Environmentalism: too many gravy trains, lies and dangerous hidden agendas; now driven by the ‘establishment’

Scroll down to read the most recent articles; links to previous articles follow.

Feeding the Fat Green Pigs

Feeding the Fat Green Pigs  Published by the Saltbush Club, www.saltbushclub.com. 29 November 2019

In the era before coal, oil and electricity, the environment suffered greatly.

Whales were slaughtered for lamp oil; forests were cleared for firewood, mine props, building materials, roofing shingles and sailing masts; London (“The Big Smoke”) and Pittsburgh (“The Smoky City”) were smothered in smog from open fires, charcoal kilns and iron smelters; horses powered public and military transport and city streets were layered with horse manure.

Then came the hydro-carbon revolution.

Kerosene lamps saved the whales and coal-powered steam engines delivered electricity (clean-coal-by-wire) to the cities. Much of the sulphurous smogs disappeared. Coke from coal replaced wood charcoal to make iron and steel. Steel and concrete saved the forests and trucks and railways allowed the farmland which once fed millions of horses, mules and oxen to produce food for humans.

Not one of these boons for humans AND the environment was driven by a UN resolution, invented by a government committee or funded by statutory levies on consumers, or subsidies from taxpayers. None were mandated in a government energy plan.

The anti-human, anti-industry policies of the Global Greens are now reversing all that progress.

A key event occurred in 2006 when a leading left-wing politician, Al Gore, invented the Global Warming Industry. Despite a finding by a British High Court that his movie “The Inconvenient Truth” contained nine key scientific errors, it is still shown in schools. This has misled students and teachers and created spreading circles of damage to jobs, industry and the cost and reliability of electricity. It also created fake industries based on energy adventurism, UN talk-fests, climate hysteria and green activism.

The Green Piglets were born, and the environment and the economy suffered.

Land that once fed horses is now used to produce biodiesel and ethanol for cars, so food prices must go up. Forests are felled to burn in green power stations and for green-tick buildings while grasslands are invaded by feral pests, woody weeds and bushfires from the ever-growing parks and Kyoto Protocol Forests. Birds and bats are being sliced by wind turbines, flatlands are being smothered by solar panels, access roads and transmission lines. But electricity costs soar, supply is rationed while reliability crashes.

Behind every one of these modern maladies are troughs of Big Green Pigs getting fat on market mandates, subsidies from consumers or tax payers, and special tax treatments.

In the background, governments fund an academic/media industry promoting climate alarmism, energy rationing and intermittent energy. Electric cars and penny farthings were pushed off the roads by Henry Ford’s petrol engines, but politicians are trying to put them back – a Tesla for the rich and a bicycle for the poor. Consumers and industry don’t count and taxpayers are there to be milked. In this Greentopia no one needs miners, farmers or fishermen. All are lost for a fake global warming Emergency.


Climate alarmists are brazen opportunists preying on misery

Climate alarmists are brazen opportunists preying on misery  By Chris Kenny, The Australian, 21 November 2019

Like a struck match in the bush, global warming is the spark that triggers a destructive firestorm in public debate. Heated on emotion, fanned by sensationalist media and fuelled by ideology, it burns through common sense, reason and decency, showing no respect for facts or rational thought. Climate alarmists are using tragic deaths and community pain to push a political barrow. Aided by journalists and others who should know better, they are trying to turn a threat endured on this continent for millennia into a manifestation of their contemporary crusade. It is opportunistic, transparent, grisly and plain dumb. Contributions this past week take lunacy to new levels in an ominous sign for public discourse. In this land of droughts and flooding rains — Dorothea Mackellar’s “flood, fire and famine” — we now confront an extra injury every time the weather tests us; silly and reckless posturing from climate alarmists trying to prove their point. History doesn’t matter to them, nor the facts. Rather than consider reality they proffer an almost hallucinogenic alternative, pretending their political gestures will deliver cooler, damper summers unsinged by bushfires. This repugnant rhetoric must be called out; facts and science must prevail. But engaging in this debate must never be interpreted as downplaying the severity of what has occurred — four deaths, hundreds of properties destroyed, lives changed and trauma ongoing. It is only to say this is the perennial horror of our sunburnt country that will bedevil this land long after all of us, our children and our children’s children are gone. Australia’s natural history is impossible to interpret without reference to fire; plants evolved to survive bushfire and depend on it for propagation. Indigenous heritage demonstrates an understanding of fire in managing vegetation, protecting kin and hunting animals. Since European settlement our story is replete with the menacing scent of disaster and tragic episodes. Victoria has suffered most, in 1851 with a dozen people killed, along with a million sheep and five million hectares burned. In 1926, 60 dead; in 1939 there were 71 dead and just five years later at least 15 died. In the 1960s dozens were killed in Victoria in numerous years and just 10 years ago on Black Saturday 173 lives were lost along with more than 2000 houses. In South Australia and Tasmania there is a similar repetition of tragedy, often during the same heatwaves, only with smaller and sparser populations the casualties are lower. Still, the toll is horrific; 62 people died in the Tasmanian fires of 1967. Wetter summers and drier winters make the NSW fire season earlier and less intense, with blazes common in late spring. Devastating blazes have been regular, taking multiple lives on multiple occasions in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. Yet so much coverage and commentary in the past week would have it that the latest tragedy is a new phenomenon. Rare as it is for the rainforests of northern NSW and southern Queensland to burn, it happens. Back in September, Joelle Geris of the Australian National University’s Climate Change Institute wrote in Guardian Australia about how “I never thought I’d see the Australian rainforest burning. What will it take for us to wake up to the climate crisis?” The Climate Council member wrote: “As a scientist, what I find particularly disturbing about the current
conditions is that world heritage rainforest areas such as the Lamington National Park in the Gold Coast hinterland are now burning.” But such fires predate climate change: “A bushfire in Lamington National Park today swept through a grove of 3000-year-old Macrozamia palms,” The Cairns Post reported on October 25, 1951. “These trees were one of the features of the park … the fire has burnt out about 2000 acres of thick rainforest country.” That is rainforest burning in Lamington National Park 70 years ago. Journalists, often encouraged by authorities, have written about the “unprecedented” nature of the Queensland fires. Yet newspaper searches tell a different story. Toowoomba’s The Chronicle in 1946 reported winter fires in late August: “From Bundaberg to the New South Wales border … hundreds of square miles of drought-stricken south-eastern Queensland were aflame.” Two years later in The Central Queensland Herald there were reports on September 30 of “An 800-mile chain of bushfires fed by dry grass stretched tonight along the Queensland coast from Cairns to Maryborough.” Earlier this year, former NSW fire commissioner, now climate activist, Greg Mullins told ABC radio: “There’s fires breaking out in places where they just shouldn’t burn, the west coast of Tasmania, the world heritage areas, wet rainforest, subtropical rainforest, it’s all burning — and look, this is driven by climate change, there’s no other explanation.” But The South Australian Chronicle of February 1915 reported lives lost and the “most devastating bushfires ever known in Tasmania sweeping over the northwest coast and other districts. The extent of the devastation cannot be over-estimated.” And in 1982 The Canberra Times detailed a “huge forest fire” burning out 75,000ha of dense rainforest on Tasmania’s West Coast. Terrible as our fires are — often the worst in a generation or more — they are not abnormal in our landscapes, in our climate. A sober discussion in the global warming context might argue that, across time, our endemic bushfire threat could increase marginally rather than diminish with extra rain. But to suggest the threat is new or can be diminished by climate policy is to pile false hope and mind-numbing stupidity on top of alarmist politicking. This week, journalists and politicians have wilfully misrepresented claims from NSW fire authorities that they had never confronted so many emergency-level fires at once. An unprecedented number of fires, especially when deliberately lit, has more to do with expanding population than climate. There also has been much hyperbole about the fire rating of “catastrophic”; a new category added to the rating system after Victoria’s 2009 fires to ensure greater community responsiveness. CNN International went heavy on our fires, saying half of Queensland was facing bushfire emergency. The US-based broadcaster ran a Nine Network report by Airlie Walsh declaring it was the “first time in history Sydney had been met with such catastrophic conditions”. This was typical of the misleading reporting; it was merely the first time the “catastrophic” category had been invoked since it was introduced a decade ago. Back in 2009, the ABC reported how the additional category was about raising awareness: “Victorian Premier John Brumby said in the last fire season, only five days would have been classified as code red. The new fire warnings system will provide the community with a better understanding of the level of bushfire threat on any given day based on the forecast weather conditions, he said in a statement.”
CNN also used our fires as the basis for an interview with David Wallace-Wells, author of The Uninhabitable Earth. He was asked “how dangerous” it was that our Prime Minister “doesn’t actually want to tackle the problem”. This, in the modern parlance, is fake news. Wallace-Wells, without resort to science, asserted Australia was already “suffering intensely” from climate change which, according to him, was responsible for our current drought. He also wrongly claimed our government was not taking any “meaningful action” on climate. One of my favourite books as a child was Ash Road by Ivan Southall, about the misadventures of some boys who foolishly started a bushfire. It captured an overbearing dread many Australians can smell as clearly as eucalyptus in the bush. “It always happened on a day like this,” wrote Southall, “when the north wind raged, the temperature soared and the hills were so dry that they crackled. “Fire at most seasons of the year was nothing but a flame that water could extinguish; in this season, on a day like this, a little flame in an instant could become a monster.” This invokes memories of bushfires near home in the Adelaide foothills and trepidations summer days on my uncle’s farm in the incendiary blue gum country of western Victoria. In the country and on the urban fringes, bushfire is part of our national psyche because of hardbitten experience. As a national park staffer, and having studied and trained at bushfire management, I experienced one of the Ash Wednesday infernos in 1983. Temperatures well over 40C, tinder-dry bush in the steepest parts of the Adelaide Hills and winds gusting towards 100km/h; this was hell on earth, when fires become a storm and only survival counts. I missed the worst of it but joined the mop-up — a miserable task amid burned homes, melted cars and the smell of death — before helping to extinguish blazes over following days. No one who was there will ever say they’ve seen worse. People who have seen bushfires only on television can have no idea, and those who experience the horrors of a firestorm won’t get into silly comparisons. In her nonfiction account of Victoria’s Churchill fire on Black Saturday, Chloe Hooper relays first-person accounts. “The flames were lying down because the wind was howling through.” “It was basically hailing fire.” “It was like a jet engine, I’ve never heard a noise like it and then the penny dropped — it was the fire coming.” “Trees ignited from the ground up in one blast, like they were self-exploding.” All of this is so lethal, terrifying and devastating — and always has been. It insults all those who have been lost before to pretend it is worse now. Heat, wind and fuel are what drive our fire threat, and the worst conditions will involve hot, dry conditions and gale force winds across a heavy fuel load. The only factor we can realistically control is fuel — hazard reduction is crucial but often resisted. While drought can limit the fire threat in some areas by inhibiting grass and shrub growth, the big dry has turned the forests of northern NSW and southern Queensland into tinderboxes. This situation is directly linked to the drought, so the critical question is whether there is a connection between the drought and climate change. The most authoritative assessment of this came in June from the director of the Centre for Climate Extremes, Andrew Pitman. (I have inserted an additional word, in brackets, that Pitman and his centre later said should have been included.)
“This may not be what you expect to hear but as far as the climate scientists know there is no (direct) link between climate change and drought. “Now, that may not be what you read in the newspapers and sometimes hear commented but there is no reason a priori why climate change should make the landscape more arid. “And if you look at the Bureau of Meteorology data over the whole of the last 100 years there’s no trend in data, there’s no drying trend, there’s been a drying trend in the last 20 years but there’s been no drying trend in the last 100 years and that’s an expression of how variable the Australian rainfall climate is.” Pitman is no climate sceptic. These are just the scientific facts. Yet his comments are fastidiously ignored by most media except to deliberately reinterpret them. Mostly preferred are unfounded prognostications from people such as businessman cum green campaigner Geoffrey Cousins telling Radio National Breakfast “everyone in this country now understands the link between climate change and these fires”. Or Greens leader Richard Di Natale telling the Senate that global warming is “supercharging these megafires”. What a confluence: media eager to elevate a sense of crisis; political actors exaggerating to advance a cause; horrendous threats that require no embellishment; public fascinated by weather patterns; and information from official authorities feeding the frenzy (revised fire danger categories; weather bureau rainfall records starting only from 1900, therefore eliminating the first five years of the Federation drought; historical temperature readings revised downwards so that this January a record capital city maximum was declared in Adelaide despite a maximum one full degree higher being recorded in January 1939). When cold, hard analysis of facts is required, we see wild claims constantly made and seldom tested. Di Natale and fellow Greens Adam Bandt and Jordon Steele-John stoop so low as to blame these fatal fires on the government, dubbing it “arsonists”. Former fire chiefs gather to suggest, with straight faces, that some additional climate change action from government could have quelled these fires. It is as offensive as it is absurd, but it is seldom called out by a complicit media. Even Chief Scientist Alan Finkel has conceded that if we were to eliminate all our nation’s greenhouse gases (about 1.3 per cent of global emissions) it would do “virtually nothing” to the climate. The real situation is even more hopeless, of course, because global emissions continue to rise dramatically. So, the first crucial furphy perpetrated daily by the virtue signallers is that Australian action can control the climate. It is too ridiculous to be repeated yet it is, seriously, and daily. We also constantly hear, as we did on CNN, claims Australia is doing nothing; this ignores our Paris commitments, energy upheaval and the latest report from ANU experts Andrew Blakers and Matt Stocks. They found the country is on track to meet its Paris emissions reduction targets, investing 11 times the global average in renewable energy. This has not, and will not, cool our summers or quell our bushfires. Still, even if we magically could freeze the climate — setting it permanently at whatever it was in the 1950s, 1850s or 1750s — we know we would still face catastrophic fire conditions in many, if not most, fire seasons.
Many commentators this week have done what they often do when the green left overreaches; they say the debate has gone too far at either end. This is intellectually dishonest; one side of this argument urges getting on with the hard task of battling our brutal and ever-present bushfire threat, the other side is playing inane and opportunistic politics. No one has cut through the nonsense and sanctimony better than The Weekend Australian’s cartoonist, Johannes Leak. He has given us the brattish little arsonist sitting on his mother’s lap being told, “Don’t blame yourself darling, that bushfire you lit was caused by climate change.” Then there was “Total Fire Bandt” who was fighting bushfires by installing solar panels while others confronted the flames. And Leak showed the Greens sacrificing the economy in a pointlessly pagan attempt to appease an ominous blaze. The overwhelming majority of Australians, who comprehend the omnipresent bushfire threat, would agree with these points. But our debate is shaped by a media/political class far removed from practical realities, more afraid of the chill winds of the zeitgeist than a blistering hot northerly.


