5 ms·

> that essay is its very own brand of crazy. It seems both freightened and mean spirited through and through. You don't seem to have any rebuttal to the actual

> that essay is its very own brand of crazy. It seems both freightened and mean spirited through and through. You don't seem to have any rebuttal to the actual content of the essay. As a professional economist Landsburg is very open to different preferences people have. He's only asking for the same kind of open-mindedness in return by environmentalists (e.g. not calling anyone who doesn't agree with their dogma "crazy" and respecting those who don't participate in their quasi-religious rituals). > I know why are you are an environmentalist: because you breathe air and drink water, just like I do. I'd guess you are just as interested in those things being non-toxic as I am. [...] This doesn't make me a kind of naive environmentalists as described in Landsburg's essay. > [...] even if recycling wastes tons of energy, there are still compelling reasons to recycle. So far you cited none that's compelling. The issue of pollution from landfill sites is a concern but you don't talk about (a) how big the impact is (probably different in different landfill facilities) and (b) why people's effort to recycle can be an effective solution (my hunch is it's not very effective). Also we are far from running out of fossil fuels anytime soon so that's not a compelling reason either. I understand that you personally prefer recycling though (for religious/aesthetic reasons). I respect your choice. > why are you using the weak political opines and outright rants of non-expert journalists who have agendas to argue economic and scientific issues [...] I cited Steven Landsburg, Mike Munger, and Russ Roberts who are all professional economists. Your 2 links (one from an environmental advocacy group) are virtually identical in their content written by the same 2 authors and only one of them is an "economic analyst" who doesn't seem to have published any academic paper in the field of economics (he's still entitled to his view but I don't think he made a good case for recycling in the article).

dahart 10y ago
> You don't seem to have any rebuttal to the actual content of the essay. What would you like to argue about? There's nothing for me to rebut. Steven's experience is his own, he's free to interpret the world however he wants. If he's scared of environmentalism and wants to rant about it, that's his choice. He forfeits any reasonable discussion automatically by comparing a general desire to have clean air and water with religious fundamentalism. It's an ad hominem that doesn't deserve any response. > This doesn't make me a kind of naive environmentalists as described in Landsburg's essay. Sounds like we're getting somewhere now. Let's talk about the good environmentalists like you, not the naive ones. What makes you a better environmentalist than the kind Landsburg talks about? What is your improved plan for keeping the air and water clean and available forever, without needing to recycle? Will your plan be cost and energy effective? I didn't see Landsburg drawing a line between naive environmentalists and other kinds, did I miss something? He seemed to draw a blanket conclusion that all environmentalism is nothing more than faith. I know you don't agree with that. > I understand that you personally prefer recycling though (for religious/aesthetic reasons). I respect your choice. I haven't stated a preference for recycling, nor given any religious or aesthetic reasons for said preference, so I'm not convinced you understand. Calling it religious is pretty disrespectful, which you already know. But you don't know me, nor my preferences on recycling, so all I can do is return the favor and say I respect your choices too.
- redthrow 10y ago
  > He forfeits any reasonable discussion automatically by comparing a general desire to have clean air and water with religious fundamentalism This doesn't seem like a fair characterisation of his position. Which part of his essay did he compare people who desire clean air/water with religious fundamentalists? He didn't, right? > Let's talk about the good environmentalists like you, not the naive ones I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I think there are some things that can be done to improve the environment. For example, one of the biggest environmental problems poor people in poor countries have is indoor air pollution, and the use of cheap and plentiful fossil fuels is one solution there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptTdEoHklmE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptTdEoHklmE Fossil fuels are essential to fight poverty too, as people in China demonstrated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v15q6M_z13Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v15q6M_z13Q In developed countries, loosening zoning and immigration laws and encourage development in big cities would be great for the environment too. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/glaeser-triumph-of-the-city-excerpt/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/glaeser-triumph-of... Cambridge physicist David MacKay recommends some individual actions to save energy (e.g. not flying/driving often) for those who are interested in taking personal actions. http://www.withouthotair.com/c29/page_229.shtml http://www.withouthotair.com/c29/page_229.shtml Recycling isn't one of them, but not buying clutter in the first place would be a good thing to do (which people are already financially incentivized to do). I'm interested in progressive consumption tax though, as explained by Cornell economist Robert Frank. I want to see some experimentation done in this area. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/12/the_progressive_consumption_tax_a_win_win_solution_for_reducing_american_economic_inequality_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/12/the_...
  - dahart 10y ago
    > I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I think there are some things that can be done to improve the environment. Then you are an environmentalist. It's hard not to be one, if you're a human and want to live. > not buying clutter in the first place would be a good thing to do Yes!! > I'm interested in progressive consumption tax Me too! > poor people in poor countries have is indoor air pollution, and the use of cheap and plentiful fossil fuels is one solution there. [...] Fossil fuels are essential to fight poverty too I can agree that fossil fuels may be good solutions to the immediate problems of today like poverty and indoor pollution. But I see from your wording you already understand, as I do, that fossil fuels are only one option, and may not be the ideal solution in the future. G7 countries are now setting goals to reduce dependance on fossil fuels. Why? Is their belief in cleaner energy a religious cause with only faith and no evidence? No, there are both environmental and economic reasons for the US to start avoiding fossil fuels. > This doesn't seem like a fair characterisation of his position. Which part of his essay did he compare people who desire clean air/water with religious fundamentalists? He didn't, right? Wrong. And it's not just me, The American Enterprise Institute characterized this article of Landsburg's explicitly as "Why naive environmentalism is like religious fundamentalism", which is accurate since that's exactly what Landsburg said. http://www.aei.org/publication/why-naive-environmentalism-is-like-religious-fundamentalism/ http://www.aei.org/publication/why-naive-environmentalism-is... Just a few direct quotes from Landsburg: "We consider environmentalism a form of mass hysteria akin to Islamic fundamentalism or the War on Drugs." "The naive environmentalism of my daughter's preschool is a force-fed potpourri of myth, superstition, and ritual that has much in common with the least reputable varieties of religious Fundamentalism." "The underlying need to sacrifice, and to compel others to sacrifice, is a fundamentally religious impulse." That point was stated explicitly multiple times, and is more or less the entire thrust of this divisive, mean spirited, and self-righteous rant from beginning to end. Are you reading the same thing I'm reading? You yourself adopted and used the term "religious" to describe recycling already in this thread, by what leaps of logic are you suddenly claiming to be not aware of this? Forget the fundamentalist angle, just calling it "religious" is an attempt to discredit the environmental position as lacking any evidence or logical thought. Calling someone's reasons religious, without understanding them and when they wouldn't describe them that way is not just disrespectful, it's intentionally ignorant, it's trying to not understand and trying to disagree, self-righteously so. It's too bad Landsburg doesn't recognize the deep hypocrisy of his own self-righteousness, nor the fact that like you and I, he does actually believe that clean air and clean water being available now and to future generations is a mission worth fighting for. He, like you, is an environmentalist. You might think Landsburg's writing sounds great, and that it makes a good reference in a discussion like this, but he said a lot of disrespectful things about a vague unspecified group of people without a single piece of evidence. He only states that their position is unreasonable and zealous, but hasn't shown that even once, nor clarified who he's even talking about. This paper is really weak, you are doing a much better job explaining your views on recycling than Landsburg did explaining his. You'd certainly make your points quicker and more agreeably if you left his writing out and spoke for yourself instead.

dahart 10y ago

> You don't seem to have any rebuttal to the actual content of the essay. What would you like to argue about? There's nothing for me to rebut. Steven's experience is his own, he's free to interpret the world however he wants. If he's scared of environmentalism and wants to rant about it, that's his choice. He forfeits any reasonable discussion automatically by comparing a general desire to have clean air and water with religious fundamentalism. It's an ad hominem that doesn't deserve any response. > This doesn't make me a kind of naive environmentalists as described in Landsburg's essay. Sounds like we're getting somewhere now. Let's talk about the good environmentalists like you, not the naive ones. What makes you a better environmentalist than the kind Landsburg talks about? What is your improved plan for keeping the air and water clean and available forever, without needing to recycle? Will your plan be cost and energy effective? I didn't see Landsburg drawing a line between naive environmentalists and other kinds, did I miss something? He seemed to draw a blanket conclusion that all environmentalism is nothing more than faith. I know you don't agree with that. > I understand that you personally prefer recycling though (for religious/aesthetic reasons). I respect your choice. I haven't stated a preference for recycling, nor given any religious or aesthetic reasons for said preference, so I'm not convinced you understand. Calling it religious is pretty disrespectful, which you already know. But you don't know me, nor my preferences on recycling, so all I can do is return the favor and say I respect your choices too.

redthrow 10y ago
> He forfeits any reasonable discussion automatically by comparing a general desire to have clean air and water with religious fundamentalism This doesn't seem like a fair characterisation of his position. Which part of his essay did he compare people who desire clean air/water with religious fundamentalists? He didn't, right? > Let's talk about the good environmentalists like you, not the naive ones I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I think there are some things that can be done to improve the environment. For example, one of the biggest environmental problems poor people in poor countries have is indoor air pollution, and the use of cheap and plentiful fossil fuels is one solution there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptTdEoHklmE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptTdEoHklmE Fossil fuels are essential to fight poverty too, as people in China demonstrated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v15q6M_z13Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v15q6M_z13Q In developed countries, loosening zoning and immigration laws and encourage development in big cities would be great for the environment too. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/glaeser-triumph-of-the-city-excerpt/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/glaeser-triumph-of... Cambridge physicist David MacKay recommends some individual actions to save energy (e.g. not flying/driving often) for those who are interested in taking personal actions. http://www.withouthotair.com/c29/page_229.shtml http://www.withouthotair.com/c29/page_229.shtml Recycling isn't one of them, but not buying clutter in the first place would be a good thing to do (which people are already financially incentivized to do). I'm interested in progressive consumption tax though, as explained by Cornell economist Robert Frank. I want to see some experimentation done in this area. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/12/the_progressive_consumption_tax_a_win_win_solution_for_reducing_american_economic_inequality_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/12/the_...
- dahart 10y ago
  > I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I think there are some things that can be done to improve the environment. Then you are an environmentalist. It's hard not to be one, if you're a human and want to live. > not buying clutter in the first place would be a good thing to do Yes!! > I'm interested in progressive consumption tax Me too! > poor people in poor countries have is indoor air pollution, and the use of cheap and plentiful fossil fuels is one solution there. [...] Fossil fuels are essential to fight poverty too I can agree that fossil fuels may be good solutions to the immediate problems of today like poverty and indoor pollution. But I see from your wording you already understand, as I do, that fossil fuels are only one option, and may not be the ideal solution in the future. G7 countries are now setting goals to reduce dependance on fossil fuels. Why? Is their belief in cleaner energy a religious cause with only faith and no evidence? No, there are both environmental and economic reasons for the US to start avoiding fossil fuels. > This doesn't seem like a fair characterisation of his position. Which part of his essay did he compare people who desire clean air/water with religious fundamentalists? He didn't, right? Wrong. And it's not just me, The American Enterprise Institute characterized this article of Landsburg's explicitly as "Why naive environmentalism is like religious fundamentalism", which is accurate since that's exactly what Landsburg said. http://www.aei.org/publication/why-naive-environmentalism-is-like-religious-fundamentalism/ http://www.aei.org/publication/why-naive-environmentalism-is... Just a few direct quotes from Landsburg: "We consider environmentalism a form of mass hysteria akin to Islamic fundamentalism or the War on Drugs." "The naive environmentalism of my daughter's preschool is a force-fed potpourri of myth, superstition, and ritual that has much in common with the least reputable varieties of religious Fundamentalism." "The underlying need to sacrifice, and to compel others to sacrifice, is a fundamentally religious impulse." That point was stated explicitly multiple times, and is more or less the entire thrust of this divisive, mean spirited, and self-righteous rant from beginning to end. Are you reading the same thing I'm reading? You yourself adopted and used the term "religious" to describe recycling already in this thread, by what leaps of logic are you suddenly claiming to be not aware of this? Forget the fundamentalist angle, just calling it "religious" is an attempt to discredit the environmental position as lacking any evidence or logical thought. Calling someone's reasons religious, without understanding them and when they wouldn't describe them that way is not just disrespectful, it's intentionally ignorant, it's trying to not understand and trying to disagree, self-righteously so. It's too bad Landsburg doesn't recognize the deep hypocrisy of his own self-righteousness, nor the fact that like you and I, he does actually believe that clean air and clean water being available now and to future generations is a mission worth fighting for. He, like you, is an environmentalist. You might think Landsburg's writing sounds great, and that it makes a good reference in a discussion like this, but he said a lot of disrespectful things about a vague unspecified group of people without a single piece of evidence. He only states that their position is unreasonable and zealous, but hasn't shown that even once, nor clarified who he's even talking about. This paper is really weak, you are doing a much better job explaining your views on recycling than Landsburg did explaining his. You'd certainly make your points quicker and more agreeably if you left his writing out and spoke for yourself instead.