The Conservation Foundation

During the early stages of the currently ongoing greatest scam of all time, even decades before SCOPE started to manufacture the carbon consensus, a little known organisation was here, there, and everywhere - especially where it mattered most.

The man behind the Conservation Foundation was none other than Henry Fairfield Osborn, Jr. Noted conservationist, author, and… eugenicist. These stories always need at least one of those. He was also a longtime president of the New York Zoological Society who today go by the name of the Wildlife Conservation Society.

In 1948, Fairfield released his book; ‘Our Plundered Planet’. And I swear, this guy is a riot. Always someone slitting their wrists with him near, no doubt.

‘… mankind was involved in two major conflicts — not only in the one that was in every headline, on every radio, in the minds, in the hearts and in the sufferings of people the world over. The other war, the silent war, eventually the most deadly war, was one in which man has indulged for a long time, blindly and unknowingly. This other world-wide war, still continuing, is bringing more widespread distress to the human race than any that has resulted from armed conflict. It contains potentialities of ultimate disaster greater even than would follow the misuse of atomic power. This other war is man’s conflict with nature.‘

If the Club of Rome had a weekly top 40, he’d be a shoe-in for the top spot.

‘The word nature is one of the broadest in our language. In its most general sense it refers to the scheme of the universe. In its narrow sense it refers to the character of an individual, or rather the inherent impulse or power by which character is determined or controlled. Nature represents the sum total of conditions and principles which influence, indeed govern, the existence of all living things, man included. It is the intention of this book not only to support the truth of this definition but to show that if we continue to disregard nature and its principles the days of our civilization are numbered.‘

So relatively quickly, he’s nailed his colours to the mast, and that mast is sinking in quicksand, in the middle of a forest fire, with a tsunami on approach, and a large meteor approaching Planet Earth fast. Yeah, we’re all going to die again.

To compensate for his lack of… party invites, he did what all good, soapboxing men of wealth simply must do. He established a foundation.

The Conservation Foundation.

And in 1949, this newfound joy of an do-gooder enterprise released its first book; ‘A Conservation Handbook‘.

In truth, there isn’t really anything in particular surprising here, but they do talk a fair bit about renewable resources, along with the conservation thereof. Which, again, isn’t terribly surprising as it’s a handbook, titled ‘Conservation Handbook’, released by a foundation with ‘Conservation’ in its title.

As it’s… frankly, not terribly interesting, I’ll skip right to the end, because it bears relevance to contemporary context -

‘STATE AND NATIONAL PARKS, MONUMENTS AND WILDERNESS AREAS are areas set aside exclusively for study and recreation by authority of law because they have unique scenic, historic, scientific or recreational value. Exclusion of any land area from any form of commercial exploitation may seem to be contrary to the primary definition of conservation as wise use of our resources. On the contrary, it is important to scientific study and to the health and sanity of man, that there be preserved some unique areas for scientists to observe nature’s continuing evolution; for future generations to know historic landmarks as they were when history marked them; and for dwellers on a crowded planet to have resort to the grandeur and the peace of nature.‘

In other words, what he describes is the concept of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves - or heritage sites - which launched some several decades later.

‘That is why conservationists believe that the wisest use of our few remaining natural, wilderhess areas is to reserve them from commercial exploitation and devote them to the cause of spiritual regeneration, — communion of man with nature on the Earth.‘

Oh, so not like UNESCO’s Biosphere Reserves, then.

Because UNESCO’s biosphere reserves are presently being monetised through the Global Environment Facility for their ‘ecosystem services’.

The Global Environment Facility

The reason why this foundation is of interest is because it was they who called the for 1963 forum, where the ‘carbon consensus’ was first reached. Yes, at predictably yet another key invite-only event, they produced a document without a single reference, repeatedly admitting that they knew less than nothing... apart from two things. Carbon dioxide is plant food, and… we’d all die in a terrible lake of fire should we not do something about those carbon emissions, which we… again knew less than nothing about.

