Last week Austrian
Broadcasting network ORF aired the controversial new film Climate Crimes in
Having seen the film in its
entirety for the first time, I was truly horrified by the scale of the
environmental destruction and mayhem brought on by the recent climate
protection movement. It is truly madness at a whole new level and dimension. If
you have the chance to see the documentary, then do so. You’ll be shaking your
head throughout the film.
Indeed the level of
destruction with respect to loss of eco-systems, biodiversity, erosion, etc.
brought on by the “green economy” is far beyond anything man-made climate
change was ever fantasized of causing by the year 2100. The current damage
caused by the “green economy” is real, and it’s happening here and right now.
Worse, it’s all taking place with the official green stamp of approval.
In the film, environmental
economist Nico Paech says:
“Climate protection as it
is practiced now is throwing the baby out with the bath water.”
The green economy, intended
to rescue the climate from a man-made climate catastrophe in a computer, is in
reality systematically accelerating the wide-scale destruction of the
environment today by at least a factor of ten.
Many greens are having
their eyes opened for the first time, and are now grudgingly admitting that
something has gone terribly awry. Wiping out the Earth’s eco-system to rescue
the climate is not what they had in mind.
Yet they still refuse to
acknowledge that they’ve erred with the climate science, and that all the
destruction was unnecessary. They still insist the computerized catastrophe is
real, approaching fast, and that we need to act rapidly. The only thing they’re
admitting is that the “green energy” sources of hydro-power and biofuel are no
longer options. In their view the human race is now in a dilemma because so
many sources of energy must never be used. There’s no painless way out.
After showing the Climate
Crimes documentary, ORF held a discussion round discussion round. The theme of
the discussion round was what needs to be done to get out of the (imagined)
Four experts joined
moderator Michael Hofer were Kurt Remele (ethics and theology expert), Angela
Köppl (economics expert in the field of environmental economics, energy and
climate protection and Angela Kallhoff (philosophy). The other was co-author of
Die kalte Sonne, geologist Sebastian Lüning. Clearly the discussion was not to
focus on climate science. For moderator Hofer and the 3 other guests, the
science is settled in their view, and there was no need to discuss it. Thus the
discussion focused on environmental ethics and man’s responsibilities.
Most of the discussion
round was filled with the usual “the end is near” crap. The three greenie
guests kept reminding the audience of our generational, environmental and
social responsibilities. They told us of the “massive impacts” humans were
having, and about all the “dramatic destruction” humans were causing.
We were reminded it would
be necessary to get along with much less, to save energy, and to scale back
productivity and consumption. Kallhoff, for example, said the human species was
“crowding out nature” and that we were “too individualistic and selfish”.
Moreover, the three green
guests reminded the audience that climate change is real. Köppl insisted that
climate change is settled science and that there was “a tendency to more
extreme weather”. She added that
“humans would have to scale
back” and “that it would not be possible to rely solely on technology”.
Remele poked fun at Arnold
Schwarzenegger, who a week earlier had flown in to Austria on his private jet
and pontificated about the importance of living green.
Hofer even asked the guests
if perhaps our Judeo-Christian religion was perhaps responsible for the earth’s
environmental and climatic ills today, citing that the Book of Genesis, which
“Be fruitful and multiply
and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and
over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the
Near the end of the
discussion round, moderator Hofer asked each guest to tell us what has to be
done to get out of the environmental dilemma. The three greenies were more or
less unanimous, telling the audience that we will have to change our behaviour,
get away from the model of growth, expand public transportation, consume less,
and to even eat less meat.
Lüning, the only guest with
a different opinion, said that it was necessary to get back to science and real
environmental protection. In Lüning’s view, the discussion had been taken over
by extreme elements on both sides, and that it had to get back to the center.
He also encouraged more critical thinking, and that we not immediately believe
someone just because they have a doctor title.
Earlier in the discussion
round, Lüning commented that there was too much fear-mongering by a number of
opportunistic parties, for example re-insurers. Lüning said that the huge environmental
backfire we’ve seen in the green movement so far should say something about the
Lüning also reminded the
other guests and Hofer that climate science is not settled, and cited a recent
study showing soot was a far greater factor in climate than previously thought.
He also pointed out that
much more could be done locally and regionally with far less money, and with a
far greater impact, than to try to solve the globe’s problems by tweaking a
single trace gas.
Lüning said: “There are lots
of high impact things that can be done for relatively little money.”
Post a Comment