on to become a pandemic treaty, one of which simply must be defeated in May, 2024.