A letter to The Elders, which includes many ex presidents & world leaders

Could this become the largest global criminal case against white collar crime in the world? A provocative narrative against current climate change solutions, suggesting cohesion between Ghengis Khan, The Elders [Kofi Annan, etc], Jamie Dimon and the devastation faced across the world.

Elliot Fox

The Elders Foundation


PO Box 67772


London W14 4EH,


United Kingdom

Letter Emailed.

An open letter to The Elders, for the attention of: Kofi Annan

Martti Ahtisaari

Ela Bhatt

Lakhdar Brahimi

Gro Harlem Brundtland

Fernando H Cardoso

Jimmy Carter

Hina Jilani

Graça Machel

Mary Robinson

Desmond Tutu

Ernesto Zedillo

and The Elders financiers

Dear Elliot,

Thank you for your clarification. The Elders disinterest in supporting this powerful legal tool for environmental and human rights protection is once again noted.

Inclusion of the SQP Strategy for an International Criminal Court legal action, within The Elders repertoire of Climate Change solutions, would help to advance and establish the legal precedent for an existing criminal penalty with the power to ‘prevent’ climate change.

This is a constructive legal case against each individual in the world, who is actively progressing climate change through environmental destruction or large-scale pollution; alongside human rights violations since 2002 and their intention for greater future devastation.

The campaign under the name ‘Victory World’, [ evolving the ‘Victory Amazon’ and ‘Victory Africa’ actions that defined the potential application of this law ], is designed as an internationally collaborative development of comprehensive evidence, with case contributions from organizations, individuals, lawyers and communities across the world.

If The Elders are a genuine hope for future generations as positioned, then perhaps they could consider exercising their influence to support the establishment of a special ‘International Criminal Court for Sustainability’, which I propose as necessary to manage the extensive case submissions expected by the Victory World action. This would be a valuable tool to leverage the threat of criminal liability against decision makers who currently intend to cause more harm. Convening an independent court for this purpose, would also allow a large caseload to be investigated with speed, without competing against the backlog of existing cases for other crimes at the International Criminal Court.

It is inarguable, that preventing harmful industrial development and activity, is the most direct and necessary mechanism to resolve climate change as industrial business is primarily responsible for causing environmental contamination and the proprietors, investors and directors complicit can be traced and identified. A recent study by Richard Heede, attributes 63% of global carbon and methane emissions to only 90 companies since 2002, so we know who the criminals are.

Carbon pollution tax may in theory offer a deterrent against environmental destruction; however, hundreds of current cases around the world determine that the threat of this tax is not changing the development behavior of these dirty-energy or industrial producers as thousands of harmful projects currently advance.

This tool of legal prevention can force immediate, clean-energy investment by applying criminal liability against the decision makers who are advancing industrial destruction, with a maximum penalty of up to 30 years imprisonment and financial penalties, which can provide compensation for the harm already caused.

Therefore, the Victory World action is likely to be the world’s sleeping giant of environmental and human rights protection and potentially wealth re-distribution. It wields individual imprisonment as a powerful enough penalty to prevent decision-makers from progressing harm, whilst limiting the corporate, political and finance sectors to plans restricted to clean-energy and sustainable industrial developments as their only future legal and internationally accepted option available.

Other bold mechanisms to protect future generations, might be to legislate dirty energy as ‘not for profit’, so as to remove the incentive of financial gain from progressing climate change. If the Elders insist on entrusting the control over energy market transition, to the current ‘criminally liable’ industrial owners, then providing a compelling incentive to inspire their systems adaptation is at-least necessary. Governments could offer tax breaks to clean-energy developments, where the business model of clean-energy would be engineered for higher profitability than dirty energy. Support for tax-deductable investment structures would change clean-energy transition investment from an unnecessary consumption of capital into a more desirable re-direct of their taxes. Otherwise how is it possible to expect that those who have control of the highly profitable dirty-energy industry will voluntarily end their production without being legally forced.

Conversely, The Elders website indicates that you support a diplomatic position which is not ‘bold’ as declared. You politely and repeatedly decline to endorse the Victory World tool for imposing direct legal accountability against those individuals causing harm, yet your online strategy does not address the reality of needing to prevent the human rights violations, environmental destruction and the criminal activity inflicted by the industrial industry, with a credible alternative.

