SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: greenspirit who wrote (118295)11/2/2003 3:32:21 PM
From: Jacob Snyder  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
re: Greenpeace and Patrick Moore:

I found this gem, a quote of Moore's:
"clearcuts are temporary meadows."

Also: "Not one species has gone extinct as a result of logging."

He's moved a bit, ideologically, since his tree-hugger days.

I'm still interested in what happened at Faslane. And I'm open to changing my opinion about Greenpeace, if you provide some credible details.

The article you posted, directly and repeatedly contradicts your assertion that Greenpeace and the environmental movement is "very unpeaceful":

<We (Greenpeace) linked peace, ecology, and a talent for media communications and went on to build the world's largest environmental activist organization.>

<...the largely pacifist, intellectual mainstream of the (environmental) movement...>

<Violence against people and property were the only taboos. Non-violent direct action and peaceful civil disobedience were the hallmarks of the movement.>


re: <The politics of blame and shame must be replaced with the politics of working together and win-win.>

With the Clinton (or even Bush1) Administrations, that was true. The consensus of the global environmental movement is, however, that Bush2 is a radical ideological anti-environmentalist, the most UnGreen U.S. President in 60 years (worse than Reagan, and far worse than Nixon), and there is no point in trying to negotiate with him.

Saying "We've won, let's rest on our laurels, nothing more nees to be done" is the stance taken in recent years, to try and roll back every progressive victory since the New Deal. It is the stance taken to erode gains by the Greens, feminists, worker rights, Social Security, health care reformers, etc.

re: <As an environmentalist in the political center I now find myself branded a traitor and a sellout>

Patrick Moore did not move from the radical activist edge of environmentalism to the mainstream. He moved all the way to the other side. Follow the money. He now works with, and works for, and gives speeches to, and receives money from, anti-environmental corporations and organizations:

Patrick Moore's employer, the Forest Alliance of British Columbia, is funded primarily by the following timber companies: INTERFOR, Doman, MacMillan Bloedel, Weyerhaeuser, TimberWest Forest, Canfor Corporation, Weldwood, Crestbrook Forest Industries, Riverside Forest Products, Skeena Cellulose and West Fraser Timber.
fanweb.org

He is pro-biotechnology: 216.239.57.104

He is pro-logging: 216.239.57.104

<... (since the fall of the Berlin Wall,) Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do.>

Claiming that the Peace movement has achieved victory, and has nothing more to do, is as absurd as claiming the same for the Green movement.

<Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited.>

He implies that "pro-peace" = "pro-Soviet". More mud-slinging.

<Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.>

It is true, there is a lot of overlap, between the Peace and Green movements. But there is little connection (and even that has faded since 1990) between them and the Marxists. At most, occasional tactical arms-length alliances. "eco-Marxism"??? He has invented a term, to make a false connection. The Soviets had an environmental track record worse than the U.S., and Greenpeace consistently opposed Soviet whaling, dumping nuclear waste in the oceans, nuclear weapons testing, etc. As I detailed in a previous post, with links.

re: eco-extremism: What was extreme in 1970, is now the mainstream. And what is extreme today, will be the mainstream 30 years from now. The world is still mining and trashing the air, water, and land, in ways that are unsustainable. Global warming is real, the consequences will be huge, and our response so far has been denial and evasion. This is equally true for capitalist America, sort-of-Communist China, and ex-Communist Russia. With critical resources, like fresh water and oil, we are already at the point where wars are being fought over them. Unless we learn to live within our means, in a sustainable manner, these wars will increase and spread. That implies the need for a vast Broadening and Deepening of the Green Ethic.



To: greenspirit who wrote (118295)11/2/2003 4:32:51 PM
From: Jacob Snyder  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
re: the Eco-Judas and The Rise of Eco-Extremism:

<It (environmentalism) is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a "cancer" on the face of the earth.>

A cancer is a part of the whole that has lost its internal controls, is outgrowing its food sources, and threatens the existence of the whole. When any species (lemmings, caribou, rabbits, wolves, humans) do this, the result is eventual catastrophe (an abrupt and very painful Reversion to the Mean). That's the analogy, and it's not "anti-human".

<It is anti-technology and anti-science.>

A Big Lie. It is the ideologically anti-environmental Bush Administration that is anti-science. When faced with the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, that global warming is real and caused by human activity, how do they react? They do exactly what they did when the CIA and State Dept. wouldn't tell them what they wanted to hear about WMD in Iraq: they set up a parallel source for the needed "facts" (invented by paid ideologues, in whatever quantity and flavor needed). Their motto is "First Faith, then Facts", and this is fundamentally (pun intended) anti-science.

<Environmental extremists tend to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual behavior.>

Earlier, he accused them of being closet Marxists (Authoritarians, who want Total Control by AllPowerful government). Anarchists want the opposite. Which is it? Is he confused? No. He's just a paid shill, throwing mud (the more thrown, the greater chances some will stick), cynically using mutually contradictory criticisms.

<It is anti-trade.> It is against some specific types of trade. Saying environmentalists are against all trade, is another false generalization.

<It is anti-free enterprise.> This actually is partly true. Greens are against completely unrestricted property rights. The reason is, air and water and pollutants don't stay neatly within private property lines. So, unrestricted freedom for free enterprise, amounts to a license to externalize costs. Without restrictions on property rights, the global commons (air, oceans) gets overgrazed and poisoned.

<They dislike "competition"> Actually, Greens would be happy, in many situations, to let the market make decisions, and stop having Big Government distort the market with subsidies and special deals. For instance, without massive government subsidies, not a single nuclear power plant would ever have been built in the U.S.

<It is anti-democratic...eco-fascism> First the Greens are Marxists, then Anarchists....now fascists? Next he'll claim an Al Queda-Greenpeace link (Saddam brought them together). He'll prove it, with facts supplied by the NeoCon Cabal, and position papers from the American Enterprise Institute. It's a Stalinist-Anarchist-Nazi-Islamist-Baathist terrorist conspiracy. And anti-human. Too silly for any response other than mockery.



To: greenspirit who wrote (118295)11/2/2003 7:58:01 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Respond to of 281500
 
Speaking of Greenpeace and its political activities, has anyone seen the recent controversy over Greenpeace apparently funneling its tax exempt money to NON-tax exempt political activities? So bad the Canadian government REVOKED its tax exempt status:

greenpiece.org

And now there's a push to do the same in the US:

publicinterestwatch.org

The report details how during a three year span, one Greenpeace entity diverted over $24 million in tax-exempt contributions. Such contributions are supposed to be used for charitable, educational or scientific programs, but instead financed advocacy campaigns.