Who said the following at the UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro?

Question

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

Hint: http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/environment/greenbook.htm

Answer 1

You said: "Can AGW advocates still say this isn't about ruining people economically and about UN intervention?"

The activities and comments of one person, especially when taken out of context and misquoted as some here are stating, are not necessarily reflective of an entire movement, even if the remarks are made by a very prominent individual.  One need only look at our own U.S. presidential remarks-from just about any administration-to see comments made and policies set that do not represent the majority of the population.  So yes, AGW supporters can still say that the issue is not about ruining people economically and U.N. intervention.

Answer 2

Love the way organizations with their own agenda misquote people and combine several quotes together into one to support that agenda.  I know Maurice Strong and what he stands for and he is an industrialist, not an anarchist.

In 1992 at the Earth Summit Maurice Strong said: "The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security."

The same multinationals which scream for global profit taking scream just as loudly for not having to take responsibility globally.  They prefer to externalize their risks on the backs of other nations and peoples.

In 1997, in National Review Magazine, Strong said: "If we don't change, our species will not survive... Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse."

At no time did he say he hoped for it or we are responsible to bring it about.  He said if we don't change the way we do business there may come a time when there is no choice in the matter.  Economies will collapse under the weight of self absorbed industrialists with no conscience.

Let's look at the executive committee of the US Chamber of Commerce you quote:  We have trucking, insurance, dogfood and food marketing experience.  Somehow that doesn't seem to be adequate qualifications for questioning the motives of an expert on energy, international trade and the environment.

Answer 3

dumdum:  Do you have a citation from a reputable source for the quote?  I can only find the first part from places that aren't right-wing websites.  Because more authoritative sources do not list the second part, and have a different, less inflammatory phrasing for the first, I am beginning to doubt he said it as you have cited it.  Or perhaps if he did, there should be an ellipses between the first statement, and the second question, containing some expository material that would change the tone and intent of the entire statement.  Strong had strong views, no pun intended, but to claim he wanted to bring about or advocated the destruction of western civilization is absurd.  What he was saying is that resources were being used in an unsustainable fashion, and that this might cause a collapse in the global ecosystem.  Personally, I think this is far-fetched, although in 1992 was certainly considered within the realm of possibility.  

Anyway, if you could cite a news article from a non-biased source (e.g., something published by someone other than Regnery or the Washington Star or Newsmax) describing the quote as you say then I would believe you.  Otherwise, I'm writing this off as just more right-wing agit-prop designed to befuddle little minds.

Answer 4

YES

Because like everywhewere there is a diversity of opinions and a diversity of people.

Some people are more clever, some are less. Some people are extremists, some are extremely moderate.

===> You are trying to generalize without any rational basis.

===> Large multi-billion international companies are AGW advocates but do not want to hurt their business. They believe in a balance.

Answer 5

The UN has been vocal but really weak on the issue of global warming.  And very one-sided.  Their politically appointed IPCC supports them.  

Good link.  It's important to raise awareness about this scam.  Pure liberal thinking, and now we know their agenda.

Answer 6

its to enslave you watch> Global warming threat (pre)arranged 1961?

Answer 7

You read some amazing quotes from UN delegates from time to time.

A lot of UN delegates seem to be strongly opposed to free enterprise and regard themselves as having a moral right to govern the world.  The could never get themselves democratically elected with ideas like that.

Answer 8

Rio de Janeiro is amazing... I loved.