Our collectively violating children’s right to a fair start in life, and assuming children of color deserved much fewer resources and much more risk, did more to harm our values and missions than any entities have done good.
The Fair Start Movement offers a transformative approach to building a just, sustainable, and equitable world by focusing on equitable opportunities at birth. Why would we tolerate family systems that treat children of color as worth a tiny fraction of the wealth of white children, and deserving of exponentially more risk of dying in the climate crisis? Our research shows altering reproductive rights systems to ensure children’s rights could save millions of lives, and trillions of dollars, and that there is no legitimate system of valuation that does not start with reparative ecologies benchmarked to infant health and political equity.
From an FSM activist: “A friend and I consistently debate environmentalism. He was born to a wealthy family, enlarged that wealth by holding real estate, the value of which increased because of growth-based demand in California. That wealth – made at horrific environmental cost to mostly children of color – allows him not to work, and to elevate his own children’s choices in life even as other children are born into early deaths. That wealth allows him to travel – even enjoying access to private surf locations local surfers can never afford.”
Climate change and inequality are interconnected crises that disproportionately harm the most vulnerable, requiring immediate, systemic action. This is not a choice on a menu of public interest interventions. This work relates to the inescapable system of costs, benefits, and obligations we are all born into, the largest driver of outcomes, and the choice to exploit that system or legitimate it.
Fair Start activists came together because in the nonprofits in which we have previously worked, our collectively violating children’s right to a fair start in life, and assuming children of color deserved much less resources and much more risk, was doing more to harm our values and missions than we did to further them. And in many cases those organizations went out of their way to hide this. Liability for this will be litigated soon in various fora, including climate tribunals in Africa.
Key Question: “What are you doing to ensure children are born into conditions that don’t undo the benefits of the work you’re doing?” Visual: Infographic showing wealth inequality and its cascading effects (education, health, housing, and climate vulnerability).
Addressing the root causes of inequality and environmental degradation is essential to breaking cycles of systemic harm. The unfairness of the birth lottery robbed us of not only legitimacy, but freedom. There is no universe in which beneficial impacts, taken out of context from their relative position to birth equity, occurred. Use of such-out-of-context claims hides the fundamental driver for the deaths: Enabling the powerful over the vulnerable.
Inequality and climate change create cascading challenges for children, impacting their health, safety, and development. One of our grassroots partners in Africa lost a 300k pledge when the funder saw the organization calling for birth equity reparations. Charity and inequity yes, fairness not so much.
Our collectively violating children’s right to a fair start in life, and assuming children of color deserved much less resources and much more risk, did more to harm our values and missions than we did to further them. We all benefited from this, to one degree or another.
Exploiting mothers’ vulnerability to ensure growth, and not first ensuring reparative family reforms that assure children birth and development conditions consistent with the Children’s Condition, does more harm to all of our missions than we are doing good, because the power dynamics that choice creates is degrading the ecological capacity of the planet to ensure infant health – the first and only measure of value.
By ensuring just conditions at birth, we can address root causes of inequality, build resilience, and protect future generations. It’s irrefutable that the authority to govern derives from the governed – from each person having an equitable share or slice of political influence. But family policies have quietly broken the link, degrading democracy at a literally existential level as massive, birth-based disparities in influence grow and the average voice is diluted, drowned out in the crowd.
Fair Start’s intersectional and proactive strategies deliver impactful, scalable solutions for systemic change. Why we need it?
World leaders moved after 1948 to conflate the act of having and not having children under a singular umbrella of autonomy, rather than treating the former as requiring political equity for the child. This hid the nature of freedom, and the equity each has in their political system, by privatizing the creation of political relations. And it led to the measuring, assessing and reporting of public interest outcomes based on standards meant to take oneself out of one’s birth and development context, ensuring children of color were treated as deserving less and placing them at increased risk. This was the hiding, linguistically, of birthright white supremacy and massive death debt with a fraudulent assessment and reporting standard that inverted political obligation, hiding the need for nations to invest equitably in each child just to have basic authority over citizens – to be “representative.”
This is how we get to a world where leaders can say we are underpopulated, when we have exceeded Earth’s carrying capacity, degraded that capacity, disenfranchised the majority of citizens, and ensured the deaths of millions as temperatures rise.
