However, F. Gases are highly potent greenhouse gases and therefore
have become an important element of the European Climate Change
Programme (ECCP), which since 2001 has been the EU’s main 

forum for discussing and developing policies to combat
climate change and meet Kyoto demands.


European Commission Welcomes
Parliament Vote on Fluorinated Gases

Update  → →  HERE    18 May 2016



Corporate Europe Observatory, October 2005

European Parliament rejects calls to ban most dangerous greenhouse gases A


European Parliament rejects calls to ban most dangerous greenhouse gases B


An important EU initiative which seeks to regulate the use of some highly potent green house gases has been under attack from its inception by F-gas industry lobbying, who seek to weaken its impact on their business activities. The Brussels front for this lobby, which consists of mainly US based multinationals, is the ‘European Partnership for Energy and the Environment’ (EPEE). It is now working hard to influence the European Parliament so that current Parliament proposals do not undermine industry’s initial lobbying success by introducing tougher regulation after all. Internal EPEE documents reveal the exact details of the lobbying strategy laid out by Hill & Knowlton.

The EU is one of the main contributors to global climate change. In order to meet even its own Kyoto commitments[1], generally considered not nearly enough, EU countries have to take serious action. High on the to-do list is reducing the emissions of the ‘F-gases’.   These industrial fluorinated gases (hydro fluorocarbons or HFCs, perfluorocarbons or PFCs and sulphur hexafluoride or SF6), have extremely high Global Warming Potentials (GWP).[2] With their growing production, F-gases will count for a increasing share of global greenhouse emissions.  Unique among pollutants that cause climate change, is that F-gases are not a by-product, but deliberately produced and promoted substances.[3]


F-gases are used in many appliances such as refrigerators, air conditioning, foam blowers and car tyres. They replaced ozone-depleting gases such as chlorofluorocarbon (CFCs), which are being phased out globally as part of the 1990 Montreal Protocol. F-gases are therefore often portrayed by their manufacturers as ‘environmentally friendly’. However, they are highly potent greenhouse gases and therefore have become an important element of the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP), which since 2001 has been the EU’s main forum for discussing and developing policies to combat climate change and meet Kyoto demands.[4]

In most appliances, natural alternatives with negligible GWP compared to F-gases are either already available and widely used, or are in development.[5] For example, Greenpeace and German company DKK Scharfenstein introduced ‘Greenfreeze’ hydrocarbon refrigerators into the European market in the 1990s.[6] Now, fridges made by major European [and Japanese] companies such as Siemens and Bosch are nearly all F-gas free. Big food corporations are switching to F-gas free commercial refrigeration.[7]

Despite this and to the disappointment of many, in 2003 the European Commission’s initial proposal[8] for regulating F-gases focused on containment rather than out-right bans. This meant a focus on how the substance is handled, preventing leakage, instead of limiting the use of it. Furthermore, internal market law was chosen as the legal base for the proposal instead of EU environmental law.[9] This effectively prevents individual Member States from imposing their own bans or introducing stricter rules. This is significant because countries such as Denmark and Austria, have been pursuing national F-gas bans and are supporting the switch to alternatives.

After two and a half years of discussions, the F-gas Regulation is nearly finalised. At the end of October 2005, a crucial European Parliament vote may bring fundamental improvements to the current proposal.



While the makers of products using F-gases in many cases have the option to switch to alternatives, Fgas producers have a great interest in sustaining their use. DuPont’s Annual Review in 2004 states that: “With global patent rights for three critical HFC refrigerant blends, DuPont is poised to benefit from implementation of the Montreal Protocol […]”. DuPont is expanding its F-gas activities in China, a fast-growing air conditioning and refrigeration market.[10] Honeywell and Arkema (part of oil giant Total) are doing the same. Clearly, patent portfolio’s and investment strategies are at the core of the industry’s current offensive and their battle against any F-gas phase outs. In 2002, new F-gas factories were proposed or under construction in European countries like the UK, France and Spain.[11]

The failure of the US government to take meaningful action against global warming is well known. US producers of alternative refrigerants such as hydrocarbons, argue that the absence of US action against F-gases is due to political pressure of pro-F-gas groups “that are closely linked to DuPont”.[12] As a non-signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, the US government and US industries often characterise European initiatives that seek to take action against global warming as barriers to trade “under the guise of environmental protection”.[13] However, it became apparent that in the EU, F-gases were going to be subject to some kind of regulation. So the F-gas industry devised a more European and ‘green’ façade, in order to take action to keep any impending regime as weak as possible. To this end, in 2000, the ‘European Partnership for Energy and the Environment’ (EPEE) was founded.

The EPEE presents itself as the ‘voice of the European refrigeration and air-conditioning sector’.

However, the 23 members on the ‘European’ member list are mostly American or Japanese multinationals with plants in Europe (DuPont, Honeywell, Lennox, Baltimore Aircoil, Copeland, Carrier, Daikin, Hitachi, Mitsubishi and others). The absence of most European refrigerator manufacturers, including Siemens, Bosch, Miele, Delonghi, AEG and Liebherr,[14] is highly significant, as they have all largely switched to alternatives to F-gases.


The most vocal lobby on the F-gas regulation has undoubtedly come from the F-gas producers themselves, either through EPEE or the European Fluorocarbon Technical Committee (EFCTC)[15], part of the chemical industry lobby organisation CEFIC. All five members of EFCTC are also members of EPEE.   Other industry sectors lobbying on the F-gas regulation represent the variety of uses of F-gases:             [The] producers of foam, cars, fire fighting equipment and food companies. All are worried about the costs of transition to alternatives. Large food companies like McDonald’s got involved in hope of subsidies for their switch to F-gas free refrigerators. The CIAA (food and drink industry federation) recently got involved to oppose bans that would affect other companies that have not yet switched.

Opposing the pro-F-gas lobby, green NGOs like Greenpeace and Climate Action Network Europe, along with producers of alternative refrigerants, have fought for the EU to adopt a much more far reaching approach to reduce F-gas emissions.

There are significant gaps in the membership list which is available on the EPEE website[16], such as EPEE founding member: the US Airconditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI).[17] The ARI is closely related to the ‘Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy’ (ARAP). Both are based in Arlington, Virginia, near Washington.[18] The EPEE and ARAP are closely linked, with largely overlapping memberships. The only two companies listed as “US” members of the EPEE (Rheem Manufacturing and Lennox International), are very involved in both lobby groups. Dave Lewis of Lennox International is chairman of ARAP. All the other US companies are listed with their European offices. The names of the two organisations include typical terms such as ‘Alliance’ and ‘Partnership’, ‘Responsible’ and ‘Environment’, and reflect a decade-long tradition of industry front groups working against progressive social and environmental legislation.[19] For many years, US and EU multinationals had the ‘Trans Atlantic Business Dialogue’ (TABD) at their disposal for co-coordinated transatlantic lobbying.[20] The TABD was founded in 1995 as an initiative of the European Commission and the US government. This controversial body grants these companies privileged access to high level policy makers. When refrigerants became an issue, a ‘Refrigerants Group’ was set up within the TABD, on the US side, headed by the Air conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI).

Following a 1994 EU proposal to unilaterally ban certain ozone depleting HCFCs[21], the European Commission was criticised by the TABD Refrigerants Group and accused of being “unresponsive to industry input and facts”.[22] A few years later, the TABD focus shifted to the F-gases. Responding to a Danish government plan to ban certain F-gases by 2006[23], industry took action directly to the European Commission. Reporting on the Cincinatti TABD summit in December 2000, the ARI newsletter states that: “The Refrigerants Group briefed Peter Horrocks, the EU’s Environment Head of Sector, and Gerhard Lohan, the EU’s Enterprise Head of Unit, for nearly two hours on the merits of long-term HFC use”.[24] Refrigerants remained a major issue at later TABD meetings.

