Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout : The making of a sensible Environmentalist de Patrick Moore (2010)

Patrick Moore est un des fondateurs d’une ONG bien connue : Greenpeace. Il la quitte néanmoins une quinzaine d’année après, au milieu des années 80. Il a écrit un livre publié en 2010 : « Confessions of a Greenpeace dropout : The making of a sensible environmentalist », que nous allons commenter.

Je vais adopter une méthode plus facile que pour les commentaires précédents : je vous fais une synthèse rapide, puis je vais tirer des extraits, comme des notes de lectures dans lesquelles je pourrai revenir piocher plus tard. J’utilise un epub, donc les références sont faites par « emplacement », sur un total de 9300.

Synthèse rapide

Patrick Moore commence par raconter les débuts de Greenpeace : quand ils ont essayé de perturber un essai nucléaire américain, puis des essais français avant d’entraver des baleiniers. Dès 1982, l’organisation rassemblait 100M$ par an de dons. Plus elle s’est déchiré, ses collègues devenant « plus extrêmes et intolérants envers les opinions dissidentes ». Le groupe vit une grave crise entre le bureau historique, à Vancouver, et celui de San Fransisco. La crise se solde par la création d’une nouvelle entité à Amsterdam qui chapeaute l’ensemble. Les leaders historiques, dont Patrick Moore, sont écartés de cette nouvelle direction. Patrick Moore quitte l’organisation quand Greenpeace propose, en 1985, de lutter contre … le chlore.

Le livre présente les nombreuses impostures de Greenpeace. Outre celles que nous connaissons bien, comme les OGM ou le nucléaire, il va longuement parler du lobbying anti-foresterie et anti-aquaculture, domaines qu’il connait bien ayant des parents forestiers et eu une ferme aquacole.

C’est une ressource extrêmement précieuse qui donne un aperçu global de la pseudo-écologie par quelqu’un qui l’a vue naître.

Gros point noir : il reprend beaucoup d’argumentaires climatosceptiques dont beaucoup sont clairement fallacieux. Par exemple, il prétend que le CO2 est bon, parce qu’il nourrit les plantes. C’est juste idiot. Ou encore que la Terre a déjà été plus chaude. Globalement, son argumentaire ressemble à un millefeuille argumentatif.

Prise de notes

Il qualifie dans l’introduction l’agenda de Greenpeace comme « antiscience, antibusiness et basiquement antihumain. » (e. 59)

« Nous étions bons pour dire aux gens ce qu’ils devraient arrêter de faire, mais quasiment inutiles pour aider les gens trouver ce qu’ils devraient faire à la place. » (e.123)

« Ironiquement, ce rejet de la science et de la logique était partiellement une réponse à l’acceptation croissance des valeurs environnementales. Certains activistes ne pouvaient simplement pas faire la transition de la confrontation au consensus ; c’était comme s’ils avaient besoin d’un ennemi commun. » (e.136)

« La guerre froide était finie et le mouvement pacifiste était largement dissous. Le mouvement pacifiste avait été essentiellement des tendances anti-occidentales et anti-américaines. Beaucoup de ses membres sont allés dans le mouvement environnementaliste, amenant avec eux leurs agendas néo-marxiste et d’extrême gauche. Dans une large mesure le mouvement environnementaliste a été hijacké par des acotivstes politiques et sociaux qui ont appris à utilise le langage « vert » pour couvrir des agendas qui avaient plus à voir avec l’anticapitalisme et l’antiglobalisation qu’avec la science et l’écologie. […] Je ne les blâme pas pour saisir l’opportunité. Il y avait beaucoup de pouvoir dans notre mouvement et ils ont vu comment il pouvait être détourné pour servir leurs agenda de changement révolutionnaire et de lutte des classes » (e.149)

« Jusqu’à ce jour, ils utilisent le mot industrie comme si c’était un juron. Idem pour multinational, chimique, génétique, ‘corporate’, globalisation et d’autres mots parfaitement utiles. » (e.149)

L’une des premières manifestations de cet extrémisme aurait la campagne pour bannir le chlorine. En 1991, Greenpeace aurait adopté une résolution demandant le fin de « the use, export, and import of all organochlorines, elemental chlorine and chlorinated oxidizing agents » et jugeant que « There are no uses of chlorine which we regard as safe. »

Il souligne que, si Greenpeace voulait soulager les océans, promouvoir l’aquaculture était une bonne idée. Néanmoins, lorsqu’il le propose, « de nombreux de ses collègues étaient hostiles à cette idée. » (e.175)

« Il y a une tendance malheureuse parmi les activistes environnementalistes consistant à définir l’espèce humaine comme une influence négative sur la Terre. Nous sommes assimilés à un cancer malin qui se développement, menaçant de détruire la biodiversité, perturber la balance de la nature et causer l’effondrement de l’écosystème global. Le grand mythe du mouvement est que les humains ne font pas vraiment partie de la nature, que nous somme en quelques sorte « nonnaturels », en marge du monde naturel pur. » (e.175)

« Depuis que j’ai quitté Greenpeace, ses membres, et la majorité du mouvement, ont adopté politique après politique qui reflètent leurs biais anti-humain, illustre leur rejet de la science et de la technologie et augmente le risque de dommage pour la population et l’environnement. Ils s’opposent à la foresterie, alors même qu’elle apporte notre ressource renouvelable la plus abondante. Ils n’ont aucune tolérance pour l’alimentation génétiquement modifiée, alors même que cette technologie réduit l’utilisation de pesticides et améliore la nutrition de personnes qui souffrent de malnutrition. ils continuent de s’opposer à l’énergie nucléaire, alors même que c’est la meilleure technologie pour remplacer les carburants fossiles et réduire les émissions de GES. Ils militent contre les projets hydroélectriques alors que c’est de loin la plus abondante forme renouvelable d’électricité. » (e.188)

« Il est regrettable que le public a été amené à croire que la déforestation est causée par l’utilisation de bois pour construire nos maisons, empaqueter nos biens et produire du papier […]. » (e.224) Il souligne globalement l’effet contreproductif du rejet du bois et l’augmentation des forets indiennes et chinoises.

Référence à James Cameron qui paint sont visage et manifeste contre un barrage hydro en Amazone. (ep.249)

Malheureusement, il écrit : « There is no cause for alarm about climate change. The climate is always changing. Some of the proposed ‘solutions’ would be far worse than any imaginable consequence of global warming, which will likely be mostly positive. Cooling is what we should fear. » (ep.278) A sa décharge, c’était en 2010.

« I went from being a radical activist to a kind of environmental diplomat. » (e.292)

Il discute les termes « propre », « vert » et « renouvelable ».

« La fumée intérieure venant de feux pour la cuisine et le chauffage tue 1,5 million de personnes chaque année selon l’OMS. » http://environment.about.com/od/pollution/a/stovepollution.htm

Exemple de manipulation médiatique, contre les phtalates. Développe la différence entre causalité et corrélation et l’emploi du terme « lié ». e.460-504

« Blind obedience, black and white interpretation, and zero tolerance of other people’s ideas, even other people’s honestly held opinions, even when those opinions are based on the best available information, these are the hallmarks of dogma. This is a fertile ground for all manner of totalitarian regimes, despots and snake-oil salesmen. They often make a profit and gain power from the intolerance they embrace. » (e597)

« Propaganda relies on loaded language and lies and perverts the truth.. […] Hitler’s infamous campaign against the jews was based on associating them with negative words like dirty. […] Greenpeace calls chlorine “the devil’s element,” PVC “the poison plastic,” and nuclear energy “evil.” Genetically modified foods are “Frankenfoods,” “killer tomatoes,” and “terminator seeds.” Propaganda, along with the promotion of hate and violence, represents the dark sideof communications. (e 605-607)

We are part of the environment and must therefore take responsibility for the task of harmonizing our existence with the other species on this planet. That doesn’t mean we have to take a back seat or feel badly about the fact we eat other living things. (e643-645)

For more than 10 years now, we have had the knowledge to eliminate malnutrition in the world, especially in the rice-eating cultures where nutrient deficiencies affect tens of millions of people. But groups like Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund have blocked these advances by promoting fear in the public and by supporting regulations that stifle research, development, and adoption of genetically modified crops. They are effectively condemning millions to suffering and death for the sake of a superstition. (e.675-678)

In a landmark speech before the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco in 2003, the late Dr. Michael Crichton said the environmental movement had become a religious movement. He observed, “Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.” (e.679-683)

« Greenpeace has been a leading advocate of the precautionary principle and has succeeded in having it enshrined in a number of international and national regulations. But a search of the Greenpeace International website does not reveal a very precise definition of what it thinks the principle is. Greenpeace seems content to simply invoke the precautionary principle as if it is self-explanatory, when in fact there are many facets and angles to this idea. (e.717-721) http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/trade-and-the-environment/the-precautionary-principle

Many scientists and nearly all environmental groups believe global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Many other scientists believe the present global warming trend is a natural phenomenon similar to the other warming and cooling periods that have occurred throughout Earth’s history. It is not possible to “scientifically prove” which opinion is correct because there are too many variables and we are talking about predicting the future, a difficult task for the simplest of issues. And climate change and global warming are anything but simple—this is one of the most complex and challenging areas in science today. As I stated earlier, we should remember that the crystal ball is actually a mythical object. And it is possible either or both positions are partly right; that there is a natural warming trend that is being accelerated by our fossil fuel emissions. (797-803)

« How can someone who thinks the planet will self-destruct if we don’t halt global warming be opposed to some windmills six miles from the shore? And even though Greenpeace claims to support wind energy it actively opposes another wind farm in the Western Isles of Scotland because it is “too big.” (814-816) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4415787.stm

« I do not deny that the climate has warmed; it has been doing so for more than 18,000 years—since the end of the last major glaciation, well before humans increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. And I do not deny that we are part of the cause of the recent rise in carbon dioxide levels in the global atmosphere, primarily because we burn huge quantities of fossil fuels. I don’t even deny we may be responsible for some of the present warming, but I do not believe we can be certain of this. » (865-869)

Décrit l’arrivée d’un communicant habile pour faire des « mind bomb » (= du contenu viral). e.1445

« Paul was going around to the other offices and openly fomenting opposition against Vancouver. This played into the hands of the new people, many of whom hardly knew us and who saw an opportunity to have their very own Greenpeace group. Even worse, Paul made regular announcements about what Greenpeace was going to do next without consulting the committee first. […] By a vote of 11 to 1 (Paul being the 1), Paul Watson was voted off the board of the Greenpeace Foundation in May To this day, he tells people he quit, but believe me, Paul is not a quitter: we had to fire him. Paul soon started his own group, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, and earned a reputation for ramming and scuttling whaling ships. (1895-1903)

« On board the Meander we were jubilant until we learned that the Princess Patricia had run over two Greenpeace members who were dogging the ship in a Zodiac. The Zodiacs floorboards had buckled in the cruise ship’s bow wave, and Rod Marining and Mel Gregory had been thrown out and sucked under the hull. This incident had been captured on video. We had visions of minced Greenpeacers coming out behind the propellers of the ship. But within 10 minutes, one of the Hartley Bay boats arrived with two shivering cold, slightly injured crewmen. They had been spit back out from beneath the hull before they hit the props. This was as close as we had come to losing anyone in six years of hard campaigning. The media made the captain’s decision to run the blockade look callous and public opinion ran hard on our side. Public hearings were called and a year later it was announced that the Kitimat supertanker port was dead. We may have prevented our own version of the Exxon Valdez oil spill from happening on the B.C. coast. » (e. 1944-1953).