A few moves we are making:
Tell the Truth Campaign: Litigation to set new standards for environmental and equity disclosures. We can legally require disclosures contrasting claims about values with the actual ecosocial baseline children need to experience value, and how their birth and development alters that baseline in a way that harms infants’ needs.
Celebrity Role Model Outreach: Engaging celebrities to advocate for the Fair Start model.
Fair Start Justice and Law Reform: Policy changes addressing intergenerational wealth inequality and climate migration.
Fair Start Climate Litigation: Redefining constitutional freedoms to include equitable birth conditions. The work will include unfair competition cases requiring disclosure of how growth undid claimed impacts, and interventions to litigation defrauding victims of climate reparations. Why do we need this? One of our activists was urged to withdraw litigation that would have set accurate measures for climate harm to children, rather than using the “fox guarding the henhouse” measures governments under pressure from the wealthy have created.
Prevent Child Abuse Before It Starts: Legislative reforms to reduce abuse and neglect through Fair Start Orders.
Fair Start Equity-Based AI Reforms: Ensuring AI development includes measurable equity-based family planning standards.
Fair Start Reparations: Projects like the Fertility Delay Fund and climate reparations pilot programs.
Microfinance for Family Planning: Interest-free loans to support equitable family planning.
Fairness Protests: Peaceful actions demanding climate reparations from major polluters.
The Tell the Truth and Act Campaign sets a new standard for accountability, fostering systemic change and equity for future generations. We need fair start, and Fairness Fridays, because while donors loved Meatless Mondays, the inequitable growth driving vegan food sales did much more harm than dietary change good. We have seen “animal rights” funders choosing growth-based food reforms that did more harm to animals than they were doing good, and just to make money, while holding themselves out as animal saviors to the public.
Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation
The Fair Start Movement begins simply with the fact that wealth in the world today was made through unsustainable and inequitable growth, at cost to children’s rights, in what some call the #famscam.
In the scheme, nations illegally evaded their obligation to only bring children into birth and development conditions compliant with children’s rights and with the measurable political equity from which legitimate governance derives.
They chose a form of unsustainable reproductive autonomy that was akin to the racist separate but equal scams, but one which will kill far more persons. Governments said we were equal and then ensured some children had nothing and others everything under the lie that parental autonomy could exist outside of political equity.
The many funders that framed and defined social justice over the last several decades never created real value in their vast wealth, relative to an objective standard like a healthy climate. Instead they first used inequitable family planning that benefitted their own families, ensuring for others dismal standards for child development and education, thereby violating their own professed values (like animal protection and bio-diversity) by treating people as economic inputs rather than citizens.
For years activists with Fair Start – in their prior employments – were urged by vegan investor-funders to focus on food reforms, the benefits of which – for animals and humans – were being undone by money-making growth.
The results were a catastrophic increase in overall demand and emissions.
The investor-funder’s kids are now thriving. More vulnerable children are now dying from the increased heat, disease, flooding, and fires.
They did this while benefiting from the appearance of inclusive and functional democracies where the average vote was actually being diluted to uselessness. A system of fundamental entitlements likely to kill millions of innocent persons, and which could instead have achieved better outcomes by actually investing in children, is generally considered a failure.
Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation
If you are worried about Trump and Musk as threats to democracy, ask yourself what your company was doing – at the most basic level of measurably empowering and freeing children as they entered the world – to actually protect democracy.
What in your company’s cost/benefit analysis covered the costs of children only being born into conditions consistent with the Children’s Rights Convention, the basis for human rights and democracy? Or did your company, like Trump and Musk, assume those kids were valuable economic inputs in your growth model?
Were you quietly enjoying growth-based investments that exponentially undid climate and animal protection reforms, and enriched those you criticize? Did your company make money on vegan food investments relying on growth, and massive wealth differentials for black and white kids, that did more harm than good?
We don’t get to justice through injustice, and punching down on infants and animals with zero actual birth equity protections.
Hypocritical companies, fake charities and nepotistic foundations that did nothing to ensure fair starts in life for all kids, which means measurable equity or effective shares in one’s democracy, created Trump and Musk at the most basic level.
Fair Start begins simply with the fact that wealth in the world today was made through growth and at cost to children’s rights because nations illegally evaded their obligation to only bring children into conditions compliant with those rights.
That standard – a demand for family planning resources to ensure children’s rights, which is the most basic standard for who our species should be – is how we can move that same wealth to try to fix the problem.
