It’s Coming to Pass, Unless?
Greetings,
Several years have passed since GLTPA first began providing information about whoever controls the true wealth, the natural resources, is what empowers and controls a nation and its people. From an American perspective the framers put in place safeguards which gave control of the wealth to private property owners. It was their intention that people should control the government and not the other way around. The tangible wealth is not the printed fiat money used to buy goods, it is land and all the resources that go with it.
Later in this publication of TPA you can read a message which GLTPA sent to a group called Earthsight. Earthsight is the group which is primarily responsible for pushing the passage and implementation of the European Union Deforestation Rule. (EUDR) Also in this publication you can read Earthsight’s response. In their response they asked a specific question copied here.
“We were interested to hear your thoughts on the law, and wondered if you might be willing to elaborate on your specific concerns about complying with the regulation? I ask as there has been some confusion about how to comply with key elements, in particular the traceability requirement, and the EU has recently issued guidelines and FAQs that might provide more clarity.”
GLTPA is going to respond to the question and will elaborate on what is stated in the first paragraph of this article. Knowingly or not, the EUDR rule is a direct assault on American private property rights. Private property rights are why so many wars have been fought and why there is a Constitution which includes in “The Bill of Rights” Amendment V which toward the end states “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law: nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” Property owners have the right to use their land as they see fit. It can be used for building homes, growing trees, farmland, and a plethora of other uses. It is their right to control the wealth they have acquired and pay property taxes on.
From what has been learned at recent presentations, EUDR takes away the right of U.S. private property owners who want to convert their forested land to the use of agriculture. Agriculture is not acceptable but wind and solar are acceptable for conversion. This is the first clue that EUDR is not about deforestation. It is noted the rule has already had an impact on several members who have had to find alternative markets for their wood because of what is perceived as a land conversion to agriculture. During the writing of this article the 25 page “Regulation (EU) 2018/841 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land use change, and forestry in the 2030 climate and energy framework, and amending regulation (EU) No 525/2013 and decision No 525/2013/EU” is now printed, in hand, and being read.
As clearly stated in the regulation, EUDR is all about the Paris Agreement as adopted under the Unted Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Remember that all the UN’s work was performed by hundreds if not thousands of elitists flying to Paris in their private jets, burning millions of gallons of fuel to tell the rest of the population we should do as they say and not as they do.
Correctly so, the regulation recognizes forests as a tool for clean air. Nothing new on that front. So, what’s the problem with EUDR compliance? The problem is there is no issue tracking the wood and where it came from, and tracking the woods origination point is what most enablers of EUDR are focused on. According to the rule, any forest management leading to land conversion for agriculture disqualifies that wood from being purchased by an EUDR compliant consumer. That makes this dictatorial rule, an infringement on an American landowner’s rights to do what they feel is best for their property. I suppose a landowner wanting to convert to agriculture could simply cut all the trees down and burn them, which has been done, but I couldn’t think of a more wasteful use of a natural resource. Technically, EUDR is promoting that action.
The next thing is that China has rejected the EUDR rules which could open additional markets for US industries whereby they could ship more product and want to use EUDR as a marketing tool. According to an article in “atibt,” “China is a major player in global trade and one of the EU’s main suppliers of furniture, plywood panels, cartons, etc.”
The more I read through the “Regulations” it became clear the rule is 100% about regulating climate change through the collection of information and reporting that information to a central so-called market under the guise of deforestation. In fact, the same article mentioned earlier states that under Chinese law geographic information is “restricted to entities with special authorization from the administrative department for surveying and mapping under state council-and given the current geographical climate, it seems unfathomable that China will provide the EUDR authorities with this data.” China considers EUDR a security threat and apparently several U.S. Senators in Congress agree. That is why the Biden administration requested a one-year delay in implementation.
Wouldn’t you agree that the selling off American landowner property rights is an extremely high price to pay for a small piece of an unpredictable European market share? It boils down to a matter of freedom to harvest wood and sell it to the most lucrative market available. Not being able to do so because of a conversion to agriculture is an intrusion on an American constitutional property right. Besides, we not talking about millions of acers or hectors like those areas cleared in Costa Rica and the Rain Forest. We’re talking about 40 acer parcels at best. In fact, it is probably safe to assume that as many acres are being abandoned by farmers and reverting to forests as there is forested land being cleared for agriculture. Like was mentioned in the original message to Earthsight, they should be promoting American products without the added cost of implementing regulatory conditions set forth in EUDR. Trying to force their rule on the U.S. confirms their motive, it is not about deforestation.
Until next Month,
Henry