« In the most dramatic confrontation since the first encounter with the Soviet whalers, the crew of the Rainbow Warrior piloted their Zodiacs into position beneath the platform where the barrels of nuclear waste were rolled off into the sea. Time after time, the Greenpeacers attempted to block the barrels, only to be repelled by high-pressure water cannons wielded by the dumping ship’s crew. Finally a Zodiac positioned itself squarely under the platform as the barrel was jettisoned. The heavily laden barrel fell and crushed the bow of the Zodiac, dramatically flipping the driver into the sea, from where he had to be rescued by his fellow campaigners. All this was filmed and broadcast around the world to an unbelieving audience as no one had ever exposed nuclear dumping before. Greenpeace Europe was now on the map in a big way. » (e.2209-2215)

Description de la dimension très éclatée, avec des luttes de pouvoir, de Greenpeace à la fin des 70’s, notamment entre la fondation et le bureau de San Fransisco. Belle illustration des saloperies qui peuvent être faites dans ces milieux. (e.2221)

Earlier in the day, I had coined the term “giggle room” for the fictitious place we go to avoid appearing smug in front of the media representatives when the authorities play so perfectly into our hands. We had plenty of opportunities to visit the giggle room on this day. (e 2428-2429)

Then we got the news that the U.S. government had decided not to remove the size restriction on tankers in Juan de Fuca Strait. We had prevailed and our victory had only taken a few weeks to achieve. (e.2463-2465).

The campaign to stop the baby seal slaughter was about the unethical practice of wading into the breeding colony of a wild animal and bludgeoning the nursing young to death by the hundreds of thousands. thousands. In other words, it is more an issue of animal welfare than it is of conservation. The seals are not an endangered species and they are in a different evolutionary class from whales. But no one would support the mass slaughter of the nursing young of other wild mammals—baby deer, for example—just to get their spotted hides for wallets and purses. So I can’t see why it is an acceptable practice with seals. (e.2643-264)

A propos de la réunion à Nairobi :

Environmentalists from the industrialized countries were largely against “megaprojects” like large hydro dams, water diversion projects, and massive nuclear plants. The environmentalists from developing countries explained that being against development would get you laughed out of the room where they came from. (e. 2666-2668).

It was Tom Burke, leader of Friends of the Earth UK, whom I first heard use the term sustainable development. (e. 2670-2671)

We felt the whales had been violently stolen from their close-knit family pods and placed in prison, where they were forced to do tricks for food. The practice was unacceptable. (e. 2753-2754)

Raconte l’intéret de la culture du saumon sur les saumons sauvages. A meme participé à la construction d’une ferme (e.2837 et s.)

United Nations Secretary-General Mr. Xavier Perez de Cuellar stepped in as mediator and awarded Greenpeace an $8 million settlement for the loss of the Rainbow Warrior. Not bad when you consider it had been purchased for about $47,000 in 1978. (e 2931-2933)

One of the best slogans in Greenpeace’s history found itself on a button commemorating the first anniversary of the bombing: “You Can’t Sink a Rainbow.” If it hadn’t been for the loss of life, it would have been the biggest giggle room affair in our history. France overreacted to such an extreme that it deserved the ridicule heaped on it. No other story in Greenpeace’s history has received as much media coverage as the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior. (e. 2935-2939)

Campagne contre la chlorine e.2965 et s.

You don’t just go around banning entire elements, especially when life without them would be impossible! This was the first time I really noticed that none of my fellow directors, including Chairman David McTaggart, had any formal science education. They could variously be described as political and social activists, or as environmental entrepreneurs, looking for a career in the now highly popular environmental movement. (2975-2978)

For me, this was when what had been science-based policy turned into a kind of religion based on belief rather than facts or evidence, as Bob Hunter had predicted years before. Greenpeace now calls chlorine the “devil’s element” and refers to PVC as “the poison plastic,” even though there is no evidence to show that it is toxic. (e. 2990-2993)

Renate Kroesa was supposed to be a chemist, but she was the most fanatical of all in promoting this crazy idea. Most Greenpeace folk had no chemistry and simply bought into the rhetoric about the devil and the poison and then, of course, there were the evil chlorine-producing multinational corporations bent on subjugating humankind. (e. 3025-3027)

The anti-aquaculture activists who belong to Greenpeace, the David Suzuki Foundation, the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform, and many other pressure groups do not share my views. (e. 3074-3075).

In this case the activists are employing the propagandist tool of using words like sewage and waste that conjure up foul smells and negative impressions, as if fish waste were some kind of toxic chemical when it is actually beneficial where farms are properly sited. (e. 3107-3109)

Décrit les différentes désinformations anti-aquaculture

You can be doubly sure they will never volunteer the fact that in 2003, 2004, 2009, and 2010 the population rebounded, quickly coming back to a level higher than the 50-year average for the region. Meanwhile the activists continue to claim sea lice from salmon farms are “threatening wild pink salmon with extinction.”[9] This debate has raged in British Columbia for more than 10 years, culminating in the publication of an article by the anti-salmon farm activists in the influential magazine Science in 2007.[10] (e. 3168-3174) Martin Krkosek, Jennifer S. Ford, Alexandra Morton, Subhash Lele, Ransom A. Myers, Mark A. Lewis: “Declining Wild Salmon Populations in Relation to Parasites from Farm Salmon,” Science 318, no. 5857 (December 14, 2007): 1772–1775.

« Krkosek et al. (Reports, 14 December 2007, p. 1772) claimed that sea lice spread from salmon farms ‘placed wild pink salmon populations on a trajectory toward rapid local extinction.’ Their prediction is inconsistent with observed pink salmon returns and overstates the risks from sea lice and salmon farming. »

The famed Canadian activist Dr. David Suzuki said to a Toronto Star reporter, “I would never feed farmed salmon to a child. It’s poison.”[22] ( e 3346-3348).

