Source link: http://archive.mises.org/7793/environmentalism-is-recycled-communism-and-nazism/
ENVIRONMENTALISM IS RECYCLED COMMUNISM AND NAZISM
February 17, 2008 by George Reisman
Here’s the essential common core of hatred and destruction in the doctrines of Communism, Nazism, and Environmentalism. Only the concretes differ, not the fundamental principle of hatred for human life and happiness.
Communism: The pursuit of individual self-interest causes monopolies, depressions, and exploitation of workers by capitalists. It must be replaced by self-sacrifice for the benefit of the working class and the Socialist State. Capitalists and landowners must be exterminated for the benefit of the proletariat.
Nazism: The pursuit of individual self-interest causes racial impurity, national decline, and exploitation of German workers by Jewish capitalists. It must be replaced by self-sacrifice for the good of the Aryan master race and the National Socialist State. Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs must be exterminated for the benefit of the German Nation.
Environmentalism: The pursuit of individual self-interest causes global warming, acid rain, and ozone depletion. It must be replaced by self-sacrifice for the good of other species–our “fellow biota”–and for the good of the planet, under the auspices of international treaties and a nascent Global Socialist State: the UN. Most of the human race must be exterminated for the benefit of exploited species and the planet. (This is what the environmentalist “extremists” already openly say. The “moderates” merely want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 90 percent and thereby reduce the American standard of living to that of a third world country, with a third world country’s infant mortality and life expectancy.)
SAY NO TO RECYCLED COMMUNISM AND NAZISM. SAY NO TO ENVIRONMENTALISM
Communism: The pursuit of individual self-interest causes monopolies, depressions, and exploitation of workers by capitalists. It must be replaced by self-sacrifice for the benefit of the working class and the Socialist State. Capitalists and landowners must be exterminated for the benefit of the proletariat.
{ 48 comments }
Wow if you show any concern for the environment you’re a baby-killing Communist Nazi! Talk about you must support relentless human production or else!
One cannot care for the environment without being an Environmentalist?
I think he is just referring to the POLITICAL environmentalists and their associated movement. The movement wherein the violent force of the State would be used to obtain the Political Environmentalist goals.
I don’t think that he means VOLUNTARY environmentalists or MARKET environmentalists.
Walter Block said it best: “Environmentalists are watermelons: Green on the outside, red on the inside.”
Wow if you show any concern for the environment you’re a baby-killing Communist Nazi! Talk about you must support relentless human production or else!
Prof. Reisman is referring to the modern environmentalist movement, TLWP, and not simply people who are just concerned about the environment. Modern Environmentalism is an offshoot of the older Marxian movements of the XX Century.
Prof. Reisman is referring to the modern environmentalist movement, TLWP, and not simply people who are just concerned about the environment. Modern Environmentalism is an offshoot of the older Marxian movements of the XX Century.
Torres, I realize this, though if this is what he meant (which I don’t doubt it is) he should have said it, but come on… Reisman really shouldn’t have made this; it’s disgraceful and it perpetuates the idea that all free-marketeers are anti-environment, pro-pollution satanists with no concern for anything related to the promotion of a healthier environment. This is simply not true, and I think it is rather sad that Reisman feels the need to be such a reactionary.
I will concur insofar as I agree that the Professor should have differentiated between political environmentalists who seek to wield the sword of the State, and those environmentalists who promote voluntary or market environmentalism and who do not try to employ coercion to accomplish their goals.
Devin, clearly Block did not first use the “watermelon” sobriquet.
I have not idea who was first, but Christopher Archangelli in his April 09, 2003 “The Green Menace” piece in FrontPageMagazine.com certainly made an earlier mention:
“By 1996 the Green Party was formed and the twelve years of growth had created a succulent fruit for the far-left movement: the watermelon. Green on the outside and red on the inside, the watermelon became the perfect metaphor for the Green Party with its deeply Marxist philosophy hidden underneath a thin environmentalist façade. If only the Greens had a sense of humor they might actually adopt the melon as their official symbol.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={48BDFB9E-6CB9-45D0-8FAD-2BF93CA624E2}
But of course, references to “watermelons” and the like to dismiss ALL concerns on environmental matters, regardless of who golds them, has quite venerable history here, so much so that I like to refer to its use as the “Reisman Rule” or the “Corrigan Creed”: http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/tags/Reisman+Rule/default.aspx.
Modern Environmentalism is an offshoot of the older Marxian movements of the XX Century.
