Death of Environmentalism Update

|

Gone and hopefully soon forgotten

Back in 2004 environmentalists Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger released a report at the annual meeting of environmental sugar daddies (Environmental Grant Makers) in Washington, DC, giving them the unwelcome news about The Death of Environmentalism [PDF]. In that report they declared that environmentalism had devolved into being merely another special interest. And worse yet, a special interest that was stuck proposing the same brain dead policies of reduce, reuse, and recycle as the solution to all environmental problems. 

They pointed out that environmentalists were still peddling Malthusian doom-and-gloom and preaching hair-shirt sacrifice. Thus did environmentalists turn off possible supporters because they were invested in telling the public "I have a nightmare" stories rather than delivering "I have a dream" speeches.

Since 2004, they have concluded that the only way to address man-made global warming is by accelerating technological progress. They believe that government subsidies can call new cheap low-carbon energy technologies into existence. I have my doubts. Nevertheless, they do understand that our environmental problems will not be solved by imposed collective sacrifice, but instead by unleashnig human technical genius. The two gave a talk, The Long Death of Environmentalism, at Yale University that clearly articulates this point well:

The great ecological challenges that our generation faces demands an ecological politics that is generative, not restrictive. An ecological politics capable of addressing global warming will require us to reexamine virtually every prominent strand of post-war green ideology.

From Paul Erlich's warnings of a population bomb to The Club of Rome's "Limits to Growth," contemporary ecological politics have consistently embraced green Malthusianism despite the fact that the Malthusian premise has persistently failed for the better part of three centuries. Indeed, the green revolution was exponentially increasing agricultural yields at the very moment that Erlich was predicting mass starvation and the serial predictions of peak oil and various others resource collapses that have followed have continue to fail.

This does not mean that Malthusian outcomes are impossible, but neither are they inevitable. We do have a choice in the matter, but it is not the choice that greens have long imagined. The choice that humanity faces is not whether to constrain our growth, development, and aspirations or die. It is whether we will continue to innovate and accelerate technological progress in order to thrive.

Human technology and ingenuity have repeatedly confounded Malthusian predictions yet green ideology continues to cast a suspect eye towards the very technologies that have allowed us to avoid resource and ecological catastrophes. But such solutions will require environmentalists to abandon the "small is beautiful" ethic that has also characterized environmental thought since the 1960's. We, the most secure, affluent, and thoroughly modern human beings to have ever lived upon the planet, must abandon both the dark, zero-sum Malthusian visions and the idealized and nostalgic fantasies for a simpler, more bucolic past in which humans lived in harmony with Nature.

Amen.

Whole Yale talk here.

NEXT: Ron Paul vs. Hillary Clinton

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Fuck ’em. The “environmentalists” have the same things to offer me as the unions – more problems, higher costs, wasted time and effort.

    Once more, with feeling – fuck ’em.

  2. “our environmental problems will not be solved by…collective sacrifice”

    My personal trainer and I agree!

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/…..adds-ozone

    1. It should also be noted that exercising is inherently detrimental to the environment because it requires the consumption of excess energy, which much be replenished by carbon-emitting and forest-destroying agriculture.

    2. ‘But then, how do we justify controlling people, if growth, rather than restraint, is the solution!’… thus thinks the politician.

      1. that’s easy…you just attack these men and label them as defectors to viscious capatilistic, earth-hating sell outs. Just use your power to get lobbying money from the special interests to smear their names and discredit them to the fullest extent.

  3. Cut and paste the comments from the “progressives should support eminent domain reform” thread and substitute “environmentalist” for “progressive” (if need be) and “technology” for “eminent domain reform”.

  4. “We, the most secure, affluent, and thoroughly modern human beings to have ever lived upon the planet, must abandon both the dark, zero-sum Malthusian visions and the idealized and nostalgic fantasies for a simpler, more bucolic past in which humans lived in harmony with Nature.”

    Wow! An intellectual argument? No call to join the mythical noble savages in the caves and forests.

  5. In that report they declared that environmentalism had devolved into being merely another special interest.

    Color me surprised. Also, see MADD.

      1. My pizza tyranny will continue unabated, BP. I refuse to give ground to gauche philistines who insist that an open calzone loaded with greasy meats and using reduced-moisture “mozzarella” is “pizza”.

        1. You know, fuck libertarianism. I’m going to launch a campaign to ban two-dimensional pizza. Using force. And you can’t stop me, as neither Seattle nor Haiti get a pizza vote. As you well know.

          1. Agreed. Pizza should have a z-axis.

            1. Thanks to Episiarch, I am driven insane by this issue. I write a book called Meine Tiefen Teller Pizza (in German, a language I don’t know), and conquer most of the planet in a horrific and bloody manner. At the end, my empire collapses, but the one net change is that cardboard pizza is forever forgotten. History judges me as not really that bad.

              1. Episiarch, incidentally, is murdered and eaten by his people after a brief, yet pathetic, stint as the God Emperor of Haiti. He takes the flatbread pizza as his skin.

                1. Maybe you should get back to me when you have a pizza that uses fresh mozzarella. That’s the stuff that doesn’t come yellow, moisture-reduced, and pre-shredded, just so you know.

