Question: [Tremblay translates the questions] Okay, we have a student here from Magdeburg, and she is asking why you are bringing this question of ecology out so much, and why do you find ecology so bad? And, why do think that ecology is such a negative thing?

LaRouche: Well, first of all, because it's scientifically incompetent as taught; and it's dangerous to society. You get a perfect example of this in the destruction of the U.S. economy. The United States could afford ecology, only because it was sucking the blood of the rest of the world: We have no railroads; our power system is disintegrating; our water system is disintegrating; our health-care system is disintegrating, in a way that Andrea Fischer [ph] tried to disintegrate it, under the new Schroeder government. And, what is happening generally to the educational system, is also disintegrating.

So, these things, which are the environment, are being destroyed by the ideas, which are being made popular by the environmentalist movement.

Now, I wrote this small book, essentially, or published this small book, with my writings included, on The Economics of the Noösphere. It's actually dealing with my view of the implications of the work of the great Russian scientist Vladimir Vernadsky. There is no such thing as a "good nature." Man is essential to nature. Man must make the desert bloom. And, we are responsible for this planet; as a species, we are responsible. We are responsible for developing the total environment. We are responsible for preventing ecological catastrophes. Therefore, we are responsible: To deal with these problems, we must have the equivalent of what people call "energy." And, it's not just quantity of energy, the way the entire ecology movement, with all these crazy windmills-- it's insane! When I see these windmills, I say, "Where is Don Quixote when we need him?"

Because, what we need--there's no such thing as "energy"-- quantity of energy. This is insane! This is stupid! There's no scientific concept of energy: There's a concept of "power"! Power is only approximated mathematically by what we call "energy-flux density." The quality of energy is measured, by the intensity of energy, per square centimeter. The importance of energy, is not energy as a measurable quantity. It's a question of what form it occurs in.

Now, obviously, in the history of the planet, energy, in the form of life, is preferable to energy in the form of non-life. Energy in the form of explicitly human activity is more important and more powerful, than energy expressed in the form of non-human energy. For example, the Kyoto reforms and so forth, of environmental reforms, are anti-scientific, totally insane, in their effects--would destroy the planet.

So, the problem is with the ecology movement, is the ecology movement has been based, since its inception, on insane ideas. What you need is, actually, the equivalent of a sane ecology, as opposed to the present, insane one. The present ecology is anti- development ecology; what you need is a pro-development ecology, for the improvement of the planet. So, the problem is, we need a scientific ecology; what we have presently, which is popularized, is an anti-scientific ecology, which is totally incompetent and dangerous.

There's nothing wrong with defending the environment, but you have to defend it, not destroy it: The present ecology movement will destroy it.

What you have to do, for ecology, you have to get Minister Trittin [ph] to sit down for a tattoo. And on his neck, visible above the collar, you tattoo one word: "Pfand" [the German equivalent of "return for deposit"]--as on an empty bottle.

Tremblay: [amid much laughter, after having a hard time hearing the word "pfand"] Yes! We're so blocked already, Lyn, that we can't understand what you're saying. We're all collecting our bottles here, so much, and getting empty in the head!

She's not satisfied yet, Lyn. She says that she thinks we do need a good kind of ecology. It's not against science. Where she goes to university, they're developing technologies to improve to ecology around her and around the world, and it actually does happen; you do have these technologies being developed. I think that the economy in Germany is preventing us from using ecologically sound technology, or in general. And that's her comment to what you said.

Yes. In Magdeburg, where she comes from, the university town, the only industry that exists is the windmill industry, and she's not denying it.

She's saying that nature is in danger, and how come you don't react to nature being in danger?

LaRouche: Because nature is not in danger. It's only in danger from the ecologists.

See, what is taught is ecology; the basic principles taught, as ecology in universities today, are essentially incompetent. They don't understand what they're doing. And therefore, they think they have ideas which are useful, but they're actually not.

For example, let's take the case of transportation policy in Germany and the United States. In Germany and the United States, the railway system is being destroyed. It's being destroyed by economic policy, by pricing policy, by other policies. Now, when you think of the impact--you take the destruction of railroads, and the building up of highways, instead: This is absolutely insane, from every standpoint.