The Keeling Curve

Of course, that entire story is rather that ludicrous, only someone with the surname ‘Rockefeller’ could possibly take it, procede to blow it massively out of proportions for political gain - and have everyone - politicians, especially - buy it.

Apart from those looking.

So in my best efforts of remaining impartial when it comes to all matters relating to Rockefeller, let’s have a quick look through their annual reports. In fact, let’s have a quick search for ‘Conservation Foundation’. And… it’s fairly conclusive.

In brief, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund paid for their operational expenses, while the Rockefeller Foundation itself funded their projects. I won’t bother going through these in detail, but I can confirm that funds were set aside for the ‘Conservation Foundation’, and that these are contextually relevant. In other words, this is a (yet another) Political Special Purpose Vehicle engaged by the… well, that American elite, and this one majors in conservation ‘science’... and policy.

Conveniently, while coming up broadly short elsewhere, the Rockefeller Annual, 1949 kindly provides an overview of said ‘foundation’. Even details ‘Our Plundered Planet’. It further states that their work can broadly be divided into one of two categories, research projects, and educational projects. And even details a running cooperation with the FAO, which is pretty impressive for such a young ‘foundation’.

Of other interesting, though unlisted, projects on which they’ve contributed we find this one over here. Earth Day.

Which is somewhat confirmed over here., and again on Rockefeller’s own site.

‘Future Environments of North America‘ is the title of a book released in 1965 by the Conservation Foundation. And though a brief description is outlined, what’s more interesting is that this description is followed by a list of trustees - which naturally counts none other than Laurance Rockefeller himself. This isn’t terribly surprising in itself, as Larry was the alleged ‘environmentalist’ of the siblings - but it’s always nice to receive confirmation.

But another listed trustee is the above is Russell Train -

'He was President of The Conservation Foundation from 1965 to 1969... Between 1970 and 1973 he was Chairman of the newly formed Council on Environmental Quality'

... and it was the Council on Environmental Quality which led to the first outline of the Ecosystem Approach in 1995 under Gore’s Interagency Task Force...

Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force

If the event you are unfamiliar with the ‘Ecosystem Approach’ - in short, this relates to the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 12 Malawi Principles. It broadly describes their desired future political system which isn’t wholly dissimilar to feudalism. Of course, they like to call it ‘participatory’ or even ‘inclusive democracy’, but key here really is the flip side of that word. These could more accurately be described as ‘exclusive democracy’, because the ‘stakeholders’ ultimately call the shots, but what’s of even higher importance… who selects those ‘stakeholders’ who ‘participate’ in the first place?

Oh yeah, and then there’s the ‘science’… and the enforcement of said.

The Ecosystem Approach

So Mr Choo Choo was the president of the Conservation Foundation in the years 1965 to 1969. And then… he went to head the newly formed Council on Environmental Quality.

That’s right - the president of a Rockefeller stooge operation went to head a council, ‘informing’ none other but the President of the United States - Richard Nixon.

… and we’re now solidly on Nelson Rockefeller’s turf. It’s almost as though each Rockefeller brother had a job do carry out.

Critical Choices for Americans

With Nixon gone, Nelson Rockefeller became the VP and it’s during his brief period in the White House that the innocuous sounding ‘National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976‘ was pushed through, within which hid the ‘Office of Science and Technology Policy‘. And this initiative - under Clinton - helped push through the DoD-GEIS initiative in 1996; global surveillance.

The Department of Defense

… and this should further be viewed in the context of Al Gore first launching GLOBE in 1989 with John Kerry (and assorted Soviet politicians before the wall came down), then working on passing the Convention on Biological Diversity, and finally launching the CEQ task force which created the first outline of the Ecosystem Approach.

GLOBE launching in 1989 with members of the Russian duma is documented here -

The Natural Asset Company

There’s a longform interview with Train over here, and it goes on to further outline that not only did the Conservation Foundation write the National Environmental Policy Act, but they created the EIS process, and… the CEQ... which Train then would go on to lead -

‘In a very broad sense I think they wanted to develop some sort of mechanism for promoting the inclusion of environmental values in government decision-making. I think that is what they had in mind. That is certainly what they ended up with…

The individual in question was Professor Lynton K. Caldwell, usually called Keith, who was a professor of political science at Indiana University and who had for a long time been a member of the Scientific Advisory Council of The Conservation Foundation. He had been giving a lot thought to the problems over the years. Since I knew him, and he was closely associated with The Conservation Foundation, I agreed. With our funding, Caldwell went to work with the Interior Committee and was essentially the single-most important architect of the National Environmental Policy Act…

A principal part of the National Environmental Policy Act, in addition to establishing the EIS process, was the establishment of the Council on Environmental Quality which was directed to establish the guidelines and monitor the performance of federal agencies under the EIS process, as well as doing an annual report to the president for submission to the Congress on the state of the environment. Muskie's legislation created an office, not a council, but an Office of Environmental Quality and this, as I said, also passed the Congress. Later on when I was first chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality…‘

As for him becoming president of the Conservation Foundation in 1965 - as though it honestly matters - yeah, Rockefeller again -

‘I guess I was elected by the board. Actually I wasn't privy to the process. I assume that was the case, on the recommendation of Fair Osborn, and also Laurance Rockefeller who was at that time vice-chairman of the board of The Conservation Foundation‘

The Environmental impact statement (EIS) process described you can find over here. Should be fairly obvious how this relates to even contemporaty efforts, where everything is required to environmentally monitored, judged, and offset.

While Mr Choo Choo was the head of the CEQ, it was with William K Reilly working in the capacity of a senior staff member. From there, William went on to become the president of the Conservation Foundation (not listed here, but this took place in 1975).

He further has his own website, which you can find over here, from which I quote -

‘… Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 1989 to 1993, during which he led efforts to pass a new Clean Air Act and headed the U.S. delegation to the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio in 1992.  He served as president of World Wildlife Fund and later chairman of the board; president of The Conservation Foundation; and director of the Rockefeller Task Force on Land Use and Urban Growth‘

I mean, did you honestly expect Rockefeller to not show up again? He further was centrally placed in Rio, as the UNFCCC/CBD policy mechanism was put in place, and has acted in the capacity of chairman of ClimateWorks, and director of the Packard Foundation.

Nixon also passed Executive Order 11593, which in short created a list of national heritage sites -

But again, this all appears a tad incestrous, as this was yet another CEQ/William K Reilly effort -

And it really is quite remarkable, because while I did leave out the founder of the Conservation Foundation, I might as well include him here for good measure. Samuel H. Ordway Jr… he shared a stage with JFK at the Pinchot Institute… on whose board, you guessed it, Laurence Rockefeller featured.

The Conservation Foundation was, as I’ve said before, nothing short of a Political Special Purpose Vehicle for the Rockefeller clan. They quite literally show up everywhere you look.

Hell, they even turn up on their website.

As for their reports… well, they tell somewhat of a story. Fairfield Osborn’s 1948 book, ‘Our Plundered Planet’ outlines the problem - which, naturally, is us. Humans. And this is then followed by the detailed ‘Conservation Handbook’ from 1949, also listed above. These are then followed by ‘Vegetation and watershed management‘ from 1953, and ‘The law of water allocation in the Eastern United States‘ from 1956, which relate to the planning, control and management of water resources -

In 1964, they released the book ‘Planning Our Town‘…

… and in 1965, a conference titled ‘Future Environments of North America‘ was arranged. It’s more planning and organising, but what’s of further note is that Laurance Rockefeller is identified as the vice chairman of the Conservation Foundation -

‘Pockets of Hope’ from 1967 followed, which is an odd one. In short, it’s a call for economic development, which naturally should be centralised, meaning more taxes, more bureaucrats, and more regional planning.

