Report on Greenpeace and more

Dr. Willie Soon writes:

Our friend, The Heartland Institute has agreed to host our new report and please refers to this master link for the full report:

https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/analysis-of-greenpeace-business-model

In addition, our CFACT/Climate Depot friend Marc Morano has also kindly helped pushed this shorter report in order to make sure that most normal people do not get too scared to sip their favorite beverages with plastic straws:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/12/14/special-report-scientists-expose-the-truth-behind-the-plastic-crisis-greenpeace-co-founder-the-sea-of-plastic-is-a-fiction-the-ultimate-in-fake-news/

This supporting report also has a bit of explanation on seabird and plastic. This theme really coincide with what I just saw you posted on the rich people recycling program fantasy.

###

I believe one of our guest posters may be doing a write up on this report as well.~ctm

Advertisements

84 thoughts on “Report on Greenpeace and more

  1. The plastic thing …

    90% of the plastic in the oceans comes from ten rivers in Asia and Africa. link It’s well known in the environmental community. Why, then, are we who use plastic responsibly and control our waste being harassed over our use of plastic?

    This is a lot like the feminists who accuse us of being a patriarchy while totally ignoring Saudi Arabia.

    It’s totally like activists to accuse us of being evil about things we care about and have made great strides to fix. Never mind how I treat my wife, daughters, female students, etc. I’m a sexist pig anyway.

    I’m totally sick of being blamed for the sins of others.

      • Same thing with our CO2. When I point out that China emits more than twice to CO2 as the USA, I’m immediately castigated for failing to realize they have half the emissions per capita. Somehow a Chinese CO2 molecule does less than half the damage as a USA CO2 molecule. We need to study that Chinese CO2 and see how we can use it here in the USA!

        • You and your debating friends are both right, but you are talking at cross purposes.
          -If the topic is total global emission of CO2 then controlling China’s increasing emissions , and its building of coal powered units in client countries must be a priority. If one believes that rising levels of CO2 are dangerous then it is rational to ask for China’s compliance.
          – However , on grounds of equality it could be argued that China should be allowed to progress to the same level of prosperity as the Western world. It is a perfectly valid moral argument, I do not see how one could argue against it, but it is not compatible with reduction of global CO2 levels – and it is actually the sentiment of most comments that one sees expressed here.
          -One has to choose which is one’s main objective.

          • If the world really was facing oblivion, China would not be allowed to go on increasing CO2 emissions until 2030. But even the most vehement anti- fossil-fuel advocates are perfectly relaxed about China pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. Therefore there is no serious problem. We can all follow the same rules as China and the world will be just fine.

          • Shirley you’ve heard the manta ….. the us has 4% of the population but uses 25% of the resources.

            It’s all about socialism and social justice.

          • A better point to make about China’s funding of coal plants abroad (both directly and indirectly, via an international bank set up for that purpose) and its restarting of construction of 200 domestic coal plants, is that it and its customer-countries have decided to forgo renewables—meaning that they are considerably more costly, all things considered, not only now but also in the foreseeable future. A detailed cost-benefit analysis would surely have been done before making this choice and flouting world opinion on coal power..

          • Mikewaite: “However , on grounds of equality it could be argued that China should be allowed to progress to the same level of prosperity as the Western world.” The average person in China cannot progress to the same level of prosperity as the western world.
            They have too many people and not enough real-estate meaning the cost of real-estate will keep them living in horrible conditions like those experienced in New York, LA and Warshington.

            Cheers,

            Speed

          • What if China were overrunning and colonizing weaker countries with their military. Western countries did that once upon a time so it is morally ok for China to now do the same?

            I guess the answer must be ‘yes’ because the west has not made any protest nor taken any action about that either. Bosnia was adequate virtue signaling,

          • Mike I love your moral concept of equality because one group managed to over indulge the whole world should .. that is classic non sequitur 🙂

            I am going to try that one when next I get a speeding ticket, but officer everyone else was speeding so it’s only morally fair I can.

            Normally what happens is you set a limit those not exceeding are allowed up to that limit and those exceeding it must reduce down to it, but it’s climate science norms and common sense goes out the window.