Applying criminal liability to the individuals responsible within corporations, governments, investment and ownership structures, as the penalty for progressing the harm that accelerates climate change, is essential; yet your disinterest in such a strong preventative measure for international justice, indicates your call for leaders “to change the narrative on climate change and deliver transformative progress”, is disingenuous.

I hope I stand corrected but your strategy currently supports the continued market control of those who have caused the industrial harm, by allowing them the choice and the time to ‘perhaps’ transition to replacement technologies; without accountability for the destruction they have caused. Whilst allowing them to commission and construct multiple new harmful industrial developments that will escalate physical destruction and climate change without restriction, with the minor disadvantage of a higher tax burden. The only definitive outcome is creating a powerful new mechanism for a unipolar world entity, to redistribute the global wealth of ordinary tax-paying citizens so as to appropriate the environmental damage your plan allows to occur. Ultimately engineering a platform in which only one great future power needs to exist, with control of a global trade and tax system. Genghis Khan would certainly be envious.

The Elders website correctly determines that “we rapidly approach the tipping point beyond which climate change may become irreversible, we risk inflicting one of the greatest injustices in human history, denying future generations their right to a liveable, sustainable planet. If we fail to act now, the whole of humanity stands to lose.” Yet your plan allows this great injustice to continue with simply a higher cost of doing business and you reject the legal tool that can protect future generations from this internationally ominous environmental and system demise.

The only position, which I previously imagined that The Elders would take toward the international collaborative legal action to prevent climate change, was one of endorsing the Victory World campaign; at least in equal measure to your determination to support a tax that is already proving itself unable to prevent the impending harm.

The website links below, profiles the application of the International Criminal Court, Rome Statute legal context, which I have indentified, in various forms for this strategy but I will also review this within my text below.

• www.sustainablequalitypremium.com/#!preventing-climate-change/c239u

• www.victoryamazon.com - specific case outline under ‘Victory Amazon action’

• www.sustainablequalitypremium.com/#!victory-amazon/c24lr

The reality is that Article 6, Definition C and Article 30 of the Rome Statute already exists. The carbon tax agreement proposed does not. The Rome Statute can immediately hold those causing the harm accountable, with extradition agreements in place and the mechanism for a trial and penalty, which can be imposed and enforced. The carbon tax agreement, I expect like other conventions, is without a criminal penalty and a new compliance regime agreed by signatories, is unlikely to be robust, in the interest of self-preservation.

Having read all available international laws, which could protect the human rights of vulnerable communities from industrial developments before the harm can occur; this is the only existing preventative legal context. This statute has a court that can assume jurisdiction over 122 countries in the world and hold the perpetrators of climate change accountable, if they are committing the crime after 2002. This includes those individuals who are from non-signatory countries, if their harmful action is located in countries who are a state party to the Rome Statute.

Foreign entities and corrupt governments which take advantage of poor and vulnerable communities, where the local judicial system obstructs justice by applying ‘suspension of security’ in the interests of these government and corporate objectives; is a common element to most industrial developments across the world and this situation allows the ICC or an ‘International Criminal Court for Sustainability’, to assume jurisdiction at it’s own discretion.

Evidence now predicts that industrial activity will bring about the physical destruction of industrial civilization within 20 years; with a perfect storm of water, food and energy crisis’s predicted within 15 years, by entities including the Pentagon, KPMG, NASA funded mathematical models, the United Nations and the UK Government Office of Science. Therefore, all environmentally harmful industrial activity is now, as defined by the law, “Deliberately inflicting on a national group, conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;” as industrial “acts committed with ‘intent’ to destroy, in whole or in part”, where ‘intent’ is defined simply as “the person means to engage in the conduct; and has knowledge and awareness that a circumstance exists or a consequence will occur in the ordinary course of events.”

Broad-spectrum scientific evidence demonstrates that the industrial activity which is forcing climate change, is now formally and expertly ‘calculated to bring about physical destruction of human, animal, pollinator and sea life, in whole or in part; with the decision-makers ‘intent’ to deliberately inflict such conditions of life, demonstrated with their knowledge as awareness that the circumstance and consequence of harm is occurring in the ordinary course of their industrial development or activity; as they pursue profit or economic advantage in priority to decisions which could otherwise avoid or abandon environmental harm, human rights violations and the grave consequences now faced by all of humanity and species on earth. Malicious mental intent to commit the systematic destruction is not necessary.

