This site is made possible solely by your voluntary contributions. If you support the views expressed on this Web site, please consider making a donation to support ecoNOT.com by scrolling to the bottom of this page, and clicking on one of the payment icons. Thanks you!

SEARCH THIS SITE BY KEYWORDS

Funding the international green agenda--Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), especially environmentalist groups, have become enormously influential in international politics. But how did they attain that power? In our manifesto, we traced the fundamental ideas that led to movement's ascendancy. But the Capital Research Center takes a different approach: it "follows the money." Their eye-opening report reveals that "With the financial backing of major U.S. philanthropies, such as the Ford Foundation, environmental activists use United Nations forums and other international meetings to influence global trade and environmental policy." Among the groups dissected: EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace Fund, Greenpeace International, Greenpeace, Inc., Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Pew Charitable Trusts, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the (Ted) Turner Foundation. A must for all researchers on environmental issues. [Posted 12/10/03]

Classic Sacramento Bee series exposes the environmentalist movement--Back in April 2001, investigative reporter Tom Knudson of the Sacramento Bee published the results of a 16-month investigation titled "Environment, Inc."--a series of articles that rocked the environmentalist movement. Anyone who still retains a benign view of the organized movement--including idealistic contributors to such outfits as the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, and Natural Resources Defense Council--would do themselves and their wallets a great service by reading this classic bit of investigative journalism. [Posted 10/2/03]

Animal rights activists reveal indifference to animal welfare--The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) claimed responsibility for releasing 10,000 mink from the Roesler Brothers Fur Farm in Washington state August 25, 2003. But what happened to the mink after their "liberation" appears not to concern these "idealists." Once uncaged en masse, the now-starving mink began to attack other animals in the area--chickens, fish, a menagerie of exotic birds, even a Labrador retriever. Then they turned on each other in a cannibalistic frenzy. About 9,000 have been recaptured, but the farm is still having trouble keeping them alive. Normally only litter mates are caged together, because non-siblings are "quite vicious and they’re cannibals," the owner explains. But since it’s not easy to determine which of the recovered mink are siblings, they continue to attack each other. So it’s appropriate to ask: Do such "animal rights" activists truly care about the well-being of animals? Or are their "good intentions" all that matters--not the actual consequences that their actions have on animals? [Posted 10/6/03]

"DieOff.org": Thomas Malthus on steroids--Back on August 30, 2003, we highlighted the misanthropic antics of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (see entry below). Proving the adage that misery loves company, greens with end-of-the-world expectations are adding their shrieks to those with suicidal aspirations. The neo-Malthusians at the DieOff.org Web site provide a helpful compilation of just about every goofy apocalyptic "study," crackpot theory, and bizarre quotation ever spewed forth from the warped craniums of environmentalist nutcases. Any chance we can get these sad souls to start watching Dr. Phil? [Posted 12/8/03]

Great backgrounder on eco-terrorist group Earth First!--The watchdog group Center for Consumer Freedom has established an invaluable online resource, ActivistCash.com, which provides detailed research on the activities and funding of many influential environmentalist groups. Their latest exposé is on the organization Earth First!, the pioneer of the U. S. eco-terrorism movement that also includes other violent groups such as the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front. Read how Earth First! and its "direct action" front groups and spin-offs receive grants and contributions from such "mainstream" environmentalist sources as Ted Turner’s Turner Foundation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Humane Society of the United States. [Posted 10/6/03]

The environmentalist attack on Teflon just won't stick -- My boss at the Capital Research Center, Terrence Scanlon, has published an op-ed in the March 4, 2005 issue of the Charleston (WV) Daily Mail, titled The Attack On Teflon Won't Stick. It exposes the phony scare campaign by the Environmental Working Group against the DuPont Corp. concerning allegedly "contaminated" water supplies in Ohio and West Virginia, due to minuscule traces of the chemical PFOA, which is is used to make Dupont's popular non-stick product, Teflon. EWG's campaign against Teflon is bogus because the amounts of Teflon-related PFOA in the water of West Virginia and Ohio are far below the levels at which they could harm humans. The full article is a damning indictment of the typical sleazy methods used by environmentalists to orchestrate public hysteria. I urge you to read the whole thing here. [Posted 3/4/05]

