back to article Only global poverty can save the planet, insists WWF - and the ESA!

Extremist green campaigning group WWF - endorsed by no less a body than the European Space Agency - has stated that economic growth should be abandoned, that citizens of the world's wealthy nations should prepare for poverty and that all the human race's energy should be produced as renewable electricity within 38 years from now …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge

There is a surprising number of these strange people that have fallen from the nut tree, maybe it is something in the water?

Or a CIA mind control experiment gone wrong?

21
7

I don't think so, Lars. But it seems that every single one of them landed head-first...

Wouldn't the WWFians waste energy and resources by writing and publishing this rubbish? They should go to Ethiopia or Somalia as a good example and spread their fertiliser there; it might do the fields some good.

14
5
Silver badge

Where does the money come from?

It is not as though the very existence of an organization like WWF is a low-cost matter: it requires lots of money to run it. The question is, who is paying for it? Who is providing the necessary funds to pay for the fraudulent "reports" that they release, and to pay the salaries of the executives who run the organization, and so on? Irrespective of any fund which the WWF raises from the general public, I would expect them to have a number of very significant corporate bodies as donors; such corporate bodies being not only businesses, but "charitable foundations" and similar - and who doesn't know that many "charitable foundations" are created only to serve the business and financial interests of their creators at one remove?

Who are their largest donors, and what specifically is on their agendas? What is the payoff they are angling for?

(I am not saying that everyone aligned with the WWF is a bought-and-paid-for hireling: I am sure that many of them are sincere partisans of people such as the virulent racist Paul Ehrlich and his ilk.)

7
3

Personally

I think it's people of a religious cast of mind who are not religious.

7
1

Re: Where does the money come from?

I haven't read through all the comments as yet, so apologies if this has already been mentioned. Some of the answers to your questions can be found at: http://www.undueinfluence.com/wwf.htm

They are a very big corporation with very healthy salaries for CEOs. I'm assuming the report which wants us to all live in poverty, will exclude WWF high earners, so they can continue to enjoy their lavish lifestyles at the expense of others.

11
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Strange people fallen from the nut tree

Definitely. I've been saying for years that these eco-fascist bastards (WWF, Greenpeace, PETA etc) won't be happy until they've got us all living in caves. And a lot of people around me told me (with varying degrees of politeness) that I might be exaggerating just a bit.

Well, this is the ultimate vindication!

I'll be showing this report around the office to all the green-loving idiots who actually gave money to these wankers on their last donation drive. Hopefully the total donation from our company next time will be a big fat ZERO.

9
1

There is a surprising number of these strange people that have fallen from the nut tree, maybe it is something in the water?

Or a CIA mind control experiment gone wrong?

Exactly, when I saw the summary I knew it was a Lewis Page article

1
1

Re: Personally

As the American Libertarian Party would put it , They are members of " the cult of the omnipotent state" . I would add the attribute : omniscient .

1
0
Anonymous Coward

@LarsG - a CIA mind control experiment gone wrong?

You keep thinking that way, so that you'll always be too stupid to know who's really manipulating you.

0
2
Silver badge
Thumb Down

We should all lead simple lives...

... close to the land and living off what nature provides without tampering with her.

OK, but that requires something like a 90% reduction in the population of most developed countries.

I'm not volunteering.

What they should be pushing for is more technological advancement, focused on finding better ways to provide energy, food etc. - not dragging us back to before the Industrial Revolution, to feudal times.

22
0
WTF?

Re: We should all lead simple lives...

Problem there is most of the flock have no idea how to look after a pot plant, let alone a field full of plants that would keep them alive.

Let me guess did the tree huggers publish this on hemp using no steel or concrete or glass, little hard to distribute it by hand around the globe because they obviously don't use any fossil fuels and solar powered wooden planes are everywhere. Hypocrites!!

13
2
Bronze badge

"90% reduction in the population"

Solution:- close down the health service completely and let nature take it's course. Either that or Soylent Green.

