Skip to content

UN To Make Millions Of Africans Homeless To Fight Global Warming

February 5, 2016

By Paul Homewood  




The United Nations global warming deal could make another five million people homeless in the world’s poorest countries, for the express purpose of setting forest land aside to slow global warming through conservation.

Millions who live in and depend on forests for their livelihoods could be evicted from their wooded homes, according to new study which will be released later this month.

The new study by the Rights and Resources Initiative shows implementation of the U.N.’s agenda in Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) could displace up to 4.1 million living in the heavily inhabited ecologically “protected” areas and another 0.9 million who depend on the region for their economic well-being. The intended goal of this mass displacement is to set aside local forest land to fight global warming.

“Governments have targets to expand their protected areas, and now with new climate funding being available the risk is they will use this to expand in a way that doesn’t respect local rights. It could result in the displacement of millions of people,” Andy White, from the Rights and Resources Initiative, told the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).

Previous analysis shows that as many as 17 million people have already been displaced from newly “ecologically protected” areas in the DRC alone by the local government and “international conservation organisations.” That’s almost a quarter of the DRC’s population. The new study suggests that the impacts on displaced people would be extremely difficult to mitigate.

“Our new masters … like the animals more than humans and do not mind that people suffer as long as the animals are happy,” a local Mbuti tribal leader in the DRC said.

The new analysis used data from Oak Ridge National Laboratory to calculate how many people would be forced to migrate after their livelihoods were destroyed by ecological protection. Since the DRC is the world’s second poorest country, any economic disruption can be devastating to the people involved. The average person in DRC earned an annual income of just $380 in 2014.

Both the local governments of Liberia and the DRC and the United Nations have repeatedly displaced residents in the name of fighting global warming. The DRC, funded by Germany and environmental non-profit groups, plans to set aside 12 to 15 percent of its forested land as ecologically protected areas. Liberia will turn 30 percent of its forests into ecologically protected areas in exchange for $150 million in developmental aid from Norway.




The figures quoted in the Daily Caller are at the top end of the scale. As the draft report states:


We estimate that the population currently living in protected areas comes to over 4.1 million people. So an expansion from 12% to 15% of land could easily affect a million people. The top and bottom ends of this range therefore seems unlikely. But the median estimate may be on the conservative side of representative. As we see in the next section, compensating this number of people for economic, let alone physical, displacement would be expensive.




Either way, an awful lot of people are going to be affected one way or another, either through physical displacement or from having their livelihoods severely affected. And this is just the DRC we are talking about.

With commitment of $100 billion a year in aid to fight climate change, how many more millions in other countries will end up paying the price?

  1. spetzer86 permalink
    February 6, 2016 1:47 am

    The process by which Global Climate Change refugees are born has been discovered. The climate isn’t creating the refugees, the governments are.

  2. John F. Hultquist permalink
    February 6, 2016 2:10 am

    Seems to be part of the plan. Get rid of all the people. Save Earth. Be Happy!

  3. David Richardson permalink
    February 6, 2016 8:19 am

    Certainly some in the Green environmental community are well aware of the outcome of policies, but many people are just useful idiots who do not subscribe to the ideology. The “humans are a plague” brigade like David Attenborough are seen as treasures by many.

    I first came across the scale of Africans in particular being displaced by environmentalism in a review of the book Eco-imperialism: Green Power Black Death by Paul Driessen back in 2003.

  4. Mark Hodgson permalink
    February 6, 2016 8:54 am

    O/t I know, but I can’t restrain myself from sharing the latest with you at the BBC:

    “‘Wrong type of trees’ in Europe increased global warming”. You couldn’t make it up!

    • Graeme No.3 permalink
      February 6, 2016 10:48 am

      They did make it up!
      But this explains why chopping down tropical forests is happening, it’s to allow the planting of oil palm trees rather than those nasty unruly trees that were good only for native wild life and birds etc. And why chipping american forests for burning in power stations is better than saving them in a nature park. Nasty trees – getting in the way of lovely wind turbines.

    • John Moore. permalink
      February 6, 2016 10:48 am

      I suggest that the two types of tree are deciduous which were felled in the first world war I think and replaced by firs which provide quick growing soft woods for building work. What their qualities are in taking in CO2 I know not. The allusion in the phrase is presumably to the railway’s claim to ‘the wrong type of snow’ which was difficult for non engineers to understand but referred to fine dry powdered snow which would get into the roof grills of locomotives and short out electrics which the usual wet and floating type did not.

  5. Bloke down the pub permalink
    February 6, 2016 11:59 am

    So there will be more ‘climate refugees’ heading for Europe?

  6. Don Keiller permalink
    February 6, 2016 1:07 pm

    When this happens we will be told by the BBC and the other “usual suspects” that “climate change refugees” were now a reality.
    1984 or what?

  7. February 6, 2016 2:56 pm

    This is all the more reason that everyone has to attack the underpinning science. This presentation is very dry, but shows that no matter which way you look at it man is not causing CO2 to rise. Its no surprise to learn that that this professor has had his funding removed and access to his data blocked so he can’t publish. Just like when trying to get rid of some weeds, you have to get at the root, so we need to show the underpinning science is a crook. Also this presentation demonstrates that CO2 does not have ANY influence on climate and is NOT a pollutant.

    • TonyM permalink
      February 10, 2016 2:23 pm

      Thanks for that video. The other video I have seen from him is from a lecture he gave in Hamburg a couple of years ago, available on youtube. It was another thorough debunking of AGW with his precise and well reasoned analysis. I suspect that the AGW folks would never debate him – of course, they never debate anybody. It is unfortunate that in both videos there are only a handful of people who show up to listen. He needs to get more exposure, I wonder if his presentations are available in hard copy anywhere?

  8. Keith Gugan permalink
    February 6, 2016 3:06 pm

    There is a way! It will cost lots of money but so is everything else the warmalarmists are urging. Irrigate and replant the unpopulated equatorial deserts and do not sequestrate our wonderful CO2. Feed and water the trees. The Sahara has in the past supported forests. Manage it to restore its marvellous past. There are multiple obvious benefits from doing this not just timber and sociological. CO2 and H2O are after all the essential sustenance of all growing things.

  9. February 7, 2016 12:51 pm

    Stop met office namig winter storms:

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: