|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 9, 2010 0:26:13 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 19, 2012 16:50:26 GMT 1
WWF is Big Green Business with money rolling in from its perpetual "adopt a rat for £3 a month" marketing campaigns.
The WWF then funds its totally unsentimental political campaigns about "climate change" hand in hand with Big Agri Business on the back of useful idiots. Here's a view from the other side.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 19, 2012 17:05:38 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 19, 2012 18:16:36 GMT 1
Unchecked, the WWF will eventually be marketing Soylent Green to its braindead supporters.
Well, where do you think Harry Harrison got his idea from?
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 21, 2012 11:48:01 GMT 1
Very interesting research about the impact of agriculture in Queensland on the Great Barrier Reef and the role of the WWF WWF Says 'Jump!',
Governments Ask 'How High?'
(A publication of the IPA's NGO Project, March 2002)
A case study suggests that governments need to better scrutinize allegations of environmental harm
and those who make them
by Jennifer Marohasy and Gary Johns
'[We] base our work on sound science.'
WWF Vision Statement 2002 pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/33869/20030430-0000/www.ipa.org.au/pubs/ngounit/wwffs.html |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 21, 2012 11:58:52 GMT 1
The above work was done in 2002. Since then there has been no proven deterioration of the Great Barrier Reef but an awful lot of scare-mongering by the army of the "concerned".
To be "concerned" is apparently good enough to demonstrate everything you say is true.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 15, 2012 12:11:08 GMT 1
The WWF’s Vast Pool of Oil MoneyApril 11th, 2012 Source: No Frakking Consensus The World Wildlife Fund’s first corporate sponsor was Shell oil – which continued to fund it for the next four decades.Remember the headline in The Independent that pointed an accusing finger: Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers ? And the Center for Media and Democracy’s claim that Oil Money Funds Climate Deniers and Attacks on Climate Scientists . And CleanTechnica’s automatic assumption that any politician who accept donations from oil companies is therefore a “shill for oil & gas interests”. In the simple-minded, comic book world in which many environmentalists live there’s only one acceptable view about climate change – the one they themselves hold. Intelligent people couldn’t possibly have compelling reasons to see the world differently. There must be some (condescending and dehumanizing) explanation – one that allows skeptics to be peremptorily dismissed, to be banished to that category of social rejects who need not be taken seriously. We must be stupid. Or mentally ill. Or brainwashed by FoxNews. Most offensively of all it’s said that we’re being paid by big, bad oil companies to express particular views.... more here from Donna Laframboise nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/04/11/the-wwfs-vast-pool-of-oil-money/See also Big Oil Money for Me, But Not for Thee nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/02/17/big-oil-money-for-me-but-not-for-thee/
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 7, 2012 19:25:38 GMT 1
Der Spiegel Skewers the World Wildlife Fund by Donna Laframboise May 30, 2012 at 12:38 pm A splendid and disturbing investigative feature in Der Spiegel explains why the WWF doesn’t deserve your charitable donations. www.spiegel.de/international/world/wwf-helps-industry-more-than-environment-a-835712.htmlYesterday the German news magazine Der Spiegel ran an investigative feature article on the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). This is not the sort of thing one usually finds in the mainstream media, especially not in Germany. For the average member of the public, making informed decisions about which organizations deserve one’s charitable donations is difficult. This article is chock-a-block with the sort of information we all deserve to know. Here are some direct quotes to whet your appetite: “Over the years, the WWF has received a total of $120 million from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).”
“Companies pay seven-figure fees for the privilege of using the [WWF] logo [on their products].”
“In Sumatra, members of a tribal group reported how troops hired by WWF partner Wilmar had destroyed their houses…”
“The Dutch section of WWF helped pay for Greenpeace’s flagship, the Rainbow Warrior.”
“Experts estimate that in Africa alone, conservation efforts have created 14 million ‘conservation refugees’…”
“Ruswantu takes affluent eco-tourists on tours of the park on the backs of tamed elephants. The area is off-limits for the locals…’The WWF is in charge here…’”
“‘Sustainable palm oil, as the WWF promises with its RSPO certificates, is really nonexistent,’ says.”
“[leftist activist target] Monsanto…has donated $100,000 to the WWF over the years…”
“The [German branch of the WWF] even paid the travel expenses for representatives of the Argentine branch of the WWF, which was long run by a man with ties to the former military junta…”During the 1980s the WWF reportedly funded helicopter death squads that exterminated liquidated summarily executed dozens of local poachers in a national park in Zimbabwe. The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that while the WWF takes extreme measures to prevent poor, indigenous locals from hunting African wildlife, if you’re a wealthy foreigner different rules apply. Says the magazine: Spanish King Juan Carlos, for example, was recently in the news after he broke his hip while hunting elephants in Botswana. Juan Carlos is the honorary president of WWF Spain, which many find outrageous. In Namibia alone, the WWF has permitted trophy hunting in 38 conservation areas.
