Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
WikiLeaks Cables Reveal How US Manipulated Climate Accord
Embassy dispatches show America used spying, threats and promises of aid to get support for Copenhagen accord
Hidden behind the save-the-world rhetoric of the global climate change negotiations lies the mucky realpolitik: money and threats buy political support; spying and cyberwarfare are used to seek out leverage.
A Greenpeace activist in a hot air balloon ahead of the current UN climate summit in Cancún. WikiLeaks cables expose US use of espionage before the 2009 Copenhagen summit. (Luis Perez/AFP) The US diplomatic cables reveal how the US seeks dirt on nations opposed to its approach to tackling global warming; how financial and other aid is used by countries to gain political backing; how distrust, broken promises and creative accounting dog negotiations; and how the US mounted a secret global diplomatic offensive to overwhelm opposition to the controversial "Copenhagen accord", the unofficial document that emerged from the ruins of the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009.
Negotiating a climate treaty is a high-stakes game, not just because of the danger warming poses to civilisation but also because re-engineering the global economy to a low-carbon model will see the flow of billions of dollars redirected.
Seeking negotiating chips, the US state department sent a secret cable on 31 July 2009 seeking human intelligence from UN diplomats across a range of issues, including climate change. The request originated with the CIA. As well as countries' negotiating positions for Copenhagen, diplomats were asked to provide evidence of UN environmental "treaty circumvention" and deals between nations.
But intelligence gathering was not just one way. On 19 June 2009, the state department sent a cable detailing a "spear phishing" attack on the office of the US climate change envoy, Todd Stern, while talks with China on emissions took place in Beijing. Five people received emails, personalised to look as though they came from the National Journal. An attached file contained malicious code that would give complete control of the recipient's computer to a hacker. While the attack was unsuccessful, the department's cyber threat analysis division noted: "It is probable intrusion attempts such as this will persist."
The Beijing talks failed to lead to a global deal at Copenhagen. But the US, the world's biggest historical polluter and long isolated as a climate pariah, had something to cling to. The Copenhagen accord, hammered out in the dying hours but not adopted into the UN process, offered to solve many of the US's problems.
The accord turns the UN's top-down, unanimous approach upside down, with each nation choosing palatable targets for greenhouse gas cuts. It presents a far easier way to bind in China and other rapidly growing countries than the UN process. But the accord cannot guarantee the global greenhouse gas cuts needed to avoid dangerous warming. Furthermore, it threatens to circumvent the UN's negotiations on extending the Kyoto protocol, in which rich nations have binding obligations. Those objections have led many countries - particularly the poorest and most vulnerable - to vehemently oppose the accord.
Getting as many countries as possible to associate themselves with the accord strongly served US interests, by boosting the likelihood it would be officially adopted. A diplomatic offensive was launched. Diplomatic cables flew thick and fast between the end of Copenhagen in December 2009 and late February 2010, when the leaked cables end.
Some countries needed little persuading. The accord promised $30bn (£19bn) in aid for the poorest nations hit by global warming they had not caused. Within two weeks of Copenhagen, the Maldives foreign minister, Ahmed Shaheed, wrote to the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, expressing eagerness to back it.
By 23 February 2010, the Maldives' ambassador-designate to the US, Abdul Ghafoor Mohamed, told the US deputy climate change envoy, Jonathan Pershing, his country wanted "tangible assistance", saying other nations would then realise "the advantages to be gained by compliance" with the accord.
A diplomatic dance ensued. "Ghafoor referred to several projects costing approximately $50m (£30m). Pershing encouraged him to provide concrete examples and costs in order to increase the likelihood of bilateral assistance."
The Maldives were unusual among developing countries in embracing the accord so wholeheartedly, but other small island nations were secretly seen as vulnerable to financial pressure. Any linking of the billions of dollars of aid to political support is extremely controversial - nations most threatened by climate change see the aid as a right, not a reward, and such a link as heretical. But on 11 February, Pershing met the EU climate action commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, in Brussels, where she told him, according to a cable, "the Aosis [Alliance of Small Island States] countries 'could be our best allies' given their need for financing".
