Enviro-mental - Josh 279

Lots of stories (here and here) about Greens flying round the globe and generally living it large - they have no shame really do they.

Cartoons by Josh

Comments

[Capell]

Can we have that as a luggage label?

[Joe Public]

Paid for, by their poor(er) donors.

[Steve Jones]

The greens had all the windmills installed in order to offset their flying carbon footprint. Don't believe me? Then check for yourself here:

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Just look at all that free (both financially and carbon) energy being churned out over the last week. What a fantastic investment in our future.

[TinyCO2]

Cartoon - simple and with style. I bet the jet passengers wish they hadn't had the meal and are a really bright shade of green.

It's not the shamelessness of the prominant greens that dismays me. It's the rationalisation or determined blindness by the media and green supporters that I can't understand.

[davidchappell]

But you must remember that they are so busy with all those conferences to attend and their time so valuable they have no other option but to destroy the world (according to their dogma).

[CharmingQuark]

Don't all the higher echelons of a religion live in privilege. After all they are saving us from committing evil.

They deserve all this extravagance since they are saving us from eternal damnation!

It is hard being Green - no need for relevant qualifications, guaranteed employment, never ending public money, world travel, always being right, blaming everyone else for the state of the planet, etc.

[NikFromNYC]

Every celebrity will soon be infected by paparazzi nanobots. Then we might envy them less so they won't feel so envied and thus guilty enough to pander to welfare state politicians like they do now.

[Richard Drake]

After all the complexities of the climate debate have been aired this simple hypocrisy is likely to be the most persuasive. And Josh is on hand to make sure. :)

[Martin A]

Q: Do we need to record stories how climate scientists have acted in their personal lives?

A: some senior climate change scientists are very carbon intensive people around the world, therefore personal stories might not be that helpful.

[ http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/6/25/scenes-from-an-ercfest.html ]

[pouncer]

For most of the last 1000 years the number of people concerned about "natural" places was quite small. This number also represented a fairly constant percentage of the general population -- which was also fairly stable.

Sometime at the beginning of the industrial revolution, both the population "curve" began to bend up -- sharply -- AND the number of people anxious to preserve parklands, green estates, wilderness areas, fishing preserves and such habitats began to grow, as a fraction of the entire population. That is, while once the forest was the hunting province of the king alone, and a concern of his few gameskeepers; in post-industrial times the bourgeois the wanna-be aristocrats began to demand green preserves, as well.

Were the numbers of "concerned" people to be graphed from the year 1000 to now, the "green" attitude would look like a hockey stick.

OBVIOUSLY, this trend is unsustainable. Completely unnatural, unprecedented, evil, and crying out for drastic efforts at mitigation and remediation.

I call upon all concerned citizens of all nations to take action. Suppress the "green-wishers" among us, who are disrupting the global and historical norms of our planet, society, and culture.

We must begin by taxing the greens. Later, perhaps, a "green" trading scheme can incentivize green-wishers from nations or regions with a surplus (such as California or England) to reallocate themselves to nations or other regions with a shortage (Nigeria, Poland, China...) If the trend is not reversed more drastic action may be necessary...

[Another Ian]

Bish,

Censor if inappropriate.

The "Carbon Cockpoints" tally must be something huge?

[Ross]

Spiegel online has had a go at Greenpeace as well. It looks like they have some serious organisation / management issues
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/greenpeace-financial-scandal-how-the-organization-lost-millions-a-976868.html

[tom0mason]

In a piece about Mr Farage's lack of accuracy in his statement about Greenpeace's EU funding, they do come up with some interesting funding figure for Greens and NGO but notes that Greenpeace does not get EU money. http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85041

...Had Mr Farage been better briefed, he could have pointed out that the WWF has been paid nearly €54 million from EU funds in the six year period from 2007 to 2012, the RSPB were paid more €14 million, and that Friends of the Earth Europe are primarily funded from public funds. Its work programme in 2013 cost €1,368,059.00, of which the EU contributed €751,064.00 (54.89 percent). Likewise, the EEB gets most of its funding from the taxpayer.

The best bet, though, would have been to add up the Green 10 subventions for the period 2007-2012. We start with WWF grabbing €53,813,343, Birdlife is lead recipient for funds worth €25,680,683, Naturfreund gets €2,862,371, Bankwatch takes €8,178,095, the EEB is lead recipient for €13,186,263, Climate Action Network gets €2,240,616, HEAL (as EPHA) takes €4,622,921, Transport & Environment, takes €2,172,353 and Friends of the Earth was lead recipient for grants worth €13,674,033.

Putting these nine together, with Greenpeace the notable exception, the Green 10 minus one are primary or lead recipients of funds to the tune of €126,610,677 disbursed by the Commission between 2007-2012....

Still that lack of funds hasn't stopped them flying hither and thither, commuting to work and back.