                  1. For the record, I have had deep-dish pizza with fresh mozzarella you bad, bad person. And fresh basil and tomatoes.

                    Now you’re really making me mad, because I’m at work and hungry.

                    Damn you, Episiarch!

                    1. Now you’re really making me mad, because I’m at work and hungry.

                      I have done my job well.

                      THANK YOU SATAN!

                    2. Jesus is going to turn your wine into water, bitch.

                2. I’ve seen more “Dune” references on this website in the 3 months I’ve been reading it than in all my activities over the previous 3 years. It’s a good thing.

                  1. It used to be even more frequent. And with a surprising amount of Planet of the Apes references. Well, really, all three of Heston’s apocalyptic movies.

                    1. To be sure, don’t refer to the Dune film. That’s considered gauche. Unless you’re among the flat-pizza hoi polloi. Then it’s merely offensive.

                    2. It’s a David Lynch film. It’s utterly passe if you don’t refer to it. Were you raised in a barn or something?

                    3. If by barn, you mean a place where literacy is valued, then yes, you syphilitic dwarf.

                      The movie had its moments, but it’s not a great film. I think it could be, but Shai-Hulud knows it isn’t easy to do.

                    4. Dwarf?!?

                      It’s a pretty great film. It is a flawed film; but Lynch tried to do something very difficult and actually did pretty well without CGI or an insane budget.

                    5. You’re right–I crossed the line. I retract the dwarf.

                      It’s got some lovely elements, but it doesn’t work as a whole. And, of course, he went more for a Dune look than in nailing the story.

                    6. The worms and Baron Harkonen were very well done. That’s really the only impression the film left with me.

                    7. lol I actually LIKED the film (yes I said it!). Sting in bat-wing underwear? What’s not to like!

                      That having been said, the movie really cut Duncan’s time down to like 2 minutes of screentime, but ultimately what’re you gonna do. Can’t win em all.

                    8. That having been said, it doesn’t do much for the image that libertarians are mostly “white male suburban nerd-core”. When I first read that on here, after fancying myself such an individualist, I looked in the mirror and shed a tear. Then put on “They Live” while I played Warhammer Online.

                    9. Speaking of Dune, what the hell ever happened to Groovus?

                      Just accept it and fly your freak flag, Jim.

          2. Fuck deep-shit pizza. There’s a reason the Italians do it thin-crust.

            1. I don’t get it. Is this a joke about buttsex?

              1. No, it’s really about pizza, but I still like the way you think, Zeb.

              2. Zeb has been watching too many bad pornos.

                “Pizza delivery, extra sausage.”

                1. As opposed to watching the “good” pornos.

            2. Deep-dish isn’t technically pizza, as pizza in its accepted form is a flat food. We need a new name for deep-dish that is original and encompasses deep-dish’s flavor and heartiness.

              How about mangled-bloody-shit-fetus-pie? I realize that this sounds more American than Italian, but we must look at mangled-bloody-shit-fetus-pie as an American invention that no self-respecting dago would touch.

              1. Flat is a relative term. At least until Episiarch achieves his goal of a truly two-dimensional pizza. He’s planning to take the LHC by force to accomplish this goal.

                1. I wanna throw a pizza into a black hole and have a point particle pie.

              2. “You keep using this word ‘giabroni’, and…it’s AWESOME.”

                1. They should call it “diarrhea-filled-toilet pizza” because that’s what it resembles. The best part is that a few hours after eating one you automatically make a new one with your ass.

                  1. Damn spoof name.

  6. Something is wrong with this article. It doesn’t detail how the authors were shanghaied by environmentalists for their heresy and put to work for the next 3 years as water cannon targets on the Steve Irwin.

    1. Every time I see that boat’s name I pray it gets sunk by a giant manta ray.

      1. You can say that again.

      2. Snakes on a boat – all the poisonous ones the goober handled over the years.

    2. Every time I see that boat’s name I pray it gets sunk by a giant manta ray.

  7. “Nevertheless, they do understand that our environmental problems will not be solved by imposed collective sacrifice, but instead by unleashnig human technical genius.”

    I think there is a role for government–it’s taxing externalities rather than productive activity.

    Anybody who thinks the environment isn’t worth saving if it means giving up on redistributing income–isn’t really committed to saving the environment.

    The last piece of the puzzle is accepting that the technological solutions that work best will be the solutions people choose for themselves rather than the solutions our politicians inflict on them.

    Put those three things together, and I think there’s lots of room for rational optimism–that’s my dream.

  8. We…must abandon both the dark, zero-sum Malthusian visions and the idealized and nostalgic fantasies for a simpler, more bucolic past in which humans lived in harmony with Nature.

    In graduate school I wrote this same thing almost word-for-word in a paper for a class on natural resource management. From my experience with environmentalist classmates and professors, these ideas and arguments don’t make a damn bit of difference, because environmentalists don’t actually care about the environment. Just like everyone else, they only care about power and money.

  9. Subsidies aside, I think most human problems can be solved by more or better applications of science and technology. Granted, we may kill ourselves that way, too, but we don’t need to look for help in doing that–we’ve got the capability already.