          • “because one group managed to over indulge the whole world should”. Civilisation cannot be over-indulged in methinks. If you can you should. All you need is cheap reliable electricity.

            The point made earlier, that China and other nations are ramping up coal use and yet no one is threatening sanctions or military action because we’re all going to fry, drown, etc. because of co2 is for me strong evidence that no one in political leadership in the world is taking this scaremongering nonsense seriously. They know its a scam. And as the winter closes in the North it is starting to look as if the end is almost nigh for global warming.

        • Shanghai Dan

          I think there is a quote on one of the other posts about the emission of CO2 per person in the USA and it at its lowest since 1969 Cameros were for sale.

          Some one can correct me on this. What matters is progress, not comparisons, save with your own profligate past. That’s the new mantra.

          I have decided to light my home (outside) during the holiday season with polar bear fat lamps. They are still available here in Mennonite country.

          Here is the new European heavy transport vehicle, 2030-style

          https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/videos/gallery/story-behind-viral-video-horses-tow-big-rig-up-icy-slope/sharevideo/5979918273001

          • HotScot

            I had a ride in a 15-passenger sleigh pulled by two 800 kg Percherons just north of Waterloo. The driver said they could pull briefly with a force of 5000 kg. Those horses pulling the truck were working really hard. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were sustaining a draft of over 1 ton each.

    • Anyone see the 60 minutes piece Sunday night about cleaning up the oceans with that net dragged by the boats? It was insane. Then the idea guy said something like if someone throws a plastic bottle in a creek in South Dakota it will end up on Midway island, as if to point a finger at the USA. I wonder if he said that most of the plastic in the oceans come from Asia and Africa, I doubt it.

      • The boom/net is not working….they are trying to fix it and make it work
        ..it’s moving too slow….wind blows the plastic right out of it

      • Wait…What?!? The plastic bottle in S. Dakota would somehow have to get to the Gulf of Mexico, then to the Atlantic Ocean, then find a current to get it around the Cape Horn (or through the Panama Canal), to the Pacific Ocean, then re-cross the equator and somehow end up on Midway Island. Who the hell thinks that’s plausible? Seems infinitely more likely that the plastic bottle washes up on the creek shore, is picked up, and ends up all snuggly in a S. Dakota landfill.

        • Where it falls into a crack, travels through the crust deftly avoiding the mantle, and falls out of a crack on Midway…Obviously

        • Its the logic from the TV commercial that has a plastic bottle rolling uphill against the wind all the way to a California beach where it changes into a park bench …because that’s what it wanted to be all along.
          …yeah it could happen…cue Judy Tenuta.

      • Floating plastic does get shepherded by currents and wind into rather unpleasant floating ‘islands’.
        I have seen this phenomenon severally in UK, Ireland, and a couple of places in the Mediterranean. Okay, so it’s just a few square metres, a little bit short of the size of Alaska, I guess, but still probably worth doing something about. The bulk of the items were definitely jettisoned from vessels – mostly fishing gear, floats, ropes, water bottles, etc. It is rather good that it does get concentrated in this way, as it is relatively easy to collect by a sweep, or boom operation.
        There are certainly good reasons why I would support action taken to reduce the amount of plastics going into the ocean. But – that really has nothing at all to do with banning the manufacture/use of straws or plastic bags. Once again there seems to be a huge disconnect between the emotional desire to do something, and the rationale of the proposed solutions.

      • Switching from pantyhose to stockings (or thigh-highs), would reduce nylon consumption by 3/4. That would make a difference of 40 pounds or so over a wearer’s lifetime.

        This is because stockings & thigh-highs have less body coverage, less average thickness (due to the control tops in many pantyhose), and degrade gracefully (one leg at a time, from runs),

        So Lola-Lola should be green groups’ poster-girl, and sin-taxing pantyhose should be their goal. (But only if they’re principled—this would be a vote-loser. (Among average women, anyway.))