Environmental Working Group: Peddlers of Fear--In its latest in-depth report, the Capital Legal Foundation unmasks the Environmental Working Group (EWG)--the environmental movement's specialists in using junk science to purvey panic about food safety, pesticides, and just about everything else they can think of. [Posted 1/30/04]

Africans starve while environmentalists block biotech food shipments--In the winter of 2002, the technophobes at Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and Consumers International pressured the government of Zambia to halt distribution of American-donated genetically modified corn to its starving people. This set off a food riot in Munyama, Zambia, as 6,000 hungry villagers overpowered an armed guard and stormed a warehouse that held biotech corn. Recently, the Washington Post interviewed a leader of the riot, Kebby Kamota, who said he'd finally had enough as he watched his eleven children starve. "'Three days! Three days!' he shouted, explaining how long his children would sometimes go without food as a drought worsened last year. 'When I saw my children getting hungry, it was not easy for me.' Even as the bellies of the children ached, bags of relief corn sat in a warehouse, sealed tight..." So how do environmentalists spin their unconscionable efforts to deprive starving Africans of meals? Says Greenpeace on its Web site: "We say that as long as supplies of non-genetically engineered grain exist, nobody should be forced to eat genetically engineered (GE) grain against their will." Against their will? And just who was interfering with the will of those desperate people in that Zambian village? [Posted 12/3/03]

Greenpeace unmasked--This impressive online report provides the inside story on the very popular and very well-heeled environmental organization Greenpeace, whose own co-founder now calls it "a band of scientific illiterates" who are "anti-civilization." [Posted 10/6/03]

Greenpeace anti-biotech activists reveal indifference to the environment--In yet another demonstration of environmentalist hypocrisy, Greenpeace activists protesting Canada's genetically modified (GM) crops boarded a ship at the port of Vancouver last Thursday as it loaded canola, a rapeseed variant, destined for Japan. This, despite the fact that GM canola resists weed-killing chemicals, allowing farmers to use fewer herbicides, and thus causing less damage to the environment. For further evidence of the environmentalists' utter indifference to actual environmental quality, see my commentary, The environmentalists' deadly war against "Frankenfood" [Posted 10/6/03]

Greenpeace diverts tax-exempt donations to criminal activity--According to a report by Public Interest Watch, more than $24 million in tax-exempt contributions to Greenpeace--by law required to go only for religious, educational, scientific, literary, or charitable activities--instead were diverted to its "direct action campaign." That campaign included such criminal acts as blockading a military port and cargo ship for transporting American troops and equipment at the time of the Iraq war; breaking into the control building of a nuclear power station; and padlocking a government research farm. [Posted 10/1/03]