As demonstrated later, the privileged access that the TABD offered to the F-gas industry influenced key concepts in the first Commission F-gas proposal. The TABD also played an important role in paving the way for a European twin organisation to ARAP to establish itself as a ‘credible stakeholder’. From its inception, the EPEE has served as a platform from which the European decision makers, media and public are supplied with the ‘green’ F-gas message.


In Brussels, public relations (PR) firms play a key, but opaque role in assisting corporate lobbying. The EPEE is an example of this. The EPEE website does not reveal that the group’s Brussels operations are by and large run by public affairs giant Hill & Knowlton, located on 118 Avenue de Cortenbergh, one of Brussels’ lobbying hotspots.[25] The EPEE has the maximum permitted number of four (previously six) lobbyists accredited with fulltime access passes to the European Parliament on its behalf.[26]                                                                                                                   All but one are Hill & Knowlton employees, registered as ‘EPEE’.

Hill & Knowlton consultants designed EPEE’s lobbying strategy, do the organisational work, and conduct most of the lobbying of EU officials and parliamentarians. While the content and approach of ARAP’s arguments have evidently been copied to EPEE, the EPEE website is more stylish and has a distinctively more ‘green’ flavour to it. Hill & Knowlton claim that thanks to its work, “EPEE has become a legitimate and credible stakeholder in the refrigeration policy debate”.[27] In a very similar manner, the ARAP is established and run by PR firm Alcalde & Fay in Washington.[28]


The EPEE lobbying strategy is clearly focused on greening the image of F-gases. To the United Nations, the EPEE claims a commitment to “contribute to the development of effective European policies to reduce greenhouse gases from the use of refrigerants”.[29] Meanwhile to industry, ARI president William Sutton talks about how: “[…] the EPEE […] is fighting against the possible phase-out of HFC refrigerants in Europe”.[30]

ARAP/EPEE claim that the environmental benefits of F-gases are (1) they replace ozone depleting CFCs, (2) their potential energy efficiency compared to alternatives in some appliances, generating less CO2 emissions. It is argued that (3) with maximum containment, leakage into the atmosphere can be prevented. Diverse arguments are used to discredit the alternatives like hydrocarbons (4).


The founders of the EPEE were actively engaged in the fight against the phase-out of CFC’s.

According to internet sources, Hill & Knowlton has in the past assisted in the defense of CFC’s by downplaying its role in the destruction of the ozone layer. Dr. J. Masters, meteorologist, notes how in 1975, when scientists first discovered the ozone hole, Hill & Knowlton was hired by the CFC industry to organise a month long speakers tour around the US for a ozone-skeptic scientist to discredit the discovery as just a ‘number of theories’.[31]

Later, the CFC industry took control of the situation and supported CFC phase-outs, as they saw benefits from the opening market for their replacements, F-gases. Meanwhile, their lobbying continued to slow down the speed of CFC phase-out. For this initial purpose, the ‘Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy’ was founded. This Alliance was later renamed the ‘Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy’.

Kevin Fay (of PR company Alcalde & Fay), then director of the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy, was quoted commenting on the Montreal Protocol as: “it goes much further than anything we think is necessary”.[32] Mr. Fay is still active in the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy as a special counsel.[33]

The companies behind ARAP and EPEE, former producers and promoters of CFCs, should not be given any credit for the global move towards CFC phase-out. Furthermore, the fact that F-gases are non-ozone depleting does not make them ‘environmentally benign’ as F-gas companies often claim, as they are still highly potent greenhouse gases.

1.)  The very first impression about the EPEE, given by the website’s flashy introductory film, is its concern with the hole in the ozone layer. However, it fails to say that the alternatives to F-gases are equally  non ozone depleting. Moreover, EPEE members like DuPont,  Solvay and Daikin have made a fortune out of ozone destroying CFC’s in the past, and were initially opposed to their phase outs.[34]  

2.)  For many appliances, alternatives to F-gases are not less energy efficient.  Hydrocarbons are used on mass scale and are very energy efficiently in home fridges. The energy efficiency of a product tends to depend on the design of the system used. More investments would speed up the development of energy efficient appliances using alternatives to F-gases, like hydrocarbons, ammonia or CO2.                        

[Editor’s note: water  or CO2 can be used for air conditioning
see other information on this web site.  & at end of this page  ]

3.)  The total greenhouse emissions of an F-gas product depends on how much F-gas ends up in the atmosphere. There is still no agreement on actual leakage rates. The Institute for European Environmental Policy  (IEEP) has recently published a report that questions the leakage  percentages under the Dutch containment model that the draft EU F-gas regulation is based on. According to IEEP, percentages may be allowing far higher emissions than the often quoted 4.8%.[35]

4.)  The F-gas lobby constantly refers to the alternatives as ‘flammables’ (especially hydrocarbons), despite the fact that hydrocarbon fridges have proved completely safe. The TABD Refrigerants Group even requested that “the EU Commission and Member States recognise the need for the management and containment of all refrigerants, regardless of the type”[36]. This would mean that CO2 as a refrigerator would have to be contained and recycled after use, despite its negligible global warming potential compared to F-gases. This ‘request’ was clearly meant to reduce the attraction of more cost effective alternatives to F-gases.


In a variety of different ways, the F-gas industry is able to achieve political influence, thereby putting competing alternatives at a disadvantage. For example, in the UK, last year a report[37] was published based on documents provided by Calor Gas, a hydrocarbon producer, demonstrating how alternatives to F-gases were treated unfairly in UK standard setting procedures. The F-gas interests were consistently over-represented in numerical terms during technical committees setting standards for air conditioning and refrigeration. According to the report, the UK government largely left the standard setting process to industry, resulting in negligible external oversight. “This then perpetuates the status quo”. Since participation in standard setting working groups is very costly and time consuming, “[…] it is rare for any contribution […] to come from any source other than well-financed interested parties  within industry”, says the report. Calor Gas referred the matter to the UK Office of Fair Trading.


In 2000, the European Commission started work on a legislative proposal to address F-gases, as part of the EU’s efforts to meet its Kyoto commitments. A special Commission ‘working group on fluorinated gases’ was formed. DG Environment was given prime responsibility for the issue, in close cooperation with DG Enterprise. The participants’ list of this working group is not available on the European  Commission website. At CEO’s request, DG Environment responded the list could not be found.[38] As the list shows, there was a clear lack of representation of the non-F-gas refrigerant industry, as well as of public interest NGOs. The F-gas industry, on the contrary, was well represented by both individual companies, the EPEE and the EFCTC. Working group members were principally invited, but could also apply themselves. The uneven composition of the working group may be because of a biased invitation policy. However capacity issues among NGOs and the non-F-gas industry, combined with a lack of awareness of the political process may have also contributed. However, such working groups have an advisory role, and it should be stressed that it is up to the Commission to decide to what extent their advice is reflected in legislative proposals. Jason Anderson of Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe, the only NGO representative on the working group[39], reports that “the fluorocarbon manufacturers, with a vested interest in F-gases, were most  vocal, as well as several industry groups with long working relationships with the F-gas industry. Producers of alternatives were represented by only one or two people.”[40] In relation to the content of the proposed regulation, there are two key issues. First, its legal base – Art. 175 (Environment) allows member states to impose stricter rules than EU law demands, whereas art. 95 (Internal Market) does not allow this flexibility. Second whether the focus should be on bans or on containment.
The Commission proposal of August 2003 largely reflected the wishes of the F-gas lobby
on these two key issues:

• Article 95 (Internal Market) was decided to be the legal base. 

• The focus of the proposal was on containment, using a Dutch model for handling F-gases, rather than on phase outs of F-gases (except for some uses that are emissive by nature, and HFC134a in car air conditioning).