  10. I consider myself an environmentalist; it is one of the reasons I am a libertarian.

    Poor societies cannot afford environmental concerns – poor people are too busy surviving to worry about what will happen three generations down the road. It is only wealthy societies that can take the long view.

    Note that the extinction of most of the large land animals in Europe and the Mediterranean occured in the pre-industrial age – the Irish wolf, Irish Elk, and the Numidian Lion, to name only three.

    And, though it is considered racist to say so, the fact that the Columbian Mammoth, the sabre-toothed cat, the ground sloth disappeared at the same time the Clovis people appeared is not coincidence. (The attempts to explain it by “environmental change as the glaciers retreated” don’t wash – if that were true, how did those species survive the previous dozen cycles of glaciation and retreat?)

    1. Isn’t there an impact theory that’s in vogue about North American extinctions (including the ending of the Clovis culture)? I saw a NOVA or something like that on the topic.

      1. Yeah, someone proposed that a meteor strike in Nova Scotia did the job, but if the comparable Barringer impact at 50,000 years ago didn’t, why should that one? Or the Yellowstone caldera eruption 600,000 years ago, which had vastly greater effect?

        1. Hell if I know. The evidence is still coming in, though there is enough to make it a possibility. Big firestorms are the proximate cause of all the death and destruction, in theory.

          That Yellowstone event must’ve been insanely destructive.

          1. The Toba catastrophe has been named as a culprit before in regards to potential extinctions

            1. I did see an estimate that the Toba eruption may have brought the human population down to a few thousand.

              IOW, Mother Nature nearly did us in 70,000 years ago.

              1. See my comment below. No, more below.

              2. “IOW, Mother Nature nearly did us in 70,000 years ago.”

                We were so close…

            2. I deny everything.

          2. If Yellowstone goes again (and it is roughly due), kiss civilization goodbye for the next 200 years.

            Actually, any of about a dozen giant calderas that have been located around the world could do in civilization.

            1. Which is one reason I’d rather like us to get cracking on colonizing other worlds.

              1. Oh, bullshit. You’re polishing your Emperor of Mars crown right now, aren’t you? Aren’t you?

                1. I’m commenting from my palace on Mars right now.

    2. Why would that be considered racist? People everywhere are good at killing shit. I don’t know a lot about the subject, but it has always seemed pretty plausible that the arrival of people brought about the end of most megafauna on most continents.

      1. It is considered ‘racist’ because it suggests that pre-Columbian North Americans did not live in absolute harmony and possess a higher spiritual sense of oneness with nature than nasty Europeans.

        IOW, only whites can cause extinctions and to suggest that native americans did is racist.

  11. a simpler, more bucolic past in which humans lived in harmony with Nature.

    Part of the reason this goal fails so miserably is that there does not exist a “a simpler, more bucolic past in which humans lived in harmony with Nature.” We never lived in “harmony” with nature, we’ve been constantly trying to figure out ways to survive since we started walking upright by manipulating nature to our benefit. During this time “nature” has been constantly trying to kill us and any other species that doesn’t adequately adapt to the changing environments. If anything, we are more in “harmony” now because we actually give a fuck what happens to the environment.

    I never understood why people have such nostalgia for a time that never existed.

    1. Two words: Grizzly Adams.

      1. I thought you were going to say Grizzly Man.

        1. No. The pernicious influence of the 70s cannot be ignored when wondering what the heck is wrong with some people.

        2. Ironically enough some idiot at the bar last weekend was talking about how “harmonious” Grizzly Man was for being eaten by a Grizzly bear because he “was put back in to the cycle of life in a holistic manner, blahblahblah”.

          People are fucking stupid.

          1. Aresen’s dictum on pet choice:

            Never get cuddly with something that can eat you for lunch.

            1. Truly, this and never eat anything bigger than your head can save you from about 37% of movie deaths.

          2. Grizzly man is a stupid ass piece of shit and nothing else. I wish they had played the tape of him being eaten in the movie. I would have laughed if it wasn’t for his girlfriend being a mostly innocent victim.

            1. Hours after being eaten by a bear one is literally a piece of shit.

        3. Grizzly Man lived in harmony with nature. He entered the nature food chain just like everything else in nature does… naturally.

          1. Yo, fuck nature.

          2. Talk about yer Whole Foods!

  12. Nuclear and natural gas is really the best way to go right now as far as energy needs that are relatively clean. We’re going to have to wait for the high capacity batteries and fusion. Fusion is only 15 years away I hear.

    1. Well that’s certainly better than 20 years away that was proposed 30 years ago. So with that in mind, we should only be 5 years away in 2071

      1. Sounds about right.

        1. So let’s get cracking on the natural gas thing (no pun intended, actually), and use that while we get the fusion thing worked out.

    2. I think they supposed to have the construction documents for a ITER by the end of the year.

      1. er for ITER finished by the end of the year.

  13. I think there is a role for government–it’s taxing externalities rather than productive activity.

    Of course, taxes on externalities are paid out of productive activity. And externalities are notoriously difficult to define.

    