Many entities in those nations most responsible for the climate crisis are using the same fraudulent impact assessment and reporting standards, ignoring how children entering the world undid sustainable development impacts, that drove the crisis in order to hide their liability or the death of millions.
The rule: All climate reparations must be based on measurable collective self-determination. There are no values outside of that system, given climatological impacts on infants. We find and out those using any other standard, and hold them fully accountable. Government and those they entitle to wealth cannot redefine “harm” to avoid liability for the deaths of millions.
Language matters, and we cannot be free or contextually self-determining without communications that reflect or most fundamental obligations to others.
If we want to protect democracy our companies have to build it through the creation of actual power relations by starting at birth and, in the name of intergenerational justice, targeting key bad actors who lied about impacts while making their money at cost to children and animals.
They owe that money because they used fraud and unfair competition, omitting deadly costs in their public impact statements, in order to make it.
Humans are animals and our birth and development – our creation – is the largest determinant of nonhuman suffering. Our creation also determines at the most basic level how – through participatory democracy and representation – how our legal systems function.
But altering how we have children, for their benefit and the benefit of animals, is rarely discussed because creation ethics involve big questions of racial equity, climate reparations, personal responsibility in parenting, de-growth and liability for the charitable fraud that for decades hid the drivers of the climate crisis.
It’s easier to engage in performative animal rights and law, where we just talk about how legal language refers to animals or how vegan food reduces a small percentage of animals consumed, while the actual benefits to animals and vulnerable humans are undone via growth, and we benefit from a system designed around growth-based investments.
Critical generational studies, or macro animal rights, starts with the issue of creation – the first necessary condition for something to accurately or comprehensively refer to animal law, rights, lives, policy, etc.
This work goes beyond static intersections of the human rights that animal rights need, like the right to rescue on a micro level, towards fair starts in life for children that reduce the growth and inequity doing the most harm to animals, on a macro level.
Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation
In the middle of the Twentieth Century world leaders evaded future children’s interests and political equity as a basis for reproductive rights, mostly likely because it would have required heavy investments in racially equitable birth, development, and emancipatory conditions.
Leaders on the left and the right conflated by defining power very narrowly – as the violence of the state, rather than any form of human influence, so one would be free to terminate pregnancies, only to now die in a heat wave because one had no influence over climate policy, and could not afford air conditioning.
The lack of investment directly enabled catastrophic growth and massive inequality, which measurably did more harm than subsequent philanthropic efforts, all tainted by the desire to exploit the growth, did good because the outcomes today involve projections of millions dying in the climate crisis.
We know that this did more harm than good because evading children’s interests brought them into conditions that not only violated their rights, but thereby degraded – through things like extreme heat – the capacity of their ecologies to support what all children need. That inequitable growth simultaneously disenfranchised the average voter, seeding vast political inequity and blocking their ability to halt what was unfolding.
There is no way to assess value in the world that would not be measured relative to basic infant health and life prospects, including self-determination, because infant health and development is the objective basis through which humans experience all value, and the fundamental baseline for unifying values like health, equity, democracy, etc.
It is the minimum measure, or floor, for political legitimacy.
Much of the philanthropy we see today, which avoids discussion of how inequitable growth easily reversed infant development outcomes, does more to hide this problem than fix it. The omission of information on child entry conditions hides liability – and rights to self-defensive reparations – for deadly climate harm to millions of children of color who are born with a tiny fraction of the wealth of white funders’ kids.
Humans need law primarily to protect the vulnerable amongst us, so there is no law, or obligation to do what others say, in a system that starts with punching down on the most vulnerable. And if our oppression comes in our creation through a status quo that does not ensure minimum levels of welfare for kids at entry, it then seems impossible to see and remove without an objective touchstone – like offset, or zero, baselines –that change the status quo.
This year Fairstartmovement.org will engage in the Tell the Truth campaign, urging prominent social justice figures to admit failure as the climate crisis accelerates and kills millions.
At the base of all of the failures is their not having accounted for children entering the world, or the actual creation of power relations, when they urged reforms. That factor was undoing, every day, the benefits their reforms would have ensured. Instead, that factor resulted in the enrichment of a small percentage of mostly white families at deadly cost to countless families of color.
I and many others were encouraged to ignore that issue in our activism, for decades, so that the wealthy funders could take advantage of the growth and inequity driving the crisis.
This is not a debate. Tell the Truth means just urging key figures to disclose how the values they championed were undone – over the last three years – as children entered the world without the resources they need, and in ways that degraded their ecologies and disenfranchised them politically.
For example, we can urge Peter Singer to disclose how his animal liberation work, from the numbers of animals suffering and general impacts on welfare to daily violations of rights, was undone in the last three years by growth that benefitted his backers.
Ask him to relate the numbers to zero baselines that account for actual harm including the value of self-determination, like these, and not projections for food investments.
If we account for the climate crisis the numbers – in both fields he championed – will show him enriching vegan food and other investors, not benefitting animals or vulnerable humans. It’s not about intent. Yes, Exxon and others’ supply-side work drove emissions, but only in response to the same growth-based demand that Singer and others enabled (even if done so simply as a matter of negligence). And Exxon never claimed to be liberating animals.
Animal rights claims are the most falsifiable when we run the numbers. Is hype and a questionable legacy more important than staving off deaths in the crisis?
This goes beyond greenwashing towards fraud, and as deaths mount legal systems are evolving to prohibit drivers of the crisis like moving wealth in deadly ways through omissive messaging.
Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation
The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) has a lot of influence on family and health policy. They make decisions that impact our futures.
We are urging their lead, at the end of this message, to act.
The Fair Start Movement arose from a growing body of undisputed research that traces the climate and political crises we all face to a very specific mistake, made decades ago, in reproductive rights policy making.
Because we collectively used a false assessment and reporting standard disconnected from accurate measures of ecological and social harm, we never assured children birth and development conditions consistent with their rights. This allowed enough inequitable growth to degrade our ecologies and disenfranchise the average voter, leading to environmental catastrophe and the concentration of power in a few.
Those involved in Fair Start worked previously at nonprofits where leadership were knowingly undoing their claimed impacts, while enriching mostly white kids at deadly cost to countless children of color.
Fact: As we show in this work re-published Stanford University, violating children’s rights, and assuming children of color deserved a fraction of the resources and exponentially more risk did more harm to all of our values – like moderate temperatures, food security, and representative government – than any of our philanthropic efforts did good.
Did KFF value their growth-based investments and endowment more than kids? How did they not do that?
The fix? All must admit that truth, and now back a universally preemptive and restorative standard that treats the old standard as illegal, and reallocates resources into equity-based family reforms that encourage parenting delay, readiness, and child entitlements inverse to their parents wealth.
More specifically, we are bringing legal actions before state attorneys generals in the United States urging key target organizations making claims of beneficial impact to disclose how they were accounting for children entering the world in their claims for the last three years.
We believe that contrasting claims with the facts of declining infant and maternal health will show continued use of the illegal standard, which in many cases will give rise to legal liability for inaccurate claims leading to the deaths of millions. There is no universe in which beneficial impacts, taken out of context from their relative position to birth equity, occurred. Use of such-out-of-context claims hides the fundamental driver for the deaths: Enabling the powerful over the vulnerable.
Act Now
Drew Altman leads the KFF. Contact him on Twitter, or find and engage him in person, to admit fundamental system failure and to back this reform: https://fairstartmovement.org/fair-start-today-moves-to-standardize-climate-damage-evaluations-at-the-un-and-override-any-conflicting-standards/
Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation.
What the United Nations calls greenwashing begins as a much more deadly form of entitlement fraud. Wealthy families are literally using wealth made at deadly cost to the values they claimed to be protecting to drown out the voices of the most vulnerable.
To avoid black birth equity, the mostly white families that designed the near-universal reproductive rights regime bypassed equity entirely when defining reproductive autonomy, such that one can only use a thin form of autonomy to terminate their pregnancy, only to then die in a white-wealth-driven heatwave months later because they cannot afford air conditioning.
This move, of hiding the diminution of equity, relied on a sleight of hand: Defining freedom from power around the authority of the state to use violence, rather than broader definitions that would have captured all entitlements, like those between child and child-maker. The conceptions relied on almost all white and male theorists who abstracted far away from their own birth positionality, leaving us with abstract theories of liberation that would enable a climate crisis deadly to mostly children of color.
Crucially,Robert Nozick’s use of the fallacies described in this letter misdirected liberal political theory
Hans Kelsen theorized of a norm from which all others derived, but never included ecosocial, birth-based share equity in one’s democracy as the obvious most basic ought behind his positivist vision of law.