According to Anderson, the working group did not really discuss the legal base. “Industry always  advocated the legal base to be art. 95, while NGOs at first focused on getting ambitious legislation – but the resulting weak ambition and art. 95 was the combination industry was aiming for”. The Commission’s choice for art. 95 seems illogical as primary aim of the F-gas regulation is to combat climate change. Peter Horrocks of the European Commission’s Directorate-General Environment described the choice of art. 95 as a “political compromise”.[41] According to a parliamentary advisor of the Greens, other sources in the Environment Directorate suggested that the demand for art. 175 as the legal base was the result of horse-trading with DG Enterprise. Greenpeace reports that former Environment Commissioner Wallström was forced by the rest of the Commission to accept the art. 95 as a legal base; “or else she would get no legislation at all”.[42]

On the bans vs. containment debate, Anderson sums up the result from the working group as: “NGOs wanted containment and phase-outs. Industry wanted containment. So the Commission said ‘everyone agrees on containment, that’s enough,’ even though that was clearly the minor part of the NGO  agenda.” He believes that during the period between Spring 2001, the end of the working group discussions, and Summer 2003, the adoption of the Commission proposal, “[the] industry probably did an effective lobby”. Anderson published an extensive critique of the final report of the working group, arguing that the report not always “accurately reflected all the views expressed” and “characterises consensus where no consensus was reached”. He points to a clear lack of data in some cases, where in other cases “reliable data was ignored by opposing industries”. On alternatives, he notes that, “Alternatives have not only been too little considered, the language referring to them is consistently biased in a negative way”.[43]

Once the Commission finalised its proposal, the EU Council of Ministers and the European Parliament took over the process. The first reading at the Parliament ended in March 2004 and brought no      fundamental changes to the Commission proposal. However, in October 2004, the Environment Council of Ministers (the Member States) reached a political agreement, which decided to split the proposal into two: a Directive on emissions from mobile air conditioning, and a Regulation which covers the rest. The Council decided on a dual legal base for the Regulation: Internal Market and Environment. In another area, to EPEE’s great relief, the list of possible bans was not extended, despite requests by the governments of Austria and Denmark for such bans.


After the summer break of 2005, Parliament is once again holding the playing cards. Following 2004’s Parliamentary elections, and the enlargement of the EU with ten new Member States, the political landscape has changed and new positions have been taken. To the surprise of many, the new rapporteur on this issue, Christian-Democrat MEP Avril Doyle (Ireland) is proposing art. 175 (Environment) as the single legal base for the F-gas Regulation. She has also tabled an amendment to include an additional ban on F-gases in home refrigerators. The single legal base art. 175 is supported by shadow rapporteur Liberal Chris Davies (UK).

Since the F-gas proposal has been split in two, the Parliament Legal Service has insisted that art. 175 should be the legal base for the F-gas Regulation. Yet, the European Commission’s DG Environment has not changed its position.[44] Doyle’s proposals are a serious threat to EPEE’s ambitions. It has stepped up its lobbying activity directed at MEPs and designed to ensure they refrain from fundamentally amending the proposal. As the EPEE newsletter states, the group aims to “ensure that the achievements made at first reading are not jeopardised during second reading”.[45]

With such positions taken by both the new rapporteur and shadow rapporteur, the EPEE has worked hard to find other allies. Liberal MEP Holger Krahmer (ALDE) was prepared to host a closed lunch lobby meeting for the EPEE on September 14 2005, following the F-gas discussion in the EP’s Environment Committee.

The lunch was attended by a number of MEPs[46] and commission officials from DG Environment and DG Enterprise. Despite Krahmer’s enthusiastic personal slogan ‘To make Europe more Transparent’[47], a Greenpeace representative was at first refused to attend. Only after another MEP intervened, Greenpeace was grudgingly allowed in. Mahi Sideridou (Greenpeace): “Again, the industry gentlemen there were saying ‘no’ to absolutely everything – no to art. 175, no to additional bans. They used the case of the Ozone Depleting Substance Regulation, which is based on art. 175, as a disastrous example of allowing for flexibility in Member States.” Her point of view, on the contrary, is that the right for Member States to take stronger measures to combat ozone depleting substances has delivered vital results in the EU fight against ozone depletion, and has had a global market knock-on effect. The fact that MEPs attending the EPEE lobby lunch were served this specific example, could not contrast more with EPEE’s self created pro ozone protection image.


Members of the European Parliament often complain about the lack of time and resources to collect the information necessary to make good judgements about highly technical issues. Quoted recently in the ‘European Voice’, MEP Hartmut Nassauer, points out that at EU level, in contrast to the national level, “there is no government or administrative body linked to the European Parliament so when there is an important directive such as the REACH chemicals legislation, it is important that there are lobbyists who have relevant knowledge”. MEP Chris Davies, shadow rapporteur on the F-gas regulation, confirms that much of the information that comes to him is provided by lobbyists. In his view, the producers of alternatives to F-gases have not been lobbying nearly as strongly. However, the Parliament Environment Committee has rightly not been influenced by this imbalance of information. In its last vote, demands for additional bans were accepted, as well as for a single legal base Art. 175.


On 11 October 2005, members of the Parliament’s Environment Committee proved unconvinced by persistent industry lobbying against F-gas phase-outs. Support was given to phase-outs in domestic refrigeration (four years after the entry into force), in commercial refrigeration (by 2010), in air conditioning (by 2010), in all foams (by 2009), aerosols (by 2006), as well as in trace gases (by 2006). There is a proposal to ban SF6 – the most potent of all F-gases – in all but one appliance (by 2008). Moreover, the Committee chose for a single legal base ‘Environment’ (art. 175), which would allow Denmark and Austria to keep their existing bans and allow other countries to do the same in the future.[48] Before the vote, rapporteur Doyle dismissed complaints that a single legal base art. 175 would disturb the internal market. “With respect, industry’s protests are nonsense. We employ a legal opinion and we should listen to our legal opinion”, she said.[49] The Parliament Committee also agreed to support fiscal incentives for producers of alternatives. In an internal note, Hill & Knowlton consultant Mary. B. Walsh reports to the EPEE members that “[…] the overall result is not good for EPEE with the Committee having accepted a single environmental legal base as well as a the full range of use bans affecting  the Various RAC appliances as proposed”. And: “This means we have our work  cut out for us to get the wider Membership of the parliament to move  against the position as adopted by the environment committee.” [50]


In its final stages, the F-gas Regulation has become a target of the “better regulation” campaign of Commissioners Verheugen (DG Enterprise) and Barroso (President). This means that the F-gas directive has been put on the list of legislative proposals, published 27 September 2005, for which a reassessment on the economic impact on business is required. Given the advanced stage that the F-gas Regulation has reached in terms of a decision point, even DG Environment is left wondering what motivation has included it in this list.[51]

Ironically, the double No vote to the EU Constitution in France and the Netherlands, is being used in support of this deregulation drive. It is claimed that the populations in both countries would have rejected the Constitution foremost because they want ‘less Brussels bureaucracy’. Despite clear messages that many people, instead, want a green and social Europe, Barroso and Verheugen presented a list of ‘absurd’ laws to be slashed, and reassessment demands for other regulatory initiatives that might bring additional costs to industry.

Corporate Europe Observatory filed an ‘access to information’ request to DG Enterprise, asking access to all communication and meetings between Commissioner Verheugen and DG Enterprise on the one hand, and business groups on the other, in the context of the establishment of this ‘better regulation’ list. The European Commission replied that no such communication or meetings had taken place.[52] After some weeks of uncertainty, it is now clear that the legislative process of the F-gas regulation will not be delayed because of the economic assessment.[53]

In the days before the decisive European Parliament vote, Hill & Knowlton is co-ordinating the EPEE fight back. An internal EPEE document describes in detail which lobbying action is to be taken by which EPEE representatives, towards MEPs, the Commission and the Member States.[54] Mary Walsh of Hill & Knowlton writes:

“[we] need to do all in our power to ensure the negative amendment don’t get a majority of 367” The leaked document gives a unique insight into the multi-faceted lobbying offensive orchestrated by Hill & Knowlton on behalf of its corporate clients.[55]


• Towards the ‘Trialogue’ meeting between the European Commission,  Parliament and Council, Hill & Knowlton will compile a list with “input against each ban”, that will the basis of all lobbying by EPEE members.  Hill & Knowlton will set up meetings with ‘critical MEPs’ to “ to influence  the voting list across the political group and nation positions.” 

• In the Environment Committee, the aim is “finding friends who can put  doubt on results on critical bans and legal base amendments and carry  the message to wider parliament”[56] Chairman Florenz (EPP, Germany) will be targeted specifically by CEFIC.

• The Parliament Industry Committee on the other hand, is labelled as a  ‘natural ally’, and key players from this Committee are to be mobilised to  “advocate to wider membership”. 

• Also&in the Internal Market and Legal Affairs Committees, Trade Committee and EUAUS delegation, MEPs are selected to be contacted[57]. 

• There is still consideration to try  and “get a political group or group of  MEPs to table any plenary amendments.” To influence the Commission, Hill Knowlton will contact the Cabinets of Dimas (Environment) and  Barroso (President) to “ensure steady on legal base”. 

• ‘NC’ (CEO: most likely referring to Nick Campbell, of Atofina Total, EFCTC, and CEFIC) will talk more to DG Environment, and there is “ongoing  contact with DG Enterprise”. 

• As  for the Member States, the EPEE says: “Calm panic ahead of  COREPER  (CEO: Permanent Representatives Committee) meeting. Ensure  favourable national governments more active in briefing”. The  ‘favourable’ national governments will be “pushed” to “brief  national MEPs ahead of plenary vote to ensure fully informed and well thought out vote”. 

•Notably, the last minute strategy of EPEE should include an “overarching  consideration to push SMEs argumentations as part of EPEE approach – important these and SMS member are brought to the fore in the lobbying”; despite the nearly complete absence of SMEs in EPEE membership [.]

• The broad message will “call into doubt the Committee approach as a whole” (CEO: Committee must mean the EP Environment Committee), argumentation on each ban will be developed, and the legal base  argumentation will be “reworked to short crisp statement”. Daikin suggests an emphasis that varying positions of Member States will “slow down the development of ecologically sound alternatives”.[58] The fact that the F-gas lobby succeeded in effectively gaining control of the initial phases of EU decision-making is a stark and concerning example of policy capture by vested interests. The lack of clear rules for the establishment of European Commission working groups and advisory committees has contributed to this situation. Balanced representation of all stakeholders should be ensured, as well as safeguards against policy capture. Improving transparency is no less crucial. As it is now, democratic scrutiny of the Commission’s decision-making processes is impossible.

These two steps, rules for a fair political process and transparency, are imperative in order give decision-makers and the public a real chance to judge to what extent the Commission fulfils its role ofsmaking proposals in the common European interest.sMore generally, EU decision-making around the regulation of F-gases has suffered due to the hidden nature of lobbying activities. Mandatory registration and disclosure of lobbying expenditure – as sproposed by the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation (ALTER-EU) – would reveal who is lobbying whom, on what issue and with what budgets.[59]

In the case of F-gases, this would have given MEPs some insight into the financial resources pushing competing technical viewpoints. It would also clarify the financial interests and the role of PR/PA firms in lobbying platforms like the EPEE. And it would have revealed just how much money the F-gas producers have invested in preventing a phase-out of their climate-destroying products, compared to the far smaller amounts at the disposal of pro-environment lobbyists as well as the producers of less harmful refrigerating gases. The annual turnover of corporate lobbying in Brussels is estimated to be between 750 million euro and one billion euro.[60] This far outweighs the budgets available to public interest NGOs, trade unions, small businesses and others trying to prevent commercial interests from capturing and dominating the EU decision-making.


The lobbying battle around the EU’s F-gas regulation is an example of industry being divided.

On the one side major F-gas producers teamed up to prevent any phase-outs. They had the most to loose. On the other side, only a few of the producers of alternative refrigerants were actively involved. Users of  F-gases are often able to switch, but are looking at economic benefits for switching to balance the costs.

Those corporations wanting to prevent a phase-out of their products and a fast transition to environmentally friendly alternatives for refrigerating gases, invested far more resources in a lobbying effort to shape EU regulations in their interest. Indeed for a while, it looked as though they would be successful. The coming weeks will show whether these companies will get away with this attempt to subvert the EU’s decision-making process. Regardless of the outcome, however, the companies involved should be held accountable to the role they have played in this lobbying offensive.

Some EPEE members are corporations with a carefully nurtured green image. Solvay and Dupont continuously claim to be committed to ‘corporate social responsibility’ (CSR). Visitors to the Solvay websites, will find a site dedicated to Sustainable Development[61], and can read about how the company is a “responsible citizen that pays taxes, contributes added value and sustainability to the community and shares its expertise and skills”.[62] They will not, however, find any mention of the company’s engagement in the EPEE and the attempt to prevent a phase-out of F-gases. Dupont is even more eager to portray itself as a frontrunner in ‘corporate social responsibility’ and has for instance joined the Global Compact, the UN’s voluntary initiative “to promote good corporate citizenship”.[63]

The financial and other support of these companies for the EPEE’s lobbying to weaken the EU’s F-gas regulation is a clear case of a mismatch between CSR claims and lobbying strategies. Lobbying transparency obligations would help increase the public scrutiny of the CSR images designed by these corporations and disencourage inconsistent lobbying.


Fluorinated gases (F-gases, HFCs) were pushed onto the market as replacements for CFCs, which caused ozone depletion and were in the process of being banned. However, F-gases are highly potent greenhouse gases. F-gases are, and increasingly will be, in most cases replaceable by environmentally friendly alternatives like hydrocarbons. [water & CO2]. ]But multinationals like DuPont and Honeywell are determined not to give up their globally expanding F-gas business. Their lobby groups in Washington, the Air conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) and the ‘Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy’ (ARAP) effectively used the Trans Atlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) as a platform to oppose F-gas bans by individual EU member states, and to influence the currently debated F-gas Regulation from the very start of the drafting process.

To make it look like a genuine ‘European’ lobby with an environmental focus, ARI founded the ‘European Partnership for Energy and the Environment’ (EPEE). Public Affairs company Hill & Knowlton was hired to run the EPEE lobbying campaign. The EPEE is the European version of the ARAP. The ARAP was founded to defend the interests of CFC producers like DuPont, that at first strongly opposed the ban of CFCs. Now, the ARAP and EPEE alike, fiercely promote F-gases for their non-ozone depleting qualities, while downplaying their global warming impact. The original European Commission proposal reflected the privileged access that the F-gas industry had to the Commission before the drafting process started, and industry’s dominating voice within the Commission’s working group on fluorinated gases. Producers of alternatives to F-gases and environmental NGOs were highly under-represented. The F-gas Regulation is now in the final phase of the second reading at the European Parliament. The EPEE is targeting Members of European Parliament (MEPs), but also the Commission and the Member States, in an ultimate attempt to prevent important changes that would allow for more bans on F-gases and have been proposed by the Environment Committee of the Parliament. These changes threaten much of the F-gas industry’s earlier lobbying achievements. Internal EPEE documents reveal the exact details of the lobbying strategy laid out by Hill & Knowlton. At EU level, there is a great need for transparency rules for lobbying in order to facilitate public scrutiny over important decision-making processes. At this moment, such transparency is virtually nonexistent.


