Greenpeace Founder: ‘Climate Change Crisis’ Is a ‘Completely Made-Up Issue’

[TampIt]

As you have the right to do but let's take each one by one:

Yes, but our politicians refuse to act because of the lack of vision beyond the next election. When action is proposed, the cry is often 'think of the jobs'. Unfortunately that needs to become 'think of the planet' and jobs and environment aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
One of the arguments thrown up against emission control is that we are small fish in a big pond and our small emission reduction contribution would be more than offset by the bigger polluters. I say this is like saying I'm going to drop this bit of paper on the ground as there is already lots of rubbish around and one less piece isn't going to make any difference. Well it does make a difference: it's about the power of one, and if everyone makes the effort to clean up their own crap, the collective effort will make a big difference.

G'day flynnaus

... edited by me to one point worth much further consideration and debate.

There is a Norwegian proverb I grew up with. English translation (via family) "Every bit helps said the mouse as he pissed in the ocean". Yep, even small changes matter.

The other reasons I bring up Norway:-

1) Thanks to Thatcher selling off the English farm, Norway purchased BP North Sea in the early 80's (I think - or late '70's). A few days ago I read they have the world's biggest sovereign wealth fund (over $US1.1 trillion). About 2 years ago they had over $US200k surplus per person (including newborns).
2) They have had minority governments for decades. On a 1970 trip over there my dad was stunned to hear that they had 31 political parties and needed 19 of them to form a government. He attended their parliamentary gallery "to see it gridlocked" in his own words. Much to his surprise party leader after party leader stood up in favour of the 4 bills they passed that day, often with comments like "We would do it a bit differently, however for the good of the country....".
3) They have a really high rate of tax which they spend on infrastructure. How much would all weather bridges between the hundreds of Lofoten islands in the Arctic circle cost? I reckon more than the current Oz deficit. Of course those bridges mean that the Lofoten's are not cut off for the 4 months of severe winter each year.
4) They have a good social welfare net.
5) They also have all of the advantages of the EU without being controlled by idiotic bureaucrats in Brussels. Any Oz / Norwegian dual passport holder can get someone into virtually any country of the world (to reside permanently & work without complications in most of them).
6) Their "Statoil" (which is what it sounds like - state owned North Sea oil originally) ensures their oil dollars stay in their country. Ironically, they are spending up on renewables now to the point they have changed their name to Equinor ASA to reflect their new operational outlook.
7) Last month (March 2019) Norway registered more new Electric vehicles than ICU (petrol / diesel) ones.

Not bad for a country with a population about the same as Sydney.

So my question is "How is Oz (and the US for that matter) doing it so wrong on so many levels?"

Our government seems to be a choice between Tweedledumber and Tweedledumberer. When was the last time we heard an Oz pollie compromise with "for the good of the country"?
Our "action" on climate change, water management and environmental issues is appalling.
Our infrastructure is falling down around our ears, yet the pollies are giving tax cuts to the big end of town - not that too many of them are paying a lot of tax anyway.
We in Oz receive a pittance for our mineral wealth.
Our productivity and our corporate profits are way up whilst wages are flat.
Our inequality has been rising since the '80's (no surprise there).

FWIW, I hope this 11th May election results in minority government in both houses so that a possible change from the current adversarial political system can start to occur.

TampIt

[flynnaus]

Anyway ...

[flynnaus]

As far as climate change is concerned, I certainly have views

As you have the right to do but let's take each one by one:

Our planet is changing, but that's been happening for millions of years without any input from humans.

Undisputed, but what is clear is that the rate of change is much greater now than any time in human history, that began in the mid-19th C, and which more than 97% of scientists agree has been caused to a large degree by humankind.
https://www.climatechangeinaustralia...change/trends/

I have no doubt we are polluting the atmosphere, decimating rain forests, polluting rivers, filling the oceans and rivers with crap and wiping out species- all things that can be controlled, not eliminated, with a bit more freaking common sense and care.

Yes, but our politicians refuse to act because of the lack of vision beyond the next election. When action is proposed, the cry is often 'think of the jobs'. Unfortunately that needs to become 'think of the planet' and jobs and environment aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
One of the arguments thrown up against emission control is that we are small fish in a big pond and our small emission reduction contribution would be more than offset by the bigger polluters. I say this is like saying I'm going to drop this bit of paper on the ground as there is already lots of rubbish around and one less piece isn't going to make any difference. Well it does make a difference: it's about the power of one, and if everyone makes the effort to clean up their own crap, the collective effort will make a big difference.

Climate, land masses and oceans will continue to change as they have for eons.

At present, it's the rate and type of change that's of concern.

The biggest problem we face is over population along with the constant push for procreation and preservation of human life, no matter how feeble, no one really seems to want to address it, scientists may come up with an answer, tree huggers and religious zealots most certainly won't.

I think scientists have provided the answers eg renewable energy, better farming, more efficient systems. These are still developing.
The problem of population control is complex. We tend to rely on population growth so future generations can support current ones but will we have the resources to sustain future populations? It's up to our politicians to formulate policy and that has to occur cooperatively at every level of government. That won't happen until they put ideology aside and work to a common goal. Unfortunately, as I type this, I have a feeling that that will never happen.