Now, also the way the cities are evolving, because of real estate policies. The most efficient kind of residential area, is an area, in which you have an urban area, surrounded by an agricultural area. Now, in this area, most of the alternative places of employment, will be available at short distance from where people live. They will not commute, as some people do, daily, from Wiesbaden far to the west--going maybe an hour and a half, two hours every day, each way. They live out there, at a distance, they go along the superhighway, and other highways, to get to employment in Frankfurt, Wiesbaden, and Mainz, and so forth. This is insane! You want to talk about pollution, this kind of reliance upon the automobile and highway, instead of efficient modern rail-based rapid transit, is insane. The development of cities and the development of real estate values and properties, and management, and taxation--to destroy the former conception of the city in Germany, which was historically determined functionally, and replace it with this vast suburban sprawl, as some kind of life- style change, is destroying the environment.

Now, what you need is, high-density power source. If you have lower-density power sources, such as these crazy windmills, you are actually destroying the environment. What are useful, of course, is high-productive farms. If you destroy the farms, by destroying them the way they're being destroyed in the United States and Germany, today, you are actually destroying the environment. When you drop prices--you no longer have an Agricultural Ministry in Germany. When the farmer is properly maintained, the farmer develops the land, by farming methods: That's the cheapest and best way to have a good environment--

Tremblay: She [dis]agrees with you! They're saying that the Greenies, that their policies are creating a better situation for farmers, and that what the Greenies are doing is great, and they don't understand why you're against them.

LaRouche: No, the Greenies are not good for the farmers. The Greenies of the world, as they are now functioning, as the Green Party for example, as you see the World Wide Fund for Nature and others, around the world: They are destroying the environment! With their insane policies.

The point is, this is a very important issue, but people because of--this a typical problem, caused by the spread of the counterculture, the so-called anti-industrial society culture, the "post-industrial society culture," which is a cult; it's an insane cult. But, people going to universities, they go into activities, they find social acceptance of certain ideas which are actually destructive. And, they come to believe them, because they're conditioned to believe them. But, they're not good.

These ideas are insane, they're unscientific. And, if you want to talk about ecology, don't talk about ecology, talk about the ecology parties; then, you see insanity. All of these parties are insane. The only thing they're good on, is when they oppose a war in Iraq--otherwise, they're no good.

Tremblay: [translating] Is it bad to think that the rain forests should be saved? Do you think it's bad to think that? That's what the Greenies want!

LaRouche: No, the Greenies say they want that. They're destroying it, actually. They don't have any understanding of what they're doing; they're totally incompetent. And, their incompetence in itself is a menace to the planet. What they should do, is fold up, and go back, and if they want to study ecology, you study the work of Vernadsky first. And, when you really understand Vernadsky, then come back and talk about ecology.

Question: But, what are your concepts about ecology?

LaRouche: Oh, I've written a lot about it. The problem is, that I've looked at the so-called ecology studies, the environmental studies things, from universities today, as they're funded: Most of the studies I've seen are scientifically fraudulent studies--incompetent. And therefore, the opinion today, is largely based on the circulation and promotion of studies, which are actually scientifically incompetent.

Tremblay: Are there any other questions?

He asking a question: He says that he has spoken to people who say that the best thing would be that man didn't exist on Earth at all, that would be the best thing for ecologists.

LaRouche: That's exactly it. These are fascist ideas, obviously.

Tremblay: Lyn, your wife is raising her hand.

LaRouche: Oh good!

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: I think that Lyn should say, that in Dubai, how they reclaimed the desert [inaud.]

Tremblay: Did you hear what Helga said? She said you should comment on what you said in Dubai, about the deserts.

LaRouche: Yeah! Well, first of all, I think that people should look at Vernadsky. I don't think people should--. At this point, I think people should avoid all discussion of ecology and environmentalism, until they have first studied in the implications of Vernadsky's work, which is the only existing scientific-- [stops for translation], because they're dealing with incompetent ideas which have become popularized. And people don't realize that they have been conditioned, like a conditioned reflex, to respond to certain things, which have no scientific basis in fact. Which is why I've use Vernadsky as a reference point for people to begin to understand what the real problems are. Because, if someone does not understand the discoveries of Vernadsky, which are a summation of a lot of work before him, one doesn't understand anything about the planet.

And, so this idea, all these studies, which are financed by the Club of Rome and all these kinds of people, this is all nonsense.

For example, the very idea that man is a menace to the planet, that man is destroying the environment: This is insane. There is no scientific basis for that. Now, for example, the planet is being destroyed by free trade, environmentally. Also, the ecology of parts of the planet is being destroyed by the environmentalists, like the World Wide Fund for Nature, whose programs in Africa are destroying whole types of livestock.