1.)  For EUA15, that is cutting greenhouse gases to 8% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. 

2.)  A commonly used refrigerant for example, HFC134-a, contributes 1,300 times more to global warming than CO2 and stays in the atmosphere for over 14 years. Other HFCs reach levels of 6,000 to 10,000 GWP, while SF6 has a GWP of nearly 24,000! High Global Warming Potential Gases,  information sheet of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

3.)  Briefing on the climate threat posed by F-gases, MIPIGGS, September  2004. 

4) . European Climate Change Programme, Report– June 2001

5.)  Examples are ammonia, CO2 and hydrocarbons. Propane, a hydrocarbon, for example has a direct GWP of less than 3 compared with HFCA134a 13,000 (over 100 years) and an atmospheric lifetime of months as opposed to 15 years.

6.)  Greenfreeze–A Revolution In Domestic Refrigeration, Greenpeace, September 1997.


8.)  Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases, 2003/1089 (COM), European Commission, 11 August 2003.

9.)  Art. 95, Internal Market, instead of art. 175, Environment.

10.)  DuPont and Zhonghao Finalise HFC Refrigerant Joint Venture, March 2004.

11.)  Briefing on the climate threat posed by F-gases, MIPIGGS, September 2004.

12.) The age of hydrocarbon refrigerants has arrived, Idaho Observer, April 2002.

13.)  “It appears that the European Parliament is willing to enact discriminatory non-tariff trade barriers to US products under the guise of environmental protection”, Dave Lewis quoted in Alliance Calls on US Government to Oppose European HFC Equipment Ban, ARAP press release, March 2004.

14.)  Some European associations like AREA (an association representing refrigeration and air conditioning installers) declare to be EPEE member, although they are not on the EPEE membership list. 

15.)  Members are: DuPont, Ineos Fluor, Arkema, Solvay Fluor and Honeywell. 


17.)  The ARI is not only a ‘founding member’ of EPEE, but also EPEE newsletters can be found on the ARI website, as well as dates of EPEE meetings in Brussels. The ARI members are encouraged to become member of EPEE. 

18.)  The ARAP board of directors includes people from DuPont, Honeywell, Lennox, Carrier, Copeland, Maytag, INEOS, Solvay, York International, General Electric and ATOFINA. 

19.)  Many example can be found on the website of Source Watch 

20.)  See also TABD in Troubled Water, CEO Briefing, October 2001. 

21.)  Council Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 of 15 December 1994 on substances that deplete the ozone layer.

22.)  TABD Special Issue, EABC Newsletter, October 1999. On file with Corporate Europe Observatory.

23.)   See the overview of national government action on the website of the Multisectorial Initiative on Potent Industrial Greenhouse gases 

24.) Air-conditioning and Refrigeration Institute newsletter, Koldfax, Vol.&27,Nr. 12, December 2000. On file with Corporate Europe Obse rvatory. See also TABD in Troubled Water, CEO Issue Briefing, October 2001.

25.)  This location is also home to PR/PA company Burson Marsteller, see also House of Mirrors; Burson-Marsteller Brussels lobbying for the bromine industry, Corporate Europe Observatory, January 2005. 

26.)  If you look at it from the Hill Knowlton perspective, running EPEE brings the additional benefit of having three extra lobbyists (Philipp  Bruchert, Marc Limon, Mary B. Walsh) accredited at the European Parliament on top of the five currently registered as Hill Knowlton  lobbyists. 

27.)  See the overview of clients on the Hill Knowlton website.

28.)  David Stirpe of Alcalde Fay serves as the Executive Director of the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy. Kevin Fay is ‘special&counsel’ to the ARAP, and ran the former ‘Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy’. 

29.)  EPEE submission to the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological 

Advice (SBSTA) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 27  February 2002.


31.)  The Skeptics vs. the Ozone Hole, J. Masters, Chief Meteorologist,The Weather Underground, Inc. 

32.)  The+Hole+in+the+Sky, John Gribbin, Bantam Books, New York, 1988. 

33.)  About Us, ARAP website, checked October 2005. 

34.)  The phase out of CFCs was never a major problem to these companies, even a benefit.  Investments in more specialised, higher cost HCFCs had already been made, and the Montreal Protocol forced consumers into those substitutes. 

35.)  Is STEK as good as reported? Institute for European Environmental Policy, June 2005. 

36.)  Transatlantic Business Dialogue concerned about trade barriers, May 2001. 

37.)  The capture of standards by the F-gas industry, Chris Rose for MIPIGGS, 2002. 

38.)  CEO finally obtained the working group participants list from CAN Europe. Parliament staff confirms that the Parliament is not informed in a structural manner of the composition or deliberations of such Commission working groups, that have the opportunity to greatly influence new proposals. 

39.)  Then called Climate Network Europe, CNE. 

40.)  Telephone conversation with Jason Anderson, formerly working for CAN (then CNE).

41.)  Telephone conversation with Peter Horrocks, September 2005. 

42.)  Personal conversation with Mahi Sideridou, Greenpeace, June&2005. 

43.)  NGO comments on the draft final report of the ECCP Industry sub-working group on Fluorinated gases, 25 April 2001, published by CAN Europe. 

44.)  Telephone conversation with Mahi Sideridou, September 2005. 

45.)  EPEE news, June 2004.  

46.)  Doyle, Davies, Florenz, Prodi, Jackson, Drčar Murko, Brepoels, Weisgerber, Krahmer.


48.)  E-mail from Mahi Sideridou, 11 October 2005. 

49.)  MEPs ratchet up planned EU curbs on F-gases, Environment Daily 1959, 11/10/05. 

50.)  Internal EPEE note by Mary Walsh (Hill Knowlton / EPEE), 11 October 2005. 

51.)  Telephone conversation with Peter Horrocks, DG Environment, 6 October 2005. 

52.)  E-mail from Mrs. Viviane  Andre, DG Enterprise, 6 October 2005. 

53.)  Fluorinated gases and climate change, Eur-active dossier. 

54.)  Internal EPEE note composed by Mary Walsh, Hill Knowlton, seen by CEO. 

55.)  This document confirms the active participation in EPEE of  the ARI, the  ARAP, and the JRAIA        (the Japan Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Industry Association). 

56.)  Contacts to be followed up are listed as follows:“Doyle/Davies (?)/


Jackson/Sonik/Trakatellis/Wijkman/ Roth Behrendt/McAvan/

Linemann/ Tzampazi/ Sormosa Martinez / Whitehead/ Maaten / Prodi”. 

57.)  For Internal Market: Whitehead, Newton Dunn, Rizzo; for Legal Affairs: Garganis, Lehne,Lopez-Isturiez, Wallis. 

58.)  However,a stronger national regulatory approach, especially in combination with economic incentives, can create a very beneficial environment for SMEs. 

59.)  See 

60.)  “A spoonful of sugar makes the message go down”, European+Voice,
Vol. 11. No. 33 : 22 September 2005.


62.)  Towards&sustainable&development 2004A2008, Solvay, 2004.

63.) Source:

blue line

Sanden Hot Water Heat Pump and air conditioners use

industry-leading technology – Ozone friendly refrigerant R744 (CO2

blue line






blue line
“ Fluoride seeks out minerals such as magnesium and binds
with it, 
making magnesium unavailable to the body…”

blue line


F. Makes Us Infertile and Ill

Kevin Mugur Galalae

Please read this carefully in its entirety, distribute it widely.
This is a large PDF file – and little slow to load…

↓  ↓

Why Water, Milk & Salt Fluoridation Is Making Our Children Infertile, Feeble-Minded & Ill

We keep a copy of this in case the original is ‘lost’.
(We thank you Kevin Mugur Galalae)



    “Fluoride seeks out minerals such as magnesium and binds with it, making magnesium unavailable to the body and unable to do its work. The magnesium-fluoride mineral produced is called sellaite; it is almost insoluble and ends up taking the place of magnesium in hard tissues like bone and cartilage, but its brittleness makes the bone susceptible to fracture. The reduction in available magnesium causes a decrease in enzymatic action in the body.”
Excerpts from  ‘The Magnesium Miracle’ by Dr Carolyn Dean.


