Greenpeace claims can only be rubbished: Patrick Moore

You've rubbished Greenpeace India (GPI)'s claims in a report in August about pesticides in India's top tea brands
Greenpeace's claims can only be rubbished. This is a continuation of GP's scare tactics and disinformation which abandons science and logic in favour of emotion and sensationalism. GPI is misleading people by not revealing details of the raw data on which it has based its report. Such NGOs manufacture misleading reports and are a threat to India's effort to safeguard its food and energy security.

That sounds exactly like the Intelligence Bureau (IB) report against GP which created waves
I know that the IB report called GPI "a threat to national economic security." And the report was right. GPI doesn't have the money and resources for its protests and activities. Most of it comes from Europe. Obviously, like any other country, India wants to know if this is coming from inimical sources.

Look at this study on tea. Why did GPI choose to take the samples to Europe for testing despite several state-of-the-art government-approved facilities right here? Also why has this presence of pesticides never shown up in any testing done by the government and the tea companies themselves ever?

GPI says it's under no obligation to share tea companies' data with the likes of pesticide combine Crop Care Federation of India (CCFI) who it claims is worried more about a threat to business than sustainability of the tea sector
Why is GPI refusing to share data with all parties involved? This is not only scientifically and ethically wrong but in this case, criminal too. Aren't tea-growers and pesticide companies, the main stakeholders in a debate like this? And yet, GPI went only after brands, which simply put names on boxes and sell tea.

But tea companies like Unilever, Tata have supported and agreed to GPI's recommendations
What could they do? GP consciously chooses soft targets, out there as a brand. This is consistent with their pattern of going after Hewlett Packard, Apple and other brands. They know that it is easier to bring these brands down to their knees. Once one buckles, they use that as a cookie-cutter taking it around to other brands and using it to pressurise them. Here too GPI used that strategy.

If what you're saying is right, wouldn't these brands take legal action against GPI instead of accepting findings?
The only reason they might not have (done so) is because of the time it takes with litigation. It becomes a win-win situation for GPI who would continue its hit-and-run campaigns and bleed the brand while the case drags on. We have seen this happening in the West too. Now whenever GP flags an issue, brands like Unilever simply say yes to their recommendations and 'come forward to engage with GP.' (Smiles)

Trials for genetically modified corn began in Maharashtra on August 5 despite opposition
The opposition to them is baffling as this will create more food and also help farmers. You know development means food and energy security and infrastructure. And you see how opponents of development are doing India a lot of harm. Despite their best efforts at undermining it, India at number 2 (just after China) is today an agricultural superpower. They are followed by Indonesia and Brazil. And the US is not among the top 5 anymore. If rapid advances like these require embracing technology why oppose it?

But there are concerns about contamination given that the distance between Monsanto's trial site and the nearest field of corn is only 200 metres?
The idea of contamination is just another figment of imagination. In fact this happens naturally all the time. Bacteria have been doing this since evolution.

Activists insist on the co-relation between introduction of Bt Cotton and spurt in farmer suicides
It's again a case of being selective with data. Do you know that over 89% suicides happen in urban India and only a little over 10% happen in rural areas according to Government of India statistics? Also not all the rural suicides are farmer suicides brought on by agricultural distress. Even if you hold up these statistics with the global suicide map, you'll find that India's rate of suicide is equal to that of Sweden which is on the lowest side. Incidentally suicide rates are highest in countries like the US, Russia and Japan. This data is not often brought up because it doesn't suit agendas.

Despite Fukushima you keep insisting nuclear energy is the safest
Because it is... Tell me, was there even a single death due to radiation exposure in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster? Neither the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) not the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Hiroshima, found any evidence that the nuclear meltdown in Japan in 2011 will increase cancer rates/birth defects since no one was exposed to radiation. No workers at the plant died of exposure. Two people, swept away by the waves, following the tsunami, died of drowning. So isn't it an overreaction when people use Fukushima as a reason to say nuclear energy should be banned?

The floods in Jammu and Kashmir this year have renewed the debate on global warming
It is rather fanciful that the green lobby seems to blame everything on global warming. If it warms two degrees, hopefully more in Canada in the North it would be a good thing. Carbon dioxide is a trace essential gas in the atmosphere and though it is one of the most important nutrients for all life on the planet, it is not the control knob of the Earth's climate.

There are so many climate variables that we can't control and when you do an experiment you have to control all the variables except the one you are studying if you want to get a clean result. Here there are variables which we do not even understand. How can we control them? So it is virtually impossible to think of an experiment where we would be able to tweeze out the impact of carbon dioxide versus the hundreds of other variables at work. Instead of trying to predict climate, we could look at means to lessen impact of floods through better water management by building dams...

But what about India's track record with big dams which have caused displacement and misery?
The Three Gorges dam in China displaced a million plus, but see what it has done for the region. Huge tracts have become irrigated which means more food. The annual floods and devastation they brought in their wake have been reduced since there is better control on the water. So dams bring power, irrigation and also stop or reduce floods. Its a travesty that India hasn't been able to capitalise on its bountiful natural resources and comes seventh after China, Brazil, Canada, US, Russia and even Norway when it comes to tapping hydel power. Displacement is part of the development narrative. It cannot be wished away. A small sacrifice for the greater common good can't be all that bad.

Your choice of phrase --'greater common good'-- reminds one of Arundhati Roy's namesake essay on the Narmada dam...
Writers like her make emotive arguments which can seem very powerful but rarely offer alternatives. As much as it seems appealing, emotions are best left out of the decision-making process because we then get poorly made bad decisions, the consequences of which have to be faced by many. Organisations like Greenpeace who have made it lucrative to obstruct are helping this process. When the green lobby says it against mining does it stop riding bicycles, texting on cell phones, typing on laptops and riding the mass transit?