My observation has been that the ICC Rome Statute legislation does not limit genocide to the definition of a ‘human’ group. The interpretation that a ‘national or ethnic group’ can apply to physical destruction inflicted upon groups of animals, pollinators and sea life, in addition to human life, will be proposed to the court. At this unique juncture in history, where the genocide of other species groups will inflict unsustainable conditions of life upon all life, including the survival of humanity, prescribes that such opportunity for interpretation is invaluable, necessary and appropriate.

I do not reference the word ‘genocide’ or ‘prevention of genocide’ to describe this legal action as the limiting and incorrect assumptions often made upon hearing this term, directly contradict the legislative definition of the Rome Statute. This is potentially what has blinded people to the opportunity that this law has provided the world for the last 10 years; since the creation of the International Criminal Court and 122 countries becoming state parties to the Rome Statute legislation.

Unlike other criminal law, the perpetrators liability is reversible as decision-makers have the option to voluntarily abandon their future actions and void their criminal liability. The Victory World legal application therefore, has the power of leverage to ultimately ‘change the minds’ of those who define the direction of climate change and force or inspire a shift toward immediate and complete investment, licensing and construction, of clean-energy developments and sustainable industrial activity.

Yet changing the minds of the individuals and entities who are not direct beneficiaries of industrial harm, but whose connection with political and corporate perpetrators, is often prioritized ahead of environmental protection, is also necessary. The position amongst leaders and public figures like The Elders group, whose strategies or solutions to climate change, appear to provide diplomatic amnesty to the individuals of position, wealth or power, whose decisions knowingly inflict environmental and human destruction without accountability, must change.

The need for a climate change tax can be eliminated altogether by preventing further harm through the Victory World legal application proposed and installing clean-energy transitions within systems that are close to immediately possible, resulting in the elimination of the environmental devastation otherwise due.

38 trillion remains the forecasted world energy investment due prior to 2035 and successful Victory World action, allows a mechanism to force 100% of that investment into clean-energy, regardless of profitability considerations as harmful industrial activity will no longer be legal, in at-least 122 countries in the world.

The SQP clean-energy transition strategies under development, demonstrate that transforming existing cities to self-sufficient energy, is technically possible, affordable, fast and scalable within the current context of internationally available technology. Resolution of these primary barriers preventing transition, comes through the integration of multiple small-scale processing unit installations within established cities, each accommodating the energy needs of a street or group. The units generate energy and other products by transforming all waste into value products, adjacent to solar, water and plant technology bio-fuel and electricity.

The Energy Eminence and WasteComplete processing units are sustainably designed, multi-level, mini power-towers that operate as micro-generation grids and are centrally linked by supervisory management centre’s. Directly dispensing bio-fuel from these units will resolve the fuel pump distribution restriction, where fossil-fuel distribution networks have previously blocked market access. Multiple units will be installed across a city incorporating pumps for fuel dispensing directly to consumers; also establishing a broad-base distribution network for the potential of emission free hydrogen fuel from waste-water and artificial solar photosynthesis.

If legislation is altered to allow the sale of bio-fuel directly from the producer to the consumer, without forcing an unnecessary fuel mix through oil refineries, then the fossil fuel industries iniquitous monopoly over bio-fuel prices and their control over distribution and sales can be eliminated. Other legislation or market tools, which encourage engine conversions to bio-fuel in existing cars and amongst car manufactures would also be important. But such current legislative restrictions broadly demonstrate an energy market engineered to inhibit the transition to clean energy systems, with existing market controls dominated by individuals guilty of industrial harm within the Victory World action.

The Energy Eminence and WasteComplete units can also eliminate the need for transportation pollution from the energy equation and render resource wars unnecessary as the technologies within the units, process and distribute all of a cities energy needs, evaporating the demand for dirty energy. Profiles for a transition strategy to eliminate dirty energy are online at: [copy and past link]

• http://www.sustainablequalitypremium.com/#!invest---clean-energy-transition/c1m2d

• Simple profiles are online at www.wastecomplete.com & www.energyeminence.com

I contemplate the importance of The Elders needing to align their published Climate Change intention, with the criminal and devious reality of the human and environmental destruction that is currently planned and progressed by the industrial world. Consideration does not appear given to the many market factors engineered to slow the development and market growth of replacement clean-technologies, which are still obviously treated by the fossil fuel industry as competitive threats. Legislation forcing oil blends with ethanol for price control over bio-fuel, legislation restricting consumer sales and restricted distribution networks are some examples.