Green strip

ehp-logoPlasma Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Concentration
and Menstrual Cycle Characteristics in Preconception Women

[ Note all the ‘F’s are for Fluoride ]

Wei Zhou,1* Lulu Zhang,2,3* Chuanliang Tong,4 Fang Fang,1 Shasha Zhao,1 Ying Tian,1 Yexuan Tao,2,3 Jun Zhang1 and for the Shanghai Birth Cohort Study

Our study found that increased exposure to PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and PFHxS was associated with higher odds of irregular and long menstrual cycle and lower risks of menorrhagia in women who plan to be pregnant. In contrast, women with higher levels of PFOA, PFNA, and PFHxS were more likely to have hypomenorrhea.

Full text   HERE  Important


Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes -Mexico

Green strip


See also: ‘ Minerals for the Genetic Code’  by Charles Walters


Alum. Aluminium sulphate was removed from Sydney water
supply in 1994 – suspected of causing Alzheimer’s disease.
aluminium hydroxide gel is used as a vaccine adjuvant.


Bone/joint problems-Fluorosis


Factors Often Overlooked In Fluoridation Research




“Pharmafoods” – How to hijack your brain and body.


 Ovarian Cancer & Fluoride


 Fluoride and Novichok  




“As is normal, the solution to pollution is dilution.
You poison everyone a little bit rather than poison a few people a lot.
This way, people don’t know or notice what’s going on.”

Some of the articles or pieces posted on this web site contain copyrighted material.
Credit is given to the author and links are provided to the original source. 
We believe that this constitutes a ‘fair use’.











This post may be of special interest to environmentalists, farmers, foresters and gardeners.
New water sources – ‘Primary Water’ and water treatments, recent findings, land and water managements, irrigation, book lists, and web-sites are presented, plus some information
on fire management, and its history in Australia, banking, space research, health and
some modern history updates.
  Be Amazed – Keep Reading And Watching !  



Blue Lake National Park, North Stradbroke Island, Queensland



We are a non-sectarian, not-for-profit,
non-government organisation, and we are
all volunteers.
We are NOT asking for money.

Last update 12th Jan. 2022


50 Tons of Cures for Coronavirus – China – Vitamin C


Sinkholes -The ground breaking truth- 

Very interesting – images from around the world.


Tracking Aluminium Used to Purify Tap Water Kobe, Japan (SPX) 23 June 2016





The Borax Conspiracy
How an arthritis cure has been stopped – by Walter Last


Dr. Masaru Emoto

The Japanese researcher who experimented with

the crystal forms of water


Libya’s Great Man Made River –



Muammar Gaddafi Interview

with George Negus – SBS Australia

Just before Libyan Revolution [ February 2010 ]

Libya’s Great Man Made River 



Extract from report by Kenneth Davidson
Senior columnist at ‘The Age’

With his kind permission~ 

In Australia there are three desalination plants, two more being built, and two more proposed.

     Where tests have been made available (from plants on the Gold Coast and at Kurnell in Sydney), the results show the average boron content of reverse osmosis desalinated water was about 0.5 mg/L and the level rose higher as the filters aged. Boron is a threat to public health. This is recognised by toxicologists.

The Harvard Medical School in 2008 said: 

 Boron should not be used in children under 18. Deaths have occurred when boron was taken by mouth or applied as a topical cream on infants 

At the same time this conclusion was reached, the World Health Organisation and the National Health and Medical Research Council (which publishes the Australian drinking water guidelines) increased the recommended standards from 0.5 milligrams of boron per litre to 2.4 mg/L in the case of the WHO and 4.0 mg/L at the NHMRC. These doses are based on adults with a body weight of 60 kilograms (WHO) and 70 kilograms (NHMRC) respectively.   This means that what may be acceptable for an adult of average  or above-average weight may be harmful for children and toxic for babies. [ However see also »→ HERE ]



1)  Toilet– to reverse osmosis– to tap water assumes to make fresh drinking water that is safe, but unfortunately this depends on factors that are out of the control of water districts and also will require addition of caustic soda, sodium hydroxide or Drano, into water, where sodium does not belong in fresh drinking water, to maintain the normal alkaline pH we have in Southern CA. RO removes items that are larger than the water molecule. Fluoride is only now able to be removed well by engineered RO units, where the ion is smaller than the length, and luckily larger than the width, of the water molecule. Unfortunately though, lithium, used as a drug to alter brain function and other purposes in industry, cannot be removed by RO, being at 90 picometer radius far smaller even than the tiny fluoride ion with a 119 picometer radius.  Lithium is now found in community water supplies, some being natural, but much from drugs, axle grease chemicals, lithium batteries, and other chemical wastes that become disposed into sewers. Water districts do not routinely test for lithium, so any San Diego ‘approval’ of toilet-to RO-to tap water would have little meaning.

The only mechanism that can separate lithium from water to make it potable is distillation, or as in nature, evaporation of ocean water (with its dumped treated sewage) by the sun to form rain and snowfall. This information was forwarded to Mayor Sanders yesterday.

2)  LITHIUM is now being touted as an anti-suicide drug that should be added to water supplies under the pretense of saving the several thousand suicide victims we have in the U.S. annually. The argument is based on the fact that lithium is often found in natural water supplies at 0.03 ppm or higher in some regions. These promoters who believe in ‘eugenics’ claim it ‘has no effects on humans’ (to silence critics) and yet at the same time claim it lowers suicide rates, which obviously if true and not a false correlation, is affecting behavior of people in ways yet unknown and with brain side effects, after permanent ingestion, not assessed. A lobotomy is known with certainty to prevent suicides–does this mean we should treat all people with a lobotomy to spare the 13,000 expected suicide victims this coming year? – Of course not. Further, the highest suicide demographic in the U.S. today is the U.S. military for reasons not certain. are we to drug the U.S. military with lithium to decrease this high suicide rate? – Again, absurd.

3)  San Diego is a famous fine tourist destination, where people from around the world come to visit a perceived paradise. The tourism industry in the city would be placed at severe risk once any toilet to RO to tap water program were instituted city-wide. How many visitors would feel good about using water in a city where water was so scarce people were forced into such a recycling mode?

4)  San Diego’s Mayor already approved fluosilcic acid contaminated materials to be injected into all city water supplies (while blaming this on a CA law intended to help teeth but which was based on falsely correlations and extrapolated observations), so it is puzzling why the Mayor told the news media that the use of toilet–to RO–to tap is the ‘hardest decision he will ever make’. Excuse us!!, but we citizens already made the decision by voting twice against fluosilicic acid injections. For every 150 tons of fluosilicic acid added into San Diego water supplies (which began February 2011), 88 tons of contaminated water and 50 tons of sodium hydroxide (not present in natural fresh drinking water) accompany the 12 tons of fluoride it also contains. For sodium alone, this has been the straw that broke the camel’s back, where avocado production has been substantially reduced by the total sodium present in city water supplies now. Sodium abatement is a National problem, particularly in the Southwest where the Colorado River has hundreds of industrial waste emission points that are allowed to release a ton of salt daily into the River. The final injection by water districts of Drano to minimize the acidity of the fluosilcic acid treated water was sufficient to elevate sodium to 93 ppm which is known to be growth-inhibiting for many plants.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D. chemistry,

           UCSD; currently Palomar College, San Marcos, CA 


Do Australian Cities Have The Wrong Approach To Recycling Water? 


