Greenpeace co-founder says no proof that humans cause warming

Senate there is “no proof” humans cause climate change


Moore claims Greenpeace has taken a “sharp turn to the political left” and lost interest in science


Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore has angered environmentalist groups after saying climate change is “not caused by humans” and there is “no scientific proof” to back global warming alarmism.

The Canadian ecologist told US lawmakers there is “little correlation” to support a “direct causal relationship” between CO2 emissions and rising global temperatures.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” he told a US Senate Committee “If there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”

He also criticised the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for claiming “it is extremely likely” that human activity is the “dominant cause” for global warning, noting that “extremely likely” is not a scientific term.

Moore warned the statistics presented by the IPCC are not the result of mathematical calculations or statistical analysis, and may have been “invented” to support the IPCC’s “expert judgement”.

The Greenpeace co-founder argued the increase in atmospheric temperature on the earth’s surface goes back the Ice Age when C02 was “10 times higher than today, yet human life flourished” at this time.

He added: “I realise that my comments are contrary to much of the speculation about our climate that is bandied about today.

“However, I am confident that history will bear me out, both in terms of the futility of relying on computer models to predict the future, and the fact that warmer temperatures are better than colder temperatures for most species.”

Moore co-founded the environmental activist group as a PhD student in ecology in 1971. He left Greenpeace in 1986 after the group became more interested in “politics” than science.

“After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective,” he said. “Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.”

China: The electronic wastebasket of the world.