The pair were concerned at how the $30bn was to be raised and Hedegaard raised another toxic subject - whether the US aid would be all cash. She asked if the US would need to do any "creative accounting", noting some countries such as Japan and the UK wanted loan guarantees, not grants alone, included, a tactic she opposed. Pershing said "donors have to balance the political need to provide real financing with the practical constraints of tight budgets", reported the cable.
Along with finance, another treacherous issue in the global climate negotiations, currently continuing in Cancún, Mexico, is trust that countries will keep their word. Hedegaard asks why the US did not agree with China and India on what she saw as acceptable measures to police future emissions cuts. "The question is whether they will honour that language," the cable quotes Pershing as saying.
Trust is in short supply on both sides of the developed-developing nation divide. On 2 February 2009, a cable from Addis Ababa reports a meeting between the US undersecretary of state Maria Otero and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi, who leads the African Union's climate change negotiations.
The confidential cable records a blunt US threat to Zenawi: sign the accord or discussion ends now. Zenawi responds that Ethiopia will support the accord, but has a concern of his own: that a personal assurance from Barack Obama on delivering the promised aid finance is not being honoured.
US determination to seek allies against its most powerful adversaries - the rising economic giants of Brazil, South Africa, India, China (Basic) - is set out in another cable from Brussels on 17 February reporting a meeting between the deputy national security adviser, Michael Froman, Hedegaard and other EU officials.
Froman said the EU needed to learn from Basic's skill at impeding US and EU initiatives and playing them off against each in order "to better handle third country obstructionism and avoid future train wrecks on climate".
Hedegaard is keen to reassure Froman of EU support, revealing a difference between public and private statements. "She hoped the US noted the EU was muting its criticism of the US, to be constructive," the cable said. Hedegaard and Froman discuss the need to "neutralise, co-opt or marginalise unhelpful countries including Venezuela and Bolivia", before Hedegaard again links financial aid to support for the accord, noting "the irony that the EU is a big donor to these countries". Later, in April, the US cut aid to Bolivia and Ecuador, citing opposition to the accord.
Any irony is clearly lost on the Bolivian president, Evo Morales, according to a 9 February cable from La Paz. The Danish ambassador to Bolivia, Morten Elkjaer, tells a US diplomat that, at the Copenhagen summit, "Danish prime minister Rasmussen spent an unpleasant 30 minutes with Morales, during which Morales thanked him for [$30m a year in] bilateral aid, but refused to engage on climate change issues."
After the Copenhagen summit, further linking of finance and aid with political support appears. Dutch officials, initially rejecting US overtures to back the accord, make a startling statement on 25 January. According to a cable, the Dutch climate negotiator Sanne Kaasjager "has drafted messages for embassies in capitals receiving Dutch development assistance to solicit support [for the accord]. This is an unprecedented move for the Dutch government, which traditionally recoils at any suggestion to use aid money as political leverage." Later, however, Kaasjager rows back a little, saying: "The Netherlands would find it difficult to make association with the accord a condition to receive climate financing."
Perhaps the most audacious appeal for funds revealed in the cables is from Saudi Arabia, the world's second biggest oil producer and one of the 25 richest countries in the world. A secret cable sent on 12 February records a meeting between US embassy officials and lead climate change negotiator Mohammad al-Sabban. "The kingdom will need time to diversify its economy away from petroleum, [Sabban] said, noting a US commitment to help Saudi Arabia with its economic diversification efforts would 'take the pressure off climate change negotiations'."
The Saudis did not like the accord, but were worried they had missed a trick. The assistant petroleum minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman told US officials that he had told his minister Ali al-Naimi that Saudi Arabia had "missed a real opportunity to submit 'something clever', like India or China, that was not legally binding but indicated some goodwill towards the process without compromising key economic interests".
The cables obtained by WikiLeaks finish at the end of February 2010. Today, 116 countries have associated themselves with the accord. Another 26 say they intend to associate. That total, of 140, is at the upper end of a 100-150 country target revealed by Pershing in his meeting with Hedegaard on 11 February.
The 140 nations represent almost 75% of the 193 countries that are parties to the UN climate change convention and, accord supporters like to point out, are responsible for well over 80% of current global greenhouse gas emissions.