Under ‘Climate Justice’, The Elders call for wealthy countries to provide financial and technological support to poor countries as a solution to address irreversible loss and damage in these vulnerable nations. However, this aspiration directly contrasts the existing international situations, which demonstrate that wealthy nations and their corporations associated, are currently taking advantage of vulnerable, ‘resource rich’ communities, across the world, in addition to taking advantage of their own citizens and generally underhanded competitive tactics.

Through my humanitarian work in South America and Africa, I know of hundreds of cases, where plans for harmful industrial developments proceed with no regard for the physical destruction against human life or the environment that will occur. Through The Elders humanitarian work they will also be intimately familiar with this contraction between reality and their website narrative. Yet, if they do not embrace the legal measures that can end such harm, alongside their ‘Climate Justice’ aspiration expressed for generosity between countries, then their position is so far removed from the harsh reality existing in almost every relevant circumstance, that their proposition becomes misleading.

I am certain that people expect The Elders are supporting the mechanisms that are in the best interests of future generations but your current plan supports the best interests of industrial stakeholders. The scientific evidence demands that action must to be taken and the illusion exists that protection against climate change is arranged but the current global solution allows the destruction to advance.

The Elders website proposes “clear market signals to business and investors, including through an internationally agreed price on carbon” as a tax and trade solution, which will leverage support for sustainable, clean-energy investment.

Yet, the multi-national corporations inflicting the harm, do not appear to be paying any attention to the tax liability that next years Cop21 agreement, may enforce; except to consider that if this tax is currently factored into their decision-marking, then it is ineffective in obstructing the acceleration of climate change, by deterring the decision-makers from escalating environmental harm.

The ICC legal campaign I propose, will in contrast, serve as an immediate deterrent to the decision makers who are guilty, as the threat of personal imprisonment and independent financial penalties, does hold a significant power of persuasion.

Therefore, is it not imperative that The Elders embrace this enforceable penalty, when the advancement of climate destruction is now clearly viable to consider criminal, with the Rome Statute defining it as such.

Must The Elders not demonstrate realism and factor the various corporate-political-military alliances which have caused and continue to plan large-scale environmental harm, through new and continued industrial agenda’s; including resource wars waged consecutively through the middle east; de-stabilizing conflicts orchestrated through Africa that secure shifting control over resource contracts; Ukraine touted as a civil conflict to de-stabilize the primary route to market of Russian gas, for the advantage of competing international companies, whose unprofitable gas extraction model and the formerly competitive price of Russian gas, would otherwise inflict high investment losses when their gas bubble bursts in the near future, unless they can offload or inflate the value of their stocks; and on the boarders of Iraq and Afghanistan, an important oil pipeline sits incomplete until a future military advance on Iran could secure the land necessary for it’s operation and perhaps the current Israel/Palestine provocation will draw Iran into a position of aggression that allows such an assault in retaliation. This summary if continued, would become a very long list of current and future potential conflicts, which most intellectuals and geo-political experts, commonly link directly to industrial priorities.

The future climate catastrophe is perhaps secondary to the immediate devastation caused by such criminal activity, inflicted upon local communities who lose their clean water, are forced to relocate from their lands, endure food depletion, sometimes starvation and face devastating cultural consequences and rights violations; in addition to the current annihilation of life in our sea’s and amongst our pollinators like bee’s, that ultimately provide us with life support.

Cumulatively, there has been an insidious corporate-political-military collaboration, which in effect has waged war against all life across this planet throughout industrial civilization and The Elders current position ignores the intentional, highly profitable and sophisticated execution of the physical destruction that has and continues to, occur. Clearly, the dirty energy and broader industrial industry does not operate within the corresponding respectful context, intended by the construct of a gentlemanly tax agreement, which you propose as acceptable to resolve the world’s most devastating and criminal problem.

Weather by legal or insidious execution, the acquisition of resources, subsequent development, and ongoing industrial activity, in vulnerable, poor nations is predatory at best and grossly criminal at worst; with the acquisition and execution of these agenda’s in developing countries, decidedly and consistently harmful.

Under ‘Bottom up Solutions’ you also speak about awareness of Gender Inequality. Yet it is needless to describe how the woman and children are violated in multiple cases of industrial development and activity around the world. This is an issue that a tax proposition does nothing to resolve but which the Victory World action against those criminally liable, can immediately impact; increasing the imperative of support

The limitation of The Elders supporting a tax but not supporting an existing and immediately useable criminal penalty, conveniently or mistakenly, ignores the criminal reality that exists within the industries that cause climate change.

The power to prosecute the perpetrators would be greatly advanced by the political will of leaders and groups like The Elders as thousands of international cases currently stand relevant to this law since 2002 and a legal case against those causing the destruction of humanity is imperative, timely and urgent.

Your website profiles your support for the appointment of a “Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General or a High Commissioner for Future Generations, to advocate for future generations and enhance intergenerational solidarity”.

Has such a person been appointed to this role yet? Assuming not, I hope you will be ‘bold’ enough to support the appointment of an individual who will take the action necessary to end the reign of dirty energy and unsustainable industry such as pesticides that kill the bee’s and the activities raising the acidity level of the sea.

I hope you support the appointment of someone who will facilitate the immediate replacement of the world’s energy demand through existing clean-energy possibilities. In my experience, through discussions across the world, few individuals are willing to challenge the powerfully established governments and corporations with an action that offers them the accommodation of an iron bared cell. Most are cautious to terminally offend those allowed to retain the power over the direction of humanity, with the threat of defeat and future irrelevance.

If groups like The Elders will not risk offending the offenders, by supporting a strong legal action to protect life, then I fear the world has too few people actually taking the necessary ‘bold’ and determined action to end the environmental destruction and hold those responsible to account; conversely too many are dishonestly claiming to do so.

To powerfully represent the future generations, you would force an immediate shift to a new industry model with a legal penalty in priority to a tax penalty, which otherwise leaves those responsible for advancing the damage without accountability and the victims, who are the future generations you propose to represent the interests of, remain under siege with no justice.

To assume that oil production companies and countries will voluntarily abandon the 2,795 gigatons of carbon, which cumulative industry annual reports currently indicate are held within heavily invested oil reserves, due to this new tax, is irrationally optimistic or dishonest. Especially ironic when you research the level of tax breaks that these very same companies secure each year and the hundreds of developments, which continue despite the threat of carbon tax. Coupled with the fact that dirty-energy generates 95% of the worlds energy supply, then any astute observer can assume that the beneficiaries will not abandon the allure of the optimum profits that their oil, coal, and gas investments provide, and voluntarily advance the minor 5% industry supply that is clean-energy out of good conscience. This is not rationale or in the interests of their shareholders, to whom they are primarily accountable, unless an International Criminal Court action determines otherwise. * Statistic – The Carbon Tracker Group UK

To avoid self-immolation for the continued reign and profit of the dirty-energy industry and industrial curators, 80% of the current country and company owned oil must remain un-used. Most international science confirms that the consumption of 565 gigatons of carbon due in the next 16 years will deliver the 2% climate increase required to reach unsustainable environmental destruction and yet five times that amount of carbon already exists on reserve, seducing it’s owners with the promise of trillion dollar revenues.

To avoid the catastrophe predicted due as climate change progresses, sensible governance would be taking ‘bold’ enough action to leave as close to 100% of current oil reserves un-used so that the state of our already polluted cities, contaminated waters and suffering communities, does not worsen. This requires legally forcing the demise of oil, coal and gas production companies, which the Victory World criminal liability can achieve. This must be advanced without compromise for the interests of those who will sustain any serious financial loss as a result of this decision. Clean energy can simultaneously replace this so persecution of these harmful industries does not need to limit global energy supply.

The Victory World campaign, is perhaps the only way to achieve such termination by force, which will not otherwise be voluntary and I expect that most governments will obstruct this legislatively forced change as it is not in the interests of their associated corporations. Therefore the ICC’s existing right to determine it’s own jurisdiction will be a necessary factor in the success of this action.

