<< KIM BEAZLEY'S FRIEND ~ MAIN ~ TALE OF TWO AUSSIES >>
CHILDREN TAUGHT WELL
Young Australians are smarter than older people, a new report has revealed:
Young Australians are less environmentally aware than older people, a new report has revealed.
The young are less likely to regard themselves as environmentalists, to be avid recyclers or to believe that urgent action is needed to avoid serious environmental damage, the Australia Institute report says.
I like these maverick youngsters! Elderly Clive Hamilton, however, isn’t happy:
Institute executive director Dr Clive Hamilton said that over the past decade Australia’s national political leaders had consistently downplayed the threats posed by environmental degradation, especially with respect to climate change.
“So perhaps it is not surprising that Howard’s Children are characterised by apathy and scepticism,” he said.
The Sydney Morning Herald, the Melbourne Age, the ABC, enviro-propagandists, the ALP, teachers, the Democrats, pointless commie “institutes”, and the Greens have been screaming apocalyptic environmentalism at these kids since they were born, and the kids aren’t buying it. Even Kim Beazley gets the message, now distancing the ALP from Green extremism:
The Greens predictably accuse Labor of selling out. That won’t break Beazley’s heart. Being seen as too close to the Greens last year was a negative for Labor.
Actually, deranged enviro-folk are a negative for everybody:
The FBI says the United States’ top domestic terrorism threat is environmental and animal rights activists who have turned to arson and explosives.
Some of the activists also target companies abroad who have policies they disagree with. Groups such as the Animal Liberation Front, the Earth Liberation Front and the Britain-based SHAC, or Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, are “way out in front” in terms of damage and number of crimes, said John Lewis, the FBI’s deputy assistant director for counterterrorism.
In other environmental news, Japan fights back against Australian whale claims:
The Japanese Embassy has a message for the readers of The Daily Telegraph: “There is no such thing as an Australian whale.”
That was the response of embassy staff in Canberra when The Daily Telegraph paid a visit - whale in tow - to seek answers on behalf of our outraged nation.
Outraged? To hell with that. Australians—especially the young—would probably like to eat the big delicious creatures.
UPDATE. UK Greenpeace goon Stephen Tindale plans to target low-cost airfares. Way to win the youth vote, Tindale!
Stephen Tindale hasthisto say:
People who are taking environmentally damaging forms of transport ie air travel and road travel should be paying the full costs.
He still flies but only on business when somebody else is picking up the full costs. What a guy!
We got POUNDED with evironmentalism at school, everyone (except this ultra left faction of girls who loved the ultra left teachers) hated it. We hated it to such a degree that it was joked that if we simply removed the environment altogether, then the problem would be solved as it simply wouldn’t exist anymore.
Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 05 19 at 01:30 PM • permalinkHoward’s Children are characterised by apathy and scepticism
John Howard -truly the father of a nation. At least that explains the votes.
Oh, and as for targetting cheap air fares for elimination, we’ve had a group in my own country that has been doing that for as long as I can remember. It’s called Air Canada.
Posted by localharbor on 2005 05 19 at 02:26 PM • permalinkIf we’re going to eat the whales, we’ll need a bigger barbecue.
Posted by Ken Summers on 2005 05 19 at 03:44 PM • permalinkThe young are less likely to regard themselves as environmentalists, to be avid recyclers or to believe that urgent action is needed to avoid serious environmental damage, the Australia Institute report says.
Sounds like they’re more envitonmentally aware than the previous generation. Or, at least, more accurately aware.
The FBI says the United States’ top domestic terrorism threat is environmental and animal rights activists who have turned to arson and explosives.
So presumably it is now illegal to give donations or any sort of funding to them. Works for me.
Posted by Rachel Corrie's Flatmate on 2005 05 19 at 07:22 PM • permalinkSo presumably it is now illegal to give donations or any sort of funding to them.
Presumably yes, but that should be difficult to enforce for the FBI…I wouldn’t be shocked if a rather sizeable number of Democratic Congressmen (err, Congress-entities) and Senators have likely made donations to these groups at some point.