Rich Europeans or Americans are allowed to behave as if the colonial period had never ended. They are allowed to shoot elephants, buffalo, leopards, lions, giraffes and zebras…A WWF spokesman defends this practice, saying that quotas have been established, and that the proceeds from this “regulated hunting” can contribute to conservation.The following passage, however, is perhaps the most interesting of all. At WWF world headquarters near Geneva, the article tells us, plaques there commemorate the people to whom the organization owes a great debt: the “Members of The 1001.” This elite group of undisclosed financiers was created in 1971 to provide financial backing for the organization. To this day, the WWF does not like to disclose the names of the donors, probably because some of those appearing on the club’s list would not exactly help their image – people like arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi and former Zairian dictator Mobutu Sese Seko. Then-WWF President Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands was able to recruit oil multinational Shell as his first major sponsor. In 1967, thousands of birds died after a tanker accident off the coast of France, and yet the WWF forbade all criticism. That could “jeopardize” future efforts to secure donations from certain industrial sectors, WWF officials said during a board meeting. I urge you to read the whole thing here. It’s well worth your time. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 7, 2012 19:34:34 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 7, 2012 19:38:46 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 7, 2012 19:48:02 GMT 1
Beware the Myth of "Sustainability".
- the latest buzzword for alarmists now that Anthropogenic Global Warming has fallen into disrepute.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 14, 2012 10:26:15 GMT 1
From Donna Laframboise nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/07/09/the-wwfs-supermarket-offensive/The WWF’s Supermarket OffensiveJuly 9, 2012 at 9:50 am The World Wildlife Fund is reaching into new corners of your life. The more I learn about the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the more perplexed I become. In the beginning its role seemed clear. It was about protecting wildlife. You know, pandas and polar bears. Then it decided that its job was to save the entire planet from climate change. While wearing that hat sanctimonious WWF employees lectured the rest of us about our behaviours and our lifestyles. But things didn’t stop there. Indeed, when one considers what the WWF is doing in Romania these days, it’s difficult to avoid concluding that these are authoritarian personalities intent on dictating the smallest details of our lives. Hiding behind that cuddly corporate logo, it seems, are school marms who think it’s their business to boss everyone – and I mean everyone – around. The Romanian arm of the WWF has just released a 38-page report. Is it concerned about a rare species of bird on the verge of extinction? Does it advocate the establishment of more nature preserves? Nope. Instead, this is a scorecard that claims to assess the environmental performance of supermarket chains. The report itself is in Romanian, but Google Translate provides a usable approximation. WWF Romania director Magor Csibi makes it clear, at the beginning of this report, that the fact that large supermarket chains are expanding the size of their market is a big concern. How is that any of the WWF’s business? Moreover, he seems to think that the primary job of supermarkets is not to give consumers what they want at a competitive price but to worry about the political subtext of their inventory. In Csibi’s words: Any product on the shelf set trends and change mentalities. His statement talks about living “in harmony with nature” and insists that supermarket chains should be transparent. That’s a good one. Perhaps the WWF could set the example by telling us how much it pays its own Director General (see the bottom of this blog post) and who, precisely, belongs to its shadowy 1001 Club of major funders. The report complains that supermarkets are selling only one brand of “certified green” milk, that not enough toilet paper is made from recycled material, that too few organic products are available, and that “only 3 of the 10 retailers” sell “MSC certified fish.” And here we come to the crux of the matter. The WWF doesn’t appear to mention this fact in the report itself, but a few moments with Google reveals that MSC certification isn’t just any standard. In fact, it’s the WWF’s very own brand of certification. As a WWF website explains: The MSC, a certification holding body, was founded in 1997 by Unilever and WWF to promote responsible fishing practices worldwide. [backup link] Is this report an even-handed assessment of Romanian supermarket chains? Or is it an attempt to intimidate supermarkets – to compel them to stock WWF-approved products or risk negative publicity? Is a report like this really about helping the environment – or is it about expanding the WWF’s influence? After all, my freedom to buy a particular product will be meaningless if the WWF has already pressured retailers not to stock it. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 22, 2012 13:55:35 GMT 1