Meet Irish Pioneer -Tom Prendeville

MIRACLE GROW: Treated water results in larger, healthier crops, says
Professor Austin Darragh of Limerick University
25 August 2013

A groundbreaking new Irish technology which could be the greatest breakthrough in agriculture since the plough is set to change the face of modern farming forever.

The technology – radio wave energised water – massively increases the output of vegetables and fruits by up to 30 per cent. Not only are the plants much bigger but they are largely disease-resistant, meaning huge savings in expensive fertilisers and harmful pesticides.

Extensively tested in Ireland and several other countries, the inexpensive water treatment technology is now being rolled out across the world. The technology makes GM obsolete and also addresses the whole global warming fear that there is too much carbon dioxide in the air, by simply converting excess CO2 into edible plant mass.

Developed by Professor Austin Darragh and Dr JJ Leahy of Limerick University’s Department of Chemistry and Environmental Science, the hardy eco-friendly technology uses nothing but the natural elements of sunlight, water, carbon dioxide in the air and the minerals in the soil.

The compact biscuit-tin-sized technology, which is called ViAqua – meaning ‘life water’ – converts 24 volts of electricity into a radio signal, which charges up the water via an antennae. Once the device is attached to a hose, thousands of gallons of water can be charged up in less than 10 minutes at a cost of pennies.

Speaking about the new technology, Professor Austin Darragh says:

“Vi-Aqua makes water wetter and introduces atmospheric nitrogen into the water in the form of nitrates – so it is free fertiliser. It also produces the miracle of rejuvenating the soil by invigorating soil-based micro-organisms.

“We can also make water savings of at least 30 per cent. When the water is treated it becomes a better solvent, which means it can carry more nutrients to the leaves and stem and percolate better down into the soil to nourish the roots, which in turn produces a better root system. Hence the reason you need less water and why you end up with larger and hardier crops,” explains Professor Austin Darragh.

Extensively tested in Warrenstown Agricultural College, the technology is being hailed as a modern day miracle.

Harold Lawler is Ireland’s foremost Agricultural Specialist. As Director of the National Botanical Gardens and former Master of Agricultural Science at Warrenstown Agricultural College, he has carried out more research on Vi-Aqua growth-enhancing technology than perhaps anyone else in the world:

“In the bedding plants we really saw a difference in the results; they were much hardier and tougher. You could drop a tray of these plants on the ground and they would not shatter, like ordinary plants.

“We also noticed that the treated plants needed far less fertiliser than the untreated ones. The roots took the nutrients in better whereas with other normal plants leaching of minerals occurs,” explains Harold Lawler.                                                    



»→  CleanDrinking Water Out Of Thin Air  ←«

Images of over six devises.





[ gpm = Gallons Per Minute ]



Lake Elisnore 


See the three web sites below:

[This is not the  process known as recharge.]

1)  Primary Water – Bill Cox

2)  Primary Water Theories | Bloom the Desert


See also the book ‘Devining’ by Christopher Bird  – ISBN 354 043889


»→  MAJORITE  ←«



Watch interview with Al-Gaddafi »→ HERE


~  Libya’s Great Man Made River by Muammar Gadaffi  ~



Muammar Gaddafi orchestrated the biggest irrigation project in world history by tapping into Primary Water cycle all throughout Libya.

See more »→  HERE

     Keep in mind the water “control” boards will NOT tell you about ‘Primary Water’. [In Australia most of them would have never heard of  ‘Primary Water.]  We are told water comes from rain and snow-melt which is the ‘Secondary Water Cycle’ – atmospheric water.


. We are not told about the ‘Primary Water Cycle’.  All water originally comes from down below the mantel of the earths crust where hydrogen and oxygen merge creating vapour that is forced under pressure to the surface becoming the pure fresh water. We are being told water is running out and we have severe water shortages. – — This is NOT true.


[ Welcome to Planet Earth! ] wavy-blue-line


Much of the [early] Roman’s water was channeled through lead pipes.


Marcus Aurelius :

perform-as-it-it-was-yor-last.. Romans-LeadHitory

  → PEWTER  

Extract from: 


❝ …The ancient Romans used lead for making water pipes, cooking utensils, water tanks and storage vessels. Lead water pipes were used in most major cities in the empire. Wine was cheap in ancient Rome and Athens and it was contaminated with lead from as many as 14 sources during its preparation. Lead was used as part of the preservative and as a flavour enhancer. Even the Christian sacramental cups of that era were the kind that were made of  lead or leaded bronze common at the time.

Apathy and gluttony have been associated with the decline of the Roman Empire.

It may have been the lead in food, water and wine which caused the apathy. Musonius, a Roman writing in the first century A.D., observed that masters were weaker, less healthy and less able to endure labor than the servant class. Those who grew up in the country were stronger than those who grew up in the city. Those who ate plain food were likely to live longer and have less of the diseases associated, by hindsight, with lead poisoning. These were “gouts,” “dropsies” and “colics.” This is as close as anyone got to discovering chronic lead poisoning in the Roman Empire and leaving a record of the hypothesis.

The rich received more than their share of lead poisoning because they could afford more of the sources of lead contamination. When soft water sits in lead pipes, it leaches the lead from the pipes. In ancient Rome, the rich controlled most of the public water outlets. The first drawn water of the morning, which had been sitting over night absorbing lead, was a privilege of the rich. The evidence suggests that the offspring of parents with lead poisoning were more likely to be underachievers and had a high infant mortality rate. Chronic lead poisoning persistently destroyed the Roman aristocracy, thus creating a scarcity of good management. Old aristocratic families died out only to be replaced by others who suffered the same fate. Nriagu conludes that lead contamination was a major cause of the decline of the Roman Empire… ❞

Credit to Dan Montgomery  –  Original  ↓ ↓

And if you think that was unwise, find out how many thousands of kiometres of asbestos water pipes
are in Australian cites and towns
being damaged by fluoride and chlorine ! ! !

[ Earthlings are very slow learners! ]


A short must watch 

   Hydrothermal electricity clean and green



 by Kelly Roberson



Vaccines – Problems…

The Surprising Leading Contributor to Pollution: Agriculture

Vanadana Shiva speaks at “FOOD OTHERWISE” conference Netherlands 2014






EEMP logo


The lessons of ‘The Loess Plateau’ Nation Project (China)






~ These few books can alter your mind ~ and maybe save our planet – be amazed…

Living Water image


Viktor Schauberger and the Secrets of Natural Energy

Translated by Kit and Charles Zweigbergk



Blood Oil – A new book by Leif Wenar


Water for Every Farm

by ©  P. A. YEOMANS   1978


The City Forest


The Keyline Plan For The Human Environment Revolution
First published 1971 – Full text on-line » HERE  ←«

❝ Complicated – I will never think about city planning and farming in the same way again.
 If you ask me, P.A. Yeomans is the Nikola Tesla of irrigation and soil building.
diving into this book, you should familiarise yourself with
‘Water For Every Farm’, otherwise his techniques won’t
make any sense. ❞



1947, English Book – Illustrated edition. Water for the inland is a brief and vivid outline of conditions in the out-back of Queensland in which is embodied the Reid and Dr. Bradfield Water Schemes by A.W. Noakes. Noakes, A. W. (Albert William)




The Bradfield Scheme was envisaged by Dr. John Bradfield, a Queensland-born civil engineer,
who also designed the 
Sydney Harbour Bridge and Brisbane’s Story Bridge.

The scheme would divert water from the Tully, the Herbert and the Burdekin Rivers, across the Great Dividing Range into the Flinders  and then into the Thomson River. The water would eventually flow to fill Lake Eyre.


