I am not talking about the late Blessed Mother Teresa, but rather the one-percenter Teresa, wife of John Kerry who gives liberally from her (inherited) fortune to ideas claiming to save the earth.
For example, in 2001, "flat-earth-society" leader James Hansen, former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS,) received one of those cheques for $250,000 from her for "his exemplary leadership in the critical and often contentious debate over the threat of global climate change." To be fair though, through the Heinz Family Foundation her philanthropic funding activities also include awards in "Arts and Humanities, Human Condition, Public Policy, and Technology, the Economy and Employment." However, there is a clear preference for the environment as the last 30 out of 34 such awards were given to recipients in the Environment and "Global Change" categories (
Wikipedia).
What constitutes a "Good Environment"?
Most people like to maintain the "environment" in a state of beauty and health. You would like your children and theirs to be able to enjoy wonderful sights of nature's caprioles, to be able to climb the mountains or dive in the oceans teaming with life of all colours and shapes, or just to go on a leisurely walk along the pier.
To each of us a good "environment" has many different meanings and interpretations. Dependent on your own feelings any of Mother Teresa's awards may qualify for your personal definition of "environment" or not. However, there simply is no "one hat fits all" definition for that.
The (Old) Environmental Movement
The environmental movement started to become part of the mainstream media's conscience in the late 1960's and gathered steam throughout the '70's. I think most would agree that Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring (1962) was a ground-breaking event in the battle cry for environmental preservation. Her book described starlings dying from the effects of the then "insecticide of choice" (DDT). It did not matter that some of the early "findings" were misinterpretations of facts or concocted stories altogether. The movement became a powerful force propelled by ever more dreadful prognostications.
It did not take long for the world to take political action. All western countries created new departments to safeguard the environment. In the US its name is Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Initially, these environmental agencies (in many western countries) were occupied with undertaking basic research, fact finding studies to determine what was "out there," what was the effect of a new product on one or more representative species of wildlife and what action might be necessary to preserve the functioning of the ecosystem on a whole population level. The results of such studies led to new broad agreements on the protection of vital natural resources such as the Great Lakes Agreement on Water Quality of 1972. With such successes under their belt, the environment portfolios quickly rose to senior government department status in many--notably western - countries. Concurrently, politicians took note and began to pound the "environmental bandwagon" for entirely unrelated (and often counterproductive) political purposes. This process is continuing to this day. Let's call it the New Environmental Movement.
The New Environmental Movement
The New Environmental Movement has no semblance to the former. Its goals, modus operandi, and reasoning are entirely different from the former. Like in many other, notably western jurisdictions, the governments' environment portfolios acquired even more prominence. For example, in the US and Germany they are now among the most powerful government agencies. It did not take long for them to morph from protectors of a "healthy environment" to agencies prescribing on how to "correctly dispose of a used paper napkin." Of course, all the new regulations and tax burdens were to be "good for the environment" and, therefore, also for your own benefit.
Initially these new government entities were largely viewed as "add-ons" and their appointed political heads were generally considered to be "junior members of the team." Then the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) came on the scene. The year was 1988. The IPCC was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to prepare a report on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with the purpose of formulating realistic response
strategies.
The IPCC
The IPCC was created to prepare ONE report (by 1990) to ascertain the effect--if any - of human activity on planet Earth's climate. As things usually go, the new organization soon became a permanent UN fixture with a need for updating their reports every few years.
The IPCC reached its zenith in public recognition when it was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, together with one of its most ardent proponents then, Al Gore. That year of 2007 also was the time when the IPCC released its Fourth Assessment report (AR4). The AR4 spelled even more doom and gloom than all earlier IPCC reports. The earth was about to reach a "tipping point" beyond which an unstoppable, global warming catastrophe was going to burn us all to crisp.
Already in 2007, some discrepancies were noted between the computer model derived predictions and actual observed temperatures. Such discrepancies could easily be defined as "observational noise" in the myriad of measurements and predictions. After all, their predictions were run on the best super computers and the most sophisticated input available then. Still, more data were going to be good for further corroboration of the models. Then two unexpected things happened.
Surprise-1
The first surprise was a slew of 3,000 emails made public. They all were to and from the then main players in the field. Inter alia, they demonstrated some despicable if not criminal behavior
by some of the leading scientists involved. Some were clearly involved in data manipulation, coercion of journal editors and smear campaigns against people whom they found not to toe the global warming scare bandwagon. Several books have been written on that email revelation alone.
At the time though, the whole story was belittled by much of the mainstream press. There was too much "capital" invested by governments, the IPCC, and many research institutes in upholding the "warming trend." In any case, the event was widely viewed by the "warmists" as just a little glitch in the progressive agenda of converting the world to an "environmental agenda" involving large subsidies by the advanced nations to others. However, nature came up with an even more serious surprise.
Surprise-2
The next big surprise was that nature had decided not to play ball as expected. It had been apparent for several years already but it was primarily thought to be a short-term "aberration." Instead of following the computer model predictions of a relentless global warming, suddenly, the Arctic summer sea ice did not shrink to a lower and lower size every summer (though it was probably helped along by ice breakers plowing the Arctic waters). Instead, the Arctic sea-ice extent started to increase again. This past summer (2013), the number of days with above freezing temperatures at the 80+ degree N latitude also declined precipitously. In fact, the time of summer temperatures above freezing was significantly lower than in any of the last 55 years since it has been measured (
Danish Meteorological Institute).
At the other pole of the planet, in the Antarctic, the global warming, AKA climate change is no more forthcoming either. The ice there had already been expanding for several years and is bound to reach a new record mass anytime. Moreover, the Antarctic Emperor Penguin colonies which had quite recently been thought (computed?) to be in rapid decline made mysterious recoveries. Not only are the established penguin colonies found to be doing quite well, thank you, additional colonies were also found and the penguins, altogether, appear to be doing better than ever before.
No wonder, the warmists' camp is reeling and stuttering from one unexpected "climate aberration" or "warming pause" to another. However, the latest report "
Summary for Policy Makers" by the IPCC is "doubling down" on its earlier claims of an impending climate (heat) disaster on earth with even stronger terminology than before. Frankly, one has to wonder if these people are still sane. When will they wake up and face the facts head on?
The Heinz Awards
The Heinz Awards are certainly meant to recognise and reward people who have contributed positively to mankind's understanding of cause and consequence and others who are thought to have fostered good stewardship of the environment. Unfortunately, both the nomination and award committees appear to have fallen victim to the same political claptrap espoused by the IPCC.