Guiyu, China

Did you ever wonder what happens to your old laptop or cellphone when you throw it away? Chances are some of your old electronic junk will end up in China. According to a recent United Nations report, “China now appears to be the largest e-waste dumping site in the world.” E-waste, or electronic waste, consists of everything from scrapped TVs, refrigerators and air conditioners to that old desktop computer that may be collecting dust in your closet. Many of these gadgets were initially manufactured in China. Through a strange twist of global economics, much of this electronic junk returns to China to die. “According to United Nations data, about 70% of electronic waste globally generated ended up in China,” said Ma Tianjie, a spokesman for the Beijing office of Greenpeace. “Much of [the e-waste] comes through illegal channels because under United Nations conventions, there is a specific ban on electronic waste being transferred from developed countries like the United States to countries like China and Vietnam.” For the past decade, the southeastern town of Guiyu, nestled in China’s main manufacturing zone, has been a major hub for the disposal of e-waste. Hundreds of thousands of people here have become experts at dismantling the world’s electronic junk. On seemingly every street, laborers sit on the pavement outside workshops ripping out the guts of household appliances with hammers and drills. The roads in Guiyu are lined with bundles of plastic, wires, cables and other garbage. Different components are separated based on their value and potential for re-sale. On one street sits a pile of green and gold circuit boards. On another, the metal cases of desktop computers. At times, it looks like workers are reaping some giant plastic harvest, especially when women stand on roadsides raking ankle-deep “fields” of plastic chips. In one workshop, men sliced open sacks of these plastic chips, which they then poured into large vats of fluid. They then used shovels and their bare hands to stir this synthetic stew. “We sell this plastic to Foxconn,” one of the workers said, referring to a Taiwanese company that manufactures products for many global electronics companies, including Apple, Dell and Hewlett-Packard. Dirty, dangerous work This may be one of the world’s largest informal recycling operations for electronic waste. In one family-run garage, workers seemed to specialize in sorting plastic from old televisions and cars into different baskets. “If this plastic cup has a hole in it, you throw it away,” said a man who ran the operation, pointing to a pink plastic mug. “We take it and re-sell it.” But recycling in Guiyu is dirty, dangerous work. “When recycling is done properly, it’s a good thing for the environment,” said Ma, the Greenpeace spokesman in Beijing. “But when recycling is done in primitive ways like we have seen in China with the electronic waste, it is hugely devastating for the local environment.”   According to the April 2013 U.N. report “E-Waste in China,” Guiyu suffered an “environmental calamity” as a result of the wide-scale e-waste disposal industry in the area. Much of the toxic pollution comes from burning circuit boards, plastic and copper wires, or washing them with hydrochloric acid to recover valuable metals like copper and steel. In doing so, workshops contaminate workers and the environment with toxic heavy metals like lead, beryllium and cadmium, while also releasing hydrocarbon ashes into the air, water and soil, the report said. For first-time visitors to Guiyu, the air leaves a burning sensation in the eyes and nostrils. Toxic tech Studies by the Shantou University Medical College revealed that many children tested in Guiyu had higher than average levels of lead in their blood, which can stunt the development of the brain and central nervous system. Piles of technological scrap had been dumped in a muddy field just outside of town. There, water buffalo grazed and soaked themselves in ponds surrounded by piles of electronic components with labels like Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Epson and Dell. The enormous animals casually stomped through mounds of sheet glass, which clearly had been removed from video monitors. Flat screen displays often use mercury, a highly toxic metal. “Releases of mercury can occur during the dismantling of equipment such as flat screen displays,” wrote Greenpeace, in a report titled “Toxic Tech.” “Incineration or landfilling can also result in releases of mercury to the environment…that can bioaccumulate and biomagnify to high levels in food chains, particularly in fish.” Most of the workers in Guiyu involved in the e-waste business are migrants from destitute regions of China and poorly educated. Many of them downplayed the potential damage the industry could cause to their health. They asked only to use their family names, to protect their identity. “Of course it isn’t healthy,” said Lu, a woman who was rapidly sorting plastic shards from devices like computer keyboards, remote controls and even computer mice. She and her colleagues burned plastic using lighters and blow-torches to identify different kinds of material. “But there are families that have lived here for generations … and there is little impact on their health,” she said. Several migrants said that while the work is tough, it allows them more freedom than working on factory lines where young children are not permitted to enter the premises and working hours are stringent. Used to be worse Despite the environmental degradation and toxic fumes permeating the air, many in Guiyu said that conditions have improved dramatically over the years. “I remember in 2007, when I first came here, there was a flood of trash,” said Wong, a 20-year-old man who ferried bundles of electronic waste around on a motorcycle with a trailer attached to it. “Before people were washing metals, burning things and it severely damaged people’s lungs,” Wong added. “But now, compared to before, the [authorities] have cracked down pretty hard.” But residents who did not work in the e-waste business offered a very different take on the pollution in Guiyu. A group of farmers who had migrated from neighboring Guangxi province to cultivate rice in Guiyu told CNN they did not dare drink the local well water. They claimed if they tried to wash clothes and linens with the water, it turned fabrics yellow. The head of the group, who identified himself as Zhou, had another shocking admission. “It may not sound nice, but we don’t dare eat the rice that we farm because it’s planted here with all the pollution,” Zhou said, pointing at water-logged rice paddy next to him. Asked who did eat the harvested rice, Zhou answered: “How should I know? A lot of it is sold off … they don’t dare label the rice from here as ‘grown in Guiyu.’ They’ll write that its rice from some other place.” Not that surprising considering that the latest food scandal to hit the country earlier this month is cadmium-laced rice. Officials in Guangzhou city, roughly 400 kilometers away from Guiyu, found high rates of cadmium in rice and rice products. According to the city’s Food and Drug Administration samples pulled from a local restaurant, food seller and two university canteens showed high levels of cadmium in rice and rice noodles. Officials did not specify how the contaminated rice entered the city’s food supply. CNN made several attempts to contact the Guiyu town government. Government officials refused to comment on the electronic waste issue and hung up the phone. However, it did appear that government efforts to restrict imports of foreign waste are reducing the flow of e-trash here. “Why are they stopping the garbage from reaching us?” asked one man who ran a plastic sorting workshop. “Of course it’s hurting our business,” he added. Domestic e-waste grows The Chinese government had some success regulating e-waste disposal with a “Home Appliance Old for New Rebate Program,” which was tested from 2009 to 2011. With the help of generous government subsidies, the program collected tens of millions of obsolete home appliances, according to the U.N. Even if Chinese authorities succeed in limiting smuggled supplies of foreign garbage, the U.N. warns that the country is rapidly generating its own supply of e-waste. “Domestic generation of e-waste has risen rapidly as a result of technological and economic development,” the U.N. reported. It cited statistics showing an exponential surge in sales of TV’s, refrigerators, washing machines, air conditioners and computers in China over a 16-year period. To avoid a vicious cycle of pollution, resulting from both the manufacture and disposal of appliances, Greenpeace has lobbied for manufacturers to use fewer toxic chemicals in their products. The organization also has a message for consumers who seem to swap their phones, tablets and other computer devices with increasing frequency. “Think about where your mobile phone or where your gadgets go,” said Ma, the Greenpeace activist. “When you think about changing [your phone], or buying a new product, always think about the footprint that you put on this planet.”   STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • U.N. report: “China now appears to be the largest e-waste dumping site in the world”
  • Products originally produced in China are now finding their way back as electronic junk
  • The small town of Guiyu as been a major hub for the disposal of e-waste
  • “When recycling is done in primitive ways … it is hugely devastating for the local environment”

Source: CNN



Two years after the nuclear accident at Fukushima plant, the nuclear industry is accused of evading its responsibilities.

The victims of the nuclear disaster in 2011 were almost forgotten after being placed in little, so-called temporary apartments spread across Japan. TEPCO, the operator of the Fukushima plant, paid “temporary compensation” to the victims, but now people have to pay back the money, the international press reports.

Yukiko Kameya, 68, is one of these victims. She used to live in the town of Futaba, close to the Fukushima nuclear plant, until the tsunami on March 11, 2011. After the nuclear accident, she was moved in a small public housing apartment in Tokyo and received initially $18,000 in compensation from TEPCO. However, she has to pay back $11,000 of the total sum.

“We were living just 1.2 kilometres from the plant, and we escaped with nothing but the clothes on our back,” she said. “We had that money deducted from our compensation. I was surprised, so I called TEPCO and said that they were using dirty tricks, that they were using fraud. Why did they give it to us to if we had to pay it back?”

Companies that were involved in designing and building the Fukushima reactors, such as General Electric, Toshiba and Hitachi, are not required to pay a cent in compensation, a Greenpeace report states.

Aslihan Tumer, Greenpeace’s international nuclear project leader, says some of the companies are still profiting from the reactor.

“Nuclear suppliers are completely protected from accepting any liability or being held accountable in case of an accident,” he said.”GE designed Fukushima Mark 1 reactor, and GE, Hitachi and Toshiba built and continued servicing the reactor, and they are also still making, in some cases, money out of the cleaning efforts, as well as the contamination.”

With the operator TEPCO nationalized, the Japanese taxpayer is now paying most of the compensation bill for the disaster.

Source: Tokyo Times

Concerns raised over ‘useless’ Arctic oil spill plan.

oil spillartic

Environmental campaigners say that a draft plan to respond to an oil spill in the Arctic ocean is inadequate and vague.

The proposal has been in preparation for two years as oil companies look to increase exploration in the region.

Greenpeace says it fails to get to grip with the risks of an accident in an extremely sensitive location.

Ministers from the eight nation Arctic Council are due to discuss the plan at a meeting in Sweden tomorrow.

As summer ice in the Arctic has declined in recent years, the area has become the subject of intense interest from oil and gas companies.Estimates from the US Geological Survey indicated that there could be 60 billion barrels of oil in the region.

Glaring hole

In 2011 The Arctic Council members signed the Nuuk Declaration that committed them to develop an international agreement on how to respond to oil pollution in the northern seas.

Now Greenpeace have released a draft of the plan that they say is simply inadequate.

“The big glaring hole is that it is such a vaguely worded document that it doesn’t seem to force countries into doing anything,” Ben Ayliffe from Greenpeace told BBC News.

“For all intents and purposes it is a useless document,” he said.

The plan says that “each party shall maintain a national system for responding promptly and effectively to oil pollution incidents” without requiring any clear details on the number of ships or personnel that would be needed to cope with a spillage.


Ben Ayliffe says he believes the Arctic Council plan would be ineffective if a spill occurred.

“It would be a nightmare scenario, you’re facing oil drifting for thousands of miles under ice, the technical challenge of operating in darkness would make mounting the sort of response that BP had to do in the Gulf, completely impossible,” he said.

Late last year, the House of Commons environmental audit committee called for a halt to oil drilling in the Arctic until a pan-Arctic response plan was in place. They called for a stricter financial liability regime to require oil and gas companies to prove they could meet the costs of cleaning up a spill.

According to chair of the Committee Joan Walley MP, there were big questions over the abilities of these companies to deal with a spillage.

“The infrastructure to mount a big clean-up operation is simply not in place and conventional oil spill response techniques have not been proven to work in such severe conditions,” she said.

The Arctic Council consists of the United States, Russia, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland.

Source: BBC


PLEDGE: Join us in telling StarKist, Bumble Bee, and Chicken of the Sea to stop making deceptive claims to consumers about the dolphin-safety and sustainability of their tuna products.

The environmentally devastating practices, including practices that can lead to dolphin mortality, of these companies are not “sustainable” or “dolphin-safe.” These claims are deceptive and constitute false advertising to consumers, who rely on the accuracy of such representations to make informed purchasing decisions.

Bumble Bee and Chicken of the Sea claim to be “100% dolphin-safe,” and all three of the suppliers state they will not purchase tuna caught in association with dolphins—a significant concern because tuna often swim together with dolphins. Dolphins can be traumatized, netted, injured, and killed by typical tuna fishing practices, including the use of giant “purse seine” nets, which capture dolphins along with tuna. Yet while approximately half of tuna consumers believe the dolphin-safe label means no dolphins died for the tuna in their can, the number of dolphins killed or injured by “certified” dolphin-safe tuna fishing methods in reality could number in the thousands every year. According to Greenpeace, around 300,000 cetaceans—whales, dolphins, and porpoises—die as bycatch each year.[1]

Meanwhile, on their packaging and their websites, the top three tuna suppliers all outline their commitment to “sustainable” fishing practices—ones that won’t deplete resources or harm the natural cycles of tuna or other marine life. However, the longlines and purse seine nets used to catch approximately 75% of the world’s tuna—including tuna sold by Bumble Bee, Chicken of the Sea, and StarKist—kill millions of non-target marine animals as “bycatch” every year, including sharks, sea turtles, dolphins, whales, and even sea birds. Some of these populations have been so decimated by commercial fishing that they are now critically endangered.

Longline fishing and purse seine fishing are not “sustainable.” These companies need to stop using greenwashing to deceive well-meaning consumers. If you agree, boycott all three!

Since practices required for ‘dolphin-safe’ certification don’t provide a 100% guarantee that dolphins are not harmed, the best way to be fully assured of dolphin-safety is simply not to eat tuna—this is best for the tuna, as well! However, some fishing practices—like use of giant purse seine nets—are clearly more environmentally devastating, and dangerous to dolphins, than others. If you choose to eat tuna, you can contact tuna companies to find out if their suppliers use purse seine nets.

Source: Greenpeace international

rainbow warrior

Our seas are in danger. Though BP (British Petroleum) claims to have temporarily stopped the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the damage is already catastrophic. Greenpeace is sending one of its ships, the Arctic Sunrise, on a three month expedition to document the destruction.

While the Sunrise gets to work, the legendary Rainbow Warrior ship is ready to enter its third avatar. The current Warrior is now over 50 years old and needs to be retired. The planet needs a new Warrior.