PW — Shoot, they’ve probably taken money from them… “I will show my support for your cause by graciously allowing you to shower me with graft…”
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 05 19 at 08:08 PM • permalink“Young just don’t care anymore about important issues like the environment”.
“Young just don’t care anymore about important issues like redistributionist politics”.
“Young just don’t care anymore about important issues like increased funding for the arts”.
“Young just don’t care anymore about important issues like the plight of Iraqi insurgents”.
“Young just don’t care anymore about important issues like the faked moon landing”.
Truly a phrase that should work for everyone and everything.
I see Australian whales all the time. Waddling down the streets, squashed into undersized clothing, sucking on gaspers and filling their faces with fat food.
Oh, wait. They’re pigs.
Posted by Tony.T.Teacher on 2005 05 19 at 08:52 PM • permalinkAnd Tindale has it backwards (well, that’s a bit more polite than “he’s full of s*t”)
For three days after 9/11/2001 air travel in North America was essentially forbidden. No jetliners means no contrails. University researchers collected the data and did the math, and discovered that North America warmed (by, IIRC, 0.13 degrees Celsius) during that three days.
This suggests a strategy to combat Glowball Worming that even liberal politicians should love: All countries should guarantee their citizens a periodic overseas vacation, with a subsidy—the farther away the better. Australians have an advantage, of course, since everything is “overseas,” but North Americans should visit Australia and the Far East, while Europeans should go to America (both North and South.) Keeps the airlines running, improves International Understanding, and the contrails will form cirrus clouds that reflect insolation and cool the planet. By tuning the amount of the subsidy, any amount of warming or cooling can be accommodated. Warming? Lay on 747s for Timbuctoo. Cooling? Sorry, folks, the ticket will only take you to the next state.
Best of all, it generates huge flows of cash that politicians can both take credit for (to impress constituents) and dip into discreetly from time to time (to support their, ahem, *habits*). What more could one ask?
Regards,
RicAnother of “Dr.” Clive Hamilton’s reports suggested that - shock, horror - teenage boys sometimes look at porn on that newfangled in-ter-net. Maybe they’re too busy doing that to worry about the ‘vironment. Anyway, the anecdotal evidence from my friends who have kids is that the little tackers - who love nothing better than ‘rules’, the more senseless the better, that they can use against their naughty parents - are the keenest defenders of separating recyclables, etc. Then they grow up.
Young just don’t care anymore about important issues like the environment”.
Actually, the correct parsing of that phrase is “Why these kids today, with their…” Of course that entails the boomers admitting they’re getting old, which those perpetual adolescents will be denying as we hammer the box lid down on them…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 05 19 at 10:31 PM • permalinkhad to use dictionary.com for ‘recycling’ . Im still puzzled ;)
Posted by W i l l i a m on 2005 05 19 at 11:02 PM • permalinkWhales have enourmous brains, intensive pair bonding and rich communication codes
Jack, you missed out the most important part: they’re delicious!
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 05 20 at 12:01 AM • permalinkI spend a lot of time with Generation Y people in an industry where the left mantra is orthodoxy for those of my age. While wearing constant flack from the Baby Boomers and Gen X’s I notice those under 30 are as sceptical of the Left and the enviro doomsayers as they are of the right. This generation is one of the most educated and thoughtful in history and guess what, they realise all that lefty crap rammed down their throats at school was in fact, crap. A significant number, not all, now look at conservative politics with fresh minds and see rational policies based on truths.
An example; Some aged lefty will joke about GWB being thick to a group of these kids. I casually mention his academic achievements and ask him to compare his own. Aged lefty flips out, kids drift away. These kids are razor sharp detectors of hypocrisy.
Posted by Dean McAskil on 2005 05 20 at 12:17 AM • permalinkThe Tindale article deserves more attention. Ther Guardian does such a great job of showing up Tindale as an idiot (way to alienate the unions), a hypocrite (let the little people freeze in Blackpool, I have important Greenie conferences to jet off to), and a twit (his comment about job losses at Solihull was worthy of Marie Antoinette) that I almost think it was deliberate.