We're headed for a global catastrophe, if we don't stop this World Wildlife Fund program. This is a scientific question; it's not a question of opinion or feeling--it's a scientific factual question.

Now, we were in Abu Dhabi, recently. I gave an address on the area. Now, if you look back at history, you will find that the planet has gone through a lot of Ice Ages, over the past 2 million years. You could get Dino to qualify that. He was looking at that some years ago. Do you know how many meters of ice were standing on the area, where you're now sitting, say, 25,000 years ago? Where were people living, when that was happening?

So, the planet is a process. Now, in that period, in which there was so much ice on Europe and North Asia, what was happening in Africa and the Middle East. Go back 19,000 years: What is the history of the planet, the geological history of the planet, for the past 19,000 years? Nineteen thousand years ago, the coasts were located at points 400 feet, generally, below the present level of the oceans. North Africa was a virtual jungle; the Sahara was an area of lush growth; the Saudi peninsula was an area of lush growth. The desert area into Central Asia, the now-desert, was an area lush growth, as the ice melted.

So, there is no permanent, simple pattern of a simplistic type on this planet for ecology.

Now, look at the Gulf area: Now, the Gulf area is the cheapest source of petroleum on the planet: For the next 80 years--if no catastrophe occurs, for the next 80 years, the Gulf will be the greatest and the cheapest source of the world's petroleum available. No other area of the world known, could compete with the Gulf.

But burning petroleum is a problem. Do you want the world to depend upon burning petroleum? Well, petroleum is actually a fossil fuel, really, because it will tend to be produced, wherever reducing conditions of the proper type are present. But, it is a chemical feed-stock, for such things as pharmaceutical industries, agriculture, and so forth; plastics and whatnot. The best forms of energy, of power production, are actually today, nuclear, and potentially thermonuclear sources. These are the most efficient, and cleanest, and the environmentally most favorable.

So therefore, look at what's happening in the United Arab Emirates, where I was, in Abu Dhabi. Now, in the past 20-odd years, this area, which is, say Abu Dhabi--there were two large buildings there then; they were old buildings: Now, you find a modern city, with people from all over the Arab world, living as residents there; abundant water supplies for the city, produced largely by desalination and by water reprocessing. You see an island which was becoming a desert, is now been turned back into a great experimental station for all forms of wildlife; forms of wildlife, which were becoming almost extinct in Northern Africa, are now flourishing in the United Arab Emirates.

So, potentially, this great desert area of the world, could become a very productive area. It would take two generations to do the job properly.

Then, we have an area now, which is an area of conflict, called the Middle East, which is centered, actually on Southwest Asia, but it actually involves border areas, like Transcaucasia, Iran, and so forth. This is one of the great sources of strategic of threat to all civilization. And, the conflict in this area, which is largely related to the lack of water, is a continuing strategic threat to Europe, to Africa, to Asia, as a whole.

Now, take the case of Israel and Palestine: The Israelis have been increasing the Israeli population, by immigrants. They supported this policy, not only by stealing land from the Palestinians, but by a war in Lebanon, to steal the Litani River water; a war in Syria to get the Golan Heights water supply. The situation is, there's not enough water in the area, available, to meet the needs of the entire population now living in the Israel- Palestine area.

This is typical of the problem of the threat to humanity, of the lack of water, lack of development in this region. So that, if we're intelligent in Europe, as well as in the United States, we are going to act, to bring about a development perspective for the arid regions of Northern Africa, and of the Middle East. In the process, we will be bring what, to bear? We will be bringing life to the desert. And bringing life to the desert, is one of the ways of making the climate of the planet more moderate, to prevent great catastrophes.

The problem is, now, is to take examples like this; look at these things, the way I look at them. Not the way the stupid things that are taught in the propaganda programs of the ecologists and so forth; but, look at these things from the standpoint of generations past, and generations of the future. What are we going to do with this planet? Throw away everything that has become popularized, around the ideas of ecology, and start as if from a clean slate, and look at the reality, the facts, realistically, without the prejudice of these crazy ideologies that are spread around. And, as I say, look at it from the standpoint of Vernadsky, who gives you a point of scientific reference. And, anyone who has not studied that, and has not deal with it from Vernadsky's standpoint, their ideas about ecology are obviously incompetent, because they're contrary to all science!

And, on top of it, many of these ideas are criminal.

-30-