Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: epicure who wrote (224940)	3/21/2007 7:55:44 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If I'm imagining the linkup between environmentalism and socialism then Wikipedia is sharing my hallucination. From their article on Environmentalism: Dark Greens and Light Greens Environmentalists are sometimes split up into two groups, Dark and Light Greens. Light Greens are the more popular and more visible part of the environmental movement, which includes the more famous and public environmental groups such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club. Light Greens do not follow environmentalism as a distinct political ideology, but rather seek greater environmental emphasis within existing ideologies such as Conservatism, Socialism or Liberalism. Dark Greens are much more radical than light greens; they tend to believe that all the current political ideologies (that are referred to as industrialism) are corrupt and naturally lead to environmental degradation as they do not view mankind as part of the environment but rather as a higher form of life with the right to take what it wants from the environment. Dark Greens claim that this is caused by the emphasis on growth that exists within all existing ideologies referred to a ‘growth mania’. The dark green brand of environmentalism is associated with ideas of Deep Ecology, Post-materialism, Holism, the Gaia Theory of James Lovelock and the work of Fritjof Capra. The division between light and dark greens was visible in the fighting between Fundi and Realo factions of the German Green Party In the late 1990s a new school of environmental philosophy emerged. Founded by David Klein in southern California, it merged environmental responsibility with rational economic thought. Essentially founded in liberal/socialist political philosophy it eventually branched into anti-elitism. Klein's position was that the focal point of environmentalism should be the care and protection of our world, and not the egotism and fund-raising associated with many environmental organizations. Though short lived, and its impact small, "Kleinism" continues to have an impact on political environmentalism. The linkup is a natural because both an environmental crisis and social/capitalist crisis NEED more regulation to save people from themselves. And somebody got to make the regulations, right? and enforce them. Couldn't get a more seamless transition.

To: epicure who wrote (224940)	3/21/2007 8:06:25 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

If you don't see the links between socialism and environmentalism, Vaclav Klaus does: Answers to questions from the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress, Committee on Energy and Commerce, on the issue of mankind’s contribution to global warming and climate change Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic 1. Concerning mankind’s contribution to climate change and in keeping with obligations towards the welfare of our citizens: what, in your view, should policymakers consider when addressing climate change? The – so called – climate change and especially man-made climate change has become one of the most dangerous arguments aimed at distorting human efforts and public policies in the whole world. My ambition is not to bring additional arguments to the scientific climatological debate about this phenomenon. I am convinced, however, that up to now this scientific debate has not been deep and serious enough and has not provided sufficient basis for the policymakers’ reaction. What I am really concerned about is the way the environmental topics have been misused by certain political pressure groups to attack fundamental principles underlying free society. It becomes evident that while discussing climate we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment but a clash of views about human freedom. As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism. This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection – similarly to the old Marxists – wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning of the whole world. The environmentalists consider their ideas and arguments to be an undisputable truth and use sophisticated methods of media manipulation and PR campaigns to exert pressure on policymakers to achieve their goals. Their argumentation is based on the spreading of fear and panic by declaring the future of the world to be under serious threat. In such an atmosphere they continue pushing policymakers to adopt illiberal measures, impose arbitrary limits, regulations, prohibitions, and restrictions on everyday human activities and make people subject to omnipotent bureaucratic decision-making. To use the words of Friedrich Hayek, they try to stop free, spontaneous human action and replace it by their own, very doubtful human design. The environmentalist paradigm of thinking is absolutely static. They neglect the fact that both nature and human society are in a process of permanent change, that there is and has been no ideal state of the world as regards natural conditions, climate, distribution of species on earth, etc. They neglect the fact that the climate has been changing fundamentally throughout the existence of our planet and that there are proofs of substantial climate fluctuations even in known and documented history. Their reasoning is based on historically short and incomplete observations and data series which cannot justify the catastrophic conclusions they draw. They neglect the complexity of factors that determine the evolution of the climate and blame contemporary mankind and the whole industrial civilization for being the decisive factors responsible for climate change and other environmental risks. By concentrating on the human contribution to the climate change the environmentalists ask for immediate political action based on limiting economic growth, consumption, or human behavior they consider hazardous. They do not believe in the future economic expansion of the society, they ignore the technological progress the future generations will enjoy, and they ignore the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society is, the higher is the quality of the environment. The policymakers are pushed to follow this media-driven hysteria based on speculative and hard evidence lacking theories, and to adopt enormously costly programs which would waste scarce resources in order to stop the probably unstoppable climate changes, caused not by human behavior but by various exogenous and endogenous natural processes (such as fluctuating solar activity). My answer to your first question, i.e. what should policymakers consider when addressing climate change, is that policymakers should under all circumstances stick to the principles free society is based on, that they should not transfer the right to choose and decide from the people to any advocacy group claiming that it knows better than the rest of the people what is good for them. Policymakers should protect taxpayers’ money and avoid wasting it on doubtful projects which cannot bring positive results. cont. at republicans.energycommerce.house.gov