Heinz foundations and endowments

Cash & Kerry: major green funding group launders his wife's money into his campaign--President Bush's leadership and decisions after 9/11 were sure to become a centerpiece of his re-election campaign, as his opponents knew. So the moment he aired ads with images of the 9/11 atrocity, they were ready with a carefully orchestrated response. It turns out that those "9/11 families" who suddenly turned up everywhere in the media to protest the Bush ads were--surprise!--part of an organized, well-established left-wing group, "September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows." This strident pacifist group, which also opposed the War in Afghanistan, actually represents only 120 of the 3,000 families of 9/11 victims--though you'd never know that from the adoring press coverage. But wait--it gets even better. "Peaceful Tomorrows" is an official project of, and heavily funded by, the Tides Center and its parent group, the Tides Foundation--a radical leftist operation that launders millions in donor cash to a wide range of socialist, environmentalist, and anti-war groups--while keeping donors' identities secret (for a fee). For example, according to the Capital Research Center, a watchdog group, "Here are a few notable nonprofits started, managed or funded by Tides: the Natural Resources Defense Council, Greenpeace, Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Working Group and the Ruckus Society." And guess who is a major contributor to the Tides network? Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Democrat candidate John Kerry--that's who. She is chairman of the Howard Heinz Endowment, which channeled over $4 million to the Tides Foundation between 1995-2001. Two other Heinz family foundations which she leads have donated an additional $2 million. That's not all. We've noted here that the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), a 'viro political lobby, jumped onto the Kerry for President campaign with a surprisingly early primary endorsement. Capital Research notes that "In 2000, the LCV waited until April to endorse Vice President Gore, a candidate whose advocacy for LCV’s positions on environmental issues is much stronger than Kerry’s. Why did LCV jump so early on the Kerry bandwagon? "A clue may be found in grants the Heinz Endowments of Pittsburgh made to environmental groups whose leaders sit on the LCV board of directors. Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Senator Kerry, is chairman of the Howard Heinz Endowment (HHE) and a board member of the Vira I. Heinz Endowment (VHE) as well as chairman of the Heinz Family Foundation. The LCV Education Fund received $10,000 from the Heinz Family Foundation in 2001. More importantly, at least four members of the LCV board of directors lead environmental groups that received more than $1,000,000 from the Heinz philanthropies in the past three years." Among LCV board members whose groups received major contributions from the various Heinz philanthropies run by Teresa Heinz Kerry are: John Adams, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council (which received $50,000 in 2003); William Meadows III, president of the Wilderness Society (which received $50,000 in 2003); and Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense (which received over $600,000 in the period 2001-2003). Now we all know that John Kerry pledged to refuse "special interest" contributions, right? And we all know that individual campaign donors, like his activist wife, are legally limited to only $2,000 in campaign contributions, right? But through devious money-laundering and back-room influence-peddling, the Kerrys and the rest of Gang Green manage to by-pass campaign finance laws, manipulate the media, and deceive voters. Such are the ways of the noble "idealists" of environmentalism. [Posted 3/8/04]

NRDC: biting the taxpayers who feed them--The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)--the folks who brought us the infamous, phony scare over Alar on our apples--is probably the most successful litigation group among all members of Gang Green. It raises millions of dollars from its scare campaigns, and millions more from its lawsuits. Many of these suits are against government agencies, and taxpayers are forced to pick up the tab for court costs. Why, then, should NRDC get millions more from taxpayers in the form of federal grants? Read about the litigious habits of these environmental ambulance-chasers--and how they stiff the taxpayers--in this report.[Posted 8/30/04]

NRDC's Robert Kennedy Jr. pollutes the air on the state of environment--Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.--a senior attorney for that peerless gang of frightmongers, the Natural Resources Defense Council--has penned a long screed in that peerless source of fact and reason, Rolling Stone magazine. Titled "Crimes Against Nature," the piece is a high-decibel screech against the Bush administration, claiming it "is sabotaging the laws that have protected America's environment for more than thirty years." Most people wouldn't have the patience or knowledge to pick apart RFK Jr.'s contentions; but law professor Jonathan Adler has plenty of both, and reduces the NRDC golden boy's claims to compost in this splendid rejoinder. [Posted 12/3/03]

Exposing the Natural Resources Defense Council--Remember the 1989 "alar on the apples" scare? The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the well-heeled, highly influential lobbying-and-litigation group that launched the hoax, continues to spread toxic terrorism in the media and in our legal system. Here's a probing case study of how "mainstream" environmentalist organizations thrive on fear campaigns and legal coercion. [Posted 9/2/03]

So why is the EPA in the NRDC's hip pocket?--The latest science fiction scare story from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) concerns the valuable agricultural herbicide atrazine. Hundreds of studies by responsible scientists confirm that atrazine is safe for humans and the environment. But the NRDC wants it banned, and Alex Avery of the Hudson Institute wonders why "the Environmental Protection Agency is bending itself into a pretzel to accommodate this gang of activist lawyers." He also wonders why the EPA has given $4 million in taxpayer money to help fund NRDC in its toxic terrorism. [Posted 9/8/03]