        • seeing as very few women now seem to wear pantyhose anyway?
          and the price of them is pretty high compared to the 70s n 80s when everyone did wear them.
          even trying to get my mates to hand ruined ones over for plant ties in the garden is a lost cause.
          I know i pretty much only wear them at funerals and large events and those are rare in my life now
          decades ago they were pretty much daily use clothing
          not now
          Fake tan sprays have a bit to do with it too i think.

          • Well:
            “Why pantyhose sales are still surprisingly strong”
            By COLLEEN KANE November 11, 2015, Fortune
            http://fortune.com/2015/11/11/pantyhose-sales-fashion-work/

            But pantyhose is far from extinct. In fact, it is enjoying a small bit of a popularity among younger women, according to the NPD Group. Sheer hosiery had $482 million in sales in the one year period ending May 2015, the NPD Group reports, and 27% of those sales were to Millennials, which considering its increase of 9%, the group calls a notable revival.

            Meghan Markle Wears White Pantyhose for Her First Public Outing
            BY Cody Jones MAY 23, 2018 10:49 PM
            https://cools.com/meghan-markle-pantyhose/

            “… we might just be seeing the stuffy style back in stores and the legs of Instagram influencers all too soon.”

            from Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantyhose#History:
            “From 1995 a steady decline began, leveling off in 2006 with U.S. sales less than half of what they had once been. This decline has been attributed to bare legs in fashion, changes in workplace dress code, and the increased popularity of trousers.[8]

            “While sales of traditional styles did not recover, the 2000s saw the rise of other specific styles. … all experienced increased sales. In the 2010s, an increasing popularity for form-fitting opague leggings paired with casual dress (and even some officewear) supplanted the fashion role previously held by pantyhose ….”

            So, leg coverings now being worn still could be replaced by less bulky stockings and thigh-highs.

            Wikipedia again:
            “Some women do not wear pantyhose for environmental reasons, noting that they usually cannot be recycled, and nylon pantyhose are not biodegradable. Disposing of the item contributes to overuse of landfill. Burning nylon pantyhose sometimes releases toxins into the atmosphere.”

    • commieBob

      I too am a sexist pig, and proud of it, but my wife beats me every time I open my mouth.

      Kidding, kidding……not every time I open my mouth, she does let me eat.

      No, seriously, before any leftist green group jump on my cause and dive in to represent me for being a downtrodden man, let me warn them, my wife will beat you as well.

      Followed shortly thereafter by me for daring to interfere in our business!

    • Spot on the money Commie Bob. Creating a crisis where there wasnt one, and then having the solution all ready to go on 3 continents, as if by magic, and yes – sizeable donations into the green collective is included.

      All of these “issues” are planned well in advance and globally rolled out when a government etc agrees to participate. All in lock-step with the UN and usually the EU.

      It is wave after wave of crisis/activism/global regulation/cash raising. I wonder what the next one will be?

      • I used to work in a textile company and was amazed to find they were talking about the colours that would be in fashion – not the next summer, but the summer after. When I asked how on earth they could know, they told me it was all planned out in great detail, the whole “colour scheme” was carefully orchestrated through all the magazines and pushed onto the tv as “the latest fashion”.

        Clearly there is now a similar industry pushing onto tv the latest green fad. Now doubt they are already planning what will be the green fashion in two years time!

  2. Yes the report is pretty much spot as many of us have stated that detail for quite some time.

    In less PC times you would call them what they are con artists.

  3. and the ever paranoid UK Government (is *anyone* still in any doubt why folks are ‘anxious’) comes up with this:
    https://news.sky.com/story/manufacturers-to-pay-recycling-costs-in-bid-to-stop-waste-11584427

    Basically a tax on food – which they expect to raise £1Billion per year – as anyone in the UK will be aware, it has already been spent.

    On top of this, effectively another Food Tax that’ll only go to create ever more cronies:

    Plan for food waste to be separated

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46571391

    In light of this??

    Poverty as bad as Charles Dickens era

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/teachers-buy-pupils-winter-coats-13742561

    Bye the bye – is it *really* true that 25% of all US citizens now have a recognisable/diagnosable mental-health problem?
    Is it the cannabis they’ve already taken that did it or is the newly legalised cannabis expected to fix it?
    Interesting times as they say

  4. One little fly in the ointment about recycling is this – there has to be a market for that recycled material(s).
    Recycle all you want, have industry pay for it, if you want…but if there are no manufactures or industries willing or able to use that material(s) then how on earth is this ever going to work?
    (NB – this IS an issue here where I live and I have noted that it seems the case in other cities and countries to one extent or another)
    Personally, I’d like to see 100% recycling, as waste going to the landfill seems so bloody – well – wasteful.
    The question arises then, that if materials are formed into a recyclable state, where are they going to be stored if not then used????

    • It seems to me that it would be cheaper and more ecologically friendly to just burn the stuff in furnaces with proper scrubbers on their stacks. If there was some way the locality could also use the waste heat, fine, if not then so what? The plastics would still be out of the ecology.

      • The book Prescription for the Planet proposes using fusion torches (30,000 degrees F) to reduce all waste to a powder of the inputted elemnts useful as a filler in concrete and other materials, while generating power from the excess heat. Virtually no emissions are produced. But greenies predictably object to them, so the leading maker of the torches is building a big demo plant in Russia.

      • Over 50 years ago while I was working at Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, there was a group working on using a jet engine derivative (such as the ones used to power ships) to generate electricity by burning trash rather than jet fuel. The ultimate in sustainability!

        The EPA made a big mistake when it outlawed incinerators. It may be expensive to scrub the smoke stacks of incinerators, but we could reclaim and reuse the captured materials. Burying our trash will only work for so long. And in places without a lot of topsoil, burying trash can be expensive too.

        • Same in the UK. Near were I live our CONservative government recently trashed the power station running on waste to save the planet.

    • Some locations in the US are narrowing what is permitted to be recycled. For instance, in Lancaster County PA you can no longer recycle newspapers.

    • they just demolished our town hall
      it had a good roof a lot of siding and hardwood flooring
      I was trying to get some roofing iron to replace mine
      yesterday i drove past
      the entire building is a flattened mess and not one scrap of the wood or tim was recycled sold, yet i wasnt the one who would have been happy to pay something for it.
      bloody criminal waste

  5. As I remember, at one point the 60 Minutes narrator (Stahl?) named 3 things that could be done with plastic waste. One was recycling and they spent significant time talking about that. I think a second possibility was landfill burial, but I don’t recall a lot of discussion of that. I don’t think the third–burning it– was subsequently mentioned at all. A pity, because using it as a fuel to energize our economy is probably the most practical method of disposal.

    • In Melbourne Australia for years we have had a back and forth argument about where, or if there should be a High Temperature Waste Incinerator.
      Years ago it was canned because pollution.

      This year I read somewhere about the new proposal… a High Temperature Waste Disposal Electrical GENERATION Facility … of course the govt and media reckon its an awesome thing because pollution.

      https://engage.vic.gov.au/waste/wastetoenergy

      • Throw in beer cans and whiskey bottles and eventually it will be economical to mine the land fills that contain ’em :<)

    • Some places make it work, like where I live, Lee County in Florida.
      People who know what they are doing decide what the best usage or disposal method is for each type of item at any given time.
      We get lower taxes because we recycle whatever can be, and either burn the rest for trash to steam power, or landfill it in bioreactor landfills (the most expensive and least desirable option.
      We also get free mulch and very cheap compost from yard waste that is collected, and the county gives a huge rolling container for mixed recyclable and another for trash, and separate collections at curbside for appliances and electronics and all manner of other crap.
      One man’s trash is another man’s treasure…just as true now as ever.
      There is a multibillion dollar international trade in just about any type of material that can possibly be reprocessed into a raw material.
      This is not 1988.

  6. If AGW was still plausible the plastic scare would never have been started.
    This is a good thing.
    Keep knocking them down.

  7. The outcomes of WW1 and WW2 void any and whatsoever GP pollution scare attempts.

    Whatever could be fired was fired. What could burn did so. At a very large scale.

    Ships, planes, countless vessels went down the seas with their oil, cargo and we better never know exactly what.

    To the standards of GP, this would have swept all traces of life from the planet.

    Surprise !

  8. Basically the fossil fuel sector talking to itself, any pretense real science is being reported here is long gone.

  9. As a helicopter pilot in Desert Storm (1991) flying through the 600+ burning oil wells in Kuwait, no one will ever convince me that any power plant or car exhaust will “pollute” the air of this earth…if those millions and millions of barrels of raw oil burning did not cause immediate and significant climate change, no study or report will convince me otherwise. Fly around a lot of this earth and look at the wide open land areas and vast oceans….we(mankind) are such minor parts of the earth…can we screw up a small area or pollute a river…absolutely! But this earth is so much bigger than man…as I read here in WUWT, we can’t even understand what is going on with the climate or planet…man just guesses.

    • My respects for your valuable involvement !

      Thumbs-up X 1’000

      Let’s not forget burning underground coal veins of immense proportions, some, centuries old.

      Further, over Canada p.ex. , PIREPS of wildfires are often irrelevant since it has always been part or the ecosystem.

      There is CO2 and taxable CO2, apparently not the same substance.

      • “That is the problem with all liberals, they live in their own tiny little bubbles…”
        and heat islands

  10. Amazing to see how Australians and targeted Australian corporates fell for the single use plastic campaign. Nobody checked to see that Australia’s contribution to global ocean plastic pollution is close to zero. No understanding of the well orchestrated campaign straight out of Europe with the corporate bullies arriving through the airports. Boards of companies rolled over instantly rather than be identified in the press as resisting the push, happy to cause their customers inconvenience. Deer in the headlights.

  11. Thank you Dr. Willie Soon, this has answered most of the missing parts for me. The only thing left is why Greenpeace isn’t being sued out of existence.

  12. The report hits on the essential component of the business model:

    Invent a “simple solution” for the problem which sounds somewhat plausible and emotionally appealing, but is physically unlikely to ever be implemented.

    This is the most important thing, and its good to have it publicly commented on in a study of this kind. Its the essence of this kind of activism, and of climate activism too, never to advocate doing anything with any prospects of being implemented.

    The business model can only continue if the organization never gets bogged down in implementing its favored solution, because as soon as it does that, it will lose the ability to focus on fund raising, the defects will become apparent, and it will lose credibility. It will become just another actor.

    Whereas if it stays on the outside, agitating for something impossible and demonizing all who dissent, it can carry on fund raising and being righteous indefinitely.

    The Communist movement’s greatest disaster, and Lenin’s greatest mistake, was when the Bolsheviks actually came to power. Once that had happened, everyone could eventually look and see for themselves how well it was working.

    Greenpeace and the climate activists are not going to make the same mistake. They will restrict themselves to advocating the plausible but ineffective. So they will not demand China reduce emissions, but that the UK sign up to 80% reductions. They will not demand the abolition of the auto industry, but instead support investment and subsidy of wind and solar. They will always say that any international commitments, such as Paris, do not go far enough.

    If they went far enough, then they would have to support implementation….

    The model is to use the issues to radicalize. So far its all out of ‘Rules for Radicals’. But the model is also to keep the business going and profitable. That is not in Alinsky, how could it be? But that’s the real agenda driving the need to radicalize. Its those middle class contributors you have to keep on side and radicalized, or the funds will dry up.

  13. As regards “other things”, whatever happened to that lovely chap Mr Shukla and his RICO action? He seems to have disappeared…

  14. There was a news item on TV a couple nights ago about recycling plastic. They interviewed a recycling plant manager who noted that China was taking most plastic recycleable and just stopped. He said now it is going to Vietnam, phillipines etc. Are they actually recycling? He said, it is probably just going in landfills. I couldn’t believe it got on the air.

  15. two questions:
    1- why ? Just being against everything for fun ?
    2- who is the owner of green peace. Not the booard of directors. They decide the spending of the money. But who owns gp. In the late seventies this question was asked. Never a satisfiing answer. And now, 2018 ????

Comments are closed.