3 ms·
> Climate and environmental concern were dismissed and attacked for decades. Part of the reason is that the "green" movement has a long history of promoting de
by rsj_hn 5y ago
> Climate and environmental concern were dismissed and attacked for decades.
Part of the reason is that the "green" movement has a long history of promoting de-industrialization and generally opposing human flourishing, using "nature" as a type of proxy for this anti-human, anti-development sentiment. Some examples:
* rigid opposition to nuclear power, which continues until the present. We could have moved completely off fossil fuels for electricity production if it were not for the green movement.
* the "environmental" regulations pushed through by the green movement were written with the aim of making development more expensive, resulting in the high price of housing as developers are sued into oblivion in disputations over environmental impact reports.
* the green movement is responsible for our disastrous forest management practices, resulting in thousands of deaths and massive ecological destruction by making it prohibitively expensive to harvest timber from federal lands. See, e.g. https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article254957722.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article25495772...
* prominent leaders in the green movement have gone on record wishing for mass culling of humanity in order to "save the planet". The most notorious example would be Prince Phillip, fantasizing that he would be reincarnated as a virus to wipe out millions of people in order to help the environment. See, e.g. https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/news-trends/article/3087918/when-prince-philip-wanted-be-reincarnated-pandemic-and https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/news-trends/article/308...
* Absurd crusades such as trying to ban plastic straws, plastic grocery bags, or promoting wasteful recycling programs that are not backed by any rational basis and cause more harm than good.
* Opposition to modern agricultural practices such as use of fertilizer, GMO crops, etc, that allow billions of people to eat in the name of a kind of unscientific primitive romanticism.
* The methods of various "pro environment" groups involving tactics such as domestic terrorism (including murder) to blocking highways as privileged activists lie down in public spaces and sob to "save the planet" turn off a lot of people and cause them to discount what environmentalists have to say.
> Sure, extreme claims will hurt credibility when they don’t pan out.
This has already happened. There really doesn't seem to be much in the way of quality control when it comes to wild claims being made, which leads people to discount all the claims.
- taylortrusty 5y agoYes, these things eliminate people who are sympathetic to the core cause but in no way want to be associated with these actions.
- Tycho 5y agoHow do the recycling schemes cause more harm than good?
- rsj_hn 5y agoBasically because once you get past recycling scrap metals you start consuming many more resources than you save, which forces municipal governments to subsidize the recycling operations, which becomes so expensive it threatens local budgets. Then the cities start paying China or Africa to take their trash to "recycle" and they end up shipping it overseas, consuming even more real resources when in reality much of that is just thrown away and disposed of in less safe ways than if it were to be put in local landfills in jurisdictions with stricter environmental rules. This is all to make people feel good about saving the planet. Interestingly, this was already known in the 1990s, and the NYTimes science writer, John Tierney, wrote an article about how recycling is actually harmful for many of the items recycled, and that this has taken on a type of upper middle class religious ritual (https://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/30/magazine/recycling-is-garbage.html?pagewanted=all https://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/30/magazine/recycling-is-gar...). No science article ever published by the times received so many death threats and angry letters as that article. But things have gotten much worse since then, as demands for recycling increased and city budgets began to be eaten by the costs of subsidizing this. See https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/the-reign-of-recycling.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/the-reign-... for an update in 2015. Then when China stopped accepting US trash, cities around the country began dumping recycling into landfills as they could no longer afford it. (https://fee.org/articles/america-finally-admits-recycling-doesn-t-work/ https://fee.org/articles/america-finally-admits-recycling-do...). See also: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/as-city-budgets-shrink-its-time-to-rethink-recycling-programs https://www.manhattan-institute.org/as-city-budgets-shrink-i... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/16/business/local-recycling-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/16/business/local-recycling-... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/17/plastic-recycling-myth-what-really-happens-your-rubbish https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/17/plastic-...