So why do so-called environmentalists side with the people who are killing the wild salmon? It has to do partly with a romantic notion about going back to a time when brave men went to sea and sometimes died trying to earn a living and bring food to hungry villagers. Partly it is an opportunistic move to play upon the public’s notion of this romantic theme. (e 3377-3379)

But the single biggest driver is the competition for sales in fish stores and restaurants from Los Angeles to New York. This is a very good example of “environmental” campaigns today that are simply piggybacking on trade disputes, competition for market share, and antiglobalization agendas. Salmon farming just happens to be one of the issues in the crosshairs. In the case of salmon farming, it’s all about U.S. interests (read the Alaskan salmon fishery) versus the growing imports of less expensive, consistently fresher, higher quality, available year-round, high in omega-3 fat content, farmed salmon from Chile and British Columbia. (e. 3380-3385)

It is no coincidence that most of the money flowing into British Columbia and Chile to combat salmon farming comes from the U.S.. For example, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation of California funds the anti-salmon farming activities of the David Suzuki Foundation in Vancouver. (Packard made his fortune by founding the Hewlett-Packard computer company.) Thus local Canadian activist groups are taking money from wealthy American foundations and acting as fronts for U.S. commercial interests.[23] (e. 3388-3391)

Not a single Greenpeace representative ever joined the effort, even though many were asked. For me, this confirmed my conclusion that activists in the environmental movement had become so insular that they chose to boycott the very process that could bring their ideas into the mainstream. But they didn’t want to talk about sustainability or consensus, they wanted to continue to fight a war through the media, a war in which they were the good guys and their targets were branded as the enemies of the earth. (e. 3590-3594)

Eloge du dialogue et méthodologie des tables rondes

Not only was I personally intrigued by the project, my family’s 75 years in the forestry business compelled me to lend a hand. Here was an opportunity to apply the knowledge I had gained in the environmental movement in assisting the industry my grandfather and father had been involved in all their lives. My dad had worked very hard to improve the image of the working people who were now being accused of “rape” and “desecration” of nature, the very people who provide us with the wood to build our homes and the paper to make our books. (e 3776-3780)

enough. But I was not prepared for the firestorm of public and private invective that followed my acceptance to be one of 30 directors of the Forest Alliance. (e 3785-3786).

Many people in the forest industry believed they had a public relations problem; if only they could explain the situation to the uninformed citizens everything would be put right. (e 3814-3816)

Ironically, the fact that trees are living organisms leads people to have sympathy for them while they have no such feelings for nonrenewable resources like steel, plastic, and concrete. This emotional aspect of the anti-forestry movement is not easily approached with logical arguments. (e 3853-3855)

Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Rainforest Action Network, and even the usually more temperate World Wildlife Fund gave the impression that forestry was a morally questionable activity. The same tone continues to this day and has been responsible for environmental groups receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, donations from individuals and foundations that believe there is something fundamentally wrong with cutting trees while they continue to consume products made from wood every day. (e 3860-3864)

Globalement décrit l’opposition des environnementaliste à la table ronde de Forest Alliance ; compare la signature par les principaux dirigeants de l’industrie forestière le 28 février 1992 des Principles of Sustainable Forestry

In the aftermath about half my friends disowned me, buying into Bob’s claim that I was a sellout and a traitor to the cause. It’s amazing how fickle some friends are. While I spent 15 years on the frontlines of the movement living on a subsistence income, some of my doctor and lawyer friends were bringing in six figures, cheering me on all the way. They were generous with their time, volunteering on many occasions. But they didn’t dedicate the best years of their lives to the movement. Many of them fit the description “millionaire socialists” as they were all for the underdogs in society, even though they were decidedly not among them. Our lawyer friend, the late David Gibbons, denounced me as a “quisling,” not a nice thing to call a guy. In retrospect I believe they were upset because I was no longer serving their ideological ambitions, no longer living out their fantasy of how to save the planet. How dare I decide to carve out a future focused on how I see the world rather than doing their bidding for the rest of my life? (e 4001-4009)

Shortly before he died, Bob Hunter offered me a prolific apology over a few glasses of wine in my kitchen in Vancouver. This was witnessed by my wife, Eileen, and by my eco-warrior buddy, Rex Weyler. Bob realized that he had made the mistake of attacking the person rather than debating the issue. My rule–put family and friends above politics. e 4016-4019)

The media made a willing conduit for this style of assault, repeating the “eco-Judas” slur time after time. If I thought I had developed a thick skin during my time with Greenpeace, that was nothing compared to the hide I developed during these years. It culminated in 1996 with the launch of the “Patrick Moore is a Big Fat Liar” website by the Forest Action Network, a band of anti-forestry campaigners who thought nothing of using misinformation and distortion to further their cause. (e 4024-4027)

On a dark and rainy morning in December 1992, Eileen and I were awakened by a crashing sound outside our front door. Upon going downstairs to investigate Eileen hollered up that I had better come down and take a look. Someone had dumped eight giant garbage bags of horse manure on our front porch and steps. A note was left with “Tree Killer” scribbled on it. It wasn’t a pretty sight or smell. (e 4038-4040)

farming. Activists are clearly against cutting trees that grow in the wilderness, yet they insist it is better to eat wild salmon and to boycott farmed salmon. This kind of logical inconsistency creates confusion and fails to recognize that farming trees and farming salmon both contribute to the sustainability of the resource. (e 4152-4154)

Deforestation isn’t something that happens and then is done forever. Deforestation is a continuing process of purposeful human activity aimed at preventing the forest from growing back. (e 4174-4175)

Forest companies are accused of “rape,” “desecration,” “pillage,” and “plunder” when they harvest trees for lumber to build our homes, furniture, and other wood products. Propaganda is largely about associating words and ideas with positive or negative descriptors, loading them down with verbal baggage that triggers an emotional reaction. (e 4230-4232)

In recent years anti-forestry activists have claimed forest harvesting and forestry in general has a negative impact on climate change. The group ForestEthics (an offshoot of Greenpeace) claims forestry amounts to a “carbon bomb,” referring to the release of CO2 from decomposing wood immediately after harvesting. (e 4279-4282)

=> référence au GIEC qui défend la foresterie pour réduire les émissions de GES

The LEED standard for green building requires that wood be certified as originating from sustainably managed forests. This is as it should be but only the Forest Stewardship Council, another activist-oriented organization, is accepted as a certifier. There are a number of other legitimate certifiers of sustainable forest management, including the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), [6] the Canadian Standards Association (CSA),[7] the American Tree Farmers,[8] and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC).[9] The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) does not recognize these systems. (e 4347-4354)

Even more discriminatory is the fact that the LEED standard does not recognize construction lumber as a renewable material. LEED does recognize all kinds of marginal building materials, such as wheatboard, bamboo flooring, and strawboard. But USGBC manages to exclude lumber by naming the category “Rapidly Renewable Materials.” This term is then defined as “renewable materials that renew themselves in less than ten years.” Because it takes trees anywhere from 25 to 100 years to reach a size where they become suitable for sawmilling they are excluded. These people don’t think trees grow fast enough to qualify as “renewable.” If you needed any evidence that anti-forestry activists have hijacked the USGBC, then this should do the trick.[10] (e 4357-4362)

By the year 2000, Greenpeace had quietly succeeded in convincing the government of Australia that native wood and PVC should be banned from the Games of the 27th Olympiad, the Sydney Summer Games. In return, Greenpeace agreed to let Australia call the Games “The Green Olympics.” Ironically this meant the Olympic venues for the 2000 Sydney “Green” Olympic Games were built almost entirely with steel and concrete. (e 4368-4371) –

Greenpeace arrived with a backhoe and TV crews and dug up some pipes, declaring through the media that the government had broken its promise to ban “The Poison Plastic.” (e 4374-4375)

I had long been aware that James Lovelock, the independent British scientist who developed the Gaia Hypothesis, favored nuclear energy as a way to reduce fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions. My old Greenpeace buddy Rex Weyler had introduced me to Lovelock’s first book in 1979. He was perhaps the first prominent environmental thinker to accept nuclear energy as a solution rather than a threat. The antinuclear folks conveniently ignored his consistent support for nuclear energy while at the same time rallying to his increasingly dire warnings about climate change. (e 4452-4456)

We do not have a computer program that can look into the future with accuracy. There is actually no proof we are causing the observed changes in weather and climate we are observing. The climate has been changing from the beginning of the earth’s creation, billions of years before we were here. How presumptuous is it for us to think we are suddenly the main cause of climate change? (e 4500-4503)

Hugh Montefiore, a former Anglican bishop, was a founder of Friends of the Earth UK in the 1970s and served as a director for decades. When he stated in 2004, “I have now come to the conclusion that the solution [to global warming] is to make more use of nuclear energy.”[7] he was forced to resign his post. (e 4593-4596)

One of the founders of the Italian environmental movement, Chicco Testa, has written a book explaining why he has converted to nuclear power.[8] He now actively supports Italy’s recent decision to build between four and eight nuclear plants. Anna Momigliano, “Russian Gas Cutoff Energizes Nuclear Comeback,” Christian Science Monitor, January 16, 2009, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2009/0116/p06s01-wogn.html ( e 4599-4601)

In 2009 Stephen Tindale, the former executive director of Greenpeace UK, announced that he now supports nuclear energy. He was joined by three other prominent conservationists: Lord Chris Smith of Finsbury, the chairman of the Environment Agency, Mark Lynas, the author of the Royal Society’s science book of the year, and Chris Goodall, a Green Party activist and prospective parliamentary candidate.[9] (e 4603-4606)

I don’t mean to beat up on Bobby Kennedy Jr. all the time, but at least it’s a change from picking on Greenpeace. The blurb announcing his keynote presentation to the 2009 Solar Power International conference in Anaheim, California, states, “Mr. Kennedy argues a sophisticated, well-crafted energy policy will help sharpen American competitiveness while reducing energy costs and our national debt and offers a bold vision to restore U.S. economic might, safeguard our environment, and reestablish America’s role as an exemplary nation.” He has a lot of nerve implying solar energy will “reduce energy costs” and help “sharpen American competitiveness.” (e 4760-4765)

Spanish solar companies are being investigated for selling solar energy at night. It is presumed they were running diesel generators and sending the power through the meters that measure solar output. Such incredible distortions to market prices are bound to lead to this kind of fraudulent activity.[20] (e 4843-4846)

Based on their opposition to hydropower, Greenpeace and other activist groups managed to force the World Bank to withdraw financial support for the Three Gorges Dam in China, the largest hydro project in the world at 22,500 megawatts. (e 4930-4932)

Compare the record of the nuclear industry to other major energy technologies. An accident in the turbine room of Russia’s largest hydroelectric dam caused 69 deaths in July 2009.[43] In February 2010 the Connecticut Kleen Energy natural gas plant exploded, killing five plant workers.[44] In April 2010 an explosion in a coal mine in West Virginia resulted in 29 deaths (about 5000 workers die in coal mines every year, mostly in China).[45] (e 5206-5211)

But it is annoying because antinuclear activists are fond of detecting minute amounts of radiation near nuclear plants and then claiming the radiation came from the nuclear plant and that it will cause widespread cancer. The “Tooth-Fairy Project”, conducted by the stridently antinuclear group Radiation and Public Health Project, collects baby teeth and analyzes them for strontium-90, one of the fission products from nuclear explosions and nuclear reactors.[47] teeth “may” cause an increase in cancer among people who live near nuclear plants. A quick search finds that 99 percent of the strontium-90 in the environment is from atmospheric nuclear testing that occurred between 1945 and 1980 when China conducted the last nuclear explosion in the air. During that time period 522 atomic and hydrogen bombs were set off in the atmosphere.[48] These tests injected 4.2 tonnes (4.6 tons) of strontium-90 into the global environment.[49] Because strontium-90 has a half-life of nearly 30 years, about one-third of that amount still remains; much of it has been washed into the sea, but some of it still remains in the food chain and is deposited in babies’ teeth. (e 5233-5245)