IRS moves into Nature Conservancy headquarters to investigate scandal--On September 15, 2003, we reported on a Washington Post investigation of the Nature Conservancy, the gigantic environmentalist land trust that buys up private property ostensibly for preservation purposes. Now the Post reports that "A team of IRS examiners will move into the global headquarters of the Nature Conservancy in Arlington to begin auditing the charity, the world’s largest environmental organization." In its earlier investigative series, the newspaper documented a host of financial irregularities, including the fact that the organization had purchased private land, placed development restrictions on it, then resold the "preserved" land at bargain-basement prices back to its own trustees and contributors for their private use. The buyers, in return, made donations to the group approximating the difference in price, in order to qualify for hefty personal tax deductions. In addition to this scam, the Conservancy used its resources to make generous loans to employees, including a $1.5 million home loan to its own president, Steven J. McCormick. In a curious lapse of eco-consciousness, the land trust also drilled for oil on its "nature preserves." Now it will be interesting to see how the group's staff can continue such "Green" pursuits while tripping over a squad of IRS squatters. [Posted 1/18/04]

Nature Conservancy land deals mean "big green" for supporters--The Nature Conservancy--a. k. a. "Big Green," the gigantic, tax-exempt land trust which acquires private property supposedly for environmental preservation--has been trying to ward off Congressional scrutiny since an investigative series in the Washington Post revealed how it has rewarded supporters, officers, and trustees with home loans, and land resales (at a net loss) on property where they then build plush homes. With $3 billion in assets, the Nature Conservancy is the nation's richest environmental group. "Yet the Conservancy has logged forests, engineered a $64 million deal paving the way for opulent houses on fragile grasslands and drilled for natural gas under the last breeding ground of an endangered bird species," the Post story revealed. [Posted 9/15/03]

Some "corporate interests" are more equal than others--As frequent visitors here know, the environmentalist advocacy group, Oceana, has been running a publicity campaign against the Google search engine company. Google's Selfish Sin, you see, has been its refusal to carry Oceana's anti-cruise-industry advocacy ads on the Google Web site. Expressing "shock," Oceana declares on its anti-Google Web page that "Google should reinstate the Oceana AdWords immediately and show that it supports free expression of all viewpoints, not just those sponsored by corporate interests." In an Open Letter to Oceana of February 19, 2004, ecoNOT.com publisher Robert Bidinotto asked the green group's officials whether Oceana was itself a corporation. Alas, there has been no reply. But a quick check at Register.com reveals that Oceana's Web site URL, "www.Oceana.org," is, in fact, registered to "Oceana Inc." Thus Oceana, like Google, is a corporation. Presumably with its own "corporate interests." EcoNOT also asked Oceana's officials whether they might accept advertising (such as ours) on their Web site--even if it might express viewpoints contrary to Oceana's. Alas, we received no answer to that inquiry, either. We are shocked--shocked--to discover that a well-heeled environmentalist corporation does not support "free expression of all viewpoints, not just those sponsored by [its] corporate interests." [Posted 3/1/04]

Oceana admits Royal Caribbean is not breaking pollution laws--With all the high-profile hyperventilating that the green group Oceana has been doing against Royal Caribbean Cruises, you'd think that Oceana is accusing the cruise line of being a flagrant violator of laws against pollution. Indeed, that's the impression you're meant to get from all its publicity, whether in the media, on its own Web site, or on a special Web site specifically set up to attack Royal Caribbean. But look very, very closely, and you'll see that this impression is being conveyed by deliberately deceptive weasel-wording. In fact, buried on one of the Web pages of their "Stop Cruise Pollution" Web site, Oceana admits that they are not accusing Royal Caribbean of breaking pollution laws. The only law-breaking that Oceana cites allegedly occurred some years ago. Here is their reply to a statement by Richard Fain, chairman and CEO of the cruise line: "Mr. Fain stated that Royal Caribbean 'properly, responsibly, and legally disposes of all its shipboard waste.' In fact, Oceana has not asserted that Royal Caribbean or any other cruise company is regularly breaking sewage pollution laws. [Emphasis added] Rather, our position has been that the laws regulating pollution--particularly sewage pollution--are grossly inadequate. Affordable technology is available to address needless pollution from cruise ships. As a company that is marketing clean oceans, Royal Caribbean has an obligation to deploy and use such technology." If so, Oceana's real beef ought to be with the government, right? So why are they targeting their publicity campaigns against the cruise industry, rather than against Congress and the legislatures of coastal states? Well, whipping up public outrage against Big Bad Corporations (even if they are guilty of nothing illegal) is much easier than changing laws...especially if your real goal is to attract new contributing members. A tour of the Oceana Web sites will show just how ambitiously they are using this devious and manipulative scare campaign to get site visitors to reveal their personal contact information in online forms--personal information that they'll later use to solicit paying memberships and contributions. Meanwhile, obscured amid all this green sewage are the actual steps that Royal Caribbean has taken to minimize pollution--measures which are, in fact, well above and beyond any legal requirements. [Posted 2/25/04]