John Finnis envisions a list of natural rights, which does not include birth equity, and certainly not as foundational.
Cass Sunsteinchallenged common views on baselines, but never asks which generational, racial, national etc. position one should be in while assessing the idea of baselines, a question that seems determinative of millions of lives at risk as temperatures soar.
Contrast with these the work of Dr. Gabirel Bubu Ncha on early democratic women’s circles. WhileJoel Feinberg certainly envisioned every child’s right to an open future, and David DeGrazia comes very close to fairness in creation at the end of Creation Ethics, Ncha’s work on collective planning allows would-be parents to better ensure it.
These theories, minus the last two, are based on the misconception of existence without full positionality, and the abstraction of morality away from the creation of relations at birth. This thinking created decoys, like performative civil rights in employment or voting, masking birth inequity that would allow white wealth built on a lie of unsustainable growth. The theorists generally stopped short of requiring governance by free and equal persons because they did not derive an obligation to follow laws back to the measurable empowerment of subjects as constituents. They all seemed to focus on what the rules should be, not the emancipation or capacity to be part of a rule-making process, probably because they assumed capacity that given their positionality.
These families and their concentrations of wealth and power have not created value. Instead, they first used unsustainable family planning to create their own growing audiences and artificial demand by ensuring dismal standards for child development and education, treating people as economic inputs rather than citizens while benefiting from the appearance of inclusive and functional democracies where the average vote was being diluted to uselessness.
A legal impossibility.
Law is different from other disciplines because it norms can be coerced, and firstly on the idea that subjects are included as equals and thus made constituents. Constitutionalism, at bottom, premises obligation to follow the law on actual inclusion and empowerment.
Again, given the climate harm to future generations, and our obligations to repair the harm, it would be physically impossible to constitute accurately obligatory relations – legal / obligatory relations – at the most basic level without some sort of truth and reconciliation process around the admission and inversion of empowering future generations more than those at the heights of our economic and political hierarchies. Without fair starts in life, there is no capacity to form organizations capable of representative governance, via the measurable self-determination of its constituents.
Where else would the empowering relations come from? If defunding the police makes sense, it’s at least because our legal systems have never included constituents with measurable equity in a way that makes them capable of producing actual representatives, and laws – including property entitlements – that accurately represent the will of those subject to them.
How to see the fraud?
The claims these families make and fund are easily falsifiable, as are the claims of the funders backing decoy nonprofits that silo social justice into various downstream issues in order to hide upstream entitlement and reparations fraud, using a false premise to benefit from a system that undoes the good one seems to do. Focusing downstream, rather than on things like what Dr. Breeze Harper called the primacy of Black Birth Equity, avoids civil rights that actually account for the creation of power disparities in birth, development, and emancipation.
What we think of today as procreative or reproductive autonomy was nothing more than cover for not disturbing mostly white birth privilege and positionality. It was the skin of freedom, not the body. Here are some questions one can ask to identify the fraud:
If the claimant valued some outcome, who will cover the child inequity and entry costs to that outcome – growth undoing climate mitigation, for example – and evade more of it? Is the claimant doing more harm than good by ignoring entry without equity? Do they start with enabling the powerful over the vulnerable? Did the claimant spend more on undoing their mission than furthering it? What formula do they use to assess damages in climate, civil rights, environmental justice, etc. cases? How do they define the term power in the context of being free from power? Who is their intended audience?
This is a constitutive discourse. Again, this is not about population. It’s about lies and omissions to gain power by exploiting positionality. A concrete goal for a better future might entail functional constitutional conventions, where we can be self-determining rather than determined by others, and in concrete and measurable ways.
Animal rights, law and policy as the most falsifiable examples of reparations fraud on almost a dozen levels, but also the standard for the highest level of clawback payments.
If one factors in children entering the world in inequity, the claims of success and impact made by most animal protection organizations are being undone daily. And they are false, with more vastly animals suffering and dying through the creation of their relations with humans than these organizations save.
For example, many of the funders behind animal protections have been pushing what is a social justice movement for the most vulnerable, instead towardtowards investments in growth-based vegan food markets that do more harm to animals – by the numbers – than these funders and their leachy children do good.Many lawyers ostensibly working on behalf of animals made impact claims in this area that were easily being undone, every day, by inequity. Some call this the #demandscam, pretending to with one hand create value you undo with the other, and in a way that benefits the scammer at cost to others. In this case not only did growth do more harm to animals that food reforms did good, but that growth was replacing a chance for democratic relations with commercial ones via low investments in children, while concealing the death debt investors already owed for climate deaths.
FSM members were actually told, by a leading animal law professor who was accustomed to not having to link legal institutions to the measurable empowerment of their constituents, that fair start reforms were natural rather than positive law, and that one could work to save animals through food reforms while not altering the underlying retrodictive rights that would – each day – undo any gains from food reforms.
Given that animal liberation is the highest form of environmentalism (treating ecologies as the homes of entities who have relations, families, and lives of their own rather than a human resource) the cooptation of animal liberation is horrific. The ideal requires equitable human and nonhumans relations. Instead it is funded towardtowards flashy, downstream, low-impact, micro-level campaigns and victories that get easily undone on a macro level.
It is, by the numbers, the greatest example of “winner take all” greenwashing possible. Funders, and the performative advocates who take their money, decoy us all away from seeing animal law, rights and policy as the most demanding standard for who humans should become, ethically, because they would rather use an illegitimate system to improve their positionality and image than do the work of legitimating the system around liberation of humans and nonhumans.
Humans are animals. Seeing us as such moves us away from anthrocentric thinking that ensured the climate crisis, and will kill millions. So, what we refer to as animal rights and law focus on nonhumans not because of their species, but because of their unique vulnerability. Animal law is not merely law that refers to animals. Animal law would have to start with a capacity to actually protect nonhumans, especially in the creation of their relations with future humans who will determine much about their lives.Animal law in the best sense starts with inclusive birth and child welfare policies that create empathetic relations capable of benefitting animals.
So animal rights, law and policy, if we want to protect nonhumans, is just a system of obligation oriented around the most vulnerable, the most demanding form of law and justice. That system has to have the capacity to actually benefit the beneficiaries, not just pretend to. What does pretending to benefit animals look like? Look at most of the micro victories for animal rights and personhood claimed by organizations over the last few decades, and contrast those with the impacts of growth on animals, and the reality, at a macro level, of embedded nonhuman propertyhood in our archaic reproductive rights regimes. Animal rights in the comprehensive sense is not just ecological – it involves the mots demanding levels of empathy in future generations.
Why then not focus on infants and animals, and – at a macro level of inclusive animal personhood – the creation of fundamental power relations between the two? Those like animal rights theorist Peter Singer, and others, do not do so because that level of comprehensive vision involves equity, race, democracy, and other factors that require true tradeoffs against one’s positionality.
The wealthy families funding animal rights, law and policy, for decades, refused to deal with this issue because they wanted to benefit from a system that quietly harmed animals, while seeming to be their saviors. Animal rights and law, in this sense, starts with the actual creation of power relations as children enter the world, represented by the collective pronouns implied or expressed in all statements, including purportedly “constitutive” statements like “We the People.” It is the most demanding standard, eco or animal centric, rather than anthropocentric, or punching down on the most vulnerable. But for Singer it was more important to raise his position as savior in an illegitimate system rather than focus on a better version of a “we” to legitimate it, and that did much more harm to animals than he did good.
Singer’s version of animal rights and law, the abstraction away from the creation of actual relations, is just charade version of animal liberation they need: Value animals in the abstract with one hand, make money on growth and privilege at cost to them with the other.
Effective animal rights in the best sense is personally expensive, not profitable. It’s easier to ignore all of that and let the macro undo good for animals at the micro level. True animal rights and law focuses on the creation of power relations, and limiting capacity to harm others – the capacity that is the core of the Anthropocene and the antithesis of animal rights. True animal rights mean preemptive standards in things like assessing damages to animals (and children). If captivity harms elephants for example, it’s because it deviates from a biodiverse and less crowded world where elephants are free of most human influence, not deviation from a relatively dismal life at a sanctuary.
Animal law starts with moving away from anthrocentric systems, toward seeing humans as the animals that they are, and situating them in equity, before we should have any sense that they can be free. But, as a close source to Fair Start said: “This is all the organizations will pay you to do. And if you love animals, that’s better than working for nonprofits.” Actually, research in the areas suggests the charade does more harm than good by moving the goalposts of social justice, and that in fact those engaged in it would never do so if they were not otherwise privileged to do so.