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center, antinuclear groups latched onto the idea that nuclear plants are “sitting ducks for terrorists.”[56] […] If a terrorist did manage to drive an aircraft into a nuclear reactor, it would be a very bad day at the plant, but it would not breach the containment and would not release radiation into the environment.[57](e 5294-5306)

Discute et debunke l’essentiel de la propagande antinucléaire

One of the most important medical isotopes, technetium-99m, is produced by bombarding enriched uranium with neutrons from a nuclear reactor, thus producing molybdenum-99, which has a half-life of 66 hours. The molybdenum is then delivered to hospitals around the world, where it then decays into technetium-99m, with a half-life of only six hours. Technetium is used to diagnose more than 20 million medical conditions every year and provides the best possible images of the brain, kidneys, liver, lungs, skeleton, blood, and tumors. Eighty-five percent of all nuclear diagnostic imaging is done with this isotope. (e 5523-5527)

One of the primary rules for “organic” farming is that no “synthetic” fertilizers or pesticides may be used. I have placed quotes around these words for good reason. The word organic, as it is used in organic farming, is not a scientific or technically meaningful term. In the context that organic farmers employ the word it is in fact a marketing term designed to sell products. The real definition of organic is both general (it has to do with living things) and specific (it has to do with compounds that contain carbon, as in organic chemistry) (e 6223-6228)

Perhaps the most curious of all is the provision to allow the use of oxytocin, a mammalian hormone known in some circles as “the love hormone.” Oxytocin is a peptide involved in regulating birth, breast milk production, and maternal behavior, as well as orgasm, anxiety, trust, and love. In livestock rearing oxytocin is used to induce labor when it does not come naturally in a timely fashion.[13] (e 6252-6255).

In the 1990s, the Cancer Research Institutes of the U.S. and Canada collaborated on a multi-year study of all scientific publications about the connection between cancer in humans and pesticide residues on food.[20] They could not find a single piece of evidence connecting the two. (e 6336-6339)

Dr. Bruce Ames received the U.S. National Medal of Science in 1998 for his lifelong research into the causes of cancer.[21] [22] He developed the Ames Test, which is used to determine the relative carcinogenicity of various chemicals. For much of his life he has worked to live down the legacy of this test. [23] What he found was that many otherwise harmless substances, if administered in huge doses, resulted in tumors and mutations in bacteria, rats, and mice. (e 6345-6351)

To quote Dr. Ames, “The effort to eliminate synthetic pesticides because of unsubstantiated fears about residues in food will make fruits and vegetables more expensive, decrease consumption, and thus increase cancer rates.” [24] (e 6369-6371)

During the years the WHO and USAID refused aid to countries that used DDT for malaria control, the rate of infection skyrocketed. The poorer countries relied on these aid agencies for health care and were therefore held hostage by the anti-DDT policy. Fortunately both South Africa and India had sufficient resources of their own and decided to reject outside aid and retain the right to use DDT. The success of their efforts at controlling the spread of malaria became one of the main beacons for the campaign to Kill Malarial Mosquitoes Now! [28] (e 6418-6422)

The Stockholm Convention of the United Nations was finalized in Johannesburg in December 2000. Its aim is to eliminate persistent organic pollutants (POPs), many of which are chlorinated compounds. DDT was named to the high-priority list known as the “dirty dozen.” Greenpeace and the WWF consistently opposed any use of DDT, even for malaria control, even though there is no evidence it causes harm when used in this context. In fact there is no conclusive evidence that DDT is harmful to humans even when one uses it indoors to kill mosquitoes at levels that are far higher than typical exposures. If it had not been for the intervention of sufficient African delegates, it is likely Greenpeace and its friends would have succeeded in having the Stockholm Convention ban DDT outright. Fortunately this didn’t happen and when the Convention was ratified in Paris in 2004, it contained an exception for the use of DDT in fighting malaria.[30] Later in 2004, under great pressure from humanitarians and scientists, both Greenpeace and the WWF made statements that they now agreed DDT should be used to control malaria.[31] (e 6428-6437)

The European Union (EU) established a de facto moratorium on GM crops in 1998, citing the precautionary principle and unspecified threats to human health and the environment. This caused many countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America to place bans on growing GM crops for fear their food exports to Europe would be embargoed. (e 6536-6538)

The inhumanity of the anti-GM stance can be no better illustrated than with the example of Golden Rice. (e 6550-6551)

Dr. Potrykus found himself having to defend his invention against these phony accusations. Greenpeace threatened to “rip the rice from the ground” if anyone dared plant it. They claimed that Golden Rice was merely a front for multinationals like Monsanto who were using it to gain acceptance of their evil plot to control the seed industry. [45] Michael Fumento, “Golden Rice: A Golden Chance for the Underdeveloped World,” American Outlook, July–August 2001, http://www.fumento.com/goldenrice.html( e 6578-6581)

Greenpeace has the nerve to resort to the “precautionary principle” to defend its zero-tolerance position on Golden Rice. Greenpeace says, “Golden Rice could breed with wild and weedy relatives to contaminate wild rice forever. If there were any problems the clock could not be turned back.”[47] (e 6592-6595)

GM crops were effectively banned in India due to anti-GM campaigns led by Vandana Shiva, a Western-educated feminist who claimed to be defending the “traditional agricultural practices” (read poverty and lack of education) of poor rural farmers. (e 6691-6692)

In 2002 Greenpeace warned that planting “toxic” GM corn “would result in millions of dead bodies, sick children, cancer clusters and deformities.”[57] They held a hunger strike for 29 days, finally calling it off on May 22, 2003, when it became clear that the government would allow farmers to plant GM corn because its top scientific advisors had recommended it do so. (e 6704-6707)

They will never stop the growth of GM technology; they will never stop nuclear energy or fossil fuel energy; they will never stop the sustainable management of forests for timber production; and they will never stop salmon aquaculture. This creates an opportunity for an endless campaign of propaganda, supporting an endless fundraising campaign to support even more propaganda. As a political strategy it is quite brilliant, except they didn’t actually devise it themselves, it just happened that way. It happened that way because the campaigns they won are now over, and as they gradually abandoned science and logic in favor of zero-tolerance policies, they inevitably ended up with unwinnable campaigns. (e 6734-6739).

“Scientists Agree World Faces Mass Extinction” (CNN) • “Quarter of Mammals ‘Face Extinction’” (BBC) • “Half of All Species May Be Extinct in Our Lifetime” (U.S. National Academy of Science) • “Fastest Mass Extinction in Earth’s History” (Worldwatch) • “Headlong Drive to Mass Extinction” (Toronto Globe and Mail) • “Wave of Extinctions Sweeping the Planet” (United Nations) • “One Quarter of Primates Will be Extinct in 20 Years” (London Times, 2005) • “One Third of Primates Face Extinction” (BBC, 2002) (e 6939-6950).

In March 1996, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) held a media conference in Geneva during the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests. They stated that 50,000 species now become extinct every year due to human activity, more than at any time since the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago. Most significantly, WWF stated that the main cause of these extinctions is “commercial logging.”[11] This was largely due, according to then WWF director general Claude Martin, to “massive deforestation in industrialized countries.” (e 7070-7074)

In May 1996, I wrote to Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, in his capacity as President of WWF International. […] Prince Philip replied: I have to admit I did not see the draft of the statement that [WWF spokesperson] Jean-Paul Jeanrenaud was to make at the meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests in Geneva. The first two of his comments [50,000 species per year and the dinosaur comparison] are open to question, but they are not seriously relevant to the issue. However, I quite agree that his third statement [logging being the main cause of extinction] is certainly contentious and the points that you make are all good ones. All I can say is that he was probably thinking of tropical forests when he made the comment.[14] e 7088-7093)

That campaign was squarely based on allegations that “BC’s coastal grizzlies will likely face extinction in the next four decades if logging operations continue to move north up the coast” and “142 stocks of salmon are now extinct” and logging is “a primary threat” to the remaining stocks.[22] (e 7137-7140) “The Great Bear Rain forest,” Greenpeace, June 1997, p. 21 and p. 8.

Fragile Web” contains a particularly unfortunate article titled “The Sixth Extinction.”[28] The first two pages of the article feature a photo of the Australian scientist Dr. Tim Flannery looking over a collection of stuffed and pickled small mammals that are now extinct. The caption reads: “In the next century half of all species could be annihilated, as were these mammals seen in Tim Flannery’s lab at the Australian Museum. Unlike the past five [extinctions], this mass extinction is being fueled by humans.” To be sure, the article subsequently mentions that the Australian extinctions were caused by the introduction of cats and foxes when Europeans colonized the region more than 200 years ago. This resulted in the loss of about 35 animal species, mainly flightless birds and ground-dwelling marsupials that could not defend themselves against these new predators. [29] e 7202-7209

The use of the Australian example to justify claims we are experiencing a mass extinction is put into focus by Brian Groombridge, the editor of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species, when he states, “around 75 percent of recorded extinctions…have occurred on islands. Very few extinctions have been recorded in continental tropical forest habitat, where mass extinction events are predicted to be underway.”[30] (e 7214-7217) B. Groombridge, ed., 1994 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 1993).

In May 2010 Science Magazine, a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), published an article claiming that 20 percent of the world’s lizards could become extinct by 2080 due to climate change.[35] “This rivals some of the greatest extinctions of any organisms in the geologic record,” said the lead author, Barry Sinervo of the University of California-Santa Cruz.[36] At 200 sites in Mexico that were surveyed for 48 species of lizards, the researchers found that, “Since 1975, 12 percent of local populations have gone extinct.” (e 7275-7282)

Campagne contre le PVC (e.7488 et s.)

When Greenpeace first adopted the campaign to call PVC “the poison plastic” it focused on the creation of dioxins in the manufacture of the vinyl monomer that is the building block for the plastic polymer. While it is true that a very small amount of dioxin is produced in vinyl plants, less than one-half of 1 percent produced by human activity, the levels emitted are not considered harmful by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (e 7512-7515)

Most of the dioxin produced by humans comes from incineration, wood combustion, diesel trucks, oil-fired power plants, coal-fired industry, and cement kilns. The entire chemical industry does not even rate in the top 10.[4] ‘e 7518-7520)

More recently PVC has been attacked because of the plasticizers used to make it soft. The little rubber ducky our kids use as a bath toy has become the symbol of “toxic PVC.” Every statement by Greenpeace on the subject refers to PVC as “toxic PVC.” There is a book titled Slow Death by Rubber Duck.[5] This is a classic case of a campaign based on misinformation (toxic PVC), promoted through the use of sensationalism (“one of the most toxic substances saturating our planet and its inhabitants”)[6] and fear (“linked to cancer and kidney damage”.[7] There’s that word linked again.).(e 7530-7537) Rick Smith and Bruce Laurie, Slow Death by Rubber Duck: How the Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Life Affects Our Health, (Berkeley, Counterpoint, 2009).

