Greenpeace Co-Founder: Climate Alarmists Would Kill Civilization

people-fading-

TheNewAmerican:

PARIS — If left unchecked, climate alarmists at the United Nations and within the broader man-made global-warming movement would smash industrial civilization, killing untold millions in the process, Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore explained in Paris as the UN COP21 climate summit was taking place nearby. Fortunately for humanity, though, the radical agenda is predicated on discredited pseudo-science.

Speaking in the French capital at the Heartland Institute’s “Day of Examining the Data” summit, which brought together respected scientists and experts from around the world to discuss the climate issue, Dr. Moore denounced what he described as the “anti-human” ideology that he said had infected much of the “green” movement.

more

13 Comments on Greenpeace Co-Founder: Climate Alarmists Would Kill Civilization

  1. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, abortion, the lefts fetish of mass killing is obvious and well known.
    It is only natural that this ‘climate change’ movement includes wholesale slaughter, otherwise, what would be the point?

  2. Duh… That’s… like… you know… their goal all along maaaan… Purge the world of “useless eaters”… And by “useless” they mean “not them”.

  3. In the beginning there was a genuine need for “environmentalism” and EPA. Of course EPA hit the goals it was created to achieve in just a few years, major clean ups of air, water, and to a lessor extent land. The same can be said of labor unions in their infancy.

    But once the mission is accomplished , the mission creep begins, with the inevitable result being a hungry bureaucracy foraging for resources to consume while leaving piles of excrement where it’s been.

    The CO2 fantasy is the natural end of the progression, the “Peter Principle” of political movements when the position finally gets to a point of being so obviously stupid and indefensible that the entire purpose of the movement is undermined and destroyed. We are seeing exactly the same phenomenon with regards to race relations and feminism today.

  4. That may have been true in your neck of the woods, but here in the west it was private innovation that cleaned up the air. The biggest innovation was particle board.
    I remember the choking smoke from thousands of sawdust burners. Naturally once they started shutting down in huge numbers as the sawdust was being diverted to particle board construction the government rushed in to ban them so they could claim credit.
    Innovation in foundry technology coupled with the decline of shipbuilding after the war caused the decline of the old dirty foundries. When in their death throes, after most had already gone, once again the government stepped in, shut a couple down and claimed credit. Same with paint as competition moved the manufacture out of the state.
    I have witnessed this routine over and over since the late 60’s, and it goes on today.

  5. They’re “de-growthers.” In Europe, they’re out in the open. Here, they won’t admit it. They’d be happy to see us go back to the Stone Age, or so they “think.”

  6. John below.
    Sure private industry can go a long way if it makes economic sense. As far as being in the “west” I guess it’s relative growing up in OK and living in OK and TX all my life.

    But as a chemist working for a very very big company back in the day, I measured the plant waste from some of our operations when starting to implement the EPA guidelines.

    Even at a young age I was shocked and dismayed at what a reputable company would do to the nations waterways and food supply for profit. Believe me intervention was needed at the time.

  7. That, however, is exactly my point.
    All waste is lost profits. Be it sawdust from millwork or coke from a foundry.
    The profit motive cleans the environment because it incentivizes finding uses for waste and byproducts.
    One company is shoveling sawdust into burners, another is selling the sawdust. Can you pick the one that will come out on top?
    Government regulations do the exact opposite. They create an incentive to do the minimum as that is the way to reduce costs. If one sponsors research into a better way, he is punished severely for doing so as it may not be allowed.
    Regulations do not innovate, nor do they create solutions to problems. They only create a way for people who contributed nothing to the solution to receive credit.
    There are, and always have been, remedies for people or organizations that disregard health and safety. Regulations just punish everyone equally.

Comments are closed.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!