TCS Daily


Green Hypocrisy at 30,000 Feet

By Peter C. Glover - October 5, 2006 12:00 AM

They sit in economy class occasionally wiping their clammy hands. Their eyes dart furtively about. They wonder whether the stewardess or passenger next to them might have become suspicious. Some even grow moustaches or beards - to cover the 'giveaway' sweating top lip.

But they are not terrorists. At least not in the modern sense of wanting to blow up the airplanes they travel in. Far from it, for they love nothing more the sense of self-importance international jetsetting offers. Travelling that delivers them in far-flung destinations where they can evangelize their ascetic ordinances to thousands of fellow worshippers. But while travelling their chief fear is that they will be found out. Who they are, what they preach - and expose their moralistic hypocritical behaviour.

They are the Green Bigots, leading environmentalists, those at the vanguard of the fight to change our lifestyles, restrict our foreign flights, who insist we do our 'bit' to cut greenhouse gas emissions while they rack up thousands of airmiles on business and pleasure trips."

As the UK's The Sunday Times has recently revealed, "In the past year the directors and chief executives of groups such as WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Soil Association have crisscrossed the globe, visiting the Falklands, Japan, Africa and Brazil." The ST's environment editor points out, "All are running high-profile campaigns to persuade people to change their lifestyles and cut emissions of carbon dioxide."

The article identifies a number of well known examples. They included Bob Napier, chief executive of WWF, who through jetting to various destinations in Asia, the Americas and Europe helped generate more than 11 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) last year. As the ST points out, aviation generates around 5% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions "but their warming effect is up to four times greater at high altitudes." To get this in perspective, a typical British household generates about six tons of CO2 over a whole year.

Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, is another who has had to admit to having flown business trips across three continents - in addition to flying his family on holiday to Slovakia. "This weekend he is on a business trip to Nigeria, " reports the ST, which goes on to claim Juniper's trips contributed to around 8 tons of CO2 emissions. Graham Wynne, chief executive of the Royal Society for the Protection of Bird (RSPB), has this year completed business trips to Indonesia, Washington and Scotland - as well as taking his family on holiday to New Zealand.

Only one person in an organization, you might think? But then the RSPB will next month be burning large amounts of carbon emitting fuels by importing its supporters to the centre of London to protest against how much others are contributing to global warming. The piece quotes a sheepish RSPB boss: "There are a lot of contradictions like these which organisations like ours have to solve." I'll say. Like asking themselves why, in the age of Internet conferencing, such international jetsetting is even necessary. And let's be kind and not enquire what 'moral dilemma' led to Wynne flying his family halfway around the world on holiday. And, given the burgeoning culture of international environmental conferencing, this is just the tip of a fast-advancing iceberg.

Commenting on the ST exposé, Guardian columnist George Monbiot - a regular moralist on climate change, told the ST he was "very disappointed - especially if they were flying on holiday." Monbiot has demanded that Western countries cut carbon emissions by 90% by 2030. As the ST writer cryptically observes, "meaning a virtual end to flying". Monbiot's airmile-accruing environmentalist friends would plainly not be pleased. We do not know if Monbiot is tarred with the same global roaming proclivities of some of his Green friends, so we must assume he sticks to travelling locally and as far as his plug-in car battery allows.

In 'Green Bigots International', Thomas Sowell, the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institute, has written:

"They call themselves environmentalists but a more accurate term would be green bigots. What makes someone a bigot is that he wishes to deny other people the same rights he has. That is the hallmark of the environmental bigot. Green bigots operate internationally, just like the more famous fanatics"

In a similar vein, Sowell notes, "Like others who seek special privileges, the green bigots claim to be speaking for others - 'future generations', for example." But Sowell gets to the crux of the matter when he observes, "Nature worship is fine for those who want it. I have nothing against faith-based organizations. But a theocracy imposing its will on others is something else, even when it is a theocracy of nature-worshippers."

Now here I must declare an 'faith' interest. I am a writer who happens to be a committed Christian. While my belief system is, I would argue, rooted in fact and historical events, ultimately, I frankly acknowledge, it is, like all worldviews, a belief system held by faith. Though I am always very happy to talk about faith and articulate a well-reasoned case for my own, I eschew seeking to impose my moral code on others. It appears some leading Green activists have no such compunction.