NZ’s Zero Carbon Bill

NZ’s Zero Carbon Bill  By Dr Muriel Newman, NZCPR, 26 October 2019

In November 2017, just after being elected Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern attended an APEC meeting in Vietnam, where she asked world leaders to join New Zealand in reducing the impact of climate change. “It is my responsibility to take a lead role on climate change. My challenge to you all is to join us on that journey and leave a legacy we can all be proud of – we owe it to ourselves, our children and future generations.”

She said, “No matter how small we are we have a role to play”, as she outlined her plans to move New Zealand to a low carbon economy to uphold the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

Unlike most countries New Zealand’s carbon emissions are very low because most of our electricity is produced from renewable sources. So cows and sheep and the methane they produce, became the Prime Minister’s main focus instead. This is in spite of Article 2 of the Paris Agreement which specifically prohibits countries from enacting policies that would restrict the supply of food: “This Agreement… aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change… in a manner that does not threaten food production”.

The PM says the methane targets in her Zero Carbon Bill, which require farmers to lower their emissions by 10 percent within 10 years and by up to 47 percent by 2050, came from modelling carried out by the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change.

In spite of a great deal of uncertainty over the accuracy of the UN’s modelling – and huge controversy over the science of methane and whether it has any warming effect at all – the PM’s Bill will impose the harshest restrictions in the world on an industry that’s an international leader in primary production – with livestock farmers that produce almost twice the milk and meat per kilogram of emissions than the global average.

While an alternative pricing mechanism to the Emissions Trading Scheme (which was designed for heavy industry) has just been announced for agriculture, farmers were unsuccessful in persuading the Select Committee to lower the punitive methane targets in the Bill. As they stand, these targets will eventually decimate most farming operations and crush New Zealand’s major export industry.

Now, two years after the APEC meeting in Vietnam, Jacinda Ardern is planning to announce to APEC leaders in Chile next month, that New Zealand continues to lead the world by passing the first zero carbon legislation that targets agriculture.

With New Zealand’s contribution to global man-made greenhouse gas emissions a miniscule 0.17 percent, the Prime Minister’s obsession with looking good on the world stage, comes at a serious cost to the country.

The Australian broadcaster Andrew Bolt summed it up well when he said, “instead of the truth, what now matters are people ‘wanting to seem more passionate, idealistic and holier than though’ on the issue of climate change. Global warming is ‘a movement that attracts the haters and the mini totalitarians’. Ultimately, what green activists want are ‘laws to control you, laws to control the economy. Some will say, we want you to stop eating meat, and we want you to stop flying so much, and we want you to turn off the street lights’.”

To be ready for the Prime Minister’s APEC announcement the Zero Carbon Bill is having to be rushed through its final stages in Parliament.

The Environment Select Committee that is dealing with the Bill was forced to take the unusual step of meeting on Monday in order to finalise its report to Parliament. The Committee stages of the House will need to be truncated by Government MPs, so the Bill can be passed into law in time for the Prime Minister’s visit to Chile on November 14.

But while the Prime Minister’s leadership on climate change has elevated her to international stardom, she is part of an elite cabal spreading climate alarmism.

Her claims that climate change is her generation’s ‘nuclear free moment’ and that ‘the world’s in a climate emergency’, are exacerbating a deadly problem that began when the UN’s IPCC started exaggerating the danger of man-made greenhouse gas emissions, to gain more media profile and scare politicians and the public into action.

Back in 1989, the late climatologist and lead IPCC author Dr Steven Schneider, explained their problem:

“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.

“On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change.

“To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

Even Michael Mann, the Penn State climatologist whose discredited ‘hockey stick’ graph was responsible for generating much of the modern-day climate alarmism, is opposed to doomsday predictions: “Unfortunately there’s some bad science behind much of the ‘doomism’. There is no need to exaggerate or misstate what the science has to say.”

Former Vice President Al Gore has admitted that the language used by the IPCC in their reports was “torqued up” in order to “get the attention of policy-makers around the world.”

But Al Gore himself is one of the worst offenders, particularly with his 2006 error-laden movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, which warned melting ice caps and rising seas would drown cities around the world, turning millions of people into climate refugees.

The exaggerated facts in Al Gore’s movie were debunked by British television producer Martin Durkin, who produced the film “The Great Global Warming Swindle” – view HERE. It labelled man-made global warming as “the biggest scam in modern times”.

But in spite of the best efforts of scientists and others to inform the public that changes to our climate are within the bounds of natural climate variability and that the forces that influence the climate such as the sun, wind, clouds, and oceans are beyond the control of mankind, extremists continue to scare people into thinking the world is going to end and there is no hope.

David Buckel, a successful 60 year-old retired gay rights lawyer from New York, was a victim.

One Saturday morning in April last year, he walked from his comfortable home in Brooklyn, to a nearby park, where he emailed a prepared statement to media decrying the lack of progress in tackling man-made global warming. He then doused himself in petrol and set fire to himself.

His suicide note said, “I am David Buckel and I just killed myself by fire as a protest suicide. I apologize to you for the mess.” No-one had been aware of the depth of his anguish over climate change.

Such despair is an issue of great concern to this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, Seattle based New Zealand consultant Nicholas Kerr, who explains that doctors are now seeing more and more children who are deeply troubled by the exaggerated doomsday predictions being made by global warming alarmists:

“An old childhood friend, Dr Joshua Betts, practices medicine in Australia and this year posted on Facebook about his experiences: Recently I have had a number of teenage patients break down in my consulting rooms, overcome with despair at the thought that the world will end in their lifetime. My daughter and her friends tell me how the planet is being destroyed and we are all doomed. These thoughts and beliefs feed into a vortex of anxiety and uncertainty that is crippling many young people.

