INFOTERRA; The International Referral System

Going through the documents related to GEMS, launched in the early 1970s and commissioned by none other than Maurice Strong, I repeatedly bumped into the ‘International Referral System’. I ignored it, repeatedly, but decided to take a quick look at what it’s all about.

And it happens to be important in the context of erecting the global green dictatorship, as it deals with centralisation of information (very broadly) related to environmental protection.

-

Here’s a link to GEMS (and SCOPE). This is about global surveillance, through environmental regulation affecting health. Fully sourced, including regulation.

-

The 1972 conference in Stockholm launched not only the global surveillance initiative (GEMS), but also one, titled the ‘International Referral System‘. Though this website (and initiaive) is now long gone (2003), here’s a cached version via Wayback.

Let’s get straight to the point. This is about centralisation of information, relating to environmental protection. See, it’s no good simply creating UNEP, you have to make sure ‘representatives’ rely on the correct science. And that’s where the ‘International Referral System‘ enters the frame.

They later renamed to ‘INFOTERRA’, and as that’s fewer characters, I will refer to them by that name from now on.

They rely on the concept of ‘National Focal Points’, which conveniently have a specification outlined here.

It’s about ‘making information available’, having said distributed across the global network of NFPs, so that the ‘representatives’ can arrive at the ‘correct’ conclusions through the ‘best available science’, and direct national policy accordingly.

They call for said NFPs to be ‘placed within governmental structures’ (ensuring access to ministries and civil servants), and these should ‘provide public access to wide-ranging and authoritative information on the environment’, which - conveniently - also means that if you wish to steer public policy in a given direction, all you have to do is install one of your cronies. You know, democratically.

It continues with three guidelines for the placement of NFPs -

‘To assist in resolving national environmental issues, the NFP should be easily accessible to policy and decision-makers, scientists, planners, researchers and the general public‘

This isn’t really about the public at all. This is about stuffing the NFP with cronies, who will discard information inconvenient to the narrative.

‘NFP should be located at the site of the best concentration of environmental information and expertise‘… which will also be a convenient place to listen in and direct general debate, and… ‘the NFP should be staffed by information professional‘.

Those are called journalists. Those very same who recently reported on the best available science, which you should trust during the scamdemic. Still do, in fact.

‘… many NFPs are located in the national environmental information centre or technical information branch of the Ministry of Environment or other governmental ministry, agency, commission, etc with strong environmental protection mandate‘

Which also is great due to proximity of power. Perfect spot if you should seek to manipulate the opinions of politicians, or civil servants.

Democratically, of course.

Now, in 1990, at the 68th plenary, the United Nations passed ‘A/RES/45/94‘.

Need to ensure a healthy environment for the well-being of individuals

It’s important because this outlines precisely how cynic, calculating, undemocratic, and downright evil these people are. Let me quote a few lines -

‘Recalling that, in accordance with the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living for his or her own health and well-being and that of his or her family and to the continuous improvement of living conditions,‘

‘men and women have the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being,‘

‘increasing environmental degradation could endanger the very basis of life,‘

and finally -

‘Recalling that the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, to be held in Brazil in 1992, will elaborate strategies and measures to halt and reverse the effects of environmental degradation in the context…,‘

‘…ensuring a better and healthier environment‘

This is a straight up conflation of environment and health, for sakes of political convenience. See, they can’t simply come out to state that you have to cut your carbon emissions, because besides being honest (and we can’t have that), no-one would listen. Instead, they -

1. Insert meaningless verbiage into constitution of global, public health authority. The following could be taken to mean quite literally anything -
   ’enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human’

2. Make said constitution legally binding across member states.

3. Produce questionable science on link between health and environment.

4. Ban emissions in name of constitutional pledge, thereby protecting health.

5. And if confronted - all you have to do is tell people they are being attacked, and denounce the ‘deniers’ for lack of intelligence, and exposing the world to greater danger.

And supposedly, this works whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Ugh. I hate linking Snopes, but it does the job.

Naturally, there’s a bit of wording added to ensure the United Nations get to drive this process, but that’s to be expected.

So with this in mind, let’s shoot forward to January 28, 2003, and specifically, ‘DIRECTIVE 2003/4/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL‘

on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC

Yes, this is about public access to environmental information. Let me just repeat that again.

It’s about public access. To information relating to the environment.

Clear? Good. Because it wasn’t to the EU bureaucrats, who immediately started to conflate health into this directive on information relating to the environment just as well. Shocking, right? (do try to contain your surprise)

‘The definition of environmental information should be clarified so as to encompass information in any form on the state of the environment, on factors, measures or activities affecting or likely to affect the environment or designed to protect it, on cost-benefit and economic analyses used within the framework of such measures or activities and also information on the state of human health and safety, including the contamination of the food chain, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures in as much as they are, or may be, affected by any of those matters.‘

So, yeah, on merely a suspicion of relating to the environment, a quanta of information should be included under the umbrella of ‘environmental information’. Oh yeah, and then there’s anything related to health - that too counts as ‘environmental information’. Or even a terrifyingly poor document on any matter, provided it was ‘designed to protect’ the environment. And they carry on -

‘… environmental protection requirements should be integrated into the definition and implementation of Community policies and activities, the definition of public authorities should be expanded so as to encompass government or other public administration at national, regional or local level whether or not they have specific responsibilities for the environment. The definition should likewise be expanded to include other persons or bodies performing public administrative functions in relation to the environment under national law, as well as other persons or bodies acting under their control and having public responsibilities or functions in relation to the environment.‘

Which, basically, covers even the lady serving the afternoon tea in Parliament. It’s absolutely beyond the pale. And as for that right to information -

‘The right to information means that the disclosure of information should be the general rule and that public authorities should be permitted to refuse a request for environmental information in specific and clearly defined cases.‘

Oh yeah, that will definitely never be abused. Of course not. Oh, and also, ‘it’s illegal for the EU to engage in QE’.

And finally, our forward reference -

‘On 25 June 1998 the European Community signed the UN/ECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (‘the Aarhus Convention’).‘

The document is from 1998, and be located here. It’s also up to the high standards of the above, being absolutely and completely beyond the pale.

Besides more conflation of human health with environmental information, we also have an absurd broadening of definitions, mentioning of mandatory systems for dissemination of information, and even a specific mention of ‘any imminent threat to human health’.

As much as I’ve love to take this apart, it’s simply overwhelming, and I wish to focus on a specific topic here instead. Because, setting aside the implied funding of organisations promoting the correct ‘science’, and this being backed up by the legal system, they also drag in information relating to noise, ‘substances’ (whatever they are), and ‘factors… likely to affect the environment’.

*Checks date of document*

Nope. June 25, 1998. Not April 1.

The final issue I wish to address is that of justice. Because I’ve seen the term a fair bit. Enrironmental justice. But I wasn’t quite sure how it related to the narrative. The next document makes that perfectly clear.

‘INFOTERRA‘ no longer exists. It’s been long since replaced. Here’s a European initative, born out of the ashes of INFOTERRA, and titled ‘EIONET’.

I had actually never even heard of them, but essentially, this (and similar initiatives) replaced INFOTERRA, with the aim of becoming a global organisation on all matters of environmental information. A digital marketplace, so to speak.

In April, 2021, this document was released on the EIONET Portal. It pertains to air quality in Europe, and it’s gravely concerned with misinformation.

But the document is actually useful from a different perspective, because while you by now should know what ‘social justice’ entails (marxism), I haven’t seen an explanation of what ‘environmental justice’ entails, which I for the record assume is interchangeable with ‘climate justice’.

From the summary -

‘Air pollution is the single largest environmental risk to the health of the Europeans and is receiving significant attention in the public space. It is comprehensively regulated in the EU, addressing air pollutants concentrations, as well as emissions from numerous sources. The legislation requires also for the authorities to inform the public.‘

So far, so good. The public should be made aware of regulation.

‘The European Union’s (EU) Clean Air policy framework consists, among others, of a number of ambient air quality directives (AAQDs) that have been continuously updated to enforce stricter targets on air pollution in the EU Member States. National authorities have to ensure that ambient air quality does not exceed defined concentrations, normally set as limit or target values of certain pollutants‘

OK, so we see a continuously deteriorating business climate being enforced, with which national governments have to legally comply.

‘Citizens of the EU Member States have legal right to clean air and to free access to information, public participation, and access to justice in environmental matters. This provides citizens with the right to request insight into national air quality plans and air quality data.‘

Look, there’s that justice we were talking about.

‘… diverse reactions from the public to the different measures. These ranged from indifference… to acceptance… and to rejection (e.g., LEZ, circulation restrictions). Public opposition was considered a very significant challenge. This was also the case when trying to modify peoples’ perception of a given environmental problem or solution‘

So public opposition is challenging, and they’ll roll out their Marxist ‘social scientists’ to lie, manipulate, and distort, in order to get people on board with that… but how is that relevant in the context of ‘justice’?

‘Recently, citizens have been actively involved in addressing air pollution issues on local, regional, and national level and have gone to court both on national and at EU level for their right to clean air in different States, ... In these cases, the courts have ruled in favour of the citizens and required the Member States to take further action to tackle air pollution‘

Wait, what? You cannot be serious, right?

‘The provisions of the Aarhus Convention ensure easy public access to environmental information and enable the general public to get involved in decision-making processes and to take legal action against environmental law infringements.‘

That’s right. They’re not going to push through the legislation. Your ‘representatives’ have instead created a legal environment, where people can sue nation states - or even the EU - and have the judges do it for them.

In other words - and perhaps this should be run as a television commercial -

‘Are you short of cash? Do you have the moral deficiencies required to sell out your common man in return for a little bit of money? Call 555-5555 and sue the Netherlands today!’

Environmental justice evidently means allowing people to sue the state, thereby forcing through legislation which politicians would never, ever, ever recover from, should they vote through.

And in the event anyone takes them to task, all they have to do is point out that the legislation was passed 30 years ago (or whatever), and that it has nothing to do with them; ‘they are as upset as you, but there’s nothing they can do’.

-

For the record - another way this will be weaponised is by increasing focus on non-communicable disease being the biggest killer, and claim this is down to air quality. Then run the script as above, and et voila.