If the essence of sanctimonious pharisaism is the art of publicly advocating one belief while privately practising another, then it seems quite a few leading environmentalists are reaching new heights of hypocrisy. At around 30,000 feet, I would say.

Peter C Glover is a regular TCS Daily contributor & writer who blogs at www.petercglover.com
Categories:

53 Comments

Thank you
for giving me more ammunition in my fight with the environMENTALists and their supporters.

Why is this shocking. These people are more important than you.
What would you expect. You have to understand these people are more important that you are and their causes are more important than anything you can do as they are, probably are, might be, INTEND TO save mainkind from itself.

Global Warming
NATURAL SOLUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING

In the year 1905, Nobel physicist, Albert Einstein, published his E=mc² EQUATION, which opened the door to THE WORLD OF THE PROTON GENIE, the door to all of the abundant energy that Earth will ever need. But, nobody looked or listened except the Energy Cartel, which stood to loose its enormous wealth and power if Einstein's EQUATION should ever become implemented.

Many have attempted to implement Einstein's EQUATION, but even the most promising successful efforts are routinely thwarted.

In brief review, “E=mc²” provides the basis for extracting and fusing PROTONS from ordinary, pure water, which will ultimately make everybody on Earth so idly rich and content from the benefits of this clean, virtually-free, and inexhaustible energy supply that nobody should ever again have to worry about pollution, war, or poverty, and Mother Nature will once again regain total control of any Climate Changes.

The Atomic Doomsday Clock reads, "7 minutes until Doomsday, and counting!"

Is it too late? Or, will some ordinary, individual Tinkerer (maybe just an average high school student) rise to the occasion, connect the dots, and construct a simple physical demonstration of Einstein’s EQUATION so that the entire World Population can become enlightened to the prospect of a new future of peace, contentment, and prosperity? Anything less will fail to uncork the PROTON GENIE for the benefit of mankind because "The Special Energy Interests" have sufficient resources to block any individual efforts to provide Cheap Power.

Please encourage your correspondents to link to this blog, and help spread Einstein's great-inspired VISION, "A Free-Energy Paradise On Earth."

http://howtosavecivilization.blogspot.com/

to Robert
Perhaps you don't get out too much, but they already have used it; it's nuclear but the Green-fasscists don't want it used.

another example
Good article and here's another example. We notice that sometimes the above mentioned hypocrits try to rationalize their excessive use of jetting about because there is no really green way to fly. Then want about this, the very Greenpeace movement who go boating about all over the world, DO NOT even use sail boats, but huge diesel guzzling ones! How hypocritical is that?

Where is the ACLU..
..to defend us from those AGW religios zealots?

Fusion not Fission
Sorry Dietmar but Robert is typing about fusion, you're typing about fission.

For those interested, and I don't vouch for the info,

Nuclear Fusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

Nuclear Fission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

How about a nice bottle of Cold Fusion?

is this post serious?
Hey Peter, how do you feel about killing a few thousand Iraqis in the cause of everlasting peace? Apply the same logic here and you'll begin to understand. On the other hand, you might not.

Nice attempt
at misdirection, but do try to stay on topic. The subject here is Green hypocrisy not Iraq. Or are you attempting to allege that no such Green bigotry exists?

??
Who said anything about "everlasting peace"? That is a remarkably weak straw man argument. Ever since the Democrat Woodrow Wilson lied and led America into WWI which he advertised as the "war to end all wars", there aren't many fools left who expect lasting peace.

He's typing
about table-top fusion, which puts him in with the rest of the perpetual-motion-machine, free energy woo-woos.

A better source than wikipedia is
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf66.htm

"Hypocrisy" charge is fallacious no matter who issues it
I frequently say that the Left's cries of "Hypocrisy!!!!" are simply aimed at changing the subject and shutting up the messenger. Sorry but this cuts both ways.

No human is a perfect avatar for even his most passionately held beliefs. I listened to a Greenie one time in the '80's advocate for a sort of cafeteria greenness - he acknowledged that he didn't do everything his own book advocated, rather that he was conscious of his choices and whether there were better ways of accomplishing the same thing, and most importantly whether he was capable of implementing them. His examples were around using responsibly-produced consumer goods, as I recall, and he said, if you really like a product from one of the worst offenders on this list, I'm not saying you have to stop using it...just be aware, look out for alternatives, and maybe even attempt to change things within the corporation by writing letters, etc.

