September 23, 2002
Average Canadians from all walks of life are registering concern about the myths promoted by Greenpeace--now the world's largest environmental organization.
Toronto Free Press wrote that "Greenpeace Must Be Made Responsible for Its Actions".
"....Greenpeace is really the creation of a small group of Canadians. Greenpeace owes Canadians and their neighbours in the global community responsibility for their actions. If not, the conduct of Greenpeace should be dealt with in court."
Toronto Free Press also believes that the best way to counteract the myths of Greenpeace is with the mantra of the group’s respected former co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: "Truth based on fact".
The True Green Report can be found on our website: www.Canadafreepress.com. Readers with story ideas, or letters, pro or con about the activity of Greenpeace are welcome to email the True Green Report at cfp@canadafreepress.com
Kids' health before chic environmental causes
Kevin Marchman, executive director of the National Organization of African-Americans in Housing should win a national newspaper award for his piece on a story behind the story more crucial than the headline-grabbing mosquitoes in New York.
"In less glamourous neighbourhoods, in the tucked-away corners of low-income housing, many thousands of children suffer from a particularly deadly disease at nearly four times the rate of average Americans. That illness is asthma, and the leading cause of those respiratory attacks is allergens spread by, yes, household pests such as cockroaches.
"Scientists have nailed down the causes of this one, so fortunately we don’t have to rely on political-activist groups for analysis. In a recent study from the National Institute of Health, doctors reported that "Illness and death from asthma have been increasing in this country for the past 15 years and are particularly high among poor, African-American inner-city residents.
"Just as with mosquitoes, the roaches themselves don’t discriminate. It is the housing--often old, deteriorating and surrounded by the grimy conditions that are havens for pests--that create greater opportunities for infestation.
"What’s more, it is a public health obligation--one we hold higher perhaps than any other--to protect children from easily preventable illnesses.
"The low-income parents and affordable-housing agencies I work with every day tell me they are doing all they can to, literally, stomp out the problem. Still, as anyone who’s ever seen a garbage can and a kitchen sink can tell you, when roaches go on the offensive, sometimes the only solution is to fire back in force.
"But the bug spray or pest control company most of us would turn to in a heartbeat are expensive options often out of reach of those in low-income housing.
"Public officials often like to help, but--you guessed it--the anti-pesticide folks stop them. Opposition from Not-in-my-Backyard groups has limited the health protection measures to only certain neighbourhoods.
"Of course, the key word in the NIMBY acronym is "my," so it’s worth asking who, exactly, are these folk.
"Is it a caricature to say they are mostly well-off people who live in good neighbourhoods and count few minorities among their ranks? Is the fight for what they call "environmental justice" really one that has the health of poor children at the fore of its concerns?
"I know this much: The families and affordable-housing agencies I work with are far more worried about the holes in walls where roaches come in than they are about any hole above Antarctica.
"Let’s worry abut the real risk here.
"All New Yorkers deserve the benefits of public-health programs. And every neighbourhood deserves the benefits of pesticides when there is a need for them--not after citizens have needlessly died.
"Chic environmental causes shouldn’t come before any kid’s health--whether he lives in Central Park or in a public-housing development miles away."
Back to the Dark Age
It was only a matter of time. Radical environmentalists, anti everything from insect repellent to perfume, are lamenting the introduction of the flush toilet.
One of the panelists participating in a television special on the recent Earth Summit complained about the "pernicious introduction of the flush toilet," according to Competitive Enterprise Institute President Fred Smith, a panelist on the same program.
The TV special was hosted by PBS’s Bill Moyers.
A female panelist from India complained that the flush toilet encourages excessive water consumption around the world and is not ecologically friendly.
The remark prompted an associate of Smith, CEI’s Chris Horner, to ponder what alternatives the woman would suggest, "Presumably, the preferred solution to human waste problems is now abstinence," Horner quipped.
A critic of the green movement, Danish author Bjorn Lomborg, told CNSNews.com, "Changing how we flush toilets is not going to change water supplies.