Misinformed. Environmentalists used to be called “conservationists” and were once largely wealthy conservatives.
Now “conservatives” care more about protecting privilege, especially the privilege to continue to freel and unresrtained exploitation of all commons, both for unowned resources and as outlets for industrial and commercial activity.
And we Austrians are engaged in helping them continue to shift costs to others. Heaven forbid that they have to pay their way, when it can be more or less shifted to others.
TokyoTom wrote: “Devin, clearly Block did not first use the “watermelon” sobriquet.”
But Devin didn’t claim he did. He just claimed Walter Block said it best. Thanks for the historical reference though.
TokyoTom wrote: “Misinformed. Environmentalists used to be called “conservationists” and were once largely wealthy conservatives.”
But these aren’t the same environmentalists that we’re talking about here. Clearly there is a significant portion of the modern environmentalist movement that has its roots in socialism.
Relax, Geoff; did I SAY that Devin thought Block was the first, or did I just volunteer who I thought was first.? It must be great to be able to read minds and to know exactly what Devin was thinking, though.
Yes, I know – you guys only want to talk about the EVIL enviros. That some may have socialist mindframe is not something that I want to waste time constesting. Forgive me, however, for trying to make distinctions, or to suggest, time and time again, that that framework is profoundly unproductive and a trap that Austrians have done their best to try to advise us to avoid.
The rather poorly defined “enviros” – whomever they may be (wealthy people and consumers who wish to protect the commons or the views out their backyards, regular folks stymied by the 150+ years that Walter Block has identified that US courts have NOT protected private property, etc.) – are really not spearheading the debate or behind most of the ongoing societal response to climate change.
“Enviros” simply remain a convenient strawman, so all the good freedom-loving folks here can ignore everyone else who can see that climate change is underway with more coming down the pike, and see a reason to start changing their behavior, get ready and maybe even coordinate to mitigate future change. Are Rupertt Murdoch and Richard Branson enviros? The firms behind the new “Carbon Principles”? The United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) – http://www.us-cap.org/? The CERES group of institutional investors? All the firms that are members of the PEW climate change coalition?
It might be comforting to think you’ve identified a single ideological enemy, but it renders one singularly unprepared for understanding or influencing what is really going on.
Do you disagree, or are you simply simply so hooked on the thrill of bashing enviros that you’re unwilling to step away from it?
Tom
just in passing: in the upcoming national elections in italy, the radical left, which has up to now always proudly used the hammer and sickle in their symbol, is presenting itself as la sinistra arcobaleno (the rainbow left). traditionally, this had been the greens’ insignia.
many in la cosa rossa grumble nostalgically about losing the hammer and sickle, which served humanity so well.
i do think that it should be pointed out that in an hypothetical austrian monetary/economic regime, it could be argued that consumerism would be greatly reduced. to the extent that keynesianism and fiat money allows people and nations to spend above their means, i think an austrian world could happily be called more environmentally friendly.
where environmentalism is a personal lifestyle choice only, libertarians surely cannot object. where it shapes national/international agenda (a la climate change), one fears the worst.
ludwig klages’ 1913 essay “man and earth” denounced capitalism as the cause of ecological devastation and influenced the philosophy of nazism. more recently, it was reprinted to coincide with the launch of the german green party. perhaps professor reisman is referring to importance of nature in the imagery of fascism?
I think the general idea is that we have too many damn people on this planet. We’re approaching the point where disease/starvation/etc (caused by overuse/overpopulation/over-everything) will wipe out a large portion of populations. Wars simply don’t kill enough people these days. We’ll get to start the crazy process all over again. It’s pretty much inevitable folks.
That’s the life cycle; kind of like the keynsian business cycle. You just can’t prop it up anymore.
There will be a die off at some point in the not too distant future. Likely caused by a burp in petroleum supplies. The period of shortage may be very temporary, but it will only take a short breakdown in the transportation system to kill a few billion people planetwide.
When it happens, most of the deaths will be concentrated in those areas where the population is most out of control, i.e. China and India. The United States will suffer very little if any. I wonder if people can even fathom the death of a billion people in a few short months. It will be kind of morbidly funny in a way. Nature will ultimately cull man’s overflowing population.
It is interesting that in nations that have the freeests markets, the population is in decline, such as Japan and Italy. If you discount immigration, the United States population would actually be in decline. Free markets and the increase in living standards they provide ironically are the best check on population. However, since they were denied in many nations, the inevitable population cull must occur, most likely via a stoppage in the transportation structure and the resultant starvation.
There are tons of types of environmentalists, and here you just show you don’t know jack about it.
some are romantics who want to go back to the woods, or whatver.. But many of them (growing movement) are techno-optimists who want to keep progress going, they just want to fix the the side effects now that we know what they are.
“it’s disgraceful and it perpetuates the idea that all free-marketeers are anti-environment, pro-pollution satanists with no concern for anything related to the promotion of a healthier environment. This is simply not true, and I think it is rather sad that Reisman feels the need to be such a reactionary.”
I totally agree. Well said.
Godwin’s law anyone?
Seriously, the founders of Google are environmentalists. Not exactly communists. So are tons of VCs in silicon valley.
Maybe the poster of this blog is showing his age…
The All-caps title + spelling error is doing you a great disservice.
While some environmentalists approach the issues from free market and property rights perspectives, the large majority do not. And frankly, at least a few do view man as a moral degenerate exploiter of the planet. Most policy prescriptions from environmentalists involve more government control and regulation and addtional direct or indirect taxation, all of which are the opposite of the free market and property rights.
If property rights were correctly defined and enforced in the first place, the vast majority of true environmental problems would not exist.
What really makes me sad is how enviromental issues seem to heat up the debate whenever they are mentioned.
I’ve already mentioned it but I will never tire of saying this: even usually rational persons seem to lose their minds over this issue and there cannot be a serious and intelligent debate because insults start to fly in a matter of minutes, even at academic level.
And another thing: how is that self-proclaimed, civilized persons will heat up on the whole climate change issue but won’t give a damn about, let’s say, Palestinians being starved in Gaza or whole villages being wiped out in Congo.
We may well die in fifty years because we killed all the Tasmanian Fruit Bats but these persons don’t have fifty years in front of them.
Is “Mother Gaia” so more important than human life?
BTW, the Green Nazi flag reminded me of the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party. It is at nazi dot org if anybody wants a chuckle.
Frankly, I don’t know if its for real or just somebody’s idea of a joke.
Mark Steyn : Islamofascism : : George Reisman : Environmentalism?
Dear Sirs,
I think a crucial point, not made nearly often enough by supporters of the libertarian conception of justice, is that while respect for property rights and freedom of contract are necessary for the flourishing of both our natural and social orders*, they are by no means sufficient. Our good depends not merely upon our having freedom, but also to some extent upon how we use that freedom.
Remember: persuasive efforts to increase conservation, promote ecological awareness, and support sustainable local food systems can and should take place as voluntary actions within the market (just like advertisement and negotiation). There’s a tendency on the part of anti-market folks to make arguments that if left to itself, the market could generate bad outcome X; which leads many naive supporters of the market to argue, to the contrary that, so long as the formal conditions for a free market are met, bad outcome X is impossible – or, alternative, a good thing since “the market has spoken.” But, we are the market! We decide through our daily transactions what sort of structure of production will be called forth, and the effects of that structure of production on the natural environment is not without relevance to our wellbeing.
In case one is wondering, I think that Mises would have considered the position I am staking out here a species of “voluntary solidarism,”+ which puts me in the illustrious company of the great Swiss localist, Wilhelm Roepke as well as the “Sage of Batavia” Bill Kauffman.
Incidentally, I sincerely believe it is within this conceptual space that thoughtful Austro-libertarians could be fruitfully engaging the ideas of neo-Agrarians such as Wendell Berry and Joel Salatin, as well as bio-regionalists/permaculturalists such as Kirkpatrick Sale.
Cheers,
Araglin
* The necessity of the foregoing is obviously neglected by statist environmentalists, but it is often also neglected as well by those allegedly “pro-market” defender’s of big business and the state capitalist status quo who slide inadvertently from the insight that (1) pursuit of profit in a truly free market promotes societal wellbeing, to the false conclusion that (2) those who have obtained massive profits in our not-at-all-free market are, therefore, above reproach.
+ Mises in his book Socialism condemned even voluntary solidarism as a form of socialism. For arguments as to why he was wrong to so condemn this form of solidarism, see Roderick Long’s Mises as Radical: Retrospective on Rothbard’s Thesis at http://praxeology.net/radical-mises.htm
Clean air, safe working conditions, absence of child labor, reduced number of hours worked compared to leisure, ecological slower-growing food, etc. are all luxuries, affordable only for the rich. To become rich (without the use of violence), one needs capitalism.
I think I agree with Araglin.