At the mid-point of the major UN climate change negotiations in Cancún, Mexico, there have already been flare-ups over how funding for climate adaptation is delivered. The biggest shock has been Japan's announcement that it will not support an extension of the existing Kyoto climate treaty. That gives a huge boost to the accord. US diplomatic wheeling and dealing may, it seems, be bearing fruit.
- Posted in
38 Comments so far
Show AllUS : Join us or we will let NK loose on you!
Japan : OF Course ( thinking we already KNOW Nukes).
what do you have against North Korea, other than what you've heard from the trust-worthy US propaganda machine?
bligh4
Is this a serious question?
what makes you think it is not?
This is directed at Glenn Ford's comment of 12/04 @11:02am....
Sorry but either you are trying to be funny or
that is the most obtuse comment I have ever read.
Hackers are usually smart and smart people tend to be liberal and progressive. The conservative oligarchy is forced to employ smart hackers at their own peril.
Hackers are usually smart and smart people tend to be liberal and progressive.
Yeah Pvt. Bradley Manning must have thought so too.
Nearly all computer geeks I meet are Ayn Rand reading, capitalism-loving libertarians who despise anything "socialist" which, as always in the US, includes addressing climate change.
i have a proof for your thesis.
when the UMass-Amherst grad students organized into a union and demanded fair compensation for their teaching work in the early 1990s,
most grad students in engineering, science, math, etc rejected the graduate union, saying "we get paid many times more than the others by corporate sponsors, so keep your hands off my paycheck."
socially-conscious engineers / techies / hard-scientists are a rare breed indeed.
"socially-conscious engineers / techies / hard-scientists are a rare breed indeed."
Possibly so if hackers were mainly engineers. (Engineers don't like government's environmental regs).
Tecchies I'm not sure of, but Assange and his people certainly are socially conscious.
Hard-scientists, the vast majority of which are warning us of Global Warming, are demonstrably more socially conscious.
>>ezeflyer wrote: "Engineers don't like government's environmental regs"<<
Lots of unsubstantiated claims and assertions flying around in this part of the thread. And this one tops it all, in my opinion. In my experience, it's not the engineers that dislike environmental regulations - to any engineer worth his salt, they would be just another constraint to work under. You know, like the constraints such as gravity, thermodynamic limits, materials limitations, etc. You don't whine against gravity and thermodynamics - they are there and you live with them. Engineers accept the constraints and come up with a solution under the constraints. It's the capitalists who employ engineers that dislike environmental regulations.
"You don't whine against gravity and thermodynamics - they are there and you live with them."
These are things they can't control. If you whine loud enough and bribe enough politicians, you obviously can reduce environmental regulations.
Well I think engineering at least is a pretty right-wing thing (science is a lot more diverse). The structure of modern technology and production is based on division of labour and specialisation and this leads to a mentality of ignoring anything that's not within one's field of specialisation, including long term or moral issues. Those are not the engineer's domain. Engineers are absolutely perfect for technical administration with a very limited vision. They're basically like system managers, who have a task to do, and who love doing those tasks (because creating stuff that works is pretty fulfilling), but don't care about anything around them.
There's also a very wide-spread belief in the ultimate goodness of technology among engineers (and technology enthusiasts), which is founded very deeply upon the dichotomy of understanding the technical aspects of one's specialisation on one hand and complete ignorance of its history and social implications on the other. They believe that technology can solve any problems but don't know anything whatosever about the actual social history of technology.
Also, history of technology is deeply intertwined with religion and a mystical outlook - in the same way religion and (capitalist) economy are intertwined. You know the stuff: "stewardship over all creation". Like material success is an indication of being in good favours with God, technological achievements (like going to the Moon explicitly was, in the view of what appears a majority of people working in NASA at the time, according to David Noble) are a way of doing God's work and becoming more God-like etc.
Blind belief in technological salvation is not just a science-fiction thing, it's real. Loads of engineers do believe in a completely technologised society; and this view's spread to young, tech-savvy people in general, thanks to entertainment and general culture. But as I said, this belief must be built upon a foundation of ignorance of history (of the "dialectic" as some would say).
