Le front antinucléaire se fissure [on se doute pourquoi...]

[catou1111 0]

Le front antinucléaire se fissure, même chez les anciens de Greenpeace

Est-ce l’arrivée de Barack Obama qui concourt à délier certaines langues, toujours est-il que depuis son arrivée à la Maison Blanche, et ses prises de position en faveur d’une relance d’un programme nucléaire aux USA (1), les déclarations en faveur de l’énergie nucléaire, et des avantages qu’elle apporte en matière de faibles émissions de CO2, se multiplient dans des milieux où on ne les attendait pas forcément. Dans les dernières en date, le quotidien britannique The Independent, du 23 février dernier, publie celles de 4 personnalités anglaises jusqu’alors considérées comme antinucléaires. Parmi celles-ci se trouvent Steven Tindale, responsable de Greenpeace (2) Royaume-Uni de 2000 à 2005, et Chris Goodall, un des dirigeants actuels des Verts anglais.

Tous deux, après de nombreuses années de militantisme antinucléaire, considèrent aujourd’hui s’être fourvoyés. Steven Tindale estime avoir évolué progressivement au cours des quatre dernières années, en constatant l’importance du réchauffement climatique, notamment avec le dégel du permafrost sibérien qui libère d’importantes quantités de méthane. Ce changement a été tel, qu’il dit l’avoir ressenti un peu comme "une conversion religieuse". Une évolution[sic] qui concernerait de nombreux écologistes, puisque, selon Steven Tindale, il serait dorénavant "…assez courant de considérer que le pouvoir nucléaire n’est pas l’idéal mais que c’est mieux que le changement climatique".
De son côté, Chris Goodall, déclare dans les colonnes de The Independent que "L’énergie nucléaire a ses inconvénients mais les conséquences de ne pas y souscrire sont bien pires…

Pascal Farcy

1- Une annonce de relance qui s’inscrit en parallèle du développement des énergies vertes (éolien et solaire notamment) ainsi que d’un ambitieux plan de production locale d’agrocarburants.
2- Cette déclaration n’est pas la première émanant d’un ancien dirigeant de Greenpeace. En effet, Thomas Moore, un des cofondateurs de Greenpeace, ne manque pas de mettre en avant son évolution pro-nucléaire, pour la protection du climat, depuis quelques années. Il s’en est ouvert une nouvelle fois, le 15 novembre dernier, dans le quotidien suisse Le Matin.

Suite: http://www.univers-nature.com/inf/inf_actualite1.cgi?id=3645

[Philippe13 0]

Exxon Plays Greenpeace
... Like a Fine Violin

Greenpeace is convincing the world that global warming scepticism is a mouthpiece for ExxonMobil.(1) Superficially this seems plausible, but it does not stand up to scrutiny under closer inspection. Greenpeace has a website called www.exxonsecrets.org which lists all the global warming-sceptic organizations which Exxon has connections with or has directly funded. Absent from the list is The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which in 1998 obtained 17,000 signatures to a petition claiming that the global warming hypothesis was not based on sound science.(2) Over half of the signatories were scientists with relevant qualifications in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology etc.(3) The Science and Environmental Policy Project initiated a much smaller petition in 1997. According to Greenpeace, it received two grants from Exxon, $10,000 in 1998 and $10,000 in 2000. (4) So, in the last six years, Exxon's funding for organizations conducting surveys on scientific opinion on global warming has averaged $3333 per year. Exxon is clearly the hidden hand behind global warming-scepticism says Greenpeace.

Were Exxon serious about funding scientific studies debunking global warming, or about canvassing scientific opinion, they would perhaps provide a little more investment. It would be easy for Exxon to counter the argument that the Oregon petition lacks credibility because it is run from"a tin shed", by moving the Institute into a New York skyscraper and have them produce glossy brochures. It has not done so.

Token five figure grants from Exxon to some of the 100 plus global warming-sceptic groups does not constitute a credible opposition. Most of these organizations are not household names. Their pronouncements on global warming do not affect the balance of public opinion because their voices are crowded out by the hugely influential environmental organizations like Greenpeace. Total funding for the environmental movement in the U.S. is estimated at $4 billion annually. Exxon's objective is to smear global warming scepticism by throwing it a few crumbs and declaring itself an ally. Who would trust a petition or movement supported by an oil company? And so it's guilt by association, trumpeted by Greenpeace and others which enters public consciousness. The science presented by the Oregon Institute receives little media attention.

Even Greenpeace's factsheets cannot disguise which side Exxon is really on. Their factsheet on Stanford University reads :

On November 20, 2002 Exxon Mobil announced it would give $100 million to a groundbreaking Stanford University project dedicated to researching new options for commercially viable, technological systems for energy supply and use which have the capability to substantially reduce greenhouse emissions." Other corporate sponsors to The Global Climate and Energy Project included General Electric and Schlumberger.....The project is not intended to further explore climate science, instead focusing on development of new energy technology and carbon sequestration technology(5)

The same ruse was used in 1913 to get Congress and the public behind the plan for the Federal Reserve System. Unknown to the public, the Federal Reserve Act was drawn up in secret by Wall Street in 1910. Rockefeller and friends knew that there was great public mistrust of Wall Street 's involvement with the Glass-Owen Bill placed before Congress. The only way to swing public opinion in favour of the Bill was for Wall Street to come out in the press vehemently against it. And so anti-establishment feeling helped to win the day for Wall Street.(6). This is a warning from history that Rockefellers deny with their lips what they are doing with their hands.

So what are they doing with their hands, or more importantly with their wallets? Besides the Stanford University example, under the umbrella of Rockefeller Family Fund 136 foundations formed the Environmental Grant makers Association (EGA) in 1987 which has grown to over 200 by the end of the twentieth century. It donates hundreds of millions of dollars annually to environmental groups. In a dazzling display of raw power, foundations with interlocking directorates funded the Nature Conservancy in 1996 to the tune of $203,886,056, or 60 percent of its annual revenue. The Earth Charter, written by Stephen Rockefeller is the Ten Commandments for the Green Religion. It was a development of an earlier Rockefeller initiative, the 1972 Rockefeller Brothers Fund report entitled Use of Land: A Citizen's Policy Guide to Urban Growth. This was a bench-mark publication on subjecting property rights to government censure.(7)

The truth is that the big oil companies are controlled by the same people who finance the environmental movement through tax exempt foundations. Their objective is to monopolize the world's fossil fuel reserves and turn the tap off. They want to charge you £1 a mile to drive your car, whilst they traverse the globe in private jets and helicopters. With their vast holdings in banks, pharmaceuticals and media companies, the Rockefellers are not going to have one less creature comfort or any less political power if their oil company is worth $100 billion rather than $200 billion. Exxon may even grow in size if oil prices increase exponentially whilst consumption falls. Either way, the Money Trust will massively increase their power over the rest of us by reducing our standard of living.(8 )

Greenpeace has swallowed Exxon's bait hook, line and sinker. And thanks to Greenpeace, the public have swallowed global warming whole.


Michael Nield
September 2004

1. Greenpeace's "Don't' Buy Esso/ExxonMobil" Campaign
http://www.stopesso.org/
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php

2. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Global Warming Petition Project, 1998
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

3. Boston Globe: Scientists don't agree on global warming
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist, 11/05/98
http://www.oism.org/news/s49p725.htm

4. Factsheet: Science and Environmental Policy Project, SEPP, Greenpeace.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=65

5. Factsheet: Stanford University GCEP, Greenpeace
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=81

6. The Creature From Jekyll Island, G. Edward Griffin, American Media, 2002, pp. 464, 469

7.Dr Michael Coffman, Why Property Rights Matter,
http://www.discerningtoday.org/PropertyRights2.pdf
See also The Environmental Grant Makers Association website.
http://www.ega.org/

8. The Police State Road Map, Michael Nield, 2004, chapter seven, "The Environmental Movement", http://policestateplanning.com/chapter_7.htm#7_5

source: http://www.policestateplanning.com/id52.htm