The IMF calling for carbon tax increases as central policy for world economies and having published a book endorsing this new system provides a good warning. As experienced designers of difficult circumstances for survival amongst general populations, including contracting government loans that inflate citizens resource costs like fuel and electricity by up to 70% in some countries, indicates that carbon tax will be in direct contradiction to the best interests of the people majority. The IMF and its investors already access the taxes informally of most individuals in the world through it’s loans to their governments and abuse this power. This carbon tax provides a new, more robust mechanism to access the income of every individual in the world and redistribute it, establishing a genuinely excellent tool of unipolar global management, for those who will preside over future governance tyranny. This is a time where governance is often proven predatory and demonstrates indifference to the quality of life amongst people, in priority to corporate interests. As such, this global wealth redistribution mechanism is dangerous to individual liberty and independence and it’s broader consequence for future generations must be considered.

On a financial basis, the proposed carbon tax could potentially be counter-productive, in it’s intent to foster clean-energy investment. Clean-energy alternatives already often require investors to accept the likelihood of lower profits in order to transition from dirty to clean-energy investment solutions. Existing energy companies already operate a highly profitable dirty energy model and investment into clean technologies is already a large and undesired burden for them. Therefore, any carbon tax would need to be a higher financial burden than the alternative elevated operating and investment cost of clean-energy, which is an unlikely equation for existing industry operators. The tax will most likely serve as the lesser of the two cost dissuasions and the industry is forced further in pursuit of the lowest-cost energy solution, which remains as oil, coal, nuclear, hydro and gas. This risks potentially interfering with a faster, natural market transition that might evolve if higher tax costs are not imposed to drive them dirty.

The introduction of a market mechanism that legislates dirty energy as immediately ‘not for profit’, as mentioned earlier, would eliminate the greed incentive that continues the harm. Transference of excess revenue’s generated could re-divert to public accounts for the benefit of common services and provide a much needed wealth re-distribution mechanism for the world. This would immediately eliminate the requirement of directors to pursue profit in the best interests of the shareholders and I suggest would immediately inspire a hurried transition to clean-energy so that they might resume operating within a business model that can legally generate and retain their profits.

Logic suggests that in the interests of current and future generations, no person or company should profit from causing harm against humanity and the environment. Harmful industrial activity determined as non-profit would no longer provide a financial incentive to cause the impending physical destruction, which is therefore surely necessary in the best interests of humanity, pollinators, sea life, the environment and it’s many ecosystems; with only a cost born by the current curators of harm.

Under ‘extraordinary leaders’, the Elders propose that we should not be afraid to ‘name and shame’ governments that break international agreements or fail to meet their commitments on climate change. Yet, the Victory Amazon case that I curate for the legal protection of the Amazon Rainforests in Brazil, clearly demonstrates how the ‘name and shame’ mechanism, comes without a consequence feared. In this case, those complicit in advancing harm are some powerful investment banks including JP Morgan Chase and the Brazilian Congress. Without compromise they progress devastating plans for billion dollar developments, which contribute to GDP international power ranks and lucrative profits. Determined to remain on-course regardless of negative media or court actions. Yet destroying the Amazon should be one of the greatest shames in the world. They don’t care. Jamie Dimon walks free earning 20+ million per annum and in 2011 was named CEO of the Year.

The Elders proposed ‘name and shame’ solution, a tax deterrent and the hope for generosity amongst nations, are not strong enough currencies for change, when a legal remedy exists with the power incarcerate those guilty of destroying life or that forces them to end the devastation, to avoid an otherwise necessary penalty.

Speaking as a genuine voice for the future generations who you so commonly reference, I believe that The Elders current position fails to provide an approach with the chance to prevent climate change and allows the destruction to continue en-masse for the foreseeable future. During the next twenty years, science predicts that we will determine humanities dignity or devastation. So do groups like The Elders. I ask you to reconsider your support of the Victory World legal campaign.

As always, I look forward to your reply.

Kind regards,

Miriam Clements

Donations in support of my work are greatly appreciated

These can be made online at www.sustainablequalitypremium.com

#theelders #kofianna #marttiahtisaari #elabhatt #lakhdarbrahimi #groharlembrundtland #fernandohcardoso #jimmycarter #hinajilani #gracamachel #maryrobinson #desmondtutu #ernestozedillo #richardbranson