Patrick Moore Blasts Montreal Talks

[A_Wanderer]

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]."

link

Moore has been a real anti-idiotarian when compared to a large sections of so-called environmentalists, I read an article he wrote on nuclear power and it's relative advantages and it was right on the money - he didn't need to be alarmist to get his point across and he also didn't seem to be treating the environment as a static system.

A global chlorine ban

 

[melon]

Fanaticism on both ends is killing this world. Unfortunately, the folks behind CNSNews.com (the site with that link) are the fanatics on the right, particularly if you read the other kind of articles they have. They are no better than the fanatics at Greenpeace that they condemn.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

Alright how about a piece written in the Miami Herald? It seems the validity of his arguments is not the issue (and there are plenty of people who argue against his points for instance David Suzuki) it is the nature of where they were published

Scare tactics, disinformation go too far

I am often asked why I broke ranks with Greenpeace after 15 years as a founder and full-time environmental activist. I had my personal reasons, but it was on issues of policy that I found it necessary to move on.

By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism. I became aware of the emerging concept of sustainable development: balancing environmental, social and economic priorities. Converted to the idea that win-win solutions could be found by bringing all interests together, I made the move from confrontation to consensus.

Since then, I have worked under the banner of Greenspirit to develop an environmental policy platform based on science, logic and the recognition that more than six billion people need to survive and prosper every day of the year. The environmental movement has lost its way, favoring political correctness over factual accuracy, stooping to scare tactics to garner support.

We're faced with environmental policies that ignore science and result in increased risk to human health and ecology. To borrow from the vernacular, how sick is that?

http://www.ccfassociation.org/moore28jan05.htm

 

[melon]

I think conservatives are using his arguments as an excuse for true environmental destruction.

I do notice that both sites have posted what forms of environmentalism that he opposes, but there is no mention, as far as I can see, what kind of environmentalism he does support. And that's it. By cherry picking statements that dismiss these environmental organizations, they wish to dismiss ALL environmentalism. I don't think Moore would advocate that.

I guess that's my point. I would actually agree that Greenpeace is as fanatical as PETA these days, and, after looking at what Moore's "Greenspirit Strategies" advocates, such as sustainable forestry as farming, rather than cutting down wilderness, and his support for wind and nuclear energy, I find that we would actually have much in common ideologically. It is unrealistic to expect the level of environmentalism that groups like Greenpeace advocate, but well-directed environmentalism that doesn't treat all progress as "evil" might actually do some good.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

I find it interesting that it is the conservative governments who are supporting technologies to reduce emissions, such as geosequestration of carbon dioxide while the Kyoto backers seem to advocate penalties over emissions and tighter controls. And then there are the actual benefits, the miniscule change that restrictions make to global climate change should be weighed against the cost of these intitatives and what effect climate change will have. There are so many subtle feedback mechanisms at play that produce observations at odds with earlier models, the most recent one regarding the increased water vapor at the poles creating more ice is one, as well as albedo changing depending on the types of clouds that get formed.

The reflexive opposition too new technologies by segments that are best described as anti-Corporate to anti-Capitalist. A set of political agendas that have shaped the modern green movement that Moore opposes.

 

[melon]

The reflexive opposition too new technologies by segments that are best described as anti-Corporate to anti-Capitalist. A set of political agendas that have shaped the modern green movement that Moore opposes.

I just hope we don't trade one set of political agendas for another, which is a reasonable concern considering how governments operate. If it were solely up to capitalism with no government interference, we'd probably have an environment like the former Soviet Union or China. I guess it's about setting the right balance based on sound science, rather than politics from either end of the spectrum.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

I do not think that basing policy on science alone is wise, economic considerations are very important and have ramifications for the national interest. It is a matter of cost-benefit, having unreglated polution and environmental ruin may provide short term gains but it is unsustainable. I would also point out that there are some situations where pollution is worthwhile for the longer term advantages it provides. And the damage that is done by poverty, in the USA logging is not so much an issue but in places where people don't have sustainable ag practices they simply have to cut down trees for usuable land.