Comment: Honestly

(See in situ)


As someone who studies the environment, i'm glad to hear him recognize the problems of deforestation and overfishing, but his view on the environmental movement is completely debased from reality.

It's because of this movement's concern for the environment that policies were put in place. Before this, there was little recognition for such a thing. And then he has the audacity to claim that the west regulates the environment well. It regulates it the way it does because of the environmental movement. It's like climbing a ladder based on the works and sacrifice of others and then kicking the ladder away claiming you were able to climb up on your own.

And on the topic of regulating the environment well, that is not very true either (but we are moving in the right direction). In Australia, we are mining our resources to buggery from foreign companies (and receiving little to no royalties, mind you). We are digging 70 metre holes into the ground all over the country for China and India to use. Our national parks are basically land that has no economic viability and so we declare them national parks because we 'care for the environment'. I could go on, but will leave it there.

And on the topic of poverty being an issue. It has been a major issue since 1987 in the Brundtland Commission and it has emerged to the forefront in these international conventions since the turn of the century. It's not something new.

What i ask of anyone reading this to do is look at the facts separate from the political situation surrounding it. Do not be biased against climate change because people who want to create a global government want to exploit something that might well be real. In other words, you can believe in climate change (i myself am a neutral), but be against how they attempt to mitigate it.