Heights Of Hypocrisy
Peter Glover has an article up over at TCS Daily that really is a must read. It is about the globe-trotting jet setters in the "green" movement who rack up thousands and thousands of frequent flier miles to tell people to cut their carbon emissions. In other words, jet-propelled hypocrites.
They are the Green Bigots, leading environmentalists, those at the vanguard of the fight to change our lifestyles, restrict our foreign flights, who insist we do our 'bit' to cut greenhouse gas emissions while they rack up thousands of airmiles on business and pleasure trips."
As the UK's The Sunday Times has recently revealed, "In the past year the directors and chief executives of groups such as WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Soil Association have crisscrossed the globe, visiting the Falklands, Japan, Africa and Brazil." The ST's environment editor points out, "All are running high-profile campaigns to persuade people to change their lifestyles and cut emissions of carbon dioxide."
The article identifies a number of well known examples. They included Bob Napier, chief executive of WWF, who through jetting to various destinations in Asia, the Americas and Europe helped generate more than 11 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) last year. As the ST points out, aviation generates around 5% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions "but their warming effect is up to four times greater at high altitudes." To get this in perspective, a typical British household generates about six tons of CO2 over a whole year.
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, is another who has had to admit to having flown business trips across three continents - in addition to flying his family on holiday to Slovakia. "This weekend he is on a business trip to Nigeria, " reports the ST, which goes on to claim Juniper's trips contributed to around 8 tons of CO2 emissions. Graham Wynne, chief executive of the Royal Society for the Protection of Bird (RSPB), has this year completed business trips to Indonesia, Washington and Scotland - as well as taking his family on holiday to New Zealand.
Only one person in an organization, you might think? But then the RSPB will next month be burning large amounts of carbon emitting fuels by importing its supporters to the centre of London to protest against how much others are contributing to global warming. The piece quotes a sheepish RSPB boss: "There are a lot of contradictions like these which organisations like ours have to solve." I'll say. Like asking themselves why, in the age of Internet conferencing, such international jetsetting is even necessary. And let's be kind and not enquire what 'moral dilemma' led to Wynne flying his family halfway around the world on holiday. And, given the burgeoning culture of international environmental conferencing, this is just the tip of a fast-advancing iceberg.
This one is a must read. What is really happening here is that others are trying to impose their worldview on others. This is no different than a faith based group forcing its beliefs on non-believers. That they worship nature rather than a particular God makes no difference. That they are flaming hypocrites about it just makes it worse.
Civilization, Politics, Religion, Science | Gaius Thursday, 5 October , 2006
By Douglas Keachie, Thursday, 5 October , 2006 @ 11:02 am
Please list all the on-line only conferences that you know of that have been covered in the national and/or world press. Publicity has always come with a price, but corporations or organization who don’t advertise, one way or another, don’t survive.
By Ed, Thursday, 5 October , 2006 @ 11:33 am
This is a ridiculous argument. Right now, inefficient aircraft are what is available for long distance travel. Trying io improve their efficiency and lessen their impact on the environment doesn’t mean that you have to stay in your house. Especially if staying in your house will make you less effective in your advocacy.
If there are better alternatives i.e. high speed trains, I’m sure you’ll see the people and organizations cited in this article using them.
By Black Jack, Thursday, 5 October , 2006 @ 12:14 pm
Don’t expect Green Bigots and their apologists to get the point, they’re true believers and exempt themselves from the restrictions and constraints they would impose on others.
For environmentalism’s anointed high priests, hypocrisy is always something the other guys are involved in, and it’s simply beyond their comprehension their well intentioned efforts might actually be making a substantial contribution to the overall pollution.
By Paul, Thursday, 5 October , 2006 @ 1:41 pm
Well there are of course always two sides to any argument and you can’t always rely on the media to present them. For an RSPB perspective on this issue see http://www.climatecounts.blogspot.com