Misanthropic quotation of the week: Oceana's Dana DuBose--This charming perspective from Dana DuBose, a campaign director for the environmentalist advocacy group Oceana: "I was probably the only person who watched Jaws and felt sympathetic towards the shark." [Posted 2/22/04]

An open letter to Oceana--On February 16, 2004, I posted here and on my blog a commentary on the campaign by the well-financed green group, Oceana, to intimidate the Google search engine company, by pressuring it to carry Oceana's attack ads against the Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines. This campaign is an outrageous assault on Google's constitutional rights, including its First Amendment rights of free expression, and its right to govern the use of its own private property as it sees fit. After I published my piece and notified Oceana of its existence, I received a reply from one of the group's staff. In it, he attempted to rationalize Oceana's flagrant thuggery--which includes publishing on its Web site the private contact information of Google and Royal Caribbean officers, and encouraging its members to subject those individuals to further harassment and intimidation. I have now published a new response to Oceana, in the form of an "open letter" on my blog. You can read it by clicking here. And since turnabout is fair play, I have included in that letter the e-mail addresses of Oceana's relevant officers and staff members. Those who are as angry as I am over the environmentalists' unrelenting violations of individual rights--including rights to privacy, free expression, and private property--are encouraged to read the relevant documents you'll find linked in my open letter, and then to respond accordingly. [Posted 2/21/04] P. S.: Oceana's attacks on Royal Caribbean Cruises are, predictably, loaded with lies and distortions. If you wish to learn the truth about Royal Caribbean's environmental record, I urge you to read a letter from company chairman and CEO Richard Fain, posted in "pdf" format on the Royal Caribbean web site. [Posted 2/23/04]

'Viros demand political ad space on Google--An Associated Press reporter recently served as a press flack for an environmentalist gang trying to exploit the popular search engine, Google, for political purposes. In a Friday the 13th 2004 hit piece, A. P.'s Michael Liedtke, with "contributing" help from Tony Carroll of the Juneau Empire, published a one-sided attack against Google and the Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, on behalf of the green group Oceana. Oceana had purchased and posted an innocuous-looking Google ad that said simply, "Help us protect the world's oceans." The ad appeared whenever Google visitors searched on keywords such as "cruise vacation" and "cruise ship." But when visitors clicked on the ad, they were bounced to a Web page that attacked the Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, accusing it of polluting the oceans. Google has a standing policy against carrying ads criticizing groups or companies, and this was a clear example of political advocacy advertising against a private company. So when it discovered this abuse after a couple of days, Google pulled the ad, which sent Oceana spokesmen foaming at the mouth. Yet in their weasel-worded story, writers Liedtke and Carroll did their best to disguise Oceana's attempt to manipulate Google's policy. The ad ban by Google, they wrote, is "casting a spotlight on the editorial policies that control the popular Web site's lucrative marketing program. Jim Ayers, Pacific Region director for Oceana, said from his Juneau home that he was shocked [Yes--shocked! Shocked!!] that Google would censor his group's ads based on corporate bias... 'I am shocked that they will post information about pornography and yet they will censor information about cruise ship pollution,' Ayers said. Pollution from cruise ships is an ongoing concern in Southeast Alaska... The decision reeks of censorship and favoritism, said Andrew Sharpless, Oceana's chief executive officer. 'The answer they gave certainly raises the question whether they got a phone call from Royal Caribbean,' Sharpless said Thursday. 'We can't prove that, but it certainly smells that way.' Both Google and Royal Caribbean denied there was any pressure applied to remove the Oceana ad." [Italics added above for emphasis] Note the flagrantly biased choice of wording, the outrageous, unsupported innuendos about corporate pressure and/or collusion, and the blatant one-sidedness. Not a single quotation in this hit piece is attributed either to Google or Royal Caribbean spokesmen for balance. So let us speak on their behalf, addressing greens and their mouthpieces in the Fourth Estate: In case you haven't heard, guys, this is America you're living in--not some Marxist rathole. And here in America, it is perfectly within the rights of Google--or any private business--to refuse to carry any ads it doesn't like. To argue otherwise is to declare that private parties should be forced to provide platforms for viewpoints they find mistaken, offensive, libelous, or hostile to their own interests--a practice that Thomas Jefferson denounced as "sinful and tyrannical." In effect, your demand would mean the annihilation of our Constitutional rights to free association, freedom of speech, and private property. And by the way: "censorship" is something that only a government can impose--not a private individual, group, or company. Since you have no "right" to force a private party to provide a platform for your views, it isn't "censorship" for that party to deny you use of their own platform. So if Reuters, A. P., and other corporate megaphones for environmentalist and left-wing zealots wish to retain their own rights to spread their propaganda without interference, then they should instruct their employees to respect the rights of all other private individuals and companies to promote their own views, too. [Posted 2/16/04] (Correction to preceding: The failure to quote Google or Royal Caribbean representatives apparently was not the fault of A. P. reporter Liedtke, but the Juneau Empire. Such quotations did appear in the A. P. story as it was carried at greater length in other news outlets--for example, here, here, and here. But even these fuller versions were heavily weighted against Google and Royal Caribbean.) [Posted 2/19/04]

PETA slaughters thousands of pets -- Uh huh. You read that correctly. This is "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" we're talking about...the "animal rights" group that demands that the rest of us stop killing animals for food, science, clothing or any reason whatsoever. To paraphrase PETA chief executioner Ingrid Newkirk's infamous quotation: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a corpse."

For all the gory details, click here. [Posted 5/23/05]

Chickens come home to roost for KFC--A September 4th item here, "KFC chickens out to PETA," reported how KFC had caved in to pressure from the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and made a number of operating concessions. Since PETA uncompromisingly opposes all human use of animals, its ultimate aim is to put companies like KFC out of business. That's why we warned here that "industry capitulation and appeasement in the face of environmentalist 'greenmail' threats only encourage such groups to demand more drastic concessions." Well, it didn't take a month for our prediction to come true. On Sunday, September 21st, PETA members tried to confront and embarrass a KFC executive while he attended church services, then threatened to take their protest to his home. Emboldened by KFC's earlier retreat, PETA has now announced it will conduct 200 more protests against the restaurant chain over the next two weeks. "We continue to step up what we are doing," said PETA's Matt Prescott. But will KFC and other targeted companies continue to do what they've been doing? [Posted 9/23/03]

KFC chickens out to PETA--Steve Milloy, the "junk science" watchdog, reports on why KFC, the fried chicken chain, has caved in to pressure from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. He also explains why industry capitulation and appeasement in the face of environmentalist "greenmail" threats only encourage such groups to demand more drastic concessions. [Posted 9/4/03]

The Rainforest Action Network exposed -- Major corporations are in the crosshairs of the Rainforest Action Network. This radical environmentalist group regularly resorts to illegal“direct action” tactics and even exploits school kids in order to intimidate and shake down its business adversaries. So why does the IRS still grant RAN tax-exempt status? David Hogberg of the Capital Research Center profiles RAN in this excellent report. [Posted 5/10/05]

Misanthropic quotation of the week: Sierra Club's Paul Watson--This recent remark to the Los Angeles Times comes from ecoterrorist Paul Watson--the co-founder of Greenpeace, head of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (which rams and sinks whaling ships), and now an officially elected Board member of the Sierra Club, America's oldest national environmentalist group: "Human beings are literally stealing resources from all the other species on this planet." [Posted 1/29/04]

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement--If you think my manifesto caricatures environmentalism, consider this group, which takes "The Eden Premise" to its dead end. Literally. [Posted 8/30/03]

SEARCH THIS SITE BY KEYWORDS

Read the ecoNOT.com manifesto: "Environmentalism or Individualism?"

For information on Robert Bidinotto's availability for speeches and media interviews, write: contact@ecoNOT.com