Loads of very explicitly anti-religious people, who claim that religion is the ultimate root of all evil, have an incredibly religious belief in technology without even noticing it. They never ask if there were any bad side effects of technology - in itself, it's always good and will help mankind reach some sort of utopia. The idea that humans might be happiest in a world that has limited technology and is not totally controlled by people (as technology's aim is the control of nature) is foreign to them.
them "warning us of global warming" desn't prove that they are socially conscious progressives.
plenty of them suggest reactionary "solutions" and blame the victims.
very few even understand nothing short of structural change, way beyond technological alternatives, is necessary.
you go to MIT campus and see who's funding the students and faculty's research projects, and who's offering cushy jobs to the MIT graduates.
surprise!
the Military-industrial complex.
about wikileaks, the MIT tech dept site was cheering on the cyber attack on wikileaks, referring wikileaks associates as "assange's minions".
smart they may be, but only for their own monetary bottomline.
The US Empire's game is Stall, Stall, and Stall some more, to keep Business as Usual going as long as possible. As such, we should expect the very worst future climate change scenario and then some. McKibben's 350 campaign is dead.
As far as I'm concerned, the collapse of Greenland's ice sheet can't happen soon enough.
Given the games nations play in climate change negotiations, further pursuit of "consensus" in drafting a treaty is not worth the trouble. Only when non-fossil fuel alternatives become cheaper than coal, oil, and gas will people begin to use less energy. Only when the price of energy rises four or five times higher than today will people take energy conservation seriously. Surely the world's politicians know this. They are merely posturing before world opinion in pretending a climate change accord is going to make a difference.
STATE RELIGION -- US EMPIRE
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (wealth).”
But, we are not created physically equal, otherwise bullies would not have made our school days so miserable.
And sex appeal passes from father -- to trophy husband son, surely us laboring men are treated far less then equal by all the women who labor, bless their darling hearts.
Also as wealth plus the brains to generate it, are permanent capital that passes from patriarch father -- to great grandson, our fait in life is set in concrete from birth to death.
And as wealth is power, with no wealth being what slavery is all about, if we were created by intelligent design then surely no equality was the goal and for a grand purpose
For we all have a different ability to generate wealth, as a test of character, to see if we pass our excessive wealth down to a lower class where it belongs.
And so, our most corrupt founding fathers who owned all the slaves, surely an equal right to compete is the only goal in their fake morality US Constitution.
For capitalism is an equal right to compete for men the most aggressive and cunning, giving them the unregulated freedom to be enriched upon the misery of society.
Wikileaks address http://savewikileaks.net/another-wikileaks-address/
Sophie Scholl-The Final Days
There are the Bad Guys, and that is it! You guys keep going on about the Geeks and Engineers, they are just pawns. There is a handful of evil men, that have been systematically empowering themselves ,so they could rule the world. Now it is true, they have involved many Geeks, and Army Generals, and Scientists, a few Engineers, true ,but only a few of these people know what's really going on ... what's in the the big picture. Anyway the rest down the line, are either taking orders, or riding the money train as long as they can.
Americans do not want this for our legacy, I don't think most want War, and they do want the Rich, to pay more taxes. We are being forced to allow this, by the people we put in office, to do what WE feel is in our best interest, and they have betrayed us for money, and power. We must stop them, and stop the Haliburton's ,and Oil Kingdoms, we could, and should, have already been on clean fuel for over 30 yrs. But because of the Big Oil Asses, and thier Arib buddies,The men, which on our side have managed to hold onto the Whitehouse, for over half of the last 30 yrs. so they do not want us to do what is right for the Planet, and for our own health, and well being. They want us to use thier products, and only thier products. They have to much invested, and don't want to change, because energy will become very cheap in the future...very cheap.
What kind of people think of money, and power, over the lives of millions. Crazy men, like Hitler, Nepoleone, Stalin,Bush Cheaney, Rumsfeld,Sadaam, all thier people, and the people of the world suffered so much pain ,because of a few Men's Mental Illness, accompanied by Greed, and a Power Hungry Ego , Why would an Intelligent Modern People, let this happen AGAIN ? No, we are not in Flames at the moment, but we are in War all over the place, and things are in financial collapse, just like all the other times in History. Wake -up and do something ! The Geek is not the enemy, the guy that tell's the truth is not the enemy !
