« Back to Home Page

An Interesting Exchange with Some Anti-Green Humor

| Thursday December 1st, 2005 | 6 Comments

fountainhead.jpgWe had an interesting submission to the carnival of the green last week from a blog called “The Radical Libertarian” entitled greenies and their beliefs. It’s a humorous punch at some of the more radically left-of-center folks who rally under the banner of “greenness”. Although amusing, these complaints expose a woefully outdated way of looking at “environmentalism” that is held by those who choose to see extremists as representative of the entire movement, and possibly mask their own concern for wellbeing with an aloof front. That said, the post is dead-on in exposing some real crack-pots who rear their heads (such as ELF and ALF) from time to time, and do indeed paint a terrible picture of “environmentalism” to the mainstream.
As a result, there are a lot of people who have been rubbed the wrong way by the idea of “environmentalism”. To them it means an intrusive form of extremism – at best an annoying inconvenience that hinders their ability to do business and live their lives, and at worst, an evil force, literally “anti-human” as the self-proclaimed followers of Ayn Rand say.


So is it the fault of enviro-extremists that this has happened? Partly. But total ignorance is no excuse either. The burden now lies on those who are capable of seeing the issues reasonably in order to bridge these communications gaps and present a sane, thoughtful, and respectful path toward adressing the myriad problems – environmental, political, social, military, and cultural – that plague us.
So. Here’s a point by point recap of the “top 10 list of signs you are a Greenie” from The Radical Libertarian. In the name of weeding out hypocracy, ignorance and stupidity on all facets of the political spectrum, I digress…

+++++

10. You’re furious that pounds kill pets, so you support an organization which kills pets.
This is a reference to some PETA members who apparantly euthanized some dogs illegally. PETA can definitely cross the line into extreme behavior, but basically serves a useful watchdog role. Nobody wants to hurt dogs. Nobody thinks it’s great that we test cosmetics on thousands of rabbits strapped in labs. Reducing these things is good. And in the case of the rabbits, there are new technologies that are making their service unnedeed. As for the dogs, unfortunatly, just like at the city pound, some animals cannot be given homes and are euthanized. It’s really sad. I don’t know the circumstances of the workers referred to in the editorial because it’s a pretty innane one sided attack. Still, people who get bent out of shape because some dogs don’t make it to new homes need to pick more important things to worry about, but on the other hand, how are they representative of “greenies” in any way? There is a major disconect between this amusing irony and the thesis. Of course, maybe I’m just interperting “greenie” the wrong way?
9. You think coal pollution is better than nuclear waste, and then you complain about the quality of our air.
I’m not sure I understand this one at all. Nobody thinks coal pollution is ‘better’ than nuclear waste. Coal energy is obviously filthy. Nuclear energy is also controversial because of the dangerous waste it produces. Some envro-types are quite in favor of nukes. But there are other solutions to our energy needs than building either – renewables are quickly improving, as is efficiency – which is stimulated by the free market – as energy costs go up, we get more efficient. If we can embrace efficiency as a national priority then neither coal nor nuclear plants will be needed.
8. You think “risk assessment” is a board game.
This one I don’t get. Someone needs to explain it to me.
7. You constantly complain about layoffs, but you think losing millions of jobs (and billions of dollars) is okay if it helps reduce the air temperature by a fraction of a degree. You think people promoting the alternative of sound technological solutions are crackpots.
Bah. The Kyoto accord will not cause millions of jobs to be lost, unless the companies that provide those jobs continue to keep their heads in the sand, in which case, like GM, they’re screwed anyhow. It’s very much to the long-term detriment of the United States that we did not sign the accord. The carbon trading schemes that have been put into place are already resulting in tremendous innovation in Europe and Japan toward vastly more efficient manufacturing and recycling methods and energy production while we languish. You get more than environmental benefits from efficiency – you get much better competitiveness. Who’s going to lose that battle? Fortunately, many US companies, including a bunch of fortune 500s started the Chicago Climate Exchange to start dealing with what our political leaders refuse to acknowledge. Hopefully it helps.
6. You’re pissed off when people serve you meat, but you act surprised when people blast you for wanting to enforce veganism on your future innocent babies.
Wow, that’s an awfully harsh attack. There is nothing wrong with either vegitarianism or veganism. I think that when people get quasi-religous about it, it gets annoying, and sometimes irrational. But I think saying that it’s unhealthy is completely false. Cutting back on meat, especially red-meat is a very good idea. That dosn’t mean you can’t enjoy it once in a while, but a more vegetable based diet is without question, healthier. This woman’s kid will make up his own mind some day. Having never met them, it’s pretty harsh to start throwing accustaions like that.
5. You think the precautionary principle is AOK, except when it’s applied against you. Then it becomes a matter of principles.
Precautionary or Proactionary? That’s an interesting link that I don’t have time to read into, but if you’re right, sometimes the precautionary principal stifles things, but I’m not prepared to debate it… will read further. That’s the great thing about these conversations, you’ve got me thinking. Cool eh?
4. You get mad when anyone says you think other animals are more important than people, but you cheer when hunters die or animal researchers are threatened with their grandmother’s corpse.
Bizarre stuff! You’ve exposed some true hypocracy, but it’s a bunch of kids on chatboards and some stoned weirdos playing pranks. How is that representative of anything?
3. You think “The Tragedy of the Commons” is a Shakespeare play.
I’m all for private ownership. Tragedy of the Commons is an important concept but I think it’s overused. The planet itself is a finite commons no matter how you try to comprehend it. Even if it’s chopped up into millions of private parcels, the actions of one will always affect the others, especially when it comes to air, water, waste, etc… So we need a better way of letting private ownership and capitalism function. Have you read Natural Capitalism?

