|
|
|
Declare War On Greenpeaceby Simon Patkin At China Light and Power’s (CLP) recent annual general meeting in Hong Kong, Greenpeace militants unveiled banners proclaiming CLP to be a climate criminal. I am no fan of CLP, especially when it comes to their position on restricting new entrants to Hong Kong’s power market. However Greenpeace have since issued press releases and appeared on Hong Kong radio to make the same outrageous claims again. It is more than an issue of clean air. Greens worldwide want a statute upholding crimes against the environment in much the same way that Nazis were tried for crimes against humanity. For example, in a 1999 Greenpeace press release in Brazil they said “Greenpeace welcomed today's decision by the Brazilian president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, to approve the adoption of the Environmental Crimes Law.” A former head of the West German Green party once went even further by saying "We in the Green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which the killing of a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels." Being labeled a criminal is a very serious matter, especially one allegedly more contemptible and more criminal that someone who sells young children to Asian brothels. What then should CLP’s green punishment be if it is found guilty of alleged crimes against the environment? Former Greenpeace co-founder Paul Watson’s idea of justice can be summarized through his quote "I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds." Or Britain’s own Prince Philip, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) President Emeritus who the New American Magazine notes has “… grimly suggested that if he were to be reincarnated he would return as a "killer virus" with a mission to decimate the surplus human population.” For pre-emptive justice the magazine quotes David Brower of Friends of the Earth who claims "Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." Now Greenpeace receive no direct funding from CLP, but what about other green groups such as WWF that receive CLP donations? Do they quietly cringe at Greenpeace’s shameful assertions of criminality against CLP or do they snicker in gleeful silence as CLP squirms, afraid to laugh too loud lest they finally have the courage to cut off their funding supply. Will they come out and defend CLP from the vicious attack that it is a criminal or remain silent in the hope that no one asks them their opinion of Greenpeace’s latest outburst? Indeed, how has CLP defended itself? Have they condemned Greenpeace’s disgraceful claims in the strongest possible terms or have their public relations staff led CLP by the nose by telling them to try to work together with their accusers? Instead of taking on Greenpeace head on, they publish photos of their executives planting trees with primary school students to show their concerns for bugs, weeds, dirt and plants. Their only real responses to criminal charges were a wimpy performance on Hong Kong’s Radio 3 and a vague press release that ends by saying “The impact of climate change is a complex issue, and there are varied views on this subject. The social cost arising from this impact is a global issue that is also under much debate.” As a matter of urgency, CLP should refute claims that it is a criminal. Instead of burying its head in the sand, it should declare a moral war on environmentalism and their false claims, especially with regards to climate change. For example there is now a strong body of scientific evidence that global warming is not man-made and that claims by the IPCC are nothing but hot air. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine received signatures from more than 17,000 signatures from scientists supporting their notion that global warming is not man made. Last year on RTHK Radio 3’s backchat program; it only took two climate scientists to demolish arguments from activists promoting the global warming myth. Morally, as human beings we cannot survive unless we change the environment. We have to clear land in order to build homes and offices, farm animals and sow crops. It helps keeps modern man safe from wild animals, well fed and able to live a longer healthier life than any time in the whole history of mankind. The ultimate environmental alternative is to do nothing and go back to caves, where humans had a very short and nasty life expectancy. If green militants have their way, we could soon see laws that might threaten senior CLP executives with long jail sentences for being so-called climate criminals. And if CLP management does not have the courage to declare war on Greenpeace, then maybe it is time for a shareholder revolution. Not just for CLP either, but all large companies that donate to green groups including Cathay Pacific, MTR Corp and HSBC which announced a donation program of $US50 million over a five year period. Some of this HSBC shareholder money will go to Prince Philip’s WWF. They would not be alone in taking on the greens and the battle could get ugly. Patrick Moore another former Greenpeace co-founder once wrote that he had no idea that after he left Greenpeace in 1986 that they would “… evolve into a band of scientific illiterates who use Gestapo tactics to silence people who wish to express their views in a civilized forum.” He adds “Clearly, my former Greenpeace colleagues are either not reading the morning paper or simply don't care about the truth.” Shareholders of green-appeasing companies will need to be strong and resolute in their defense against Greenpeace. So too do CLP unless their executives think a long jail stretch might be good to clear the head and refresh the body. Back to the cave, so to speak. |
|
Email us to learn more about Capitalist Solutions Copyright 2005 Capitalist Solutions
|