In the original comment, the blogger makes it clear that he is opposed to the greenies who want to either reduce the human race by 90%, or cut energy usage by 90%, with resulting drastic loss of human life. If you are NOT one of those environmentalists, you are not being mentioned in these articles, and your brand of environmentalism might well be acceptable to everyone.
Why the fuss?
Environmentalism is not an inherently bad thing. Free market environmentalism and the individualist greens (iGreens) movements, although perhaps small, are worth looking into and supporting.
I share Mr. Adami’s concerns on the potential negative impact of what Prof. Reisman stated (or, more accurately, the manner in which he stated it).
If one is going to make a post on environmentalism from a libertarian perspective, it is always good to point out why a market-based system with minimal or no government involvement will lead to a healthier and cleaner environment. We know it will, but we must explain it. Merely calling regulationists “Nazis” is never going to convince them that we libertarians are correct.
Sincerely,
Alex Peak
Keep in mind, the largest environmental organization in the world, with assets worth billions, is the Nature Conservancy. They don’t lobby for new laws, they work with private land owners, and provide financial incentives to acheive conservation and environmental objectives. I fail to see how that fits your definition of environmentalists being either Nazi or communists.
In addition, civilized nations operate by the rule of law. I can’t just go around killing people when they offend me because that would take away their right to life. Likewise, when a coal company drops a boulder on a home killing a little boy, then it is reasonable that the law step in to prevent coal companies from taking further life in the future. In a more subtle way, my neighbor upstream can’t dump his motor oil in the creek because that would take away my right to clean water. When we allow corporations or individuals to recklessly take the rights of others away, then laws are necessary to ensure that all people are guarenteed their constitutional rights.
Feel free to compare that with the environmental legacy of the Soviet Union, where huge numbers of people are sick or dying from toxic chemical and radioactive waste dumps littering the countryside. You see, under Soviet Union, if a coal company killed your child or dumped spent radioactive waste near your house, then you were asked to just live with it for the good of the nation; however in the United States individuals have rights to protect oueselves with power of law from the abuses of reckless individuals and corporations.
As someone who is keen to absorb intelligent concepts on economics, I find this author’s essay moronic and am disoppointed in this site for posting it.
I am now confused if the philosophy of Mises poses no objection to gargantuan environmental destruction, obvious to most any scientific mind, in the name of ‘Free Market’ ??
As someone who is keen to absorb intelligent concepts on economics, I find this author’s essay moronic and am disoppointed in this site for posting it.
I am now confused if the philosophy of Mises poses no objection to gargantuan environmental destruction, obvious to most any scientific mind, in the name of ‘Free Market’ ??
Well, I guess now that I’ve heard it in ALL CAPS with a crappy Photoshop illustration, I can’t argue with it anymore. So I guess this means that if I shoop Reisman’s head on Timothy McVeigh’s picture and put ANARCHISM IS TERRORISM OMGLOL in all caps, it would also be indisputable? Maybe if I added some quotes of disdain for government from McVeigh, the Unabomber, and others mentioned side by side with some quotes from Austrian thinkers, it would surely prove that people don’t form their views on things like the size and scope of government or care for the environment by individual thought that would otherwise not be distinguished from the most extreme or tangent examples of groups of people like “miniarchists” or “environmentalists.” Why not add some animated .gifs and a picture of Ralph Nader with fire in the background?
The environmentalists will never appreciate the merits of violating their property by dumping mercury into their water supply unless you put some more exclamation marks on your sentences…
If we get to a situation, as a just God would have it, of ubiquitous and saturation nuclear power, in my country and in the USA…………..
……If we get to that situation.
There will be immense opportunities for people interested in preserving certain aspects of biodiversity, and evolutionary culture, AT CUT PRICE RATES!!!!
My country is virtually all desert. People are prevented from buying the sort of 5 acre blocks that would warm their hearts, and make them feel good about bringing young children into this world, because some busybodies think that subdividing farmland, in this way, would leave the driest continent bereft of agricultural land.
My country has more energy resources close to hand than the Middle East and every other politically brokenassed, American-hating, nation in the world put together. Probably by many orders of magnitude. We make Saudi Arabians look like really feeble poor cousins when it comes to energy.
Think about THAT!!! when people criticise Ron Paul and think about that when another American soldier dies in that repulsive Middle Eastern Mordor.
But the environmentalist movement has lied to us (and I fell for it TOO by the way) in so many ways and the upshot is we are not exploiting these resources for the benefit of ourselves and for the benefit of our our good mates the Americans.