What does this have to do with jet-setting enviro-nuts? Well, they do feel a sense of evangelism and believe they have a message to spread. It's not hypocrisy to tell people they should be looking for alternatives...even if they're saying to look for alternatives to what they themselves have just done. If you find them jetting to vacation destinations and having indigenous peoples serve them coconut-shell drinks, *that* would be closer to hypocrisy.

Not carrying the eco-nuts' water for them - I think they're insane, for the most part - just pointing out the fallacy and uselessness (as it is used mostly, nowadays) of the "Hypocrisy!" charge. What you folks are pointing out is a seeming inconsistency, not hypocrisy.

When you say
"No human is a perfect avatar for even his most passionately held beliefs."

then what you are really saying is that the error lies in having passionately held beliefs. I have some sympathy with the cafeteria Green you refer to above, who wasn't advocating perfection, just a striving for better.

The difference is that all too many of the Greens are not interested in genuine debate; their interest is in coercion, i.e. ALF, ELF, Earth First etc. They are religious fanatics and hence open to the charge of hypocrisy.

absurd
Is it hypocritical for environmental activists to live and breath? Of course, since these activities stress the environment. Better they should all die so the rest of us can trash and destroy the environment without being reminded of what fools we are. Planning for the future? They must be communists!

Of course it's hypocritical
for them to live and breathe since they are malthusian, but I don't hear any suggestions from them that they intend to step off the bus first.

Planning for the future? Their idea of the future is to abort it. Their idea of the future is misery, poverty and ignorance.

Markets or Cave Dwelling
Many believe they understand the problems and know the solutions facing civilization…and they are determined to make an impact. Zealots of all persuasions often seek to use the media to spread their idealogy, in the hope exposure will lead to adoption. As a believer in liberty, I have no problem with advocates for change. What I do have a problem with…is that many of these folks strategize to co-opt the power of government to realize their goals. This tells me that they believe their ideas will fail in the marketplace. Consumers will never buy plug-in-flexible-fuel vehicles, or solar panels, or energy efficient windows/furnaces, etc…the government must provide incentives and/or coercion. They of course never consider the unintended consequences of the cumulative impact of “Government Knows Best”.

I recommend that those who have “something to sell” focus their efforts in the marketplace…become producers and/or enlightened consumers. If their ideas, products, services or approaches are truly superior, they will be adapted in the end. Elites should not be trying to save producers and consumers from making bad decisions…they should instead embrace the market and provide the choice of a better “mousetrap”. I am ready to buy a better automobile or electrical generator today…if you’ve got it I’m listening.

But don’t tell me to go live in a cave!

Add Gov Richardson and Branson to this club
Gov Bill Richardson of NM and "Sir" Richard Branson of Virgin Atlantic Airlines fit well with this crowd. Richardson is spending $225 million of one of the poorest state's tax dollars to build a "spaceport" in a historic area of the state so that Branson can launch rich Hollywood environmentalists on joyrides into outerspace. Never mind that the deleterious effects of hydrocarbon emissions increase with altitude, these people need to have fun!

Yes and No
I'm no tree-hugger and don't believe in global warming at all, but I see two sides to this. One, they are using commercial aviation, which is going to fly anyway. Two, at the same time, the principle of their environmentalism is being violated, i.e., "just because everyone is doing it ..."

The REAL HYPOCRITES are "environmentalists" like Al Gore and Laurie David and the rest of the Gulfstream Environmentalists who jet back and forth across the country IN THEIR OWN PRIVATE JETS. Can you say "useless emissions?"

I haven't seen Algore's movie. I wouldn't waste my money on such dreck. I don't have to see the movie. I read "Earth in the Balance" and if it weren't so tragically flawed and so damned self-righteous, it would have made a good submission for Mad Magazine. Stupid is as stupid does -- Gore is moron. But lots of stupid people believe him --- he of the multiple large, energy-wasting houses, gas guzzlers and the private Gulfstream --- or is it a Lear?

So, there are bigger hypocrites than those described in the article.

oh my god, bob has discovered fusion.
Stop the presses, inform govt agencies, we must start researching fusion power in order to save the planet.

