PDA

View Full Version : Greenpeace Co-Founder Praises U.S. for Rejecting Kyoto Protocol



dwasson
12-09-2005, 07:54 PM
from: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/12/8/111901.shtml


Greenpeace Co-Founder Praises U.S. for Rejecting Kyoto Protocol
Marc Morano, CNSNews.com
Thursday, Dec. 8, 2005
Montreal -- A founding member of Greenpeace, who left the organization because he viewed it as too radical, praised the United States for refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.


"At least the [United] States is honest. [The U.S.] said, 'No we are not going to sign that thing (Kyoto) because we can't do that,'" said Patrick Moore, who is attending the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal.


Moore noted that many of the industrialized nations that ratified the treaty limiting greenhouse gas emissions are now failing to comply with those emission limits. Moore, who currently heads the Canadian-based environmental advocacy group Greenspirit Strategies helped found both Greenpeace in 1971 and Greenpeace International in 1979.


"Canada signed [Kyoto] and said, 'Oh yeah, we can do that,' and then it merrily goes on its way to increase CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions by even more than the U.S.," Moore told Cybercast News Service.


Other industrialized nations - including Japan and at least 11 of the 15 European Union nations that ratified Kyoto - are struggling to meet their emission targets.



As Cybercast News Service previously reported, many organizations attending the Climate Change Conference have declared the Kyoto Protocol "dead" because of the signatories' lack of compliance. The treaty establishes a 2012 goal of having top industrialized nations cut their industrial emissions 5.2 percent below the level that was produced in 1990.


"I think this whole Kyoto process is a colossal waste of time and money," said Moore, who rejects alarmist predictions of human-caused 'global warming."


The U.N.'s 11th Annual Climate Change Conference in Montreal failed to impress Moore, who is there to promote nuclear energy.


"There is nothing concrete going on here. There is nothing good happening here as far as I can see. [The participants at the U.N. conference are] just spending a whole pile of money and auguring and talking," he added.


Moore also slammed the movement he helped found, accusing today's environmental groups of being co-opted by the political Left.



"The Left figures it owns the environmental movement and that has corrupted the movement greatly," Moore said. "The [left-wing] influence has brought great dysfunction into the environmental movement. [It's turned it into] an elitist movement."


Moore said he decided to leave Greenpeace in 1986 after the group became too radical and he could "no longer agree with the policies that were being espoused."


The final straw, according to Moore, came when he failed to persuade Greenpeace to abandon its campaign to ban chlorine worldwide.


"I pointed out that chlorine was the main element used in our medicine and adding it to drinking water was the biggest advance in public health in human history," Moore said. "[My argument] just fell on deaf ears. [Greenpeace] didn't care about any of that because a global chlorine ban was a good campaign [for them]."


Even though he was a pioneer of the movement, liberal environmentalists spare no criticism of Moore, frequently referring to him as a "traitor" and an "Eco-Judas."


Moore dismissed the criticism and asserted that the green movement has steered off course from its original mission.


"I think it's in a dismal state - I think almost across the board, whether it's in energy policy or agriculture policy regarding their zero tolerance on GM [genetically modified foods] or in forestry policy," Moore said.

duhtroll
12-09-2005, 09:06 PM
Every multinational agreement has its problems. I don't like the "strongarm" method the Kyoto Accord is trying to impose and think we can find our own way too, but to simply say "global warming ain't a problem" really scares me.

Those who think there is no such thing as global warming, AND if there is, it isn't being caused by humans, are ignoring the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

It's been pretty much, uh, proven that there are some environmental changes occuring as a result of our pollution. The argument is over their long-term effects. Which, we won't really know until we at least approach the "long-term" (and I don't mean 10 years in the future - much longer than that).

This Kyoto thing has nothing to do with the environment as far as our participation is concerned. It has everything to do with partisan politics.

Mad4Macs
12-10-2005, 07:11 PM
My problem with global warming, is that it's also been scientifically proven that it's a cyclical function.
The Earth warms, it cools and it warms. It's a normal process. Not long ago, (geologically speaking), nearly all of North America was covered in mile deep glaciers. For those who haven't studied geology, the event is called an Ice Age. Scientists know that the Earth has been through many such ice age's, too. That's how the Great Lakes were formed, for an example. The Earth warmed and the glaciers retreated, carving out great areas of land and filling them with water.
Also, current NASA studies are showing that since we've been monitoring Mars, the Red Planet has been undergoing global warming, and at a rate roughly coinciding with that of the Earth.
I doubt that the combined output of Spirit and Opportunity could raise the surface temperature of Mars... but then again, I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.
The fact of the matter is that there are a multitude of reasons for what causes the cooling/warming cycles, and scientists are only just beginning to cover the basics. Heck, most of what I've read about the time periods between ice ages, suggests that we're due for another one (If anyone thinks that warming is bad, try an ice age. It's doubtful that there would be a city left standing in the northern hemisphere.)
Of course, that'd make a lot of environmentalists happy.
:lol:

Petrograde
12-10-2005, 07:17 PM
My problem with global warming, is that it's also been scientifically proven that it's a cyclical function.
The Earth warms, it cools and it warms. It's a normal process. Not long ago, (geologically speaking), nearly all of North America was covered in mile deep glaciers. For those who haven't studied geology, the event is called an Ice Age. Scientists know that the Earth has been through many such ice age's, too. That's how the Great Lakes were formed, for an example. The Earth warmed and the glaciers retreated, carving out great areas of land and filling them with water.

Thank you!

Anyone ever hear George Carlins rant about our effect in the environment? It is as funny as it is true! :lol:

Mad4Macs
12-10-2005, 07:21 PM
I guess what annoys me most is this...
The more militant environmentalists choose not to live in reality. They've developed this insane idea that the way the Earth is "right now", is the way that it has always been. Newsflash! The Earth and its environment are not some static photographic "snapshot". It changes. Even the magnetic poles change, and have done so measurably since we've been tracking it. Species come to be, species die out. Fossil records show that we've have such an abundance of critters walking, swimming and hopping the globe, that it's been estimated that 99% of everything that's ever lived on this planet has shuffled off into extinction, and there wasn't a single white guy in a Suburban that caused any of it.
:lol:

duhtroll
12-10-2005, 09:19 PM
Funny, I've never heard (or read in an article or study) the so-called "militant environmentalists" insist that the environment is supposed to be static.

The earth has endured unprecedented chemical changes in the past 100 years - man made ones. To think that is not going to affect anything is utter naivete. Sure, the earth is supposed to warm and cool, but is it supposed to warm now, and in this manner?

Were the effects of such changes made clear quickly, we would not be having this discussion. We would know what the effects are, and we wouldn't be able to shrug and say "well, by the time it matters everyone I know or care about will be dead." Give or take a millennia.

We once thought lead-based paint and asbestos were harmless, too.

-A