Women care groups are responding to the climate crisis present today and using the Fair Start model at grassroots level following the norms of different cultures. Women care groups model was initiated in Uganda by the Rejoice Africa Foundation as the only tactic in responding to the climate crisis, family planning policies and reformation of children rights to help in birth equity and reparations to reach the most beneficial frontline indigenous women in remote areas. Africa is a continent with many ethnicities and different cultures and care groups work as a model to help in upholding cultures in different ethnicities. Our partner, Rejoice Africa Foundation is using women care groups on our joint project, Seeds for the Future.
Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation.
So what is Sternfels and McKinsey doing? He has a bigger problem than being wrong.
He and McKinsey are hiding liability for countless deaths in the climate crisis, because their vast wealth was made by not paying the costs – in fundamental systems of cost/benefit analysis based on assumptions about entitlements. Their wealth was made by never paying the full costs of evading the climate crisis, autocracy, and vast inequity.
Their wealth was made at cost to our freedom, environmentally, socially, and politically. You feel those costs every dat,
You don’t get to justice by starting at injustice. We don’t get to legitimate nations by having zero functional protections for children as they enter the world, and thus for the nonhuman world they will impact.In essence the proponents are using a shell/ponzi scheme, identified as such by Nobel laureates, which has caused the deaths of millions of innocent persons around the world.
The growth those violations enabled has degraded the capacity of the Earth to support infant health. This is exacerbated by vast inequity and political disenfranchisement that inhibits the ability of the average constituent to change our current trajectory, and all of this loss of freedom is measurable by widely accepted metrics used for assessing sustainable development.
And yet legal systems, and legitimacy, require the measurable inclusion of constituents in order to be representative, and to legitimately claim authority to ensure compliance with the law.
Sternfels and Mckinsey did not create value. They violated birthrights in externalizing costs in order to make money. And they owe that back.
This is not a right/left issue. We are all complicit.
None of us conditioned the legitimacy of our systems on actually fulfilling children’s birthrights, no one can explain legitimacy while continuing that error – or how we get to justice from injustice, and denying that the error underlies all we do clouds liability for climate reparations which can save lives.
That makes Sternfels what some call a key “legitimating barrier,” spreading misinformation to hide wealth that is owed to future generations, wealth that could be used to save lives.
Sternfels and other leaders at Mckinsey have thus done more to harm our shared values – like experiencing moderate temperatures and enjoying access to food and water – than they have done to further them. Sternfels has literally enriched his thee children at deadly cost to countless children of color. There are extensively peer-reviewed reasons his kids could inherit his death debt, a debt universally enforceable through crowdsourced mechanisms.
How do we ensure he and McKinsey are held accountable?
Several scammy organizations in high-emission nations have been running animal protection and environmental campaigns – our most demanding ideals – by fundraising on claims of reduced emissions, while total emissions and negative infant outcomes are rising, and the reductions having been vastly undone by growth-based political inequity. More and more children and animals have been brought into conditions with no resources with which to deal with the impact of the growing emissions, lack of political influence, and degrading ecosocial safety systems.
Human birth and development is the largest determinant of all outcomes we experience. It is thus the fundamental driver of the climate crisis – not just emissions, but political influence to control them, and and the resilience to deal with them. And yet even now, wealthy funders driving social justice reforms are hiding their liability for the violations, costing millions of lives and trillions of dollars.
The Fair Start Movement was formed as the world’s first constitutional watchdog to engage in fundamental fact checking, scanning for use of the same fundamentally illegal standard of entitlements that caused the crisis by those who would choose to avoid liability for the crisis, and for life-saving and legitimating reparations.
Our tactic is simple: We take impact claims made by public entities and interest organizations and we assess them against objective measures of ongoing losses of political equity and democratic influence, or a zero-baseline measure of the full spectrum of harm caused by the crisis. Fair Start does not replace downstream public interest interventions; it reorients them from preemptive, rights-based, legitimating and upstream base.
Under the Fair Start Tell The Truth campaign, we ask questions to bifurcate key influencers into the fair and unfair, and in the latter identify key barriers who should disclose how much of the value they claimed to create has been undone when we factor in violations of the rights of children, and animals.
Language matters, because it would be physically impossible to be free without accurate communications that capture how we fundamentally become legally obligated to others as they enter the world, and we are preemptively obligated to communicate in accord with that truth to be self-determining. In that discourse, how could we account for fundamental obligations without first ensuring children are born and raised in child-rights compliant conditions, the fundament of empowering relations?
If they are willing to admit owing costs to future generations, we urge key barriers to then shift some percentage of their resources to incentivize measurably fair starts in life for all kids as the most just and effective solution to the problems we face today. Legitimate nations begin with – or constitute through – rights-based relations, and Tell the Truth identifies “non-constitutive ” barriers: Those entities who refuse to derive authority and entitlement back to demonstrably empowering the constituents from whose political sovereignty these things flow and are conditioned upon.
TAKE ACTION: Urge Stenfels here to redo the report, but now accounting for this key cost: How children entered the world in conditions that violated their rights; degraded the capacity of the Earth to support infant health; and exacerbated vast inequity and political disenfranchisement that inhibits the ability of the average constituent to change our current trajectory.
In forthcoming work we will contrast the wealth his children enjoy, at deadly cost to countless children around the world, so that all can judge Sternfels full liability.
Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation
Those working in public interest often make claims, and choose definitions of things like “humane,” “green,” “child welfare,” “democratic,” “inclusive,” “legitimate” and “sustainable,” that give enough wiggle room for influential officials and funders to make money on inequity and growth driven investments, at cost to the freedom and lives of many.
They benchmark claims for the wealthy, not the vulnerable, and many are dying as a result.Like me, their statements #leftout that they begin from a system of entitlements that do not actually protect the most vulnerable, and likely undo the good they claim to be doing. These moves hid expensive liability that could move resources and save lives.
This back and fourth dialogue will show many starting from a self-serving position that risks millions of human lives and countless animals.
Between 2000 and roughly 2021, as a federal attorney, as someone teaching law, as a public interest litigator, and as someone creating content for media like the New York Times and other outlets, I avoided subjects that impact United Nations assessed climate “loss and damage” liability, and in ways that protect extreme wealth made at deadly cost to others. This illegally benefited some at deadly cost to many, in violation of things like the human right to a healthy environment.
I used wealth made at deadly cost to black children to promote low impact public interest work that wrongly implied the legitimacy of basic entitlements, further exacerbating risks to millions of other children. Often we focused on food law to benefit animals, because diet does not implicate positionality relative to discussions of share equity. This created an illusion of truth and value. I claimed a role in effective immigration and national security work, and victories in legal cases for animals and the environment, the impacts of which I and others knew were being undone by inequitable growth policies that violated human rights – policies from which we benefitted. Even when advised of the inaccurate nature of their claims, many organizations and their funders have simply persisted.
Animal rights and law is an area of public interest that shows the greatest disparity between what was said, and the actual policies chosen. In many universities I taught content, like cases, statutes, and treaties, as authoritative and justly enforceable through violence, knowing such claims were based on a fallacy that served me while deriving others of their entitlements. Whatever those cases, statutes, and treaties seemed to do in terms of ensuring beneficial change, they were being undone by insufficient neonatal and child welfare systems used to grow economies, a policy many animal rights lawyers ignore because it benefits them. I had one prominent environmental / animal rights professor urge me to avoid discussions of the need for ecocentric over anthrocentric family reforms, knowing that this would mean his children benefitting – through growth-based investments and otherwise – at deadly cost to others.
For the animal rights work I did, the omission hid that we did not help animals on balance, once growth and share inequity was taken into account. This created an illusion of truth and value by letting listeners assume certain entitlements, including ones antithetical to our mission. We also did this by ignoring conflicts of interests, including my own. To ensure legal systems actually protect animals would take massive reforms we never seriously attempted because we could raise funds – in what some have called off-ramp distractivism – without taking on such a massive thing. We knew donors often wear #blinders. It also let us silo off our work from unifying forms of social justice, at cost to those advocates and immediate benefit to us, and it let us ignore the way inequity-driven noncompliance with the law undoes the value of legal victories.
As social justice and animal rights lawyers we inevitably decried violence, but never backed the idea of defunding the police or military because that was a form of violence that benefited us – including the way growth-based birth inequity enriches white kids at cost to children of color. We wanted the benefit of a legal system in terms of coercively obligating others to do things in a system where we held prestige and rank, but not to cover the high costs of actually empowering others with influence over that system. When it came to others’ children, we could benefit again, exploiting them for growth even at disastrous cost to animals.
This account is from a leader on climate reforms in Africa:
An anonymous funder from the United Kingdom pledged to support Rejoice Africa Foundation with $300,000USD to do water project as charity, but not as obligations to cover the harm caused by the true costs of wealth. The wealthy funder, seeing our demands for reparation, then declined the pledge to support the water project in Uganda, as I was struggling to look for funders to pay such obligations because they allow us the dignity of living in the spirit of human rights, as equals who should not be harmed without restorative justice.
It was around this time that a child in a nearby village – Judith – died of Malaria – as the disease worsened, driven by the costs of wealth and with those costs – the climate crisis, the greater breeding of mosquitoes, no prevention measures in place.
Immediately after a while , another wealthy funder from the USA funded a conference with $50000USD, continuing to ignore obligations. The conference did nothing for children like Judith, and very little even for the animals the funder wanted to protect. What could they show? Many wealthy funders from global north have avoided funding Rejoice Africa Foundation because they want to pay as charity not as obligation hence causing conflict of results in climate reality in avoiding climate liability. Rejoice Africa Foundation would double work a $50k grant as an obligation. But most funders are busy not accepting to fund this initiative. Rejoice Africa Foundation would like to call funders to reconsider funding this initiative and invest $50k in women and children as the primary obligation to stop climate genocide.
[Note: Mwesigye Robert suffered from Malaria while fundraising for $3k in February/2024. Malaria in Uganda: 100% of total children go to health facilities every day. 40% are diagnosed with Malaria and 20 % of these children would get fully treated with anti-malarial and 15 % of these would go to buy treatment from private health facilities. 5% die from complicated Malaria due to lack of adequate treatment for Malaria. Yet in global north Countries, children don’t suffer from Malaria unless they are traveling back from Africa. Wealth imbalance is the cause of this and now leading to climate genocide.]
I omitted information because it benefitted me, and those that employed or funded me, or that published my work. My claims and work became a decoy, sensational minutiae, benefitting wealthy funders by evading costly investments in future generations, ones that would impede growth. Wealth made at deadly cost to others was literally used to drown out mostly black voices, voices that could have saved human and nonhuman lives. In some cases I urged others to avoid discussions of white supremacy, when the evidence is clear that gargantuan race-wealth disparities drive daily power relations all around us.
For example, one animal law funder who helped build programming at several leading laws schools made claims about benefitting animals. His underlying policy choices instead:
Created more demand for animal products, and thus suffering, death, and extinction, than the policies he promoted saved.
Did so while ensuring black children entered the world with a tiny fraction of the wealth of white children, which meant they would die in greater numbers from the ecological impacts the increased demand would create.
Elizabeth is the Founder and Executive Director of For All Animals (FAA) and for decades has overseen communications for nonprofits: She said:
“To truly measure the impact of our efforts to protect animals and the environment, we cannot review metrics in a vacuum. It is far too easy to manipulate impact by hyper-focusing on one positive outcome or extrapolating beyond acceptable mathematical standards. This not only presents a false narrative of success, but typically ignores the negative reactive implications. Fair Start’s approach requires us to examine individual crises as part of a whole, and highlights the global impact the recognition of a basic legal right to equity could bring.
We can’t fill shopping malls by cutting citizens off from being born and raised into town halls. The money that had been made by cutting many off is owed to first change the system, by elevating birth equity as the basis of all sovereignty. Self-determination, by any conception, means laws that protect the lives of beneficiaries of any political system only derive their legitimacy from the prior act of including and empowering – in a measurable way – future generations, rather than exploiting them and thereby disenfranchising and harming all of us.
We would all rightly ostracize anyone refusing to hire persons of color, and yet we embrace those defending their wealth made at cost to millions of black lives, when it could still save countless others. Many funders are changing their views on entitlements to avoid these deaths, and mounting #deathdebt if they do not.
Had I been asked the questions above, regarding children simultaneously entering the world as I made claims, I would have had to reveal failings in my and others’ assumptions. That would have prompted the beginnings of beneficial change.
The longer we wait, the more innocents will die. All justice starts with human rights and the dignity of expecting, in equity, the power you and your children are owed. Humans can only constitute the future through and accurate language of obligation and the creation of just power relations. It would be physically impossible to be free unless we see ourselves as, and act under an obligation of, being ruled by persons who will parent and the children they will have, rather than by those at the top, officials, wealthy families, celebrities, etc., who hide the mistake above, and who should only have influence to the extent the creation of others ensures measurable equity and the equal offset of their power.
Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation
Why? Scammy nonprofits ignored every child’s right to a fair start in life, and the need to incentivize better birth and development conditions that would have reversed growth, and reduced suffering. Many lied for the growth-based funders they served.
That means more children and animals are worse off, and that’s not even considering deadly climate crisis as shown the graphs below.
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.
Population growth has significant implications for political equity, vote dilution, and political representation, particularly in democratic systems. Here’s how:
1. Political Equity
As populations grow, ensuring fair representation becomes more challenging. In rapidly growing areas, political districts may become imbalanced, leading to underrepresentation.
Resources, infrastructure, and government services may not keep pace with population increases, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities.
2. Vote Dilution
Vote dilution occurs when the voting power of individuals or groups is weakened, often due to redistricting or changes in population density.
If districts are not redrawn regularly to reflect population shifts, some areas may become overrepresented while others become underrepresented.
In some cases, intentional gerrymandering can exacerbate vote dilution by manipulating district boundaries to favor one political party or demographic group over another.
3. Political Representation
Legislative bodies often have fixed numbers of seats, meaning fast-growing areas may be underrepresented until district lines are redrawn.
Minority and marginalized groups may struggle to maintain proportional representation if population growth skews the balance of political power.
At the national level, states with slower population growth may lose influence in bodies like the U.S. House of Representatives, which is based on population size.
Potential Solutions
Redistricting reforms: Ensuring fair and regular redistricting based on updated census data can help maintain political equity.
Proportional representation: Systems that allocate seats based on vote share rather than winner-takes-all districts can reduce vote dilution.
Increased legislative representation: Expanding legislative bodies (such as adding seats to Congress) could help accommodate growing populations more fairly.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 states 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 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.
We should not let those who benefitted from the illegal standard escape justice.
Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation
That hides the fact that the organization for decades has violated most of its mission parameters by relying on unsustainable and inequitable growth models that are killing millions while enriching those behind the organization.
The Fair Start Movement begins with the fact that wealth in the world today was made through growth and at cost to children’s rights because for decades nations illegally evaded their obligation to only bring children into conditions compliant with children’s rights. Anything that starts with less is inherently oppressive and non-inclusive. People, rather than documents, constitute nations as they are born, raised, and emancipated. We have an overriding or preemptive right to take the wealth that was stolen by using extractive growth to override children’s rights, and use the wealth instead to fund family reforms, or the constituting of a just future.
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 without what they need undoes sustainable development impacts, that drove the crisis. They are hiding their liability for the death of millions.
All climate reparations must be based on measurable and collective self-determination. There are no values outside of that system, given climatological impacts on infants.
Moreover, language matters, and we cannot be free or contextually self-determining without constitutive communications that reflect our most fundamental obligations to others – starting with children that would enter the world. There is no such thing as an inclusive, representative, and hence legitimate legal system without those communications.
The TTT campaign allows everyone to relate their experiences to the reality of the most vulnerable, children entering the world, impacting vulnerable animals, in the actual first creation of unjust power relations, rather than relating those experiences to decoy points (politicians, celebrities, advertising, etc.) created by the powerful. All legal obligation derives from language, and ours should mutually empower – not disempower – at the base.
Fair Start is pursuing legal action to ensure a three year omission disclosure requirement of how formerly undisclosed growth impacts 1) compounded children’s rights violations relative to an actual baseline of harm, 2) increasingly degraded ecosystems, and 3)ensured massive political disenfranchisement.
We have a right to know what entities are doing to the physical capacity for all to self-determine and be free, so those entities can be held accountable.
Take action
Pew Trust lead Susan K. Urahn should admit that not prioritizing a fair start in life for all kids did more harm to the Trusts’ missions than the Trusts did to further them.
Anyone claiming to add value to the world must disclose how they were accounting for child entry factored in their value assessment. Were they measuring, assessing and reporting public interest impacts / 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 – and now, at high risk of dying in the climate crisis?
How much of the claimed beneficial impact by the Trusts has been undone in the last three years through growth?
Contact Urahan and urge her to act now and Tell the Truth.
Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation.