Ploughman's Folly image

by Edward H. Faulkner – 1945

An engrossing simple argument about something that affects us all.
It is not just about ploughing, but the cycle of life;
how we are degrading it and how we can easily improve it…

Full text on line  »→ HERE  ←«


↓ This is one of the first major environmental books ↓

An Agricultural Testament-image

~ AN AGRICULTURAL TESTAMENT ~ by Sir Albert Howard 1943

Full text on line  »→  HERE

More info »→  HERE  ←«



This is a rare out of print book identifying what these plants
using todays botanical names – beautifully written.



↑  Full Text ↑



The Clifford Hugh Douglas Institute

The History Of Social Credit

Our economy is “floating on an ocean of debt”

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system,
for if they did, I believe there
would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.
~ Henry Ford, 1922

 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

paper-money-image douglas-and-quote-f


Your understanding of money will

never be the same after this VERY brief read 

See extract →  ‘It is time They Knew’

See also ↓

Barclay-Smith, C. (Colin), d. 1957

Also ↓

Should Glass-Steagall Be Reinstated?

A reinstatement of Glass-Steagall would better protect depositors. At the same time, it would create organizational disruption in the banking industry.  This might be a good thing, as these banks would no longer be ‘too big to fail’, and they could be managed effectively.


 A former principal researcher at the bank regulator APRA has revealed in a submission to a Senate inquiry that, contrary to government reassurances,  Australian bank deposits are NOT guaranteed !

We  r e p e a t  YOUR

Australian Bank Deposits are NOT guaranteed !

 US Dept. Clock

Watch this debt clock – slow to load – Do not watch this before going to bed  » HERE

If money doesn’t grow on trees, how come Banks have branches?


Free information on banking from the public domain   that deserves to be widely distributed.   

red-line-copy info-on-fire-management



The Main Causes of Bush Fire Are:

Feral Cats, Foxes, Lightning, Humans,

High Fuel Loads, And Insufficient Controlled Burns. 

     Regular controlled burns (5-7 years) need to be carried out at night or early morning during no wind, cool air, and high humidity. The cool air will take the smoke up rather than across roads and buildings, thus reducing complaints. Scheduled burns must be cancelled if these conditions do not prevail on the scheduled day.

Any water used for fire fighting or controlled burns, to dampened down boundaries or fight fires needs to have detergent added to the water, (Not foam). Vegetation is waterproof and the detergent will spread the water over the fuel rather than have it run to waste on the ground.

It is not necessary to have hot blazing fires for hazard reduction burns – small twigs, leaves and dead grass only – just enough to reduce the chances of a ‘crown fire’.  These burns do not have to be extensive – mosaic burning – patches, or strips; therefor minimal damage to the forest, this provides escapes areas for animals and also continued food supply and plant seeds for the future. [It can also help in the management of exotic weeds.] Crown fires destroy homes for humans and hollow trees for birds and animals. Fire is and will always be the constant enemy in Australia, and must be funded and manned the same as the other three defense forces, ‘A Home Fire Guard’. As wonderful the volunteers have been so far, they are not well funded and are not involved in hazard reduction burns, they fight fires, a dangerous task and the hardest work I have ever done in my life. The volunteer fire brigade is not attracting the young generation. 

If we do not have controlled burns – we will suffer uncontrolled burns:

Wild Horses Help Prevent Bushfires, Not Create Them!




Extract from Australian Alert Service – 2nd September 2020 

‘Bushfire Inquiry Report Downplays Fuel Loads’ 

The NSW Bushfire Inquiry Report released by the state government on 25 August [2020] downplays the need for to reduce fuel loads, and subscribes to climate alarmism despite expert advice to the contrary presented in numerous submissions to the inquiry. The state government has accepted all 76 recommendations in the Final Report, which it received on 31 July 2020. One of the recommendations calls upon the state government to support “more comprehensive hazard reduction at a local lever”, because in proximity to assets it’s “on balance more likely to provide help than hinder”. This is better than nothing; but a lack of emphasis on reducing fuel loads risks repeating tragedies in future [the] future…



Extract from page five ‘The Australian’ 31 December 2019

These fires occurred before the myth of  “Global Warming”.

Feb. 1851: Black Thursday, Victoria, 12 killed, 5 million hectares burnt, million stock lost.

Jan. 1939: Black Friday, Victoria, 71 killed, 650 homes destroyed.

Feb. 1967: Black Tuesday, Tasmania, 62 killed 1300 homes lost, 80 fires.

Summer 1974-75: Western NSW, 3 killed, 100 injured, 40 homes lost, 50,000 stock lost, 10,170 km of fencing burnt.

Feb. 1983: Ash Wednesday, Victoria – South Australia, 75 killed, 1900 hones lost.

Feb. 2009: Black Saturday, Victoria, 173 killed, 2000 homes lost.

(Watch this space for 2019 – 2020 fires.)

Fire is an enemy without a conscience-

controlled-burning-f fire-stick-burning




Thoroughly researched, with up to date information on every aspect of the subject.

‘I commend this book to every Australian… It could save your life’ – N.P. Cheney, CSIRO. Bushfire Behaviour & Management Group Background to Bushfires, bushfire cycles, bushfire behaviour, how to prepare for bushfire season, the decision – evacuate or stay and what to do when bushfire threatens, are all covered.


Joan Katherine Webster is an award-winning freelance journalist, a newspaper columnist, poet, broadcaster, stage and television drama and satirical comedy writer, and an historian. In 1988, in recognition of her work on bush fires. Joan Webster was appointed consultant to the Victorian Ministry of Education to advise on bushfire safety in schools and community refuges.

In 1990 she received the Australian Fire Protection Association’s Community Service Award.

 See  ↓ ↓ 




Be-200 Altair Australia Needs Several Breiev Be-200 To Fight Our Ever Present Enemy  –  BUSH FIRES 

The Beriev Be-200 Altair (RussianБериев Бе-200) is a multipurpose amphibious aircraft designed by the Beriev Aircraft Company and manufactured by Irkut. Marketed as being designed for fire fightingsearch and rescuemaritime patrol, cargo, and passenger transportation, it has a capacity of 12 tonnes (12,000 litres, 3,170 US gallons) of water, or up to 72 passengers.[1]   – [Far more useful than the new submarines!]



Julia Roberts is Mother Nature


 Conservation International 

Nature Is Speaking 


 Famous Last Words on “SECRECY”


 Susan Lindauer former CIA Asset


“So you thought you knew why it happened!”

Ex-CIA Asset Can Now Speak.. 10 years after 9-11


9/11 from space.


See →  ‘CLEAR INTENT’ ← More 

Clear Intent was a momental undertaking from authors Fawcett and Greenwood.
The fact that J. Allen Hynek 
put his imprimatur on the work
in the form of the 
book’s foreword speaks volumes.

Sign (1947–1949), Project Grudge (1949–1952), Project Blue Book (1952–1969).


– Adamski Foundation –


  UFOs & The Bomb 

Although most people are completely unaware of its existence, the UFO-Nukes Connection is now remarkably well-documented. U.S. Air Force, FBI, and CIA files declassified via the ‘Freedom of Information Act’ establish a convincing, ongoing pattern of UFO activity at American nuclear weapons sites extending back to December 1948

On 27 September 2010 Hastings hosted the UFO-Nukes Connection press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., during which seven U.S. Air Force veterans discussed UFO incursions at nuclear weapons sites during the Cold War era. CNN streamed that event live. ⇑ You may need an extra coffee to watch this!  ⇑


⇒ The Electric Universe 



  Electricity News




Mars Photos






Horace Drew – ‘Decoding UFOs & Crop Circles’ 2017 »⇒ HERE

just-follow-we-will-get-you-there-f fluoridation-queensland-logo