Doron Levin nails down the motives of environmentalists -- and it's not all about "saving the planet".
The folks against sports cars in Europe and big sport utility vehicles in the U.S. often are same ones who hate McMansion-sized homes, corporate jets, jumbo freezers, yachts, 60-inch flat-screens TVs, overnight-delivery services and other trappings of Western-style wealth and energy use.Do people demonize these goods because they can't afford them? Or because they think others shouldn't have them? Proposals to limit carbon dioxide often sound like basic opposition to prosperity and rising living standards.
Outside of a handful of command economies, few today would agree that a central authority ought to regulate who owns what. But attacking those who ``waste'' energy achieves the same goal.
Many ardent environmentalists are convinced that the planet is in peril. Why can't they be just a bit cautious, humble or skeptical in their advocacy of reduced energy consumption, which in turn must mean reduced global economic growth?
Leftists use "environmentalism" to disguise their true motive: control everyone and everything to bring about their "ideal" world -- circa 1984.
I think some environmentalists actually believe in what they are doing. They have made the Earth their religion. Just like Islam condones martyrdom, Environmentalism condones weakening the human race.
Yeah, I guess there really are some "true believers", but I bet the leaders aren't.
What sort of environmentalism, if any, do you advocate, MW?
There are legitimate environmental concerns, such as pollution and resource extinction, that would be in everyone's interest to address.
I understand your frustration with the PR campaigns and pressure groups (green peace etc. -- it's annoying but it could be argued that some kind of exaggerated / simplified language is necessary to communicate with the non-technical masses), but what I don't understand is how you can dismiss the reams of peer-reviewed scientific literature covering things like global warming, reduced biodiversity, pollution in the upper atmosphere, ice-cap melting etc. Is that part of the conspiracy too?
There's much about Environmentalism (capitalised) that annoys me -- personal wind mills and solar panels for our roofs are stupid, wasteful, and exploit the good intentions of the ignorant -- but it's pretty hard for me to ignore the science at the core of it.
jez: As for global warming, I've posted about my skepticism ad nauseum.
Reduced biodiversity is an interesting issue, but pretty intractable. The only solution I see is increasing wealth which generally leads to people having fewer kids. Fewer kids means less land needed for humans, which leaves more space for animals. But I don't think you should legislate any of that.
I'm not familiar with any problems with pollution in the upper atmosphere apart from the debate over anthropogenic global warming.
Ice cap melting is basically a myth.