Only global poverty can save the planet, insists WWF - and the ESA!


petros
#1
Windfarms for all, but without using steel or concrete

Posted in Science , 16th May 2012 08:19 GMT

Analysis Extremist green campaigning group WWF - endorsed by no less a body than the European Space Agency - has stated that economic growth should be abandoned, that citizens of the world's wealthy nations should prepare for poverty and that all the human race's energy should be produced as renewable electricity within 38 years from now.

Most astonishingly of all, the green hardliners demand that the enormous numbers of wind farms, tidal barriers and solar powerplants required under their plans should somehow be built while at the same time severely rationing supplies of concrete, steel, copper and glass.

The WWF presents these demands in its just-issued Living Planet Report for 2012. It's a remarkable document, not least for the fact that it is formally endorsed for the first time by the European Space Agency (ESA) - an organisation which would cease to exist in any meaningful form if the document's recommendations were to be carried out.


The report is also unusual in that it seeks to set policy on economics and energy, but doesn't anywhere give any figures expressed in units of energy (watt-hours, joules etc) or currency (dollars, euros or what have you). Instead the WWF activists prefer to base their argument on various indices invented either by themselves or by other international non- or quasi-governmental organisations.

For instance one key figure used in the report is the Living Planet Index, invented by the WWF, which apparently shows "trends in the overall state of global biodiversity".

It does this by examining the number of individuals (or sometimes pairs) in various local populations of 2,688 selected species - of vertebrates only. Every two years WWF changes what species and populations are included, in large numbers: and anyone would acknowledge that a limited, localised picture of a couple of thousand vertebrate-only species is an utterly minuscule, extremely selective pinpoint on the picture of all the Earth's life.

Nonetheless WWF think that their LPI number offers conclusive proof that "biodiversity has decreased globally".

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05...planet_report/
Last edited by petros; May 16th, 2012 at 06:50 AM..
 
B00Mer
+1
#2
So long as we start with their bank accounts followed shotly by the bankers and CEO's that fukked up the world s economy.
 
petros
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Most astonishingly of all, the green hardliners demand that the enormous numbers of wind farms, tidal barriers and solar powerplants required under their plans should somehow be built while at the same time severely rationing supplies of concrete, steel, copper and glass.


Where have I heard that before? It sounds vaguely familiar. Have I brought this up anytime prior?
 
captain morgan
+2
#4  Top Rated Post
This is not entirely unexpected Petros, but give these ecotards some time and the pertinent questions will be forced to the front of their (limited) consciousness.

Just another example of yet another green group that asks all the wrong questions and does not have any of the answers.
 
petros
#5
It's more than just egotards, look at ESA and NASA. How much do they rely on satellite business to exist? Without scaring people into funding unsustainable satellites to monitor their air usage for billing purposes, what service is remaining to put into orbit that can't be done cheaper by private concerns?
 
TenPenny
+2
#6
Stop expecting people to have any knowledge or understanding of economics or technical issues.

Our society has advanced beyond that, we are post-industrial. Everything can magically appear, pollution-free, with no energy inputs.
 
captain morgan
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

It's more than just egotards, look at ESA and NASA. How much do they rely on satellite business to exist? Without scaring people into funding unsustainable satellites to monitor their air usage for billing purposes, what service is remaining to put into orbit that can't be done cheaper by private concerns?


Interesting, ain't it... NASA has had their budget slashed to the bone and here they are coming out with yet another contradictory message regarding AGW and the oil sands. I really wonder if these eggheads are that naive to think that oil companies are going to fund these jokers like they do (or have in the past) other eco groups that attempt to bully them into donating cash.

Oh well, I suppose that if the US Feds don't see the value in NASA, then why would I really give a rip?
 
taxslave
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Interesting, ain't it... NASA has had their budget slashed to the bone and here they are coming out with yet another contradictory message regarding AGW and the oil sands. I really wonder if these eggheads are that naive to think that oil companies are going to fund these jokers like they do (or have in the past) other eco groups that attempt to bully them into donating cash.

Oh well, I suppose that if the US Feds don't see the value in NASA, then why would I really give a rip?

Space exploration has value, but does that huge monolithic bureaucracy called NASA have any value?
 
captain morgan
#9
Not anymore.

Now that the Russians and Chinese (and private interests) have taken the lead on expenditures related to space, NASA is redundant, kinda like an appendix.

In the end, the Americans have carried the torch for the globe for many decades, time for someone else to ante-up and keep things alive
 
petros
#10
NASA has been forever chasing the Russians in the space game.
 
captain morgan
#11
Let the Russians take the lead and spend the cash
 
petros
#12
They are and NASA pays them. You can't get to ISiS without taking a ride in a Soyuz.
 
Cabbagesandking
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

It's more than just egotards, look at ESA and NASA. How much do they rely on satellite business to exist? Without scaring people into funding unsustainable satellites to monitor their air usage for billing purposes, what service is remaining to put into orbit that can't be done cheaper by private concerns?

It has been explained that NASA has nothing to do with satellites in the geophysical side. So why are you saying this kind of thing again?
 
petros
#14
How did they get up there?
 
Cabbagesandking
#15
What are you talking about? What is up there to do with the Earth Science division of NASA?
 
petros
#16
Off the top of my noggin? Aqua.
 
Cabbagesandking
#17
The first observation about this topic is that it is in "The Register." That magazine is even less credible than the Daily Mail or The Australian. Less credible since it poses as a scientific publication. The truth is that, in its physical science forum, at least, no scientist ever publishes. No scientist ever would.

This is a publication from which some editors resigned because of its publication of fraudulent papers.

Lewis Page is a "jerk" (euphemism. In a past piece, he gratuiously described scientists as "Hippies." That is the measure of Page and the worth of his observations. The WWF does yeoman work and is now doing it in the Climate Field. particularly as it fits biodiversity. Anything ot produces is carefully researched and, where science is involved, peer reviewed.

Not the ranting of someone who has been known to take obscure references from Watts and build them into denial pieces.
 

Similar Threads

2
69
Birth control to save the planet
by Andem | Nov 10th, 2009
1
Planet Earth (Planet Erde)
by Andem | May 16th, 2008