2. You say we should respect all life, then you gulp antibiotics. The hypocrisy of this doesn’t register in your mind at all.

Huh? Reading that sentance just cost me two I.Q. points
1. You’re so concerned about third-world hunger that you campaign to ban life-saving GM foods from Africa.
GM food, like Nuclear energy has some major drawbacks. But whether you support it or not, the problems of Africa are vastly more complicated that most people can begin to imagine, and being against the distribution of some GM grains there, while supporting other efforts is NOT hypocritical.
+++++

Phew.. well that just killed my evening. Time for a beer. But – a good start to some bridge building thinking perhaps. What do you think?


▼▼▼      6 Comments     ▼▼▼

Newsletter Signup
  • http://www.d4v3.net Dave

    Regarding the “gulping antibiotics” statement in point 2, is that in the context of chowing down on antibiotic-laced meat?

  • db

    I think the “antibiotics” hypocrisy relates to the fact that antibiotics kill bacteria which are living organisims.

  • http://www.pixcapacitor.com Pixelation

    “Wow, that’s an awfully harsh attack. There is nothing wrong with either vegitarianism or veganism. I think that when people get quasi-religous about it, it gets annoying, and sometimes irrational. But I think saying that it’s unhealthy is completely false.”
    Thank you. I was trying to tell that to Tremblay the entire time.
    What’s worse is that I’m not even planning on ever having children. I just thought it’d be an interesting thought experiment to talk about how I would raise them if I did have them.
    Having never met them, it’s pretty harsh to start throwing accustaions like that.

  • http://www.cityhippy.net City Hippy

    Good job Nick. I think his post will appear in this monday’s carnival.
    Francois’ post is so full of generalizations it beggars belief. His 10 points do not match my green beliefs. Do they match anyone’s?
    Francois perfectly represents the misinformed animosity we face about what the green movement stands for.
    You are right that extremists have much to answer for (love breeds love and hate breeds hate) and that equally Francois should take this opportunity to engage with a green community to better inform himself, if he is open enough to do so.
    Hopefully our inclusion of his post in the carnival and your response to it (plus the others that are bound to follow) will help to set the record straight on many levels.
    Namaste
    Al

  • http://www.presidiomba.org Paul Sheldon

    Alas, I often think that the actions attributed to ELF and ALF, and rants like this one are done not by kooks, but by associates of Oliver North, whose job descriptions descended from the CoIntelPro operations of the ’60s and ’70s, designed to disrupt, discredit, and distract any well-intentioned groups that actually start to make a difference. After publishing Soft Energy Pathways (precursor to Natural Capitalism), Amory Lovins was called before the Senate Small Business Committee to defend his theories and his statistics against all manner of well-endowed goofballs like the dweeb who wrote these 10 points. Amory’s testimony filled two, 4-inch-thick volumes, and none of it has been refuted, even now, 30 years later.
    Thanks for taking the time to respond, Nick. I also often think boneheads like this one are also evidence of Thomas Kuhn’s assertion that proponents of the old, outmoded paradigm never get converted, they just die–that’s why it takes 60 years for a new paradigm to reach the common consensus. Maybe these guys will let go of the flat earth theory and concede that the sun actually orbits around the earth one of these days! But probably not, because they’re busy re-trying the Scopes case (in which most fail to note, John Scopes was actually found guilty).

  • i-<3-green

    well we CARE about spending money for a fraction of a degree because it can affect you later on.
    fun fact time: did you know that grain production has decreased by 30% due to lower water tables and higher temperatures. every time it gets 1 degree c hotter, our grain production decreases by 10%. this has been studied multiple times, and the US department of agriculture affirms this too. and with people on the rise, (earth is expected to have 9 billion people in the next 30 or so years), china (the second largest producer of grain, the us is first) is expected to need to import 3 billion tons of grain from the us. which means the us has to share its grain with 1.3 BILLION MORE PEOPLE! this means that climate change affects how much you’re allowed to eat in the future. still think it doesn’t exist?? still don’t care?? ok, fine. check this out:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/voic-brow.html