The planet will continue to evolve regardless of what we do.

It might. It might also devolve to the point of mass extinction if we don't do anything.
Let's say for arguments sake that the science of climate change is not settled what should we do, throw up our hands and say nothing we do will make any difference or have a crack at cleaning up our shit? I think the latter is a better approach than hoping for the best.

[Dimal]

The planet will continue to evolve regardless of what we do.

Whether we're here or not but at least we are supposed (collectively) to have the intelligence and wherewithal to both learn from and correct our mistakes. It's the latter that I have concerns about and the impact on the rest of the planet's inhabitants...

Mal.

[warthog]

Agree with some of that Yelta.
Overpopulation needs to be addressed. It will be difficult to achieve though. Our economic system relies on growth in a finite world. It doesn't need much forward thinking to see the problems associated with that

As far as climate change, the science states there are links between atmospheric CO2 and temperature rise. We are seeing the results. Temperature rise and icemelt.
Yes it has happened before. However we need to look at the timelines. Over thousands if not millions of years. We are changing things in a geological nanosecond. Nobody knows the result.
Given the planet is the basis of our existence and we have no alternative, it makes sense to mitigate our emissions and slow the rate of change.

[Yelta]

There are other places where this subject can be trolled or debated.

The forum we are in is titled "Off Topic" for obvious reasons.

There is no compulsion to engage in any discussion here.

Most seem to be able to express an opinion without getting their knickers in a twist, however there are the odd few that take any opinion that differs from their own as a personal affront.

As far as climate change is concerned, I certainly have views

Our planet is changing, but that's been happening for millions of years without any input from humans.

I have no doubt we are polluting the atmosphere, decimating rain forests, polluting rivers, filling the oceans and rivers with crap and wiping out species- all things that can be controlled, not eliminated, with a bit more freaking common sense and care.

Climate, land masses and oceans will continue to change as they have for eons.

The biggest problem we face is over population along with the constant push for procreation and preservation of human life, no matter how feeble, no one really seems to want to address it, scientists may come up with an answer, tree huggers and religious zealots most certainly won't.

The planet will continue to evolve regardless of what we do.

[Yelta]

We have had some doozies.

Yes! we have haven't we?

[woodhouse]

"Off Topic
Nothing to do with coffee except it might be something that you would discuss over your favourite brew".

One would hope that we are mature enough to debate controversial topics without getting our nickers overly in a knot. We have had some doozies.

i think the 'other places' refer to fringe forums which might 'discuss' other such topics like flat-earth or anti-vaccination conspiracies.

[OCD]

...There are other places where this subject can be trolled or debated...

"Off Topic
Nothing to do with coffee except it might be something that you would discuss over your favourite brew".

One would hope that we are mature enough to debate controversial topics without getting our nickers overly in a knot. We have had some doozies.

[OCD]

Sadly, not each to their own planet...

My mother once told me that if I didn't keep my room clean I would end up living in a pigsty. At the time I thought she was just trying to p**s me off. What's true for my room should, by extension, be true for the planet as a whole.

[beensean]

Sadly, not each to their own planet.

in case you missed it, what Moore thinks is entirely immaterial, as is what I think,compared with verifiable knowledge, and the latter is found in the consensus of scientific research, not breitbart.

The thought Moore’s opinion provoked in me was much the same as when Abbott knighted Prince Phillip. Wtf? And that is the extent and significance of the “controversy”.

There are other places where this subject can be trolled or debated. I like the fact that this site focusses mainly on coffee, where the impacts of anthropogenic climate change on cultivation are already being considered.

[WarrenK]

Here's a thought provoking article, have to say I've had my doubts re the motives of Greenpeace over recent years.

I have come across utube videos by Patrick Moore and have found his approach to Climate Change sensible and refreshing. The point Patrick Moore makes with Greenpeace is that he was no longer radical enough to remain and was excluded notwithstanding his co-founder status and his contribution has been expunged. Patrick Moore has come full circle and is no longer a prophet of doom. He is not the only one to have changed his mind and in common with others who have done so is ridiculed by his former co-travelers. This topic is always sure to be controversial. Each to their own views. Yelta this is certainly thought provoking, but interesting.

[flynnaus]

Mmmm...my attacks were on Patrick Moore and Breitbart, not on you. There are websites that offer balanced views if I look hard enough but that perception depends on the position of the reader.

But you knew climate chnge is always going to be a controversial topic. May as well be politics or religion

[Yelta]

Come on guys, don't shoot the messenger, as I said thought provoking, as far as partiality goes, show me an impartial news source in this day and age, they all seem to have an axe to grind.

Guess my OP has at least opened up a controversial topic at the end of a week of meaningless political argy bargy.

[beensean]

Motives of Greenpeace are immaterial to facts of climate change. Greenpeace may advocate and gather some data but they are not the world-wide body of scientists who have done, are doing, and validating the research.