Yes, not only are environmentalists terrorists, anti-man, but really a movement created by the Fabians to advance towards a one world socialist government. Socialism was losing the ability to be sold on its merits (finally after failing 100 times) and had to be re-packaged. If man can be convinced that the earth will explode he will gladly sell off his God given rights to freedom and join a one world government to save the earth.
We were suppose to run out of food, be swarmed by killer bees, and burned to a crisp by the sun in the late 70s. Still waiting…
Hey Jack- it didn’t seem to bother Geoffrey Dahmer, Armin Miewes, Issei Sagawa or Argentine Rugby teams. BTW- at least the enviro-nazis have softened their loathing of motor racing.
Oh that reminds me of an ABC 7:30 report some years back about some dynamiting of forests in SE NSW.
Happened on the weekend, and a video camera was conventiently there to record it all.
Mentioned once on the ABC and then silence.
The timber company was blamed for it, but as the story had no legs, it quckly became obvious that it were the Greenies who created this mayhem.
Maybe 7 years ago ?
In other environmental news, it seems Maddox has a up new article up about the horrors of MTV mating with airhead celebrities.
Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 05 20 at 04:15 AM • permalinkHey Jack, do you see many Aussies or Americans eating whales? your posts and vast ‘linking’ talents are wasted here. Try posting at http://www.timo_blair_san.com.jp . cheers!
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 05 20 at 04:59 AM • permalink#29 Hamish:
The Age article finished with “So perhaps it is not surprising that Howard’s Children are characterised by apathy and scepticism” ... who is the author referring to ... Howard Stern ?The farmers will be unemployed while the whales are doing just fine.
The reasons that farmers might be unemployed are much the same as those relating to manufacturing industries here. Somebody else can do it cheaper.
The reason salination (of soils) occurs is that farmers have been engaged in irrigation - hardly their fault for following accepted wisdom of the times. The world has been trying and succeeding for many years to produce more so that the teeming millions of humans could go on having a life.
Most of the arguments pushed by the scarier variety of “environmentalists” and punks like PETA would see more mass starvation. Tell us how many people you find acceptable as a world population, and how you propose to dispose of the remainder.‘The young are less likely to regard themselves as environmentalists, to be avid recyclers or to believe that urgent action is needed to avoid serious environmental damage ... ‘
Meaning the young are ‘less likely’ to have the obsessions of baby boomers.
Remember when baby boomers complained about the ‘generation gap’ and cleaved to it like petty criminals to a court appeal?
The ‘gap’ has returned, baby boomers.
Now jump off it.
nwab, if we are to go off topic, and be worried about rivers, how about Canadian sturgeons possibly driven into extinction because of the Kyoto Accords?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 05 20 at 07:30 AM • permalinkJeffS, the salination of Australia’s waterways is possibly the biggest environmental this continent faces. How is that off topic? I am suggesting that if our kids don’t care about this (and they instead adopt blogstrop’s “wisdom of the times”) then we are fucked. How anyone can suggest that preservation of the environment is unimportant is beyond me.
As for sturgeons, I know little of this and will follow your suggested link. Given that Kyoto is very young and yet to impact much at all, I’d suggest you are engaging in “doom and gloom”, but I will see once I read up.
the news that mars is facing serious climate change and global warming that threatens its southern ice cap shows just how much damage the USA SUV craze is doing!
Posted by Astonished on 2005 05 20 at 07:44 AM • permalink#42 Stevo;
I believe they are referring to our leader John Howard.
And my article link has changed. You can read it here
True, nwab, desalination is a serious concern. For example, the Colorado River (here in the USA) is so bad that the water is desalinated before it enter Mexicon. This arrangement is by international treaty. Irrigation does this, although I am confused at to how the farmers became unemployeed—were they bought out by corporations, couldn’t compete in the market place, or did they turn their farms into untillable land by the inappropriate use of fertilizers and irrigation? Or some other reason? My experience is with problems in the USA, not Australia.
