UN Panel: Carbon Neutrality by 2050 Needed to Avoid Catastrophe

An interim report has just been published by The Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) and was yesterday presented to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, which states that huge technological changes are needed in the world’s production of energy in order to avoid global temperatures rising to above 2 degrees Celsius by 2050 — which is seen by many scientists as a tipping point which could lead to catastrophic and irreversible consequences.

The report, titled “Pathways to Deep Carbonization” recommends that there should be large-scale investment in low-carbon power generation, along with carbon mitigation efforts like carbon capture and storage at traditional power stations. The report recommends that:

“countries and the international community as a whole must undertake a major research, development, demonstration, and diffusion (RDD&D) effort to develop low-carbon technologies and ensure their widespread availability and their affordability.”

A number of non-fossil fuel technologies are mentioned in the report as being key to this low-carbon push — including, “advanced nuclear power technology that sustains public confidence and support.” I don’t expect that the panel were thinking of LENR when they wrote this — but I think it certainly fits the bill.

It seems like we are sitting in a position where, once acknowledged as being valid and viable, LENR technology should quckly rise to the top of the list as people are looking for a safe, clean, efficient source of energy that will not only help meet low carbon emission goals, but also have remarkable economic and societal benefits because of its low cost and high power output.

It’s a strange situation to be aware of something that could provide the answers to problems that people are frantically trying to solve using much more complex and expensive technologies. Perhaps before too long the light will get switched on and the benefits of LENR will become readily apparent and accepted by those who sit on panels like the DDPP, and it will be seen as a real opportunity to help meet the goals they are striving towards.

  • GreenWin

    One can dream.

  • Charles

    UN to America: Give us power, send money, we’ll save your miserable hides.

  • Omega Z

    Thing about CFC’s. The CFC’s of the past were more of a passive nature.
    You could put R-12 in a flask with Ozone & it had no effect on it whatsoever. It required additional elements to have a negative impact. A Cocktail of sorts. Which did happen to a small extent when in the atmosphere. Not to the extent proclaimed.

    However, It’s replacement, R134a was a whole different story & was known at the time it was designated as the replacement. It actively destroyed Ozone. It is also deadly when exposed to flame.

    When certain CFC’s were outlawed, Several Major Chemical companies were pretty much destroyed economically. 1 in Russia, 1 in China, & 1 in south America I’m aware of & some smaller ones to boot. Dupont & Dow Chemical on the other hand did great. It was their new formulations that were selected as replacements. All others had to play catch up or die. The latter being the norm.

    Interesting note: When the old CFC’s were Banned from production,(They are still in limited recycled use) A Year Latter it was remarked at the Huge improvement in Ozone. Being from that era, Had you listened real close that year when things supposedly improved a lot, You could probably have heard a continious Hiss.
    Many Companies charged a $35 to $75 reclaim fee to dispose of the CFC’s.
    You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to recognize- Drill bit or nail holes thru a refrigerent line. Hack saw marks. Metal Snip cuts. Hatchet/axe chops And so many people who got careless and broke a line removing them from their residents. And I Swear, Every kid in town must have taken up archery. LOL.
    And Amazingly, Every Junk Vehicle in the junks yards had miraculusly leaked out all their freon.

    Note that 2 years after that, No one paid any heed. Everything went to the scrape yard was processed/shredded whether it had Freon in it or not. No one cared anymore.

    Today, We are changing Refrigerants again. They were never passive elements. The new refrigerants are more passive in a similar fashion to those banned the 1st time. Made up of a mixture of methane’s, butane’s Etc, mixed at high temps. They tried this before but had some Issue’s. Under certain, tho very rare circumstances, Where you refrigerator once set, you could have an opening for a walk in cooler. 🙁 I’ve heard for the Most Part, this issue has been fixed.(For the Most Part) What does that mean. 🙂

    The Point here is that the story you know & reality aren’t always one & the same. As with most things, you need to follow the money.

    Question: Aren’t methane’s, butane’s Etc Greenhouse Gases?? Guess their already setting the stage for another change in 15/20 years. When the Chemical companies Patents run out again…

  • Omega Z

    The U.N. has a single agenda. Look at their big picture. It’s Redistribution driven. You have 4% unemployment. Another country has 50% unemployment. Manipulate Government Taxing system forcing business to move & redistribute the Jobs until both have 25% unemployment. I’m well off, You’re poor. Take from me. Give to you.

    The Global Warming agenda is all about redistribution. Not CO2.
    Pay attention to all their agenda’s. All other Agenda’s are created to fulfill the one. Redistribution. Some must do with less so others can have more(Everyone must become poor). And Many of Our Governments are Fully on Board for this agenda. Of course they also intend to make a tidy Cap&Trade profit while doing it.

    The People in charge are Intellectually & Morally Bankrupt.
    I have a different view from Theirs.
    I have a house & you don’t. Shall we cut my house in half & give half of it to you. I Don’t think So. I think maybe we just need to figure out a way to build You a house while leaving mine alone. Now we both have one. We just need people who are smart enough to accomplish this.

    Don’t expect anyone to fess up to this. No one will make such a speech, But listen to various speeches & the undertone tells it all. A piece here, A piece there. The Info is available & public, You just have to piece it together.

  • Omega Z

    When you practice deceit to make your point, Everything you say is suspect of being a lie.
    They want it both ways. This is not Science. It’s an Agenda-
    Area X experiences a record high temp. Proof of GW.
    Area X experiences a record Low temp. Just natural variation.

    Record temps don’t actually mean much unless you’re out working in it. Record temp at City X on July 15th is but a single day based on temps for a single day on the calender in City X. Of which you may have a 100 data points most from a period when precision measurements didn’t exist. The Vast majority of these Temp readings coming from zones subject to the heat Island effect. All your data is skewed. That allows you to manipulate it any way you see fit.

    The U.S added 1000 new CO2 sensors. To be mounted on Cell Towers. Again skewing the Data. CO2 average levels will naturally increase when placed in populated areas with economic & population growth. This is akin to having a thermometer in the Antarctic & Death valley calculating the average, Except you recently installed an addition thermometer in death valley. The Point here is how easy it is to manipulate data even when using hard facts.

    Some may be aware of the July 2nd Satellite launch. The Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2). This is to get a more accurate sense of what CO2 levels truly are. This is the 2nd attempt. The 1st blew up on launch. It wont be used for GW study. Way to dodge the Bullet. If it don’t match the consensus, they can ignore it. On the other-hand, they will be able to manipulate it as such later if they should wish.

    I find it strange tho that they have claimed to had this(CO2) satellite data since the 50’s. Of course it was strange also since those satellites were only proof of concept about the size of a football only sending a radio signal to confirm it made it to space. Any climate data wouldn’t have even been started prior to the 70’s And then it would have been primarily for (Cold War uses/Missiles Etc.)

    Among certain Islands in the Pacific, Sea-level is increasing by .5 inches a year. At continental Sea-level measuring points, Rise is negligibly unmeasurable. Ever seen the water level at 1 end of your pool rise while the other end stayed the same. If so, one end of you pool may be sinking. Otherwise this is impossible. Water will retain it’s level which is why it is used for some projects that require extreme leveling accuracy.

    Two islands a couple miles apart. 1 sinks beneath the sea. Proof of sea-level rise? Note both Islands began at 5 feet above sea-level. The 1 still visible is still 5 feet above sea-level. PROOF, one sank. Note, 20 years prior, neither Island existed. They rose from the sea. Would this be proof that sea-level is falling? 🙂 NO silly!.

    There’s plans to move the inhabitants from these islands. Ah Stranded assets. I wonder what natural resources are known to be in the vicinity. If the people leave, Others could move in & lay claim. They were abandoned were they not. This is decades from now, But Nations & Corporations look decades ahead. It’s said that there are vast areas of the Ocean floor covered with things such as Iron ore in clumps. You can virtually design a huge Vacuum & suck it up like sweeping a carpet. Of course you need to be able to lay valid claim 1st. Note: Such devices were designed a couple decades ago.

    Many of the so-called Founders of the Global Warming research have walked away from the Frey. Their reasons, It’s all based on flawed Computer models, not hard data. No one does the real world work.
    I’d compare this to playing Sim City & doing really well and Think, Wow, I should run for Mayor or Governor or something. LOL. Pity the citizens. Oh,Wait. Pity Me when they discover rope & a tree.

    As to the Cap & Trade profits of the Nations & a small number of Individuals who impose them. A large portion of this is designated to build power plants in 3rd world/developing countries. A whole new batch of Consuming profit bearing/taxed customers.

    I don’t have a problem with uplifting people. Just how it’s done.
    In this case, it was recently divulged that between 1000 & 3000 new Coal power plants would be in the mix. The present abundance of Coal makes this a maximum Profit scenario.
    However, Some were complaining that this wouldn’t look to good for their Agenda. Shutting down coal plants in developed societies while building far more elsewhere. Notice they are concerned about their agenda, Not CO2 production.
    There was a compromise. All New Coal plants would be required to have particulate scrubbers. Soot & such. Not CO2 scrubbers. Actually these scrubbers should be mandatory regardless where built. Particulate pollution is pollution. All the pollution images your exposed to is made up of this. It’s not healthy.

    The Arctic seas have never been Ice Free, Oh Except when the Vikings made it to North America a 1000 years ago. Receding back only when the Little Ice Age froze it again.

    All the Data says It’s Warming, Except when the same Data was argued in the 60’s & 70’s pointed to Global Cooling. Of course the old argument never garnered much research funding. They couldn’t claim to be able to do much about it.

  • US_Citizen71

    The Earth won’t be destroyed at most we might kill ourselves off but the Earth will be just fine.

  • pelgrim108

    CO2 is essential for life. The life giving gas. Just like O2. The climate change panel is a bunch of puppets for globalist totalitarian elite.

  • GreenWin

    He forgot the rev-osmosis pump? Desal tablets? Flare gun? Cell phone?

  • MikeP

    The main equation in this “report” simplifies to Carbon Emissions = Carbon Emissions … With that as a circular foundation why are we even discussing this? …

    • Manuel Cruz

      This article is totally astounding! Not only because it clearly exposes that such formula is a tautology (and therefore completely useless), but also because you can infer from the comments that climate sciencists and their supporters are math illiterates unable to understand such a basic flaw. However, the most depressing fact you can get from the article, is that this choice of variables suggests that the malthusian morons at the UN panel are again looking for an excuse to cull the world’s population down to 500 million.

  • Private Citizen

    So many tipping points and deadlines for avoiding catastrophe: Earth Serially Doomed

  • Fortyniner

    And if consumption of ice cream went up by 1000 then so many cows would be needed to make the milk that we would all run out of food, and their combined methane emissions would result in runaway global warming and destroy the planet.

    Why postulate things that will not happen, and ignore the things that definitely will happen if we go on doing what we are doing right now?

  • Alan DeAngelis

    It’s like cancer. If there was a real cure for cancer, a lot of people would be out of jobs. The E-Cat calls their bluff. If there were no CO2 emissions they’d be out of jobs.

    • GreenWin

      Alan, unfortunately true. However, we live in an infinite universe. Of which humans think they know about 4%. The reason people cling to “job security” is due to instilled fear that there is not enough. The question humans must ask themselves is: How can there “not be enough,” in an infinite universe?

  • blanco69

    The best climate science cant predict weather more than 24 hours. But they’re happy to predict ‘irreversible and catastophic consequences’ when it suits them. By the way, there’s a good chance Rossi will be at the back of the pack by the end of the year.

    • Heath

      Climate measures weather data (temperature, pressure, humidity, geology) over an amount of time for a specific place. Climate science looks at the climate data that already has been gathered and tries to understand it relative to the past, present or future.

      • US_Citizen71

        The biggest problem they face is the past, present and future are apples, oranges and pears because the factors that control climate will never be the same again. The chemical composition of the atmosphere has been in flux since Earth formed one, the moon is constantly pulling away which affects the strength of tides, even Earth’s gravity and orbit is in constant minute flux due to addition of matter via meteors and then add to that plate tectonics and volcanism which affect Earth’s wobble and atmospheric composition respectively. Attempting to determine what the climate will be like decades from now amounts to a guess an educated one I grant you but still a guess.

        • Heath

          My point was not to lump to two together based on day to day weather. I understand that a lot of people believe that rapid climate change is a conspiracy, but I can’t help but look at those industries that stand to benefit from the status quo have a vested and well funded political interest to counter this argument just like the fission industry would invest against solar. I don’t side with either because they are narrow interested BUSINESSES, but the data is there. I hope that LENR will knock these titans to the ground.

          • Omega Z

            To improve on your post. “industries that stand to benefit from the status quo” moved even farther to their interests.

            And the Data is not there because we really don’t have the technology or wisdom to discern it.

      • Bernie777

        Agreed, and I am not a climate scientist. When 95% of
        climate scientists say that human activity is causing climate change, I have a
        tendency to believe them. If 95 heart doctors tell me I have blocked
        arteries and I need a heart bypass, but five heart doctors tell me I do
        not need the bypass, any reasonable man would opt for the
        bypass. Now, substitute our planet for the heart above. Any reasonable man would opt for mitigating the problem, especially when there is increasing evidence of climate disruption. To be a denier and say it is all a
        grand conspiracy, is gambling on my grandkids quality of life. Deniers
        had better come up with solid proof; I have not seen that proof.

        • blanco69

          I dont mind about the ‘human activity is causing climate change’ part. The part I mind about is the complete biased assumption that any change would be ‘catsstrophic’ and ‘irreversible’. I think we’ve spent enough GDP on establishing that nature I.e us has an impact on climate. That’s great and nice to know. Are we on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe? Probably not. I’m sure most of us remember the millenium bug. In short – beware of doomsayers! They invariably have self interest at heart.

          • Bernie777

            “‘catastrophic’ and ‘irreversible'” Sandy and biblical floods are not catastrophic enough for you?

            • Omega Z

              They Blame the Industrial age. They want you to move back into the caves. However, Tornadoes & hurricanes & floods will continue just as they have prior to & since the Industrial Age. You just want have the Industrial age safety system to come help you out like you do now.
              It falls back to survival of the fittest. Great way to reduce the worlds population. Is it not.

              • Omega Z

                You ever notice what some of these people like Al Gore say when pushed about their CO2 contributions. About 50X plus what a peon produces.
                They can’t be constrained by such limitations. “They & Their Work is Important”. And YOU are NOT. They are the Elite and Rules do not apply to them. Just the peons.

                • Bernie777

                  This is your reason for not having this debate, which could greatly impact our grandchildren?

                • Omega Z

                  In Gores case, I don’t care for liars & hypocrite’s.
                  A While back Gore was telling everyone they should sell their Oil investments & why they were bad people if they didn’t.
                  While at the same time, He was buying Oil investments.
                  As to the masters at GW headquarters, I compare them to Gore.

              • Bernie777

                We can have both the Industrial Age and mediated climate change.

                • Omega Z

                  According to what many of them have stated, The Industrial Age needs to end or be drastically reduced at the very least. You need to live a minimalist life.

        • Manuel Cruz

          The fundamental problem with your logic is that you believe that climate science is an actual science at the same level than medicine and biology, when it’s akin to homeopathy. CO2 is so dilluted on air that it effectively has no impact on world climate. At the same time, the UN panel consciously ignores actual pollution, like the enourmous cloud of smog that comes from China, and the major greenhouse gases such as water vapor (which would discourage the use of LERN). The UN politicians don’t even believe their own bullshit, otherwise they wouldn’t be sabotaging themselves ignoring the (useless and harmful) Kyoto protocol and would not travel in private jets.

        • Omega Z

          Many of those Scientists attest to People being able to impact their environment. I Agree with them. However, many of them are not sold on the Climate change being man made. But they have to be careful what the say. It’s a Job threat situation. A Few have even come out & stated that their position has been Hijacked.

          Most of the Data is full of holes. When Cornered on something they retort, that’s figured in. But when asked where, They just say it’s in there somewhere. I don’t have time to look. Likely because it isn’t there to begin with. Most of their data come from notoriously flawed Computer simulations. Little real world data is involved.

          NOTE: LENR will negate ALL Their CO2 Arguments.
          You heard it hear 1st. Next on their agenda will be methane & Meat production. Especially Beef.
          They will argue that we should be growing Rice for people to eat rather then corn for beef. Cattle belch a lot of methane.
          Well, Growing Rice produces several fold more methane per food calorie then corn to Cattle. But I’m sure they’ll find an answer to that. It’s Figured in. I don’t have time to tell you where.

          • Bernie777

            Omega….I enjoy and agree with many of your posts, but when you say “many of them are not sold on the Climate change being man made” are you reading their minds or is it a reflection of your opinion?


            • Omega Z

              Not Opinion’s Bernie. Statements at various Web news sites & responses in blog posts from those Scientists.
              Many of those 1000 Scientists, Field of Expertise has Nothing to do with Climate.

              Always 1000 Scientists. Interesting number. Never near or about. but Always. I bet if I do a survey of enough people with the properly worded questions, I can get a consensus of 1000 Scientists that agree Global Warming is a hoax. Note I didn’t state how many I surveyed. Neither do they. They select the ones that fit their criteria out of many more then 1000. We already have “2” things of question. They don’t volunteer the information that many of the 1000 have no affiliation with climate research. They don’t say how many they surveyed to come up with that 1000 in agreement.

              What it takes to be included in the consensus of the 1k.
              Question: Do you believe Humans can have an Impact on the climate? Yes. If I had some Letters before my name, I could be used as an example of those 1k supporters. These people do make up a portion of the 1k. Why Because they can’t get 1000 to outright commit to believing in global warming.
              And Does my Answer surprise you. It Shouldn’t. It’s an Honest answer.
              Had the question been do you believe in the Global Warming Phenomenon? No. Caveat- The Factual Data doesn’t support it. Much of it is highly questionable or fabricated. I just became omitted from their 1k list.

              Steven Chu: United States Secretary of Energy 2009,2013. Physicist -a Major Global Warming & “Nuclear Power Advocate” Anti CF/LENR. People with conflicting Interests should Not be involved in this discussion, yet he was in a position of power. As are most of those involved.

              You may find this of Interest. Several years back, I exchanged a couple posts with a guy at McMurdo Station research center. He was complaining that His Boss, Steven Chu was ignoring data that conflicted with their position & Ignoring him as well.
              No, I can’t prove this. Lost contact long ago. I initially figured, Antarctic researchers are temporary & he was rotated out. A Little slow on the uptake was I, considering the timing, he could have been 1 of those involved in the whistle blowing e-mail scandal who were terminated.

              Here’s his take on the Data. They have it backwards.
              Temperature increases occurred 1st. CO 2 levels increased after.
              A slight warming, part of a natural cycle or not, causes a release of stored CO2 from the environment. The CO2 increase likely isn’t man contributed & if it is, is only a portion of a natural phenomenon.

              Fact: Global Warming began over 10K years ago with the end of the Ice Age. It’s been warming intermittently every since. Things to note:
              They say Global warming began with the Industrial age.
              Coincides with end of the little Ice Age. Don’t temps go up then.
              Mid 80’s temps started showing an increase. They Omitted,
              Between 1980 & 83, Temps declined due to multiple volcanic eruptions. As the debris clears over time, temps will recover.

              They are on the verge of Carbon Capture. If this succeeds, there is a product market for that. Why is it full speed ahead to shut everything down? Agenda’s

              Volcanoes damage the Ozone. Nope it spews chemicals that react with others that destroy Ozone. I call Twisted fact.
              We replaced CFC’s (passive)that also could under circumstances damage the Ozone, With Refrigerants that Actively destroy Ozone. Why? Dupont’s patents expired. There’s another change in progress. Why? Patents expiring. The New refrigerants are Greenhouse gases also. Well change again. When Patents expire. There’s a theme here. We don’t change for societies benefit. We change for financial benefits of a few.

              You Should Note: I’m an Advocate for eliminating Fossil resources for energy. We will need them for a long time for other purposes. Things they wont be available for if we use them up producing energy. I’m just against the false argument which I believe has negative ulterior motives.

              It appears we’re on the same side tho for different reasons.
              When they Entities try to Block LENR, We may soon be on the same side for the same reasons.

              • Bernie777

                Omgea…..I sent you a site that supported my position, would please do the same. Thanks.

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          Bernie, you believe 95 heart doctors who all receive their continuing education from drug salesmen(use your head and listen to Dr Esselstyn). Your alleged 95% of scientists are all on the take.

          You say you’re not a climate scientist. Neither am I. I am very impressed with the education level of the participants of this forum and the majority seem to be skeptical of man-caused climate change. You side with Richard Branson, who is a GW believer and a skilled politically correct entrepreneur. I side with Burt Rutan, who Branson has hired to design to design and build his SpaceShips One & Two.

          • Bernie777

            Iggy…What is your point, it is clear that ultra conservatives and Fox News does not believe in man made climate change. It is also clear that ultra conservatives do not want to understand that when you start a fiscal year like 2009 with a deficit of 1.3 trillion dollars with our economy in depression, it would take any President years to dig out of that kind of a hole George W put us in. We are digging out, Fiscal 2014 deficit is projected at 492 billion. Lets just agree to disagree on those two issues.

  • Sanjeev

    Consumption can go up a 1000 times only if the earth’s population rises by 1000 times, or say approx 100 times (if you assume a luxurious lifestyle for all in the world). There is no way earth can support 700 billion people. So this scenario may not arise. Looking at the destruction caused by a mere 7 billion, a population of, say, 50 billion will mean total destruction of environment by other means, we need not worry about lenr producing too much heat.

    Actually, all this may not happen. Lenr will mean rise in prosperity, which means reduction in population. Less people to feed or travel or heat their mansions. Oil with its contribution of heat will disappear . So lenr may actually bring down the human contribution to total heat on earth.

    In far future, a lot of population will migrate to Mars or other places, bringing down the population even further. Lenr will enable terraforming of mars or europa and heat will not be a problem there for sure.

    • Fortyniner

      Interestingly this idea (that waste heat from ‘overunity’ devices will cause devastating global warming) is being promoted elsewhere as a ‘reason’ for not adopting such technologies, e.g.,


      Ridicule and denial have had their day, so now the new meme to be promoted could be ‘cheap energy is dangerous’. I had expected the ‘nuclear’ aspect to be seized on by antagonists, but I suppose that latching onto the well-established ‘global warming’ fear machine has a certain inevitability.

      • Omega Z

        Amazing, Is it not.

        What happens if we should develop a system without heat by direct conversion. I guess it will be the mechanical movement that produces heat by friction. Maybe Bicycles will need to be banned.
        72 hour Marathons such as Rossi did needs banned. That’s a lot of heat produced. Imagine if everyone was to join in. Global Warming Disaster every where we look. Oh My

        • GreenWin

          Hence my earlier point. The most effective catalyst of human fear is belief that “There is not enough.” By playing on this survival instinct, manipulators, money changers, con artists gain control over the minds of millions. LENR/E-Cat & abundant energy tech falsify this premise. It annoys the manipulators. 🙂

  • ecatworld

    Thanks to GreenWin for his reference in another thread to a New York Times article on this report. Eduardo Porter, the author, makes a reference to LENR in the article when he says: “The teams did not rely on more speculative technologies, like cold fusion, to make their numbers.”


  • Christopher Calder

    It is impossible to achieve “carbon neutrality” on planet Earth if you have 7 billion people living here. We all have to eat and farming unleashes lots of CO2 and methane no matter what you power your tractors with, nickel or oil. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, has it right on global warming hysteria.


    • Alain Samoun

      Greenpeace quote on P.Moore:
      While it is true that Patrick Moore was a member of Greenpeace
      in the 1970s, in 1986 he abruptly turned his back on the very
      issues he once passionately defended. He claims he “saw the light”
      but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain.
      Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid
      representative of corporate polluters.


      • Christopher Calder

        That is a very unfair characterization. Greenpeace and most other environmental groups have gone insane. They do not care about the human race or all the starvation and economic collapse they create. They never apologize or take responsibility for their obvious mistakes, which have literally killed millions of innocent people. Biofuels are the deadliest green hoax, and the windmill fad has accelerated economic collapse all around the world. Moore is just being reasonable and responsible. I lay out the whole argument in *Moderating Climate Change Hysteria*. “Green” has become such an ugly, hypocritical word that sane people should never use it in any positive sense. The “green economy” is the death economy.

        • Omega Z

          Like many good well intentioned endeavors, Greenpeace has been taken over & manipulated for the benefit of the few.
          Science, the Educational system, all have been compromised to the ego & financial gains of those at the top.

      • saying that Patrick Moore is corrupted by oil, is the usual way to answer when you have no serious answer…
        would they answer that this man is bitter… ok… corrupted by Oil…

        don’t they recently lose millions on financial market insvesting their massive funding.
        the top 3 green corps, euh NGO, earn 1billion total (from oil companies often, from states), and this is not “sales” but pure “PR”. this match the equivalent of PR budget of a 100bilion sales…
        add to that the free support of all media and politcians.

        They are a religious group, and Moore is just an ex-member of a sect. He may be bitter, activist, but the accusation of corruption are pathetic, to compare with the way politicians answer when they are caught by justice. “I AM A VICTIM OF CONSPIRACY BY EVIL MONEY… SAVE ME…” pathetic.