2
1

Re: We should all lead simple lives...

"90% reduction in the population"

You've been looking at the Georgia Guidestones again

0
0
Silver badge

@TimNevins ('Georgia Guidestones')

I do like the random links that come from these discussions. Didn't know about the Georgia Guidestones before, but I bet WWF do. A scary guide to the future if anyone tries to follow them.

1
0

Re: "90% reduction in the population"

Anyone here read Swift's "A Modest Proposal"?

2
0
Bronze badge

Re: We should all lead simple lives...

It does not require 90% reduction. Just for those 90% to be working. ;)

There are big changes that small actions can cause. It's getting people to make those small actions though. One example was putting "green walls" on buildings. Letting plants grow up them (but managed) and growing roof gardens and window boxes. But being more practical, growing food in the back garden does not need to be don to conflict with keeping above the poverty line. It should be possible to do both!

0
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: We should all lead simple lives...

While there are measurable benefits to these techniques, they have to be weighed against the costs (both material and time). As was pointed out during an environmental sciences course relating to my major, the economic and ecological costs for such gardens are often deceptively *very* high and can, in some cases, approach orders of magnitude higher than doing what we currently do.

In any case, I'm not opposed to these techniques. We just have to make sure that we are really doing good when we do apply them.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: We should all lead simple lives...

"Problem there is most of the flock have no idea how to look after a pot plant, let alone a field full of plants that would keep them alive."

Population problem solved in short order!

Of course, the smell would be awful until the corpses decomposed...

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: We should all lead simple lives...

I agree there are pros and cons to any change or attempt to save on resources/cost. Sometimes the mass production is needed. Other times it's frivolous.

0
1

Re: We should all lead simple lives...

"Problem there is most of the flock have no idea how to look after a pot plant, let alone a field full of plants that would keep them alive."

Population problem solved in short order!"

But that would only get rid of 10% of the population tops (in Aus anyway) - that would still leave the other 90% of us environmental heathens living comfortable, happy lives!

Oh wait... ;-)

0
0
Silver badge

I've just cancelled my annual sub to the RSPB because, like WWF, they've been captured by the ecoloons and ceased to be interested in protecting birds, preferring to focus on preventing the development of CCS systems. Anyone in Britain who wants to support birds would be better joining the BTO.

11
0
Anonymous Coward

Bachman Turner Overdrive?

1
0
Bronze badge
Pint

BTO

Built to order.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: BTO

Bacon, tomato and onion? OK I get that CCS is probably carbon capture something but BTO genuinely has me flummoxed.

1
0
Silver badge

Good call. The BTO is a genuine charity that supports scientific work.

The RSPB seems to exist to support its employees and its income stream more than anything else.

9
0
WTF?

Is that the RSPB down next to KFC?

....also, is WWF the one with the wrestling Pamnda?

3
0
Happy

@AC 16 May 08:51 Re: BTO

Man, that was a great band! "Try to Let it Ride".

0
0
Bronze badge
Megaphone

Re: @AC 16 May 08:51 BTO

You aint seen nothin' yet, ohhhh baby....

0
0

haha

Reg journos and radical thinking just don't mix!

We have a closed system, (well, one input- solar radiation, maybe two- asteroids) and everything follows from that. It's really not that hard - relax, calm down, lie in the sun and think about it.

You’ll get there.

8
18
Flame

Re: haha

I suggest you push your way to the front of the long queue of people willing to take themselves out of the equation...

You missed one very good option - lots and lots of Nuclear power. Fusion would be awesome but with some decent breeder reactors we should be alright for quite some time. Also fusion would require quite a lot of energy in research alone to get to a usable stage, so reducing energy usage to a Neanderthal level would probably ensure it never happens.

The way I see it is this: some people have a real complex about themselves and their species, a loathing of all human achievement and endeavour. You would discard the many advances we have made that have allowed us to live longer and healthier. You would prevent any further gains of knowledge and understanding of the reality we inhabit.

To me you are a dead end. You'd never have left your cave. When your neighbour discovered fire and found his food easier to digest you'd have told him it was only for the gods. When your fellow man begun developing tools you'd have told him it was unnecessary. You'd have laughed at the first farmer and carried on hunting and gathering. Your bloodline should have died out when your ancestors decided that having children was a waste of resources, but the odds of them holding true to that are about the same as your sodding off back to the cave you claim we should never have left.

We are what we are because of people who hoped to do more, not less. Because of people who would try and find better ways and better places to live. Because of people who would study and discover how to get more from the world around us. We have many flaws but I still believe that spirit exists and that we should seek to fix our problems and make the world a better place for everyone, not give up on them and make the world equally as bad for all. To give up all we have achieved because we haven't got it perfect yet would be the most heinous waste of resources I can imagine.

Fire because it's pretty, and I know how to make it...

45
1

Re: haha

We have a closed system

-------------

Well, not really. Unless you take the solar system as 'the system', and even thats questionable. (where do you think tides come from?)

4
1

Re: haha

Yeah, we have a closed system. Not really, as you yourself note, but let's pretend it's closed. So what? We can happily grow until we get close to the limit of the system. And neither you nor anyone else have done anything to prove that the time to stop growing is near. You only get to those conclusions by making irrational assumptions, such as that nuclear power and genetic engineering are morally wrong. If you don't artificially cripple yourself, surprise! it turns out the limit is so far away that it can't even be seen from here.

10
1
Bronze badge
Thumb Up

Re: haha

@Squizzar. Breeder reactors probably are 'renewable' energy by any reasonable definition.

"Physicist Bernard Cohen claims that fast breeder reactors, fueled by uranium extracted from seawater, could supply energy at least as long as the sun's expected remaining lifespan of five billion years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_proposed_as_renewable_energy#cite_note-cohen83-10

13
0
Bronze badge
WTF?

Re: haha

"Well, not really. Unless you take the solar system as 'the system', and even thats questionable. (where do you think tides come from?)"

You think tides come from outside the solar system?

4
1
Facepalm

Re: haha

You think tides come from outside the solar system?

--

LOL. Yeah, I accidentally posted half way through an edit.

The intent was to cause the OP to think of the tides providing energy from the moon/ sun, so the earth is certainly not a closed system in that regard, as well as taking a large amount of energy directly from the sun.

1
0

Re: haha

"We have a closed system, (well, one input- solar radiation, maybe two- asteroids) "

CO2, heat, methane, radio waves, water vapour, light, ozone, radiation, and all kinds of atmospheric trace elements constantly escape from the earth - this must be some strange usage of the term "closed system" that I wasn't previously aware of.

Thanks for demonstrating just how divorced from fact and reality environmentalists can be - with zero grasp of facts like that you'd make a great WWF researcher!

2
0
FAIL

Don't shoot the messenger, shoot the journalist.

What dire poorly written drivel. The basic idea of the WWF is that things can't go on as they have done up to this point. What's wrong with that? Just because it's a message you don't want to hear doesn't make it wrong. This article has to be one of the worst examples of reactionary clap trap I have ever read.

16
49

Re: Don't shoot the messenger, shoot the journalist.

It's Lewis Page, one of the kingpins in reactionary drivel. I'd say he's made it an art form, but that would insult even modern art.

17
36
Anonymous Coward

Re: Don't shoot the messenger, shoot the journalist.

funny, I was about to say the same thing about your comment.

17
7
Silver badge

Re: Don't shoot the messenger, shoot the journalist.

"all the human race's energy should be produced as renewable electricity within 38 years from now."

The unspeakable horror of forward planning! Energy that lasts forever, instead of energy guaranteed to run out within a few decades!

What kind of fuckwits would be thinking that's a good thing?

13
12

Re: Don't shoot the messenger, shoot the journalist.

The unspeakable horror of forward planning! Energy that lasts forever, instead of energy guaranteed to run out within a few decades!