OTOH, I am not engaging in “doom and gloom”. I live in the Pacific Northwest, and the loss of fish habitat due to logging, mining, and hydroelectric dams is well documented. Add in overfishing by tribes, fishing fleets, and sporting, and the effect is real. The loss of that particular breed of sturgeon is not the first species thus threatened. The scenario painted in the article is very real.
While this doesn’t impact Australia directly, there are side effects. The added push for electrical generation sources that won’t add to the so-called carbon dioxide pollution problem is not only ironic, it is symptomatic of the lack of foresight by many environmentalists. Clearly, there’s a greater degree of complexity of human interaction with the environment than even the so-called environmentalists can anticipate, given that reaching the CO2 emission goals comes with an environmental price.
Will the supporters of the Kyoto Accords accept the extinction of any non-human species to reach those goals? If so, what does this say about their moral position on saving the environment? [Hint: consider the dilemna faced by the pacifist who must decide on killing a human being in order to protect his or her family]
To me, the one factor that the Kyoto Accords ignored (aside from the junk science, I mean), was the human factor. People are part of the ecology as much as the whales and the sturgeon, but are driven by economic issues in order to survive.
In turn, this emphasizes the point of Tim’s post: there’s a reason to view the environmental community with scepticism. A majority of the activists clearly don’t have a clue as to what they are doing.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 05 20 at 08:14 AM • permalinkJack, #23:
It is not nice to eat someone who is familiar to you.
In my experience, that’s the only way to avoid charges.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2005 05 20 at 08:22 AM • permalinkWhen I have more time I’ll post the joke about the guy trying to hit on the airline employee in an airport bar.
It’s been more than 12 hours, jlchydro. We’re still waiting.
Posted by Some0Seppo on 2005 05 20 at 10:01 AM • permalinkAgree Hamish, parent of one of those who thinks the likes of Clive Hamilton or Bob Brown (had to gratuitously attack him) are oxygen stealers.
Murph you are too kind. If only it was themselves alone that they flagellated.
Hamilton has to be one of history’s great wowsers. We enjoy ourselves too much, aren’t spiritual enough, waste food and now are kids aren’t any good enough.
Modern history a no go area for youth whereas ancient history is growing. Apparently because they couldn’t be blamed for anything in ancient. Clive would no doubt consider it a further demonstration of youth’s moral bankruptcy.Howard’s children, who does this guy think he is patronising today’s youth.
Can imagine Clive Hamilton in dark somber dress with a tall conical hat and standing next to a pond watching to see if we drowned
Nothing turned me against environmentalism so much as having been exposed to it in school.
Kids are not stupid, and it doesn’t take very long for them to notice the huge disconnect between what they are being taught and the reality around them. It certainly has nothing to do with what politicians say, except for the Greenies, maybe.
All good points, JeffS, and well made. I find myself agreeing with most of what you have said. The links were useful too, and I don’t dispute the information there.
I would suggest that the distrust and dislike that Blair, yourself, and others have of the environmental movement is mirrored by those – like myself – who distrust profit-driven capitalism when it comes to looking after the world around us.
On the one hand, (some of) the greenies may be short-sighted, and perhaps understandably can be preoccupied with evening up the political ledger. This may lead to rash and ill-considered actions, such as those you rightly oppose. This is what happens when a cause is reactionary.
On the other hand, capitalist industrial development is similarly short-sighted given its focus upon quarterly or annual earnings. And capitalism’s environmental track record speaks for itself. I don’t have a lot of faith in the ability of corporations – like the one I work for – to clean up after themselves.
I feel that we need to steady the ship on this debate – take out the rhetoric and the adversarialism (is that a proper –ism?). Discussions about the state of the environment should be based on science rather than politics. No, I don’t agree with Blair, and the environment as an issue is much more than an opportunity for political point-scoring.
Blair’s continued effort to discredit and demoralise the green movement is as destructive and counter-productive as the actions of extremists within the green movement itself. While I hope that this (Blair’s) post is a bit tongue-in-cheek, the fact is that many won’t see it that way. Surely there could be some journalistic responsibility taken in this area.
And JeffS, sorry. The comment about farmers being unemployed refers to the current drought. Small farmers are against the wall, and it’s at times like these that they either receive government assistance (which the Howard government is currently considering, perhaps a few years late) or are bought out by agricultural companies.
‘Ten years to get it right.’
That was David Suzuki’s catchphrase back in 1987. Which was, um, how many years ago?Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2005 05 21 at 04:17 AM • permalinknwab, the distrust is indeed a mutual feeling:
Environmentalist movement: generally short sighted, emotionally driven, reactionary campaigns based on doom and junk science.
Profit-driven capitalism: immediate profits are the priority, with longterm plans generally focused increasing profits with minimum capital investment.
Throwing in my two bits worths…..my personal experience in this area, while limited to sub-regional in scope, is that any sustainable environmental solution must be economicaly viable. That solution can’t be sustained by government fiat alone.
IMHO, the major roadblock to greenies in their quest to Save The World, is that many wrongly assume one or more of the following:
1. People are not part of the environment.
2. The environment and the (human) economy are not linked.
3. People don’t understand #1 and #2.
Environmental socialism (which is what a lot of the greenies are crying for) is the worse case scenario. It will work no better than the Soviet Union, because the USSR could not sustain itself economically. Someone has to pay the bill, even if direct cash payments are not involved. Pumping money and other resources into any environmental project (“environmental welfare”) simply to save the environment is practical only on a very limited basis (e.g., providing by passes on dams so that migrating fish can reach their breeding grounds).
Yet most solutions proposed by the environmentalists demand some form of environmental socialism and welfare. They are working against the most powerful system in the world: profit driven capitalism.
Add in the role of government, which varies from knee jerk greenie reactionary nonsense to complete disregard for any environmental concerns, and naturally the relationship is going to adverse (adversial? :-P).
The result is that we see the same posturing and screeching from the environmentalists that the USA and Australia saw from the Democrats and ALP during the last round of national elections. A platform and strategy based on wishful thinking and misunderstanding of the electorate, the results of which still confuse and confound the losers to this day.
Perhaps the environmentalists could learn from this, eh?
A better approach for the environmentalists could be to work with the economy, recognize the human factor (which includes survival), and stop the reactionary tactics. That way, they’ll alienate fewer people.
This approach does happen from time to time. It generally works.
Now, will profit driven capitalists work with the environmentalists? Yes, I think so, if their self-interests (which may not be the same as the environmental interests) are satisfied, and they are not totally evil people. Asking for self-sacrice requires that the results has to be worth the cost; after all, there’s only so much charity in the world. That’s part of the human factor.
Thanks for the information on the farmers—you pretty much described what has been happening in the USA for the last generation or so. I have some sympathy for the US farmers, but not a lot, since many of them have been surviving on farm aid from the US government for a generation or three.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 05 21 at 04:46 AM • permalinkPS to nwab:
Blair’s continued effort to discredit and demoralise the green movement is as destructive and counter-productive as the actions of extremists within the green movement itself. While I hope that this (Blair’s) post is a bit tongue-in-cheek, the fact is that many won’t see it that way. Surely there could be some journalistic responsibility taken in this area.
It’s not that Tim is working to discredit the environmental movement He’s pointing out their vigorous efforts to shoot themselves in their collective foot (if you pardon the military metaphor), much like he did during the recent elections.
For clarification, please see the paragraph immediately preceding points #1, #2, and #3 in post 58, above.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 05 21 at 04:59 AM • permalinkI would suggest that the distrust and dislike that Blair, yourself, and others have of the environmental movement is mirrored by those – like myself – who distrust profit-driven capitalism when it comes to looking after the world around us.
Nevermind all the strides the first world has taken in improving the environment in the last 30+ years which was chiefly possible because “profit-driven capitalism” (what a redundancy) has increased those countries’ economic performance to the point that they’re able to spend all that money on environmental protection.
Yeah, I can see why we should try things bass-ackwards from now on. After all, as JeffS mentioned, environmental socialism (as advocated by the majority of greenies these days, hardly only the “extremists”) is able to draw on that obvious success story that all other types of socialism have been in the last 100 years.
And capitalism’s environmental track record speaks for itself.
Try some actual argument next time instead of platitudes, please. Even if those platitudes obviously amount to sincerely-held beliefs of yours.
They are still an environmental nightmare, as I understand, PW. The Caspian Sea, for example, totally enclosed within the former Soviet Union.
Thank you for the excellent counterpoint to my “environmental socialism” rant.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 05 21 at 05:46 AM • permalinkTrue, JeffS, much of what used to comprise the Soviet Union is still an ecological hellhole. Fortunately, the rest of the ex-Communist sphere of influence has been cleaned up quite a bit, including my home country. I’ll take capitalism over the proposed “environmentally sound” systems any day. (Even if I’m not sure that my betters in the EUrocracy think the same way, but that’s a different rant.)
Yeah, PW, capitalism over socialism any day! Glad to hear Germany is improving environmentally, in spite of the EUrocracy.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 05 21 at 08:29 AM • permalinkActually, I suspect I know exactly what kind of capitalistic excesses nwab has in mind (even though he cleverly tries to blame capitalism at-large for them), namely the indiscriminate clearing of rain forests, extensive mining without regard for ecological damages, etc. Unfortunately, blaming capitalism for that is a classic case of confusing the symptom with the disease. As far as I can tell, there are two reasons for why this is going on (loooong post ahead):
In some areas where such activities are nominally forbidden, the problem is a lack of the rule of law, and concurrently often massive corruption. Consequently, the answer isn’t that you forbid capitalism, since that either:
a) isn’t going to work - as though it can when people aren’t respecting laws to begin with. Needless to say, corruption is usually sky-high in socialist countries, too.
Or b) if it’s made to work, it requires a massive police state. Not exactly desirable either.
Of course, in many countries introducing the rule of law would first require the introduction of democracy, but somehow I suspect most environmentalists aren’t so keen on that whole democratization thing that Dubya has going either.
The other problem is that, in poor societies, people simply don’t place as high a value on a clean environment as first-worlders do. (And not just lefties…I suspect even the most Kyoto-hating righty wouldn’t want to live near some of those Russian hellholes we talked about before.) Again, that isn’t a problem that outlawing capitalism is going to solve. You can’t just order people to respect the environment, particularly if they don’t know where next week’s food is going to come from. Or rather, you can order them so, but again that requires the aforementioned police state.
If the last 50-100 years of first world development are any indication, a rise in a country’s prosperity tends to lead to increased respect of the environment, and increased spending on keeping it clean. It thus stands to reason that the best way to protect the environment in the long run is to try to make the entire world as prosperous as possible. And capitalism is the only economic order that has actually proven to be able to persistantly raise people’s economic well-being.
I know lefties notoriously lack the capability (or the will) to take the long-term view and look beyond the immediate consequences of an action, but if they are truly interested in a clean worldwide environment, they should be on the side of capitalism and do their part for allowing the developing countries and the third world to work the market forces to their advantage and catch up with the first world as soon as possible.
Yes, that probably means that the environment in a country like China is going to get worse before it gets better, but the idea should be to make it get better faster, not to merely freeze things at the current level. And I always thought that’s the goal of environmentalism…making things better for future generations.
Good post, PW! You said better it than I did.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 05 21 at 09:15 AM • permalinkPW, you have misunderstood. But you can do the capitalism v socialism dance as long as you like, cos it’s irrelevant. I am not a socialist and was not suggesting that an alternate economic model be sought to replace capitalism. (If you can even call our current system capitalism at all - who makes the cheapest sugar and cotton? Laissez faire my arse. Does anyone really believe that?)
What I was attempting to suggest is that neither the radical greens nor the current breed of corporate capitalists should be entrusted with the care of our environment. Do you understand the concept of compromise? Reconciliation? Cooperation? Why do you insist on this us-and-them-and-we’re-better crap at every opportunity? It sounds like schoolboy blunderbust; hiding ignorance and fear. Honestly, I expected more.
JeffS, on the topic of farmers - and your lack of sympathy for them as they have lived on handouts in the past - are we so sure that producing food should be a business? If the theory of competition that you guys all seem to believe in had run its course there’d possibly be little or no agricultural food production in the US or Australia by now. Subsidies, handouts, tariffs… these things have supported food production systems since the rise of capitalist agriculture. What would happen if they were taken away? Seriously. Some things are not about profit. The food that we eat is one of them, and therefore the environment from which we raise it.
nwab, this is why farm subsidies should be eliminated.
Producing food absolutely should be a business. Having the government control it is the worst possible thing we could do. There’s a reason George Will used to refer to the American midwest as “breadbasket of the Soviet Union”.
Posted by Ken Summers on 2005 05 21 at 10:37 AM • permalinknwab, the only one committing “schoolboy blunderbust; hiding ignorance and fear” is you. People here have shown a lot more patience than I would have trying to explain to you why you just can’t give money to people, such as farmers, to help them both produce more food and keep a cleaner environment. You continue to display ignorance of how the agricultural industry works. You seem to have absorbed the antiquated notion that small farmers = cute + good while big farming combines = Bad! Capitalist Exploiters of the Environment! And you claim now that all you were talking about was the need for environmentalists and capitalists to “cooperate” or something, which is actually not your argument but that of the people here who have been trying to counteract your prissy fulminating. As far as I am concerned you are skirting the edge of trollishness and any further activity such as this (like lecturing and hectoring people on a subject they have obviously given more thought to than you have, and then sneering that you “expected more”—like slavish agreement I guess, since being ostentatiously disapproving is better than calmly arguing the facts, right?) will have consequences that I have so far witheld from you.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 05 21 at 11:51 AM • permalinkKen sums it nicely, nwab. “Socialism” by any name (including “subsidy”) just ain’t gonna work. Just about every socialist state in the world has either fallen, changed from socialism, or is barely keeping their head above water. Granted, capitalism has problems galore, but at least economic pressures do more to clean out deadwood and idiots than any state sponsored purge.
Like it or not, at least capitalism works, unlike socialism.
And Andrea summed it up nicely, as well, just from a different direction.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 05 21 at 01:00 PM • permalinkWhy do you insist on this us-and-them-and-we’re-better crap at every opportunity?
I’m doing that because, frankly, capitalists have shown a lot more of a clue about ecology than environmentalists have about economics.
I am not fundamentally opposed to using state power to protect the environment. Heck, I’m not even fundamentally opposed to something like the Kyoto protocols. (I’m specifically opposed to the Kyoto protocols though, because they’re badly implemented, not cost-effective, won’t change anything, and don’t even include the biggest polluters. All in all, Kyoto has only one purpose, and that isn’t to show that it’s feasible to protect the environment through a worldwide agreement, but that it’s feasible to write such an agreement. Not impressive, to say the least.)
But, getting away from that anti-Kyoto rant, let’s take something simple like a Pigou tax, which is an easy and well-understood concept. In short, you put a price tag on pollution (usually defined as the cost of cleaning it up after the fact), and you levy a tax of equal value on the creator of said pollution. Voìla, the cost of pollution is now born by the one causing it, not by society at large.
Something like that sounds like a good starting point for your vaunted cooperation between those corporate capitalists and environmentalists. But it isn’t. For one, it’s incredibly difficult to get greenie types to think of the environment in money terms to begin with. Why, money is vaguely scary, and more than that, those evil corporate types like money, and we wouldn’t want to lower ourselves to their level, now would we.