The Enemy for both us in America, and for the World is those Men that are trying to steal the World from us , one piece at a time..they keep us at War constantly...they raise all our cost's, until they are just too much, they keep us in the dark, and fill the heads of the ignorant, with lies and false ideals, this krapt is so old century ! Why is this being allowed to happen in America ? Bush, and all his men must be put on trial, that will be the beginning, of a return to sanity, and putting things right, with ourselves and the World.
Once those people are out of business, many truths will be revealed, and we can start to repair our Country, and fix the way we treat the World, and the way the World treats us ! It is up to us to "protect" the Constitution of the United States of America, from Enemies both Foriegn and Domestic ! United We Stand, Devided We Fall ! Hillary is one of the Bad Guys, and so is Obama, all of that "Click", Palosi, and many, many Republicans, and many, many C.E.O.'s they do it for money, but the MasterMinds do it cause they are twisted, nut's ,and cold blooded killers !
deleted
I certainly agree with you but it must be rememberd that these predators are nurtured by their environment. The American people as a whole are not very bright and easily fooled and manipulated. They also have a very punitive and self-centered mentality. The people cannot be absolved by blaming the criminals. The people must be aware and knowledgeable if they are to preserve their freedom and just government. The founders said so. Ben Franklin didn't seem to think the people would succeed.
Those who have contempt for the environmental
movement, clearly have contempt for democracy,
the truth, and the people. They need to be
treated by mental health professionals.
They will soon be out of power and another dark
aspect of world history.
I agree with the Russian politician who said
that American politicians are politically
autistic.
http://rt.com/on-air/
It's great to watch the rats run from the light.
I can hardly wait for the expose on Bank of America.
Perhaps the USA needs something like the French
revolution. The dirty rats tremble at the sound
of truth.
We shall overcome - sooner than many people seem
to think.
All the best to Wikileaks and all those who support
the movement towards truth, justice, genuine diplomacy
& Peace!
-
SPIES?
It'd be interesting to see the reaction of the estimated
million + US spies on the fed payroll - who have been
forbidden to even look at the wikileaks web site even
when they're not on duty.
Perhaps they like being treated like ignorant children, who
are incapable of independent thought and unsupervised actions.
Hopefully some will have the sense to help Wikileaks stop this
reign of bastards.
:-)
Wikileaks: them versus us
MIT publishes a magazine called Technology Review.
I subscribed as I thought it was cool.
A headline article referring to fracking mentioned no downside and TR refused to accept calls once I called it to their attention citing the 'burning tap water' and other documents.
The article pushed the technique as a god=send for enrgy needs.
Also - Many products are reviewed in advance.
Guess where most of new technologies are tested under field conditions - whether it be new clothes, whatever.
TR calls it the only valid testing site around.
Yep - the US Dept of Defense.
I unsubscribed.
Check it out
MIT campus is covered with advertisement from military industrial complex offering students and faculty jobs and research funding, as well as self-congratulations by faculty and students for their own achievements in MIC.
The so called department of "defense" - defends the villainy of tyrants more than anything else.
"In order to get a jet off the ground with a sudden burst of hot energy, you can't use electricity."
But you don't really need jet fuel either - ground assistance or catapault could do it.
Can you site one example of a successful aircraft of over, say, 1000 lbs. that makes it off the ground on anything other than chemical energy? Catapults on Aircraft carriers *help* but without the plane at full power on its own, they don't work.
yeah ok but this is where imperial hubris hits the wall. and will get knocked silly. because you can't buy or bully or trick Mother Nature. You respect her rights, or you make the earth uninhabitable.
all the empire's money weapons and trickery will not save it from climate collapse. yes, as usual, the poor countries down south will get hit first and hardest. But sooner or later the climate crash will wipe out the empire along with all the rest of us.
On the surface its a win for the US.
They get more high emissions countries doing their bidding, corrupting with their carbon dollars.
The high emission countries get to as much or as little as they want about climate change.
The working assumption is that for the lot of them, it will be somewhere from little to not enough.
In the long term we all lose. Its up to the citizens of every nation to agititate and drive local adaptation and response to climate change. The goals are to educate , and to drive out of office and influance the carbon corrupt, and those not listening.
The current power institutions of the world have failed us.