When pressed in this manner about its use of PVC for packaging, Wal-Mart announced it would phase out PVC packaging for its own brand-name products. This put wind into the sails of the anti-PVC movement who then used Wal-Mart’s promise to pressure other retailers to do the same or more. (e 7556-7558)

Just search the Internet for “Wal-Mart PVC” and you will see there is a mixture of articles reporting Wal-Mart has “banned PVC” on the one hand and on the other hand lots of other websites where Wal-Mart advertises bargain prices on merchandise made with PVC. But its token gesture to ban the use of PVC in certain packages gives the impression there is something wrong with vinyl and that the activists’ cause is valid. (e 7561-7564)

campaign. Led by former Greenpeace activist Bill Walsh, the HBN works tirelessly to convince architects, builders, and the public that PVC is poisoning them and their clients. Of all the great ironies the HBC has placed a strong emphasis on health care facilities, claiming that the vinyl products used in building and operating hospitals and care facilities harm patients. The campaign has since broadened to include all of the halogens, which include fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine and anything containing them. (e 7602-7605)

To quote Margaret Wente, a noted Canadian journalist, “activists have warned that BPA in plastic water bottles is associated with cancer, diabetes, man-boobs, reduced sperm counts, shrunken testicles, early onset puberty and obesity.”[11] (e 7634-7637)

The U.K. Food Standards Agency recently stated, “The Food Standards Agency, working closely with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and the European Commission have looked into the potential risks from BPA and found that exposure of UK consumers to BPA from all sources, including food contact materials, was well below levels considered harmful.”[12] (e 7649-7652)

The April 2010 issue of Toxicological Sciences reports on a study conducted by Dr. Earl Gray of the EPA on the effect of BPA on rats. He fed the rats up to 4,000 times the highest dose of BPA than the average human might be exposed to and found it had absolutely no adverse effects on the animals.[13] Professor Richard Sharpe of the Medical Research Council’s Centre for Reproductive Biology in Edinburgh stated, “The results [of the study] are unequivocal and robust and are based on a valid and rational scientific foundation,”.[14] (e 7653-7658)

The impetus for this can be traced to a combination of the media tending toward sensationalism and perpetuating conflict, activist groups perpetuating fear and therefore fundraising, activist scientists trying to make a name for themselves, and politicians wishing to look like they are saving babies from large corporations. This is not so much a conspiracy but rather a case of converging interests. Everyone benefits: more papers get sold, more funds are raised, more research grants handed out, and more politicians wear halos. Only the truth, the public, and the economy lose out in this case of what one of my friends calls a classic clusterfuck.[15] (e 7663-7667) http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/clusterfuck

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) was formed in Vienna. Led by atmospheric scientist Dr. Fred Singer, the NIPCC published “Climate Change Reconsidered,” a comprehensive scientific critique of the IPCC’s findings, in 2009.[5] This report was signed by more than 31,000 American scientists and concluded, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”[6] Clearly there is no overwhelming consensus among scientists on the subject of climate.[7](e 7935-7942)

A Pew Foundation poll conducted in October 2009 found only 36 percent of the general public in the United States believes humans are the cause of global warming, whereas 33 percent does not believe the earth is warming and 16 percent believe the earth is warming but that it is due to natural causes. Public opinion was sharply divided along partisan lines: 50 percent of Democrats believe global warming is caused by humans, while 33 percent of independents, and only 18 percent of Republicans agree with this. (e7959-7963)

Discours sur les évolutions historiques des températures (e8000 et s.)

Of an estimated population of 20,000 to 25,000 bears, more than 700 are shot every year by trophy hunters and native Inuit. One hundred and nine are killed in the Baffin Bay region of Canada alone. And yet activist groups like the World Wildlife Fund use the polar bear as a poster child for global warming, incorrectly alleging that they are being wiped out by climate change. The population of polar bears was estimated at 6000 in 1960. (e 8169-8172)

What about the undisputed fact that CO2 is the most important food for all life on earth? (e 8295-8296)

The April 2008 edition of Discover magazine contains a full-page article about plants, written by Jocelyn Rice, titled, “Leaves at Work.” The article begins with this passage, “In the era of global warming, leaves may display an unexpected dark side. As CO2 concentrations rise, plants can become full. As a result, their stomata—the tiny holes that collect the CO2…will squeeze shut. When the stomata close, plants not only take less CO2 from the air but also draw less water from the ground, resulting in a run of water into rivers. The stomata effect [my emphasis] has been responsible for the 3 percent increase in river runoff seen over the past century.”[55] At this point my BS meter went off. There is no possibility anyone has a data set that could determine a 3 percent increase in global river runoff in the past 100 years. (e 8360-8369)

This caused the chairman of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, who happens to be Indian, to denounce the Environment Ministry’s report as “voodoo science.”[71] It was not until after the Copenhagen conference that the IPCC published an admission of error. They stated, “In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly.”[72] Yet Dr. Pachauri refused to apologize for calling the Environment Ministry’s report “voodoo science.”[73] It was revealed that the 2035 date was based on an interview by New Scientist magazine of a single Indian scientist, who subsequently admitted his statement was “speculative.”[74] The New Scientist article was then referred to in a 2005 WWF report on glaciers, which was cited as the only reference in support of the 2035 date.[75] (e 8485-8496).

It has been widely reported in the media, based on a few scientific papers, that the increasing levels of CO2in the atmosphere will result in “ocean acidification,” threatening coral reefs and all marine shellfish with extinction within 20 years.[91] The story goes like this: The oceans absorb about 25 percent of the CO2we emit into the atmosphere each year. The higher the CO2content of the atmosphere, the more CO2will be absorbed by the oceans. When CO2is dissolved in water, some of it is converted into carbonic acid that has a weak acidic effect. If the sea becomes more acidic, it will dissolve the calcium carbonate that is the main constituent of coral and the shells of clams, shrimp, crabs, etc. It is one more doomsday scenario, predicting the seas will “degrade into a useless tidal desert,”[92] (e 8588-8597)

Climate change activists have made great fanfare about the possibility that many island states, such as the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Tuvalu, and the Maldives, will be inundated and disappear due to rising sea levels caused by human-induced climate change.[108] (e 8723-8725)

The most quoted email among the thousands released from the Climatic Research Unit, which led to the “Climategate” crisis, was one from the CRU’s head, Phil Jones, referring to “Mike’s Nature trick…to hide the decline.”[111] [112] (e 8737-8741

Some of his recent statements are chilling. Lovelock contends that, “We need a more authoritative world…even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”[122] (e 8785-8788)