Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The environment and Environmental Politics

Rate this topic


Mathlete

Recommended Posts

Hi all I'm new to the forum and wanted get a community opinion on the current state of the environment and environmental politics.

My concerns stem from:

An understanding as to how human activity is really affecting the environment

For instance it is my understanding that the larger portion of the scientific community believes that global warming will result in potentially devasting consequences for the quality of life on earth. However having made a consorted effort to determine the details of this "potential disaster" i.e. what coastlines will be affected? how much of the coastlines will be lost? and what are the economic impacts of this event? All I uncover are radically varying opinions and estimates. Nevertheless it appears that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community believe global warming caused by greenhouse gas emmisions will increase the worlds temperature and lead to a host of undesirable consequence to a greater or lesser degree.

Now we enter the world of environmental politics and the self proclaimed protectors of the environment most notably the green party predictably use global warming to justify and promote their policies. A quick jump to the green party of Canada's website and a visit to their policies section produces this statement:

"We (the green party) declare that there is no social justice without environmental justice, and no environmental justice without social justice."

Now by environmental justice they of course mean reduction in greenhouse gas emmisions, conservation of environmental resources forest, endangered species etc. and by "social justice" they mean:

* a just organization of the world and a stable world economy which will close the widening gap between rich and poor, both within and between countries; balance the flow of resources from South to North; and lift the burden of debt on poor countries which prevents their development.

* the eradication of poverty, as an ethical, social, economic, and ecological imperative

* the elimination of illiteracy

* a new vision of citizenship built on equal rights for all individuals regardless of gender, race, age, religion, class, ethnic or national origin, sexual orientation, disability, wealth or health

Now what I fail to understand is what on earth could reducing global emmisions possibly have to do illitracy and "wealth distribution". It is my fear that so called "environmental advocates" have simply hijacked what could be a ligitamate and rational need to reduce global emmisions by saying that you simply can't have your ozone layer unless Sipho in Uganda can read the communist manifesto and send a percentage of your earnings to some disenfranchised African state. Apologies for the cynasim but is that not what the environmentalists are really saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For instance it is my understanding that the larger portion of the scientific community believes that global warming will result in potentially devasting consequences for the quality of life on earth.
I'm not aware of any such study. When was it carried out, and where was it published?
All I uncover are radically varying opinions and estimates.
Most likely. You can model the behavior of an airplane in flight, but it's a big-ass computation and a fairly simple system where we know a lot about how the parts work. Actually, high school kids can compute certain things in chemistry class and often be right. That's because we have good models of the physical world that make this possible -- in some domains. But not something as insanely huge as "the weather".
Nevertheless it appears that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community believe global warming caused by greenhouse gas emmisions will increase the worlds temperature and lead to a host of undesirable consequence to a greater or lesser degree.
I still don't see the evidence that this is so. Who conducted the survey?
Now by environmental justice they of course mean reduction in greenhouse gas emmisions, conservation of environmental resources forest, endangered species etc.
Well, I don't believe that this is a correct characterization: I think they mean something broader. For them, "justice" means "the destruction of man for the sake of something". Thus, the destruction of man for the sake of the environment, the destruction of man for sake of society. More generally, they simply seek justice -- the destruction of man.

Justice is the recognition that an action causes an effect, and acting according to that reality. Thus crimes are punished and virtuous actions are rewarded. The greens have the problem that they have confused "justice" and "evil".

Now what I fail to understand is what on earth could reducing global emmisions possibly have to do illitracy and "wealth distribution".
But if you ook at their actual plan of implementation, it's not that they plan to benevolently teach people to read, they plan to malevolently destroy men in order to plunder the resources needed to force the illiterate to read. They plan to use brutal force to reduce CO2 emissions. The common element is the method of evil, in service of the destruction of man.
It is my fear that so called "environmental advocates" have simply hijacked what could be a ligitamate and rational need to reduce global emmisions by saying that you simply can't have your ozone layer unless Sipho in Uganda can read the communist manifesto and send a percentage of your earnings to some disenfranchised African state.
Sipho lives in South Africa and parts of Zimbabwe; it's Buremo who lives in Uganda. But this is part and parcel of the idiocy of environmentalism. Strick enforcement of leftist anti-industrial rules would have an annoying effect on the US and other developed nations, but it would totally crush any hope of Africa ever developing industries. They would literally be thrown back to the stone age (and no fires allowed!!), because they are incapable of existing without seriously polluting the world. So some of these commie-environmentalists have cleverly recognised the paradox. We cannot allow Africa to continue polluting; we cannot prohibit Africa from surviving; we must therefore destroy the west and plunder its resources, in order to create the basic infrastructure necessary to have a pristine environment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David

Thank you for a very comprehensive reply to my question. I can see you have an incredible depth of knowledge on this issue because having lived in South Africa for 20 years I had no idea their were no Siphos to be found North of Zimbabwe! I tried to keep my original question brief but just to clarify when I refered to terms such as "social justice" I meant their (the environmentalists") definition of the term (which is obviously very warped). The study from which I am paraphrasing is the IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change) Fourth Assessment Report. I have not delved into exactly how the study was carried out but it appears to be a major justification for political environmental action as it comes up time and time again as it was a UN sanctioned report established by the World Meteorological Organization.

So some of these commie-environmentalists have cleverly recognised the paradox. We cannot allow Africa to continue polluting; we cannot prohibit Africa from surviving; we must therefore destroy the west and plunder its resources, in order to create the basic infrastructure necessary to have a pristine environment.

What strikes me as the most heinous about the environmental movement is that they appear to have not interested in development or developing Africa specifically for that matter. Their chief concern seems to be "equality" which seems to translate into as you put it all of us (Americans, Europeans and Africans) living in caves in tiny communities eating raw tofu and singing kumbaya. In other words bringing the entire world down so some very low level of social and technological development therby eliminating inequality and thus achieving their goals. I fear that the term "green" is simply a euphimism for "communist" just that the green movement has way better marketing and new buzz words (Those red army deathcamps were never that popular with the kids). I find it ironic that their favourite piece of rhetoric is to accuse the right of having some dark sinister agenda and not being open with their policies especially when it comes to use of scare tactics i.e. the threat of terrorism while all the while they are telling people that unless you embrace Marxism (because Marxism and Communism have nothing to do with one another at least according to them) the entire planet is going to look like the surface of the moon.

-Mat

Edited by Mathlete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...