Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14572
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by JO 753 » Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:14 am

I started a topic related to this, but I cant get the serch thing to find it.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14572
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by JO 753 » Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:59 am

Found it by slogging thru my posts: Hoo am I to juj?
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

Ken Fabos
Poster
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:54 pm

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by Ken Fabos » Sat Nov 05, 2016 9:06 pm

I suspect that the framing of the climate problem as "Environmental/Green" rather than as a central issue of sustainable economic prosperity, with global security implications has worked to marginalise the issue - and that framing has occurred because Environmental activists and organisations, quite naturally, stepped up and made lots of noise about it whilst mainstream politicians and organisations mostly didn't. And some elements of mainstream politics sought to deliberately emphasise that emerging association with groups and interests already framed as disruptive of economic activities and driven by dangerous and irrational ideology in order to diminish the credibility of those calling for strong action as well as the inconvenient science. As mainstream politics was forced, by the consistent expert advice amplified by "green" groups into growing community concern, to appear to act it mostly chose to appease those concerns with inadequate, deeply compromised policy that tended to embed that "Green" framing even further; like renewable energy projects, back when the technologies were seriously expensive and that were not really expected by energy industry insiders to achieve anything but take the pressure off for more serious policy measures and with their expected failures deemed likely to further discredit climate activism.

Should people have to be Environmentalists to be deeply concerned about the climate problem? Whilst it certainly is, amongst other things, an Environmental issue, I think not - because it is more than a simple Environmental issue about loss of habitat, species and natural ecosystems. Nor should people who are concerned about it be expected to choose to live differently for those concerns to be considered real or for their views about it to be taken seriously; those who fanatically live zero emissions lifestyles are not likely to be taken more seriously than those who don't. On the contrary they are more likely to not be taken seriously. Fanatic, quite appropriately, rhymes with Lunatic. Being serious about climate change should not make us different and apart from the society - with it's expectations about what we should choose to eat, or how we travel or the kind of home we live in - that we are a part of.

It seriously helps that people who are aware of the seriousness of the climate problem choose to reduce and limit their personal contributions to it but it is an economy and society wide problem that requires structural changes that both better enable such choices as well as, by embedding the externalised costs into the economics of consumer and business investment choices, make them into economically rational choices that extends beyond those who are aware and care to those who aren't and don't.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14572
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by JO 753 » Sat Nov 05, 2016 10:01 pm

Seriously serious.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19690
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 06, 2016 3:29 am

Ken Fabos: what you say while true is a very minor circumstance. In the main...the USA lack of AGW response is due to our corrupt Republican politicians having been bought by Big Fossil (Coke Brothers, Exxon, etc) and the FUD introduced by Big Fossil.

Don' t blame the victims, blame the criminals.

(((as an aside, I just finished watching "Before the Flood" with Decaprio giving a standard review of the issue but the last 10 minutes of the film shows a wall sized projection of the globe with the various AGW issues of interest (heat movement, rain) shown over time. I'd like to have more of those shown for longer periods of time without the large silhouettes covering most of the picture. Quite dramatic to see it all graphed out.))
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Ken Fabos
Poster
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:54 pm

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by Ken Fabos » Sun Nov 06, 2016 7:01 am

Bobbo, isn't framing the issue as fringe/environmental in order to link it with extremist ideology - and discredit it in the public mind - a significant element of the same well supported, multi-pronged campaigns of denial and obstructionism? Around here the issue is too often presented in terms of "green" aspirations and "green" solutions with strong emphasis on how that conflicts with goals of energy security, economic growth, lower business costs and business confidence, which says to me how successful the climate issue has been linked in public discourse with "Environmentalism". I think ultimately to the detriment of effective climate policy motivated by the desire for long term, sustainable economic prosperity.

I think that perhaps the greatest impact the plummeting prices of renewable energy can have is to end that near unanimity of opposition within the business community to strong climate action - by disarming the pervasive economic fears of a transition to low emissions and detaching that indirect support for denial and delay from broader defence of the fossil fueled status quo.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19690
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:45 am

Ken: in the main, the "frame" is NOT linking AGW to a fringe environmental group/movement/idealogy, rather it is misinformation campaign that even GW simply does not exist and paying Congress Creeps to bring snowballs into Congress to show GW isn't even happening.

If we were to PRIORITIZE all the various issues that apply, I would put FUD/Fraud/Masters of Deceit at the top of the list, linkage to environmental issues much farther down the list. Yes...that happens...but its not as determinative as cash being spent to buy influential people.

It will be difficult for a business/market driven counteraction to the power of Big Fossil as one selling point of Solar is that it is not concentrated or controlled by a monopoly...so until more decentralized counter business/market realities are at play, Big Fossil will have great influence. Even now with coal companies, at least in the USA, on the ropes and going bankrupt...THAT is caused mostly by cheap natural gas rather than Solar. Solar is positioning itself to win out ultimately...but the time lag is extremely consequential which is why the Gubment should be doing all it could to encourage the transition before market forces could do it all on its own.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?