According to Lomborg, household water consumption worldwide constitutes only eight percent of total usage, so changing the way we flush will not have any significant impact on water usage. Agriculture accounts for 69 percent of water usage, while industry uses 23 percent.
"You don’t start with making the eight percent (household water consumption) more efficient," he said.
Lomborg, once a committed member of Greenpeace, became disillusioned with the green movement because of what he considered its distortion of Eco science. He said people who bemoan the flush toilet are typical of the green movement’s "tendency to focus on stuff that looks easy."
Away from the bathroom, some greens are also against electricity.
Last month, Gar Smith, the editor of the Earth Island Institute’s online journal, The Edge lamented the introduction of electricity,
"I don’t think a lot of electricity is a good thing. It is the fuel that powers a lot of multi-national imagery," Smith told CNSNews.com.
According to Smith, electricity can wreak havoc on cultures. "I have seen villages in Africa that had vibrant culture and great communities that were disrupted and destroyed by the introduction of electricity," he said.
Canadians in dark on Kyoto
Fresh on the heels of a recent poll indicating that most Canadians have no idea what the Kyoto Protocol is about, comes the news that Canadian consumers could be forced to pay higher energy costs as part of the Canadian government’s plans to implement it.
Although the ink hasn’t dried on any signed legislation, government planners are considering whether consumers should bear more of the burden in reducing greenhouse gas emissions under the protocol.
Average Canadians are the source of 28 percent of greenhouse gas emissions based on their energy-using habits and more should be done to change consumption patterns, the outline of the Kyoto plan said.
One of the objectives cited by the plan is "to engage consumers and communities to do their fair share."
The outline of the plan warns, "higher energy costs for consumers could be part of the (policy) mix."
The plan wants to focus on consumer energy use in the home and in transportation. It suggests more needs to be done in the home to improve energy efficiency in furnaces and appliances such as refrigerators, washers, and dryers.
On the transportation side, the plan says there should be encouragement to buy fuel-efficient vehicles and to expand public transit.
Small wonder why polls show that Canadians like the Kyoto Protocol less as they learn more about it.
Constitution not for pigs
Pigs can’t fly, but if animal rights activists have their way, they will have constitutional rights in the United States.
According to Wesley J. Smith of the Weekly Standard, "A state initiative has qualified for the ballot letting voters decide whether to grant constitutional rights to pregnant pigs.
"On the surface, the issue is one of animal husbandry," says Smith. "In the interest of industrial efficiency, and to prevent mother pigs from accidentally rolling on and crushing their offspring, so many pig farmers confine their pregnant sows in "farrowing crates" during the final stage of pregnancy and for a time after birth.
"Supporters of the practice say that the crates, which are seven feet long and two feet wide, ensure the safety and health of the sow and her piglets. A preliminary report of a study by the Iowa State University comparing three different systems for housing gestating sows seems to verify this claim, finding that the crate system produces the "highest farrowing (birth) rate."
"But animal rights activists claim that immobilizing the sows in crates causes a "wide range of physical and psychological problems" for the pigs. They want to see this breeding technique banned. Thus, taking advantage of the State of Florida’s easy qualification process for voter initiatives, animal rightists have qualified a proposed state constitutional amendment that, if passed, would make it not just illegal but unconstitutional to confine a pregnant pig on a farm so that the pig is prevented from turning around freely.
"This is a perfectly legitimate subject for public debate, of course, but not in a constitutional context. The constitution of the State of Florida was ordained and established by the people to "secure the benefits" of "Constitutional Liberty," "perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights.
"In other words, the Florida constitution--like the U.S. Constitution and other state constitutions--is concerned with the rights and responsibilities of people. It is not for pigs.
"Pig farming is a very small industry in Florida, so small in fact, that only about 300-400 pregnant pigs are housed in farrowing crates at any given time in the entire state. So why invest the nearly $1 million supporters of the initiative claim they will spend in the coming campaign? That’s a lot of money to potentially help just a few hundred pigs. But if the goal is to blur the moral distinction between human and animal life--well, that, for animal rightists, is worth much more than $1 million."
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2018 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2018 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement