6 comments on “Timmy elsewhere

  1. I note that Greenpeace don’t see compensation for for big renewable power projects as bribes. Nor are they against them being pushed through against local opposition. So the usual consistency to expect from the greenies then.

  2. I once asked an international lawyer about the now common practice of buying off indigenous groups with cash grants and promises of jobs when any mining project goes ahead. Specifically whether this violated the British government’s foreign bribery laws.

    He said, after some dissembling, that yes, strictly speaking it does.

    So I am in the odd position of agreeing with Greenpeace. As the laws stand it is probably bribery. And punishable.

    That doesn’t mean it is wrong. Landowners should be compensated. The problem is that they are not being offered money to compensate them for damage to their property. They are being paid not to use the many NIMBY laws and regulations that the government has put in place. I find that morally reprehensible.

  3. Simon Clydesdale, UK energy campaigner at Greenpeace, said: “This is just more of the same bribes and bulldozers approach that has already proved a failure. “

    But who is Simon Clydesdale, the man who knows better than petrochemical companies do how to run a petrochemicals business?

    Here’s how he describes himself:

    active environmentalist, practical dreamer, idle buddhist. jabberwockying personally

    So… he’s an idiot who’s into cod-Eastern mysticism. It’s like Greenpeace isn’t even trying to avoid stereotypes any more.

    Guess where he’s based?

    Big Smoke & Brighton beach

    Yes, the UK’s two main hives of eco-twattery, where you can’t throw a lump of biomass without hitting a smug boho who thinks the urban infrastructure keeping him alive can be powered by unicorn farts and fairy dust.

    Our civilisation has become too soft and that will be its undoing. It’s time we made environmentalists fight lions and tigers and bears in lavish public games. Greenpeace delenda est.

  4. While you’re on the subject of greenery, have you penned a rebuttal to the WWF’s latest report? They state that the number of animals worldwide has plummeted 50% since the 1970s, therefore we should therefore switch to renewable energy. If only we could power the planet on the same energy they use to make such great logical leaps.

  5. Thanks SadButMadLad. Those links mainly target the report’s key fact, that there are 50% fewer animals. I’m willing to accept this premise; but it’s the conclusion they draw which astounds me.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.