So once you’ve actually managed to drill the point into their skull that money is NOT the root of all evil (as is widely misquoted), you’re faced with a second problem: Environmentalists tend to consider any level of pollution a problem per se. From an economist’s point of view, that’s entirely wrong though. But try to explain that, and all reasonable discussion tends to break down. Case in point:
Mother Nature is clearly able to deal with certain levels of pollution on her own. That means that the cost to society of that base level of pollution is effectively zero. More than that, that base level can itself be considered a renewable resource. Say that nature is capable of self-cleaning 1000 units/year of a particular type of pollution. If you have honest-to-goodness environmentalists in government, you may end up with the situation that your local capitalists are only emitting 750 units of that type of pollution. Awesome, right? Wrong. You’ve won nothing. Worse than that, you’ve actually wasted 250 units of a renewable resource that could have been used towards enhancing the welfare and prosperity of your society.
But try getting your average green to think of polluting the environment as using a resource, and 99% of the time you’ll get blank stares. Before they start throwing stuff at you, that is.
Ecologically sustainable economics is pretty clearly the trend of the future, but (to your horror and amazement, I’m sure) it’s actually being driven by those evil corporate types and their economist cronies who are realizing these days that natural (i.e. usually renewable) resources don’t come for free and have actual value, and that taking good care of your resources actually has long-term benefits. Are there occasional excesses? Sure. Do you sometimes need the state to step in and regulate things? Sure. But unfortunately, most greens are ideologically stuck in the 1970s, and they’re hardly who a reasonable person would ask for advice on such regulation. And just to re-emphasize the point: I’m not talking about fringe movements here. At this time, the majority of environmentalists is clearly out of their freakin’ minds (though that is slooowly changing), and demanding that capitalists cooperate with them is roughly analogous to handing somebody the knife to cut off your balls. Not gonna happen, no matter how much you insist that everything will be great if we just hold hands more.
As I said, it’s pretty obvious that your casual sneering at capitalists (and equating them with eco-radicals, as though they’re even remotely the same) is grounded in a sincerely-held and little-examined article of faith in the evilness of the average capitalist. Unfortunately, you’re still extremely short on actual arguments, so now you’re reduced to projecting and claiming that nobody’s addressing your points. What points, I ask? You still haven’t progressed beyond platitudes. Is that what passes for reasoned discourse in your circles? If so, I’m disappointed.
Go and unhide from your own ignorance and fear sometime; honestly, I expect that much.
(Do make your next comeback consist of more than just snide remarks to the effect that we’re all ignorant fools who are afraid to give serious thought to the issue. Don’t give Andrea a reason to make good on her threat.)
Bravo, PW!
But try getting your average green to think of polluting the environment as using a resource, and 99% of the time you’ll get blank stares. Before they start throwing stuff at you, that is.
I think I know why one would get blank stares. “Evil” capitalists see the environment as a mechanism and resource. Most environmentalists see it as “Mother Earth” or “Gaia”, a psuedo-religion, and hence to be worshipped, not harvested. Although they wouldn’t use those terms, of course.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 05 22 at 05:42 AM • permalinkI have to take sides with PW here. True laisse faire is the friend of conservation. Free people desire to make the most output from the least input possible. As far as compromise, one would have to take a step backwards and say that the freedom to exchange with whom we choose and when we choose should be curtailed for some collective will. To compare socialism to capitalism compare Vietnam to S Korea. $700 per year wage to $11,000 US.
The Real Jeffs, I think their is a darker reality to the environmentalism movement. I believe conservationism was hijacked by the international socialists in the 1960s. It was not much of a success for a bunch of pissant nations adopting communism. The fact that the United States and even the US labourer was not interested was a massive failure for the movement. But if they could convince Americans that their capitalism would deprive them of earth itself they may be tempted to not only curtail their freedoms, but even be more receptive to the ideas of one-worldism.
Within that movement however there are the footsoldiers and some of the intellectuals who do truly believe a blade of grass has as much or more of a right to life than you and me. Their will would have us in caves, burning our excrement to keep warm.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
ELF tried firebombing a couple of nearly completed new houses about a mile from where I live on Lake Sammamish in the Seattle area. In one they only managed to burn the attached garage and on the other house the firebomb never detonated. Fortunately these twits were as incompetent as arsonists as they undoubtedly are in every other aspect of their lives.