...

What's that you say, we are already spending billions of dollars a year studying ways to make fusion power practical?

...

Never mind.

How about the time Gore used a fleet of limos to go 500 feet, when opening his new fiction movie.
...

Iraqi's are the cause of global warming? Who da thunk it?
...

The article did mention that one of the eco-warriors flew his family to their vacation.
There are also other alternatives.

Why have these conferences in all these exotic locations.
Have them in Europe, since most of the conferees are from Europe, or already located there.

Why not teleconference?

No, these guys want to go in person, to exotic locals, because it feeds their egos. And ultimately, that is what this is all about.

hypocrisy is saying one thing, and doing another.
Many of these same people are advocating higher taxes on plane tickets so that the hoi-poloi can no longer afford to fly.

changes
It's true that the plane that they are flying in, would have flown anyway. But going forward, if those seats would have flown empty, the airlines would have adapted, either by flying fewer jets, or by flying smaller jets.

By flying at all, the "environmentalists" signaled to the airlines, that demand was not falling, and that there was no need for the airlines to change their behavior.

Armageddon (the movie)
This reminds me of the opening of the movie Armageddon where Greenpeace is yelling 'Stop the drilling' And (whatshisname) yells back 'do you know how much diesel that clunker pumps out an hour?'

Now there's an idea.
Wouldn't it be great if all these environmentalist would take all that donated money they use to build massive headquarters and fly around the world, and instead use it to do R&D. They could build a truly useful electric car, or a hydrogen car and start putting in the hydrogen fueling stations.

However that would require they actually want to solve the problem when all they seem to want is to live the lavish lifestyle guilt free by telling all of us how bad we are that we live such a lavish lifestyle.

Why, because they travel?
The only fact given here is that greenie leaders travel on Commercial flights. So?

The real problem is guys like Al Gore who travel via charters and private jets. What "I'm better than you BS is this"?

This post was pretty light on facts and heavy on anti-environmental opinion. As a person who isn't all that found of the enviro-wackos, I enjoyed it. But it is nothing more than one persons opinion.

its not just the right that are hypocrits
Interesting article. Very good point. Nail those suckers for being hypocrits. They should be flying jets that run on bio-diesel.


Its also interesting the author is nailing them for being part of 5% of the pie. In any other discussion, with the tables turned, the right would point out its based on only 5% and dismiss the entire article. Gotta love it when the hypocrits turn on each other.


"They included Bob Napier, chief executive of WWF, who through jetting to various destinations in Asia, the Americas and Europe helped generate more than 11 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) last year."

"..which goes on to claim Juniper's trips contributed to around 8 tons of CO2 emissions."

I wonder too if those numbers take into account other people on the planes. Are those figures inclusive of other passengers who are equally attributable for the emissions?

Reminds me of...
Reminds me of when the Rev. Jesse Jackson ran for President in 1984 and released his tax returns like all the other candidates.

It showed that the reverend did not believe in tithing (giving 10% back to the Lord). He only gave 3% to charities in 1983 even though he had income well over $100,000.

The major focus of his campaign was how little the Reagan Administration was doing for the poor.

If he practiced what he preached, the poor would have been better off and he might have gotten my vote.

But don't you know....?
[begin sarcasm] But don't you know that it is OK to harm the environment to create jobs? [end sarcasm]

The whole economy of the so-called business meeting
is huge. All professionals have these meetings, not just fundraisers and leaders of non-profit environmental organizations.

I must go to two of these each year. In addition, there are others that I am invited to that I should go to if at all possible.

So being a scientist today means traveling to several of these meetings, some of which are international, each year.

It is not fun. It is not cheap. But it is the fastest way to keep up in your field of study.

In addition, consider what would happen if none of those downtown hotels and convention centers were used anymore. What would happen to the major US cities?

So it really matters little whether or not you work for a non-profit environmental group, the government, or for industry. All professionals have their society and business meetings to attend. With the way things are evolving, if you stop going, you might as well throw in the towel.

I am not saying this is right. I am only saying that this is a fact of life in the professional world. So for anyone to call someone out for this means they are really out in ga-ga land. Either that or the authors are purposefully trying to discredit these few for something everyone else does. In either case, they are obviously anti-environmentalists and thus biased in there writing.

Perhaps the statement "helped generate more than 11 tons of carbon dioxide"
Speaks to whether or not those figures were inclusive of other passengers.

I suspect he just added up the whole plane-load.

We did the calculation as an excercise a few years back. It turns out that a stuffed airliner gets better fuel economy than an automobile.

In addition, airliners carry significant amounts of "overnight" cargo and mail. So it may have flown irregardless of the passengers on board.

If you want to stop our economy stop airlines.

Is that what Sowell wants?

Most business travel is unnecessary given modern communications
True sales people who need to demonstrate a product in person may need to travel, but even most of that can be done via teleconference.

As to travel by bigwigs is almost all pleasure travel at base. And as to conferences, I know conferences. Most are junkets.

Re your point about changes in travel patterns affecting the hotels and such, that same point would also apply to how switching over to renewable or new low CO2 energy sources will affect already built coal burning power plants around. When something is outmoded it is only logical to stop using it.

Green Vanity Fair
Remember that Vanity Fair green cover a few months ago? Julia Roberts and a few other fair-y Hollywood ladies were hanging around all dressed up in green gossamer. I think George Clooney and Al Gore(y) were lurking about too. What bloody hypocrites! These people and their buddies probably consume more energy in a day than my family does in half a year: We have one VW, one modest, semi-detatched house, one bathroom with old fashioned tub, etc. We have no servants and we almost never fly anywhere and usually stay pretty close to home. One gets the picture.

I'm sick and tired of these two-faced dilettantes telling others what to do, while they so conspicuously do exactly the opposite. How the green cover cry babies and their ilk can look themselves in the mirror with a straight face beats me!

The Great One has found a soulmate
"Those of us who are conservative but not 'Cameron Conservatives' - that is, the oxymoron of 'liberal conservative' - need to be clear that we are traditional conservatives who equally abhor rascist and extreme rightwing fascists and their organisations. On this, Jihadist Daily readers whould know we stand shoulder to shoulder with them - and the Liberofascist, anti-Christian, anti-semite, anti-American, pro-appeasement Western self-loathing, gibbering idiot columnists who tend to write for it"
-- Peter C. Glover

Joe Kennedy
J.K is one of the biggest of the lib hypocrites. He goes around the country in a private jet preaching energy conservation. (Hannity exposed this) He also has fought tooth and nail to stop the wind farms off of cape cod. These wind farms would supply parts of Mass with much needed clean energy. Kennedy and the other rich libs are afraid it will ruin there beautiful waterfront views. Of course they wont admit this. They claim there protest is based on other factors. All of which are nebulous at best.

Sort of...
There is a lot that goes on at these meetings that really cannot be done by telecommuting.

Dinner discussions, 'networking', meeting with equipment vendors, teaching/taking short courses, looking for employment or interviewing, etc. are typically all parts of a scientific meeting. They are really efficient in this regard.

But in addition to meetings, professionals often present lectures at other locations. These lectures are very expensive in terms of time and travel. There is a different goal here. These are typically given to audiences, all of which may not go to the professional meetings. The most significant among them are students who may not otherwise have first-hand access to this information. These presentations are less formal than those given at professional meetings and professional publications. They thus have content that would otherwise not be communicated.

In any event, there are real and tangible benefits for professional travel to meetings and seminars. That the authors do not recognize these speaks either to their ignorance or their bias. But in either case, they demonstrate they are antagonistic toward the leaders of environmental non-profits.

this is kinda funny
You guys whine about enviromentalists flying on planes. But its better to be honest about your hate for the environment, and fly on planes?

I know there are all kinds of idiots out there. Its just disappointing to actually see your perspective.

That's great, but...
most professionals that travel don't go around telling everybody else how evil it is to travel.

The point is that these environmentalists go around telling us that we need to stop driving, stop flying, stop using product X, etc... because we need to save the earth. It's just fine for them to say these things, but I can't grant them an ounce of credibility if they can't demonstrate the ability to live without these things.

Then it really pisses me off when they try to pass laws that try to force these changes on me based on, at best, shaky science. These laws generally try to increase the cost of basic living (gas taxes, plane ticket taxes, recycling fines, etc) so that the poor get screwed while these self-important pricks get to feel like their doing something.

ave these people been "going around telling everybody else how evil it is to travel"?
But you;re right. The special interests groups really don't have much influence over the population.