And if we had of been allowed to exploit these resources and if you Americans had of been allowed to exploit your own energy resources than not one American soldier would have needed to die in the Middle East and the Arabs would have either had to live free or eat sand.
The thing about nuclear reactors is this: THEY ALSO CAN SERVE AS WATER-DESALINATORS.
So if the environmentalist movement had not of stooged us about nuclear energy….. and if we had taken Murray Rothbards ideas of homesteading seriously…. and with my friendly amendment of having buffer-zones around newly homesteaded private property……………
….. Then the inevitable result is that the inland deserts of my country would become a new frontier. And if any of you guys had some sort of fondness for the diversity of nature there would be unlimited opportunities for you to exercise your righteous liberty in this regard, in my country, and on the cheap.
Because all you need to do these things is LAND, LIBERTY, CO2 AND WATER.
“I am now confused if the philosophy of Mises poses no objection to gargantuan environmental destruction, obvious to most any scientific mind, in the name of ‘Free Market’ ??”
Well I think you ARE confused Ping.
What are you talking about? Why do you make such outrageous assumptions. Perhaps you better put all your premises on the table so we can sort out where you have come off the beam here.
But if I may be so bold perhaps I can GUESS at where you’ve made a mistake.
I surmise that you have been led astray. You see back in the stone age we used to have this monstrous and evil thing called SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
But now we are so much more civilized and any talk of scientific evidence is actually a social faux pass.
Now we are so much more democratic and we want to make things easier for the vast majority of people. We want to make it easier for them to know what to do. Afterall whats the use of it, if the taxeaters tell the taxpayers something and the taxpayers are confused by contrary claims.
So we civilised people have given up on SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE…… a monstrous idea…. And now, all we care about is this thing we like to call “The Scientific Consensus”.
<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This “global warming” racket is notable for the obsession of its advocates never to actually come up with any scientific EVIDENCE!!!!
I’m not joking here.
I’m not even exaggerating for emphasis.
And I was taken in by these clowns to a certain extent as well.
Graeme Bird,
With all due respect, before you speak of Scientific Evidence, you should educate yourself on what that phrase actaully means. Good science can be easily seperated from psuedoscience through the peer review process. Just because an oil company pays out money to the likes of Patrick J. Michaels to do a study to “disprove” global warming, doesn’t automatically detemine anything. It is when respected members of the scientific community come together to conduct a peer review of the research, and see if they can replicate the results, and if the data is then published within reputable journals that it becomes “Scientific Evidence”.
The truth is that you wont find any articles published in a major reputable scientific journal in the past decade that refute global warming. Check out journals like Science and Nature, and you’ll find vast consensus. In fact, after a review of over 928 articles that could be found on the topic of climate change within scientific publications, 100% all agreed that a significant fraction of recent climate change is due to human activities. In addition, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and a large number of scientific organizations reached consensus that “there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring” and that “It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities”.
So… As I see it, you’re left with two logical choices here. Either there is this vast scientific conspiracy going on, with the participation of just about every respected climate scientist on earth, or global warming is real and is from human activities. You can feel free to refute that, just as some might reject the scientific consensus on other ideas like evolution, germ-theory, and the theory of electricity, all of which were (or still are) controversial among a significant uneducated minority.
But you’re probably right about global warming… besides, we all know lightning is caused by Zeus right?
Switch to aerosols.
No in fact you are wrong. And clearly you have absolutely no understanding of science whatsoever. You have substituted pseudo-science for science.
The peer review process is not a scientific process at all. It might have been once long ago under a more free enterprise setup. Myself I’d submit to peer review only to find out if I had mistakes in my calculations, my thinking, my reasoning, that I hadn’t taken into account some factoid coming out of left field, and so forth.
But the modern peer review cult has got nothing whatsoever to do with genuine science. And it would be better if we had instead LAITY REVIEW.
If ideas were presented for LAITY REVIEW we would have far less problems with scientific fraud and intellectual idiocy and this global warming racket could never have gotten off the ground.
This is the magic of what Lew Rockwell has done at this institute. All the ideas are open for the laity to review. So any ideas which represent a mental block on the part of the priesthood will be found out and discussed.
To my way of thinking, the Miseans are almost the only true scientists left. Some of the older scientists still working, still exhibit the true scientific values.
But on the alarmist side of things I recognise only one authentic scientist and thats Lovelock. Perhaps if he was twenty years younger he wouldn’t have been taken in by his younger peers. He’s gone right off the beam with this one, pushing a pet paradigm of his, much further than it will hold. But he’s a good bloke, and his hearts in the right place and I blame these younger pseudo-scientists for him getting things wrong.
I cannot respect any other scientist pushing this racket. And in point of fact there is no other accomplished scientist who has focused directly on the issue who is pushing this taxeaters crusade.
Laity Review?!?! What the hell is that? Studies in the U.S. show that people who believe in Creationism slightly outnumber those don’t therefore Creationism is proved? Why those not specialised in a scientific disciple (almost everyone as scientific speicalisation in one field doesn’t make a scientist an expert in another field) have any qualification to make scientific rulings? Why should those with little medical training try to diagnose a sick person and give out prescriptions? Why should any one who isn’t an electrician bother trying to rewire their house without expecting to reap serious injury, death, or at least screw up the wiring worse that they’ll to pay a qualified electrician heaps of money to rewire from scratch? Unfortunately, climate is too complex to easily prove or disprove global warming, but, of course, the burden of proof is towards global warming advocates.
Well you see its all subject to human reason. And if it cannot be explained in a cogent way to the intelligent laity, its probably bullshit, just as the global warming racket is so manifestly bullshit.
I think you are mixing up FIELD WORKERS with conceptual FIELD MARSHALLS. But field workers are NOT field marshalls. Nor should we think of science-workers as scientists because only a man of reason can truly be said to be a scientist.
You see many people who are referred to as scientists are actually only science-field-workers.
I can understand the principles involved with the job of electrician, or the vocation of plumbing…….. I can understand the principles of these things without being a productive plumber worthy of the sort of dollars-per-hour that plumbers in my area are getting paid.
In the same way someone with labaratory skills, or field-work skills, may be productive in these skills, but may, in point of fact, be DEAD WOOD, when it comes to the wider conceptual thinking.
With this in mind perhaps you ought to restate where it is that you disagree-with what I have said so far.
I want to avoid putting words in peoples mouths.
I want to point out one more thing.
There is no such speciality as “climate science”. Because understanding the global climate, and this particular controversy, requires recourse to trying to get to grips with general principles in a range of specialities.
It is for this reason that REASON ITSELF is at a premium when it comes to this controversy. And a person who has nothing to do with the world of science in his professional capacity, is not at all disadvantaged in comparison to some narrow science-field-worker-specialist.
Besides.
This is such an obvious gyp. That even the toilet cleaner ought to be able to see it for what it is.
Graeme is simply incapable of engaging in a discussion of economics or libertarian principles. Rather than discussing whether there are markets (based on clear property rights and a functioning system of law and order) that allow people to defend their rights and to engage in transactions that express their preferences, he thinks HIS view of science – on any issue – is dispositive. So who needs to care about markets, property rights or the rule of law?
HITLER was a dedicated new age enviromentalists who though the same away many of these modern green freaks think he was into new age eastern mystisicm and supported the rewilding of most of europe and all of britian and north and south america and he was also a vegan as well he would have fit in well with the 70s hippy crowds
I’d like to correct Prof. Reismen on his ignorance. An order of magnitude reduction in carbon emissions (most catastrophically occurring from an order of magnitude reduction in energy consumption, an unlikely scenario) does not relegate one to a third world economic or quality of life status. In fact, I am highly confident that my quality of life and general health are higher than Prof. Reisman and I use about 5% of the energy of a typical U.S. citizen (according to 2005 DOE Residential Consumption Survey). It is very easy to solve our energy problem, the main impediment is the ignorance and vitriol being vomited forth by Prof. Reisman and his “team.” Prof. Reisman you are not an academic. You are a partisan and you are squandering my future for your own “pursuit of individual [naive and ignorant] self-interest.”
“our” energy problem? who might the “we” be?
Communist have been using the invironmentalist for years they always come across as the good guys.
Next communist use health care to gain power.
They then call other groups communist,fascist,nazies wacko’s and any derogative name they can come up with.
This is taking place in America right now and people can’t see the forest for a tree.
I saw this blog on google today and truly loved it… I bookmarked it and will return to look it over some more details and comments soon.
Environmentalism isn’t a unified, collectivist ideology. Google “free market environmentalism”, and realize the error of your ridiculous strawman.
HITLER was a big time enviromentalists why else did he try to capture ENGLAND and took over almost all of europe and wanted to take over america to turn vast areas including all of north and south america into wilderness
You might hear this a lot, but I just wanted to tell you that the webdesign of your blog looks perfect!
Comments on this entry are closed.