Do you still believe that climate alarmism is a grassroots movement? Do you still believe it is based on science, possibly exaggerated or misunderstood science? No, it is a centralized command & control structure with aspirations to become a “global governance” (they shy away from the phrase “global government”.) Read what they say, and think again.
*** James Gustave Speth [Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of the President, 1979-1981], Peter Haas. 2013. Global Environmental Governance: Foundations of Contemporary Environmental Studies:
The challenge of the global environment is fundamentally one of effective governance—global environmental governance.
Global environmental governance is the intersection of global governance with environmental affairs.
*** Hadden, Jennifer. 2015. Networks in Contention: The Divisive Politics of Climate Change (Cambridge Studies in Contentious Politics):
“As one interviewee explained to me regarding the strategy of the international climate coalition: “We work together quite a lot. But we know that we all represent different brands, so we have to be careful to give the appearance of not working together all the time” (Interview, WWF European Policy Office 2008).”
As one environmental activist explained it to me, “climate change isn’t just an issue anymore, it’s the issue, a meta-issue for everything we work on” (Interview, Danish 92 Group, 2009).
Starting in 1989, these organizations came together to form a coalition: the Climate Action Network (CAN). CAN was founded as a vehicle for transnational coordination among sixty-three organizations. … Much of CAN’s efforts promoted the work of the IPCC and helped establish its centrality in the international climate regime. … In fact, CAN consolidated its coalition structure during this period [1990’s] by creating a high-level political group to facilitate policy and strategic coordination among member groups.
Central to CAN’s advocacy has been the idea that member organizations must “speak with one voice” to influence the international negotiations.
CAN has a large influence on the kinds of strategies which organizations choose to use: “It seems like in CAN, a lot of the large groups set the tune, and we all tend to follow that. But when we work at home, we can’t always sell that, so we might do different things” (Interview, Greenpeace Germany 2010).
… the major international NGOs in CAN – WWF, FOE (pre-2008), Oxfam, and Greenpeace – are extensively consulted before proposals are drafted. Most members acknowledge that the big groups have a de facto veto over CAN positions. If these groups approve of a position, the proposal is then circulated to the entire membership …
…, campaigner training materials across Greenpeace, WWF, and FOE encourage staff to identify political opportunities and alter tactics to fit the situation. FOE staff employ a “SWOT” analysis technique – identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats – for the achievement of FOE’s aims. Within Greenpeace, this technique is called “power analysis” and is typically taught to new campaigners during organizational training. As one campaigner described it: We do a power analysis to see what kind of pressure the politicians are susceptible to. Are they susceptible to mobilization? Are they scared of Greenpeace? Can we use the media? Is it better to work through other organizations? We consider questions like this when we decide which tactics are best. (Interview, Greenpeace Nordic 2010)
The Global Campaign for Climate Action (GCCA) was intended to be the public face of a publicity campaign that supported CAN’s insider policy activities (Interview, GCCA 2009).
Notice insolence and sense of being above the law, expressed in the following book title.
*** Lyon, Thomas. 2012. Good Cop/Bad Cop: Environmental NGOs and Their Strategies toward Business.
In company-focused campaigns, individuals in different organizations often take the approach that one NGO will adopt a confrontational attitude while—in a pincer movement—another adopts a more collaborative posture. As Jules Peck of WWF-UK explains, “Different NGOs have different skills. The good cop, bad cop routine works really well. Where we agree on the overall objective, WWF will often go in the back door to work with companies behind the scenes, while other groups create the pressure by banging on the front door.”
… the U.S. political system, given its separation of powers and weak political parties (note the absence of a viable Green Party) relative to much of the rest of the developed world, appears ready-made for group influence over government decisionmaking.
Continue reading Climate Alarmism Command