Fair Start initiated whistleblowing in this area as the evidence arose that the climate crisis could actually reduce the carrying capacities of ecosystems, rather than just exceed them, and that birth and developmental positionality was the greatest determinant of one’s prospects to to live or suffer/die in the crisis.
Implementing the fix: Being effective means addressing the root cause, not the symptom.
The only way to engage in damage evaluation for reparations, and the fraud hiding them, is to peg them to a functionally inclusive baseline – children entering the world relative to certain counterfactual thresholds – that would not have caused the death of millions of innocent persons.
Accurate reparations – relative to one’s positioning or membership position in the fundamental system of political obligation – fixes the problem of share inequity in one’s democracy vastly undoing the good many claimed to have done. Without them admitting the harm and fulfilling their obligations it would be impossible for any of us to live in a system of collective self-determination.
We only owe others as much as they owe entrants into the world, because any claim of inalienable rights assumes fulfillment of a prior duty to others. One can use the discourse mentioned above, the questions, to force others to derive their thinking back to “might makes right” logic, such that they fall outside of any theory of legitimacy or political obligation that would create a duty ensuring their protection by others. Living such a logic makes those who refuse fundamental fairness – those who embrace missing a crucial step in the logic of their oughtness – fall outside of systems of mutual obligation.
Here are some indicia that an entity is engaged in fundamental, or constitutive reparations fraud:
They will silo justice into downstream issues to avoid dealing with the creation of power relations.
They will conflate the difficulty of inverting power systems with their desire to retain their privilege.
They will redefine values over time to evade having contradicted themselves when called for payments.
Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation
The climate crisis is not a distant threat, it’s is an urgent challenge for all of us, particularly in global south where vulnerable communities bear the brunt of climate crisis and inequalities impacts. As the world going with rising temperatures, resource depletion and extreme weather changes, Addressing systemic errors in climate solutions is vital to ensure a sustainable future for coming generations. A critical step that involves valuing neglected communities and integrating gender perspectives into climate action strategies.
Why neglected communities matter?
Neglected communities often on the fringes of mainstream development efforts possess valuable local knowledge and resilience. Indigenous populations, rural women and marginalized urban dwellers frequently adapt to environmental changes using sustainable practices passed down through generations. However, voices are often excluded from policymaking, leading to top-down solutions that fail to address unique challenges in today’s generation. Acknowledging these communities as partners rather than beneficiaries can drive more inclusive and effective climate action.
The role of gender in climate solutions. Gender disparities exacerbate vulnerabilities to climate change especially for women in the global south. Women carry responsibilities for water collection, food production, Care giving disproportion affected by drought, floods, resource scarcity. Remain underrepresented in decision making spaces like COPs. Empowering women and integrated gender responsive approaches can enhance equalities. Women Care groups in doing kitchen gardens, Agroforestry, animal protection, child saving and family planning as per fair Start standards have demonstrated innovative solutions and creativity to address the needs and climate restoration, food security, small family planning, child bonds and fair Start standards for families in the neglected communities from global south to save next generations.
Addressing systemic errors
Systemic errors in current climate interventions rooted from treating global south as a homogeneous group and ignoring the intersection of social-economic, culture, political, environmental factors based on
Participatory Approaches; policies must involve marginalized communities and ensure addressed concerns to the solutions.
Gender Equity; Funding and programs must prioritize women Care group model in climate restoration and adoption of Fair Start Movement standards
Decentralization; once top bottom system is changed to use bottom – up, cultures and indigenous knowledge can be valued in reshaping model.
A collective Responsibility.
Valuing neglected communities and gender in climate strategies is not a moral imperative but should be practical necessity. As global citizens, we must ensure Fair Start standards to advocate equality and equity in climate actions whereby most vulnerable communities have access to resources and voices hard and recognized in order to strive for the better future.
Few leaders/wealth people that make small percentage on this world should not decide on the behalf of voiceless and neglected communities from global south.
Call to Tell the Truth
In 2019, I came in to decentralize power of the system, I made a statement “The fight for climate change is not just a fight for only environmental degradation but also includes a fight for equality, justice and the rights to a future for every child, woman and men at forefront communities who deserve to be saved, empowered and voices Heard at international level because are affected more yet contribute less to the damage”
That’s because for many years I used system not inverting the power of the system to decentralize I used Village Health Team (VHT) system while working in the refugee settlement to address health challenges in the community in accessing public health and it was not in decent razing the power to women in addressing climate crisis and food insecurity that’s why I started using Women Care Groups in decentralization and address the cause of climate change not signs and symptoms.