------------

Planning to throw the human race back into the same ditch they spent generations crawling out of is the same as not planning at all in my book.

Have you seen subsistence farming? Its not a nice life, and that appears to be what the WWF want us to reduce down to.

13
7
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: Don't shoot the messenger, shoot the journalist.

"The basic idea of the WWF is that things can't go on as they have done up to this point"

..."because of these completely made-up reasons which don't stand up to even the most cursory examination", it seems to me.

I'm certainly going to think twice before adopting any dolphins, more's the pity (as I suspect some of the money does actually go towards helping dolphins).

7
2
Facepalm

Re: Don't shoot the messenger, shoot the journalist.

The WWF, alas, have joined that band of organisations whose utterances follow this pattern:

- The World is going to hell in a handbasket and we are all going to die.

- The cause of this is $THING_THAT_HUMANKIND_DEPENDS_ON

- To fix it, YOU must do $THING_THAT_VIOLATES_CAUSALITY

- If you don't, well, WE have Raised Awareness, so it won't be OUR fault

Whereupon they bask in a sickeningly sanctimonious Holy Light of righteous disgust. For extra points, they'll install tiny little windmills on the roof of their houses that produce just enough energy for the laptop they use for blogging about it. Other symptoms include an inability to use SI-standard units, preferring instead such units as "Enough for X Households".

Ye gods, if we didn't have WWF, and there were no light, how dark it would be.

14
1

@bob's hamster

What's wrong with it is that it doesn't provide any reasonable solutions acceptable to a normal person motivated by materialistic pursuits rather than the desire to grab a club and head for the nearest cave to spend the rest of their life.

Surely you didn't need me to tell you that.

2
1
Silver badge

Re: @bob's hamster

"What's wrong with it is that it doesn't provide any reasonable solutions acceptable to a normal person motivated by materialistic pursuits rather than the desire to grab a club and head for the nearest cave to spend the rest of their life."

Yes it does. Have you even read the report? Or did you just swallow this article, which of course can't be biased at all.

Find in the report where it suggests anything remotely like living in a cave.

2
2
Bronze badge

Re: Don't shoot the messenger, shoot the journalist.

I like the way that HE is the reactionary when YOU are advocating that we go back to the stone age.

2
1
FAIL

Journalist?

I thought this article was written by Lewis Page?

:)

Anyhoo...

Certain people have serious issues with thinking outside of the little cultural box that they have grown accustomed to. While it should be obvious that humanity needs to sort out a "zero sum" energy and resource use system (before nature sorts it out for us) many people will absolutely refuse to admit to that physical reality.

Lewis has undoubtedly -- as per his usual practice -- mis-read and failed to comprehend what he is ostensibly writing about. Ignore such "journalists" (and the profoundly unqualified pundits that clog up TV "news") and instead look at the solid science and entirely reasonable conclusions in the source material that such people never fail to misrepresent.

1
4

Re: Don't shoot the messenger, shoot the journalist.

"What kind of fuckwits would be thinking that's a good thing?"

What kind of fuckwits think that is actually possible?

The reality is there isn't enough rare earth metals on the planet to convert the existing car stock to electricity, in fact if we solely used every last scrap for that purpose we could convert about 1/3rd and that would mean no windmills to charge them in the first place!

Theotherhobbes, let me introduce you to reality - the two of you obviously haven't met...

1
0
Holmes

Re: Don't shoot the messenger, shoot the journalist.

Don't shoot the messenger, don't shoot the journalist, shoot the reader!

(you might go even further)

More seriously, it's easy to bash idiots. It would be much more interesting to do some calculations. Intuitively, it seems that if you try to limit the use of fossil fuels without decimating the population, you will do much more harm to the environment than you are doing now. Such as, trying to grow food locally and/or without industrially produced fertilizer will turn the land into desert rather quickly. But having this properly modelled, with figures, would help to make the case. At least, would help it more than just calling idiots idiots.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums