Should we launch the trial of the century against the dark interests and tortuous sources of funding of environmental associations such as Greenpeace?

Spread the love

These are the opinions of the author.

Contributed by Drieu Godefridi – originally published in French in Atlantico

© Drieu Godefridi and Atlantico.fr, 2022

1/ ATLANTICO.FR In the face of the energy crisis, Greenpeace believes it is necessary to restart coal-fired power stations, but not nuclear power. To what extent is this an ideologically driven recommendation?

GODEFRIDI. Our readers should understand that the Western environmental movement is not based on the fight against CO2 emissions and global warming. Indeed, most of these organisations and parties were founded long before the theory of so-called anthropogenic global warming emerged. For example, Greenpeace was founded in 1969. At that time, the theory of anthropogenic warming did not exist. In fact, what underpins the entire Western environmental movement is a hatred of nuclear power. This is the case with Greenpeace, as well as with the Belgian environmental parties, for example. The initial raison d’être of these organisations is the dismantling and destruction of civil nuclear power in our countries. This is the first misunderstanding of the environmental movement. The second misunderstanding is that this priority has given way to the fight against CO2 emissions: nothing could be further from the truth. It is true that environmental organisations have taken on the theme of global warming and the fight against human CO2 emissions with remarkable success. But their priority – the destruction of civil nuclear power – has not changed. When it comes to choosing between nuclear power (which does not emit CO2) and gas (which emits massive amounts of CO2), or even coal (of all energy sources, the one that emits the most CO2 and pollutes the most!), Greenpeace and other fundamentalist ecologists (such as the Belgian, German and French ecologist parties) systematically opt for gas and coal without hesitation. In an attempt to maintain some sort of coherence in the message, especially for the less educated voters, the environmentalists explain that gas – and now coal – is only to be favoured ‘temporarily’, until the switch to ‘100% renewable’. This is a gross lie, because wind and sun are intermittent and, given the current state of technological projections, even the most optimistic ones, we will never be able to do without permanent energy sources in addition to intermittent ones. In Germany, for the past ten years, Greenpeace has been one of the main sponsors of fossil fuels that emit massive amounts of CO2. This is a fact.

2) To what extent are Greenpeace’s financial interests via Greenpeace Energy (and other associations) linked to gas and renewable energies?

Since the European environmental movement has chosen to resolutely embrace the cause of gas and therefore of Russian imperialism, there is no compromise that seems too great. Greenpeace Energy, now Green Planet Energy, is a seller of gas, 80% of which is Russian fossil gas. The fact that what was originally a Greenpeace initiative sells massively CO2-emitting gas in the name of the fight against CO2 does not seem to bother Die Grünen voters.

3) To what extent is the financing of these associations, especially via Gazprom, problematic?

To what extent was the financing of French or Belgian associations by Nazi Germany in the 1930s problematic? We are an open civilisation – that is our pride, and rightly so. But we must remain aware and vigilant of the fact that the totalitarian Chinese and autocratic Russian regimes are taking advantage of this openness to advance their pawns in our country by annexing organisations and movements that are ready to betray our national interests as soon as it is a question of serving their own interests, and those of their ideology. This objective betrayal deserves to be treated for what it is, with all the rigour of the law.

4) In the current energy crisis, should we hold Greenpeace and other such environmental associations accountable for their (conflicts of) interest in taking energy positions?

It is simply a question of political will. When the accusations of the NATO Secretary General and Secretary of State Clinton about Russian funding of Western environmentalists are consistent; when the massive financing of German environmentalist organisations by Gazprom is proven (and not simply alleged), when the Belgian Minister of Energy Van der Straeten (GROEN, ecologist), was a 50% shareholder in a law firm BLIXT massively paid by Gazprom, is it not the right time to force the said organisations, parties, movements and individuals to the most complete retrospective transparency? I repeat, it is a simple question of political will. We owe this transparency to our people, but also to these organisations and movements. For this transparency will allow us to distinguish between facts and fantasies.

5) To what extent can they be held accountable?

In many ways, Greenpeace’s actions are reminiscent of those of an international terrorist organisation. Let’s be clear: I am obviously not arguing that Greenpeace is a terrorist organisation. But how can we fail to notice the similarities? For years, Greenpeace has been initiating, fomenting and organising violent actions, assaults – all of which are direct and public violations of the criminal law. These violent and criminal actions are designed and thought out in order to make an impact in the most spectacular way. The permanent search for the incident, the outburst; this way of provoking the reaction of the public force aims to offer the message carried by Greenpeace, its credo, the widest media coverage. It has to be said that this propaganda technique works, and works remarkably well. Greenpeace does not carry any rational, well-argued, coherent message that is open to contradiction. Its shock actions address the emotional, instinctive and visceral stratum of the personality; they flatter the basest instincts. Their theme of reference is fear.

As for the criminal responsibility of these organisations, it will be up to the courts to determine this. As for the moral responsibility of these organisations, it seems to me overwhelming. Gas in Europe is now ten times more expensive than in the United States. Ten times! That is the entirety of what is left of European industry becoming eo ipso absurdly uncompetitive. Ten times! Our economies are in danger of collapsing – and I am not one to constantly use apocalyptic terms. Ten times! If we tolerate this collapse, the whole of Europe will soon be nothing more than ripe fruit for the Russian bear – starting with Germany. Millions of families in Europe live from day to day. To impose on them even 500 euros a month in additional energy bills – on top of the exorbitant amounts they already pay – condemns them to poverty. Not in the metaphorical sense, but in the real sense, of that poverty whose sour, Émile Zola-taste can be found in many parts of the French countryside.

Is this not a high price to pay to satisfy the combined interests of the Russian autocratic regime and the treacherous creed of the European environmental movement?

© Drieu Godefridi and Atlantico.fr, 2022

Drieu Godefridi is a lawyer (faculties Saint-Louis-University of Louvain), a philosopher (faculties Saint-Louis-University of Louvain) and Doctor of Legal Theory (Paris IV-Sorbonne).

Related:

The post Should we launch the trial of the century against the dark interests and tortuous sources of funding of environmental associations such as Greenpeace? first appeared on Friends of Science Calgary.

via Friends of Science Calgary

https://ift.tt/iTLHb5A

September 16, 2022