Not forgetting education, which also is called for, along with educational reform.

In 1969, the Santa Barbara oil spill took place, and this led to CF 1970 conference, ‘Law and the Environment‘. This outlined ‘needed developments in the law’, which ultimately yielded the National Environmental Policy Act, which as we saw above was essentially written by the Conservation Foundation itself.

The document is one of the more interesting ones, especially as it concludes with recommendations which include a National Environment Law Organisation (coordinating the legal profession), Law School Research for Environmental Lawyers (leading to more legislation on the subject), an Alliance with Political Leaders (direct access to policy), a National Land-Use Policy (including reallocation of land-use powers, economic planning, and population distribution plans), a Future Generations Fund (conservation), and a remarkable call for Administrative Reform (integrating dubious ecological reports into the decision making process, and starting to consider future resource allocation issues).

Do you see where this is heading?

Then we have the 1972 report on ‘National Parks for the Future’ calling for more parks, more planning…

… and 1973 also saw this document on ‘Ecological Principles for Economic Development’, outlining a series of meetings and a conference involving the World Bank, IUCN, UNESCO, UN FAO, UNDP, IBP, and of course the Conservation Foundation itself.

FYI - This chronologically follows the 1969 Pearson Report; ‘Partners in Development‘.

Then two reports out of California and 1975 follow, ‘Land and the Environment‘, and ‘Land - Planning for People’. The former seeks to plan… well, everything, even down to air quality, natural resources and accompanying laws, and the latter seeking to plan… everything once again, down to housing, energy, and even taxation. We even see the conflation of topics starting to take shape here -

‘Land use cannot be labelled as merely an "environmental” issue. It is far broader than that. It is a fundamental human activity which affects every business person, worker, and consumer.‘

In 1976 follows ‘Zoning Hawaii’, which is interesting for two reasons - first, because Barbara Ward is now a listed board trustee - only a few years after writing ‘Only One Earth’, but also because it starts to hint at the sort of planning we later see arrive in the Convention on Biological Diversity documents, ie Ecosystem Approach related Landscape Approach planning.

In 1978 we saw two reports; ‘In the Wake of the Tourist’, which relate to contemporary ‘eco-tourism’ planning, and ‘Protecting the Golden Shore’ which is about coastal protection. Barbara? Yeah, she’s still there.

1979 saw the release of ‘Land Development in Crowded Spaces’., which is about keeping development out of ‘environmentally sensitive areas’, thereby overriding traditional land ownership rights.

And though the organisation kept going until 1990, when it finally completed its merger with the WWF, I will only cover one final report of theirs. But before doing so, I will point out that James Aldrich - who I still haven’t worked out if he’s a member of the Aldrich family which passed the Federal Reserve Act, and married into Rockefeller. Because he works on the educational side, and this is one of his more noteworthy contributions, and this, from 1976 when Bert Bolin admitted to knowing very little as fact on the topic of carbon dioxide and heat in front of the US Senate -

Yet, the 'Belgrade Charter', outlining global education on environmental issues, was being detailed, inclusive of strategies on how to promote the message - not just in terms of 'selling' the ideology, but also how to promote it. Naturally, mass media was the first item on the list. But so was publicity of alternate lifestyles.

Yet, the word ‘carbon’ - which would also cover for carbon monoxide, which was an early EPA outlined pollutant - doesn’t even feature in the report. Golly, right?

The final report of the Conservation Foundation I will cover is this one, from 1980. Because, when coupled with the gradual, increasingly more detailed process out outlining top-down planning, it reveals what this effort is ultimately all about.

Money.

First off… yes. She’s still there. Barbara Ward is still listed in the trustees. And secondly - this is about offsetting. Think carbon offsetting, though carbon dioxide hadn’t yet been deemed a ‘pollutant’. That was to come.

It is further repeated how the Conservation Foundation was particularly ‘active’ in regards to implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Clean Water Act. And in the context of the latter, the EPA proposed a series of regulatory reforms, of which offsetting is a significant inclusion.

The report further reveals funding by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, along with the revelation that not only was the first draft of this report ready by the end of 1979, but 20 members outside the ‘Foundation’ - as well as the ‘Foundation’ itself - contributed, meaning this would have kicked off well in advance. And it just so happens that the very first, ICSU-arranged, invite-only climate conference ‘establishing’ the ‘carbon (dioxide) consensus’ was held….. in February of that year.

And the detail here is impeccable, given how early this is. Here’s how their emissions banking system will work.

The inclusion here pertains to a list, created by the EPA. First round included sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulates, and photochemical oxidants, which is ozone. But this list saw continuous revision.

In fact, there’s been a litany of supreme court cases, fighting over the inclusion of a range of emissions and greenhouse gases in particular, all of which now also feature on monitored lists. Strangely, however, these took a hiatus during Trump, and then picked up on the very first day, Biden stepped into office.

I previously covered Biden’s first-day executive orders, and they, too, tell a story -

January 20, 2021

And in 2022, hidden in the ‘Inflation Reduction Act’, carbon dioxide was added to this list. Carbon dioxide, of course, is a ‘pollutant’ in exactly the same way water is.

It’s fraud. That’s what this is. It’s enabling fraud.

Now, back to the Conservation Foundation and their president, William K Reilly, who did a such stellar job, he ultimately became the EPA director under George HW Bush…

… and under his watchful eye, the list of ‘hazardous air pollutants’ quite simply exploded through the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

Now, step back to those Conservation Foundation reports above. Because around the very same time as the Rockefellers funded the Conservation Foundation, they also particupated in a series of reports, titled ‘Critical Choices for Americans’. I covered this previously over here.

Critical Choices for Americans

The selected panel was absurdly packed with some of the most notorious operators over the past century, these include (beyond the Rockefeller brothers themselves) - George Woods (World Bank), George Schultz (Bechtel), Lester Brown (Worldwatch), J George Harrar (Rockefeller Foundation), Peter G Peterson (Lehman Brothers), John G Winger (Chase Manhattan), as well as the very one and only Henry Kissinger himself.

I won’t cover in detail. All aspects of those Conservation Foundation documents appear well considered; through natural resources, to education and the change in institutions called for, through to accompanying laws, the consideration of population, the environment, and finally community planning.

Almost as though those Rockefeller-funded Conservation Foundation reports were meant to front-run this Rockefeller-funded effort sent to politicians.

Almost.

As said, the Conservation Foundation is no more. It merged into the fund-raising arm of the IUCN, ie the WWF, in 1990. Since then, other organisations have adopted an identical name, meaning it’s not that trivial to dig up in-depth material.

And the foundation was launched as an offspring to what’s now titled the World Conservation Society. And it was of course three employees of theirs at the time who penned the Manhattan Principles - aka One Health - introduced in 2004. Steve Osofsky would go on to co-author the Rockefeller/Lancet’s Planetary Health special issue in 2015, and William Karesh went to EcoHealth Alliance.

Planetary Health

EcoHealth Alliance

… not to forget, of course, that the New York Zoological Society (WCS) received a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation i 1946, and again in 1949, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund also chipped in during the 1940s.

I don’t have much more to add. To me, it appears somewhat like them manufacturing the ‘science’ and policy behind the regional planning efforts which launched in the United States, and eventually turned into National Parks and thus - ultimately - reserves, along with emission controls and offsetting, while ICSU’s SCOPE simultaneously manufactured the ‘science’ to go along with the carbon consensus, which eventually turned into the United Nations’ control feature of carbon emissions; the interlocking UNFCCC/CBD framework, previously outlined over here -

The Grand Plan

Incidentally, SCOPE, too, had Rockefeller associations. Regardless, you be the judge. I, however, simply must dash -

A certain lady simply cannot be left waiting.