In 1990, Strong told a reporter a fantasy scenario for the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland – where 1,000 diplomats, CEOs and politicians gather “to address global issues.”

Strong, naturally, is on the board of the World Economic Forum. “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?…

In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”

That’s Strong talking, but those are Blofeld’s words coming out. But this is no fictitious Bond movie villain speaking – it is the man who chaired the Rio Earth Summit and who is Kofi Annan’s senior adviser.

“This group of world leaders forms a secret society to bring about an economic collapse,” continued Strong, warming to his fantasy. “It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists.

Maurice Strong said that it was the UN duty to destroy civilisations what better way to do it that say the planet was failing. He wen on to say and I quote

“They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodities and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock markets and computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world’s stock markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the leaders at Davos as hostage. The markets can’t close…”

Strong catches himself. “I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this.”

Combine both and tell me what the hell is going on?

“Whatever international action we agree upon to deal with environmental problems, we must enable our economies to grow and develop, because without growth you cannot generate the wealth required to pay for the protection of the environment”

Not at all what you commie knuckle draggers believe or want, and you have, by means of propaganda and lies and money oiling the palms of cronyists and con men, perverted Thatcher’s genuine concern into a control freak’s wet dream.

I repeat, without the influence of socialists and the indoctrination of school children, and the denial to them of a real education, GW would never have gotten legs. It is only through closing down discussion and denying those with alternative views a voice (political correctness) that anything to do with socialism ever gets any traction.

What an odd thing to say, considering it was given birth by Margaret thatcher, surely she’s not a knuckle dragging socialist too?

Damn right.

Real sick making.

Not only that, he calls himself “Ratbiter” and spends his time trawling though Kiwiblog threads just so he can hump your leg. [ And don't those ingratiating smiles make you want to puke? ]

If not, then your typically feeble and witless attempt to be clever doesn’t rise far above what an eight year old might endeavour.

If so, then once again you demonstrate the fact that you have the cognitive powers of tinned ham.

Either way infant, you lose.

By the way land under irrigation locks up much more carbon as you do not have the losses from the summer dry..funny that eh,all those people irrigating the Canterbury plains are helping to save the planet.

If it wasn’t for socialism, and the legions of shoal fish it has produced by means of a completley dysfunctional education system, the global warming scam would never have gotten off the ground.

Unlike the drooling idiots of socialism, thinking people reject it in a heart beat for the deceit laden political device it really is.

But if, for example, we replaced our current petrol tax with a carbon tax of roughly the same value, but extended that tax also to coal and natural gas at similar levels, and then finally offset it with a useful income tax reduction – say, a tax free threshold of $15,000 of income, and a reduction in the top tax rate from 39% to 38%, then I reckon ACT would vote for it.

Sounds like it could be a stealthy way to ‘starve the beast’! I have no idea what a decent rate would be though – I think the Greens reckoned making the first $5,000 tax free was their solution to a carbon tax, which implies the cost would be low?

Top tax rate is 37% now though.

A pointless waste of time and as DPF highlights, a tax grab for the government.

Very interesting comments made by Nick Smith about the energy and transport sectors though – perhaps he should actually talk to Gerry ‘gas power’ Brownlee and Steven ‘roads make me horny’ Joyce about the rising emissions from their areas, and what they’re doing about it.

In short, no, the Greens didn’t become plums by a half hearted deal with National. Hopefully spending some time with National will get them to realise that there is actually more than one way to help the poor and disadvantaged in our society – the left wing way (give them stuff and let them fester), and the right wing way, of helping them to not be poor and disadvantaged anymore.

You may have spent more time talking with Heather? Could be. When you next see her, try to get her to see reason over climate change will you
btw – I knew him as Rod Donald and spent a lot of time in his company, like you did, I guess. We talked about the environment alot. Plus beer. Organic beer. He had very good taste in beer.
Gotta go now.

I asked before “So where did it all go wrong? “

I tell where I think it went wrong, where is the environmental impact reduction in supporting state monopoly health provision VS public private partnerships? Are series environmental issues at stake if we extend the use of public funding for private providers to reduce waiting lists?

The same is true for Education, why would an environmental party have an ideological stance on the state funder/provider split?

The positioning for the last election was particularly cute. Basically the Greens presented themselves as the environmentally concerned Labour voters choice. What was that about? It certainly wasn’t about the environment was it.

It is looking more and more likely that a carbon tax is the superior way to go

Don’t you mean “carbon refund” given the latest figures?

I spent a bit of time talking one to one with Rod Danald while we were both staying at the same camping ground a few years back. You know he never mentioned taxes, unions or collective contracts once.

Haha, do you want to support a dictatorial regime or not, i think you have your priorities crooked but what ever works yeah, so long as people are fed and a few are making trillions to loan back to us so we can keep them employed.

When a Labour politician talks about climate change he is lying.