URGENCY AT CANCUN
As the nation most responsible for global warimng, the Cancun Conference may be our last opportunity to curtail our scandalous non-compliance toward its mitigation measures, which have previously been blocked by special interests through extensive lobbying and fabricated science. The e-mail thefts, which were timed to impede progress in the failed Copenhagen conference last
year, and misrepresent the conclusions of the international scientific community, are only some examples.
If President Obama can detooth these environmental villans, and redirect our priorities toward these vital reforms, before the climatic tipping point, he will be remembered as a great president, even if it costs him a second term.
If he sidesteps this mission, history will treat him as a failed president who missed the last opportunity to mobilize efforts toward mitigating this dangerous climatic trend--which can only add to world wide suffering, and increase the rift between those nations most responsible for warming and those who suffer most from it.
Can someone, please, explain to me logic (or intent) of the article?
The GW is a real problem , right?
SO, to
"get support for Copenhagen accord ... "
seems to me to be a good thing. Just by using loaded words
'spying' in place of gathering information
'bribing' in place of 'providing aid'
.. etc
does not change the nature of activity.
Is it not going too far in self-loathing to call any diplomatic activity 'manipulation' ??
Remember that during the Kyoto treaty the US was the unwilling partner? That was bad PR.
Now at Copenhagen the US decided to play the frontrunner role in climate issues, pretending to be the driving force (publicly) in fighting climate issues. The point however is that the Copenhagen accord is bad. Bad for the poorer countries, bad for the environment because there are no hard commitments. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
if the "diplomat" wanted this info to be secret from the people that s/he was supposed to work for and answer to, prolly the "diplomat" was up to no good for the people's interest.
I am surprised this has not shown up on CD, but I read it late last night on HuffPo, the latest:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/04/state-department-to-colum_n_792059.html
"Talking about WikiLeaks on Facebook or Twitter could endanger your job prospects, a State Department official warned students at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs this week.
An email from SIPA's Office of Career Services went out Tuesday afternoon with a caution from the official, an alumnus of the school. Students who will be applying for jobs in the federal government could jeopardize their prospects by posting links to WikiLeaks online, or even by discussing the leaked documents on social networking sites, the official was quoted as saying... " And it goes on.
Right after I read that I sat down to work on a poncho I had sold and turned on TV -- which was a dry desert, to say the least -- so I flipped to TCM and there was this movie on -- "Confessions of a Nazi Spy" with Edward G. Robinson, Paul Lucas and George Sanders. Anyway, if you haven't seen this film I recommend it because it will have chills running down your spine. Here is on YouTube, the entire thing. This was an anti-Nazi film from 1939. Check out a small section beginning at 34:27. If the Nazi plan was to use socialism to promote fascism. So see what you think. A few years ago I probably would not have seen the connection to the present, but with times being what they are ... One charismatic leader like Hitler? No, I don't think so. Our Presidents are puppets. They simply move the process along. Unfortunately, watching this it is easy to see why any form of socialism is attacked in this country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvsK5MPOSwo
among the few legally actionable news in the wikileaks release is that gates, clinton, and possibly obama --if he did micromanage the honduras coup and its aftershocks-- committed a felony by conspiring to undermine the enforcement of an american law and by suppressing a well-argued and documented denunciation by a usa government official, in the honduras embassy of the usa, that a fact punished by american law, a coup d'etat against a democracy, had taken place.
because of their behavior after the honduras coup, gates, clinton, and possibly obama have made themselves *impeachable* for violating their oath to both defend the american constitution and make every possible effort to respect and enforce the laws of the usa. [and congrats to lanny davis!]
"environmentalism" is not the domain monopolized by the political left. rather the opposite is true.
the bulk of the "environmentalists" subscribe to the conservative (and racist) notion that "nature" is to be preserved "pristine" without humans in it and the "ignorant" natives to be kicked out of the "forests and wilderness", so that the "civilized" can properly manage and admire the God's awesome creation.
the progressive / leftist view includes humans in their picture of nature, and understands that humans were a necessary link or successful part of nature until capitalism came to town and turned all natural resources into commodities for profit.
as it has turned out after hundred years of the western-style "conservation" movement, the conservative projects for "conservation" have failed miserably, while the "savage" natives are doing much better job of living in harmony with nature wherever they have managed to hang on to their native habitat.
two very different outlooks on the environment.