That takes laws. It is not so much the population at large as much as it is US industry that causes the problems. That is why the US EPA and more importantly, the California law makers, are much more effective at circumventing environmental problems.

In addition, EU laws are generally much more favorable toward protecting "public health". Corporations that do business in North America and EU must folow EU laws. Thus the US public benefits from the strict EU public health laws.

bobjones re 'funny'
I thought they were saying that it's a matter of being hypocritical? So normal people won't complain about flying because the good of it is much better than the little harm. But the inviro-facists say it's no good, but do it anyway.

Yeah
Bruce Willis, he is hitting golf balls at them from the oil rig.
Funny

ok, its more sick than funny
"I thought they were saying that it's a matter of being hypocritical?"

True. I'm saying its ridiculous for someone who openly hates the environment to complain about perceived hypocrisy from someone else regarding the environment. They whine about celebrities, but do they really know the lifestyles of the individuals they point out? I find this to be more of the same from the right, huff and puff about nothing. Talk loud but say nothing.

"So normal people won't complain about flying because the good of it is much better than the little harm. But the inviro-facists say it's no good, but do it anyway."

I haven't seen any enviro-fascists telling people not to fly. This is a prime example, an idea gets thrown out, doesn't matter if its true or not, you agree with it, you like it, it has some bite to it, so you run with it. To the point Julia Roberts and George Clooney are the enemies. Huh? Is Julia Roberts out there telling people not to fly?

Beginning with the article itself, there is no attempt at a discussion on this subject. Its just another cheerlead and smear article and "discussion". If the right focused as much on defeating terrorists as they focus on defeating the left, we might have a shot to win the war on terror.

You want to talk about hypocritical, how hypocritical is it for the right to gush over the wealthy, give the wealthiest people and their corporations multiple tax cuts, but turn around and excoriate some of them for their political views. They're rich, you should love and emulate them. But you think some are evil because they're too liberal.

Its going to be nice when right and left can actually talk again, after the right loses some power and gets some modesty back, realize the value of cooperation and discussion again. I fear not until Bush is gone.

yes
EU laws are much more likely to follow the latest eco-freak trend. Which rarely, if ever, has anything to do with public health.

self blindness is the worst of all
nobody here hates the environment.

you are kinda stupid
Why do you assume that just because we oppose the idiocies pushed by radical environmentalists, that we must hate the environment?

that doesn't make you look too good
"Why do you assume that just because we oppose the idiocies pushed by radical environmentalists, that we must hate the environment?"

Not true. I assume it because everything you say about the environment is negative. Thats all you talk about is opposing enviros. I've never seen a single conservative say a positive thing about a single environmental law or idea. You oppose recycling for goodness sake!

Conservatives take the side of corporations 100% of the time when they have a dispute with citizens, or the government, over environmental issues. I suspect thats one source of your spite for the environment, you just see all environmental regulation as an unnecessary hardship to corporations. Thats small-minded, its not all bad and its not all good, but that is the way you see it, as evidenced by your one-sided positions.

your delusions are getting the better of you
When have I ever said anything negative about the environment?

I talk about opposing the radical enviros because their agenda has nothing to do with improving or protecting the environment, and everything to do with pushing a radical political agenda.

If you have never seen a conservative say anything nice about any envirnomental law, then your ears are as firmly screwed shut as your eyes. Regardless, most "environmental" laws these days aren't about protecting the environment. That was taken care of decades ago. The latest round of attacks is about ensuring that man has no impact on the environment, something that can't happen without getting rid of men. Which is something that many leading enviros have stated they would love to do, if they had the power.

Your small mindedness is your belief that it is impossible to oppose the radical enviros, without also being against the environment. You are just to stupid to imagine that people could possibly disagree with you, unless they are evil. That is the trap that has poisoned the minds of most liberals these days. They are so full of hate, as you have just shown, that they are incapable of honest discussions about anything.

well do tell then Mark
What is an environmental program you support? Or how about an environmental program or idea you think we should do that isn't currently being done?

Or how do we change an existing program that only supports the "agenda has nothing to do with improving or protecting the environment, and everything to do with pushing a radical political agenda" so that it puts the focus back on protecting our environment?

TCS Daily Archives