Is the WWF Telling the Truth About Electric Cars?nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/07/02/is-the-wwf-telling-the-truth-about-electric-cars/July 2, 2012 at 12:14 pm The World Wildlife Fund’s praise for electric cars demonstrates its profound disconnect from reality.A few days ago a New York Times blog post began this way: Electric car sales have so far ranged from disappointing to dismal. Consumers, after all, aren’t idiots. These automobiles are brutally expensive to purchase (even with a tax credit of $7,500 from the US government) and are far less reliable. To quote an October 2011 Consumer Reports article, the Nissan Leaf: works well for running errands and on short trips…[but the] range per charge hovers around 75 to 80 miles (65 when the weather is cold), so long journeys are out of the question… The same publication reported in May that electric car owners are currently coping with “long charge times” and charging stations that are “few and far between.” Moreover, standardization is lacking, so people are uncertain about whether unfamiliar charging stations will be compatible with their vehicle. A few months back columnist Margaret Wente authored a piece in a Canadian newspaper titled The shocking truth about electric cars. Among her comments: The fantasy that electric cars are right around the corner doesn’t survive even the most cursory reality check…consumers simply won’t pay a $20,000 premium for a vehicle that doesn’t go very far, isn’t very convenient, and runs out of juice as soon as you turn on the air conditioner. And then, as she says, there’s another problem: Electric vehicles require large amounts of electricity – so much that Toronto Hydro chief Anthony Haines says he doesn’t know how he’d get it. “If you connect about 10 per cent of the homes on any given street with an electric car, the electricity system fails,” he said recently. But never you mind, the World Wildlife Fund has waved away all those concerns. In the universe in which these folks live, inconvenient truths don’t actually exist. The headline of a recent blog post on the Canadian website of WWF declares: Electric Vehicles: Just like a regular car…but better! According to Rebecca Spring, the Manager of Sustainable Transportation for WWF-Canada, all the other WWF staffers she gave a ride to while testing out an electric car think these vehicles are just the greatest. Well they would, wouldn’t they. Here’s how that blog post ends: Fun! Exciting! The Future! Clean! Quiet! Smooth! Cool! Good! These were all exclamations I heard from my co-pilots on Friday. Why don’t you give an EV a chance at the dealership… WWF staffers really are an exceptional breed. They seem to think that ordinary families have so much money they can just throw it away on a green whim. They seem to imagine that most people won’t need to use these premium-priced vehicles for anything other than brief commutes to work. Wente is an unimpressed as I am: Please don’t blame me for this splash of cold water. Blame the greens, whose grasp of basic consumer behaviour, energy economics and political realities are shockingly inadequate…just because the facts are unwelcome doesn’t make them untrue. Time and time again, the greens have harmed their cause with their uninformed fervour and simplistic thinking. That sums up the situation nicely.
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jul 22, 2012 16:00:49 GMT 1
"Fun! Exciting! The Future! Clean! Quiet! Smooth! Cool! Good!" I might have been encouraged to use such language as that, if I had been a recipient of such a delight as "all the other WWF staffers she gave a ride to" ... but Donna's conclusions seem about right on the cars. --- The batteries [all batteries for any use] are relatively short lived. Mr Smith reminded us of his lap top and battery life not so long back and, unless things have changed drastically in the last few months, maybe a battery life of say 1000/1200 regular charges/discharges could normally be expected. Here's two videos the first a punters view and second a dealers view. The Problem with Hybrid, Electric Vehicles ! Battery Life-Replacement ,Price of Electric Car ! www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyWPOEBQXxEHow Long will the Prius Battery Last? - Jon Lancaster Toyota www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZBuP6gCvBY&feature=relatedprices are not immediately apparent ... "Confusion about current prices—or future costs to make EVs competitive—are exacerbated by comments from auto executives who claim they have already greatly reduced battery costs. Last week, in the Wall Street Journal, Ford’s Alan Mulally said the 23-kWh pack in the Focus Electric costs “around between $12,000 and $15,000 apiece.” That puts the dollar-per-kWh price between $520 and $650. In 2010, Nissan stated that a LEAF’s pack costs about $9,000—or $375 for the 24-kWh pack. During Tesla’s fourth quarter 2011 financial results conference call in February, CEO Elon Musk said, “"I do think that cost per kilowatt at the cell level will decline below that, below $200, in the not-too-distant future." " but they ain't cheap despite the headline ... Analysts: Li-ion output surging, prices plummeting "Here, as in Li-ion demand overall, end-user acceptance is growing, but price remains the sticking point -- and costs for the battery pack, the most expensive component, aren't expected to drop as much as for other components such as power electronics and electric motors." www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/02/analysts-li-ion-output-surging-prices-plummetingThe best life for any rechargeable battery is obtained when when it is fully charged and discharged [latter doesn't mean 'flat'] in regular cycles. It is the same for a pistol drill, laptop or vehicle. .ps ever wondered why that pistol drill is flat when you come to use it? The electronic device that regulates the motor use a very small amount of power even when quiescent, over time this mounts up to a flat battery. When finished with the task take the battery from the drill, you'll have some juice left for next time and don't charge it until it needs it. That's why ideally three batteries are needed for one drill. One on charge, one charged and the other in use. |
|