We need to protect our children, give them hope and strength for the future rather than hatred for their fellow man and contempt for science and industry. This doesn’t mean wearing rose colored glasses and putting our heads in the sand, but instead framing the issues in a rational way where the most likely outcomes are highlighted, rather than the worst case scenario of environmental Armageddon.

Greta Thunberg, the 16 year-old Swedish activist, who has been anointed as the new messiah of the global climate change movement, is a victim of this herself.

She began suffering from depression over climate scare stories at age eight. She was diagnosed with autism and obsessive compulsive disorder. As Greta became increasingly despondent, her fixation with climate alarmism led her, by age 11, to stop talking and stop eating. She refused to go to school.

These troubles plagued her for years, and there is now a real fear, that since she has been elevated to celebrity status, other children may attempt to emulate her poor choices and actions.

Around the time when Greta started starving herself, reports emerged that a Brazilian couple, terrified by the prospect of global warming, had entered into a suicide pact, taking not only their own lives, but shooting their two year old son and 7 month old daughter as well. Miraculously, the baby survived.

Last month there were reports on social media that climate change anxiety had played a big part in the death of a 14-year-old boy from Manchester in England.

With a media ban on the reporting of suicide, it is impossible to know how many others have sunk into such depths of despair that they too have taken their own lives.

And it’s no wonder that children despair, when they listen to the alarmist rhetoric that’s being regurgitated.

At January’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Greta Thunberg said, “I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act. I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if the house was on fire, because it is.”

Then last month, at the United Nations Climate Action Summit in New York, she raged, “You all come to us young people for hope. How dare you! You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words, and yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction…”

History may well show that a turning point was reached, when that 16 year old stood on the United Nations stage and snarled at the leaders of the free world. Reasonable people are now beginning to realise that climate change has become a cult led by indoctrinated children. Many are now saying enough is enough.

But while there’s a mood for people to speak out, many media outlets refuse to publish anything that challenges their Armageddon narrative.

An Italian petition, signed by 90 scientists and presented to their President in July is a case in point – it received almost no media coverage. The scientists explained that human-induced global warming “is an unproven hypothesis” based on inaccurate UN computer models that underestimate natural climatic variability. They say the alleged consensus of scientists who believe that humans cause global warming does not exist. And they want their President to reject any policies that pretend that humans can control the climate.

Another 500 prominent climate scientists and professionals from around the world submitted a European Climate Declaration to the Secretary-General of the United Nations last month, stating that there is no “climate emergency”. Organised by Professor Guus Berkhout of The Netherlands, their message explains “the models of climate on which international policy is founded are unfit for their purpose” and they say, “it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions of dollars on the basis of results from such immature models”.

The Zero Carbon Bill Jacinda Ardern’s Government is about to pass into New Zealand law is not based on science; it’s based on ideology – and the UN’s grossly inaccurate models.

If you want to urge MPs to vote against this Bill, their email addresses are HERE.


Links to previous articles

About Peter Senior

I'm a very experienced and pragmatic management consultant. I've reviewed and led the restructuring of many organisations - large and small corporations and Government Departments, much of the time as President of the New Zealand Institute of Management Consultants. Before that I was General Manager of a major NZ newspaper; earlier, an analyst for IBM UK. I gained an honours degree in engineering at London University, and studied management at Cambridge University. This wide range of experience has left me frustrated: I continue to see too many examples of really bad management. Sometimes small easily fixed issues; sometimes fundamental faults; and sometimes really tricky problems. Mostly these issues can be fixed using a mixture of common sense, 'management 101' and applying lessons from years of management experience. Unfortunately, all too often, politics, bureaucracy and daft government regulations get in the way; internal factors such as poor culture and out-of-date strategies are often evident. So what's gone wrong, and why, and most importantly, how to fix 'it'? I hope there are like-minded people 'out there' who will share their thoughts enabling 'us' to improve some significant management failures that affect the general public. If you just accept bad management and do nothing about it, you don't have the right to complain! The really tricky part is, what can you do about it that is likely to be effective? If you'd like to share thoughts on any aspects of management, send me an email to petersenior42@gmail.com .
This entry was posted in Environmental battles. Bookmark the permalink.