Carter hiding in liberating animals using illegal standards here is the key false claim of Carter in 2016 and now is backing Women Care groups. What I did was similar to what Carter did in hiding the undoing of the liberation of animals.
COPs is failing to center climate Reparations and justice for neglected gender and communities to Fair Start standards.
The conference of Parties (COPs) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has become a global stage for negotiations on climate actions. Year after year, these conferences are criticized for failing to address the root cause of climate injustice at neglected communities and gender who are most vulnerable to the climate crisis. This failure is from lack of meaningful engagement and admitting the truth and putting structures of climate reparations in equitable manner and decentralized focused solutions. This failure undermines efforts to adhere to Fair Start Movement standards that prioritizes intergenerational justice and equity for future generations.
Damages/harms caused by wealthy people/nations are often the largest polluters from global north on the global south. Despite decades of advocacy, COPs have consistently omitted financial commitments to reparations, instead offering vague pledges that rarely translate into actionable changes.
Without clear structure reparations, vulnerable communities and gender from the global south with least responsibility for the climate crisis are left to bear the brunt of the effects. Failing to address these imbalances perpetuates cycles of inequality and extinction of next generations.
Omission of decentralization at COPs
Fair Start Movement emphasizes that true climate justice begins at community level (Decentralization) as based on the Afrocentric model. Indigenous women and local communities possess valuable knowledge about sustainable practices and ecosystem management whereas COPs negotiations frequently prioritize profit based solutions like carbon trading over nonprofit Decentralization systemic approach.
Impacts on black Americans in the system of white supremacy. Climate change is not just an environmental issue. It is a social justice issue disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. For black Americans, the overlapping crises of climate change and systemic racism within a white supremacist structure amplify existing inequalities and create unique vulnerability.
Climate change and environmental Racism
Black communities in America have been systematically neglected from wealthy building opportunities and relegated to neighborhoods with higher exposure to environmental harsh conditions. Industrial plants, landfills and highways are often located near predominantly black communities, leading to chronic health conditions such as Asthma, Allergies and others. Climate change exacerbates inequalities by intensifying extreme weather changes such hurricanes, heat waves and flooding in poor household air-conditioning.
In 2005, During Hurricane Katrina, more black residents of New Orleans were disproportionately affected. Many lived in low lying geographic areas more prone to flooding, lacked access to reliable transportation to evacuate and faced systemic neglect in disaster response and these results are not accidental but are results of policies shaped by white supremacy.
Economic injustice and climate vulnerability. The racial wealth gap leaves black Americans with fewer resources to recover from climate related disasters. Generations of poverty redlining and discriminatory practices in housing and lending have left many black families without adequate child bonds. The economic insecurity increases challenges of displacement, job loss and homelessness a rising from climate injustices and inequalities.
A voice from the voiceless: women care group leaders of western Uganda Speak to the global north.
“We are the women of western Uganda, members of women care groups, mothers, farmers and protectors of life. We speak not just for ourselves but for our children and the land we nurture. We are voice of voiceless, calling on you leaders and funders of global north to listen to our cry as the climate crisis tightens its grip on our lives. The rivers we once relied upon are drying. The rains we depended on to grow food come too late or too hard destroying our crops. The land we call home which we have cared for like a mother cares for her child is cracking and drying under the weight of this climate crisis and the world looks away. We, the women, feel this crisis most deeply. When water sources dry up, we walk longer distances to fetch water. When crops fail, it is our children who go to bed hungry. When mosquitoes grow, it’s our children who suffer from Malaria and some die. When disasters strike, it is on our hand to rebuild homes and lives and often with no support or recognition. The inequality is increasing, while we suffer the consequences of climate change. Knowing that the emissions driving this catastrophe come far away from factories, industries and lifestyles in the global north. We contribute the least yet we pay the highest price. We ask you global north leaders and funders: how can it be just our lives, our communities, our future sacrificed so others can prosper? How can you speak of justice while our cries are ignored? We are not just victims, we are also part of the solution but feel neglected at decision making, We may be neglected now but we are not powerless. We are speaking now and we will keep speaking until our voices are heard. Leaders of the global north, Funders and policymakers; will you hear us? Will you stand with us or will you turn away?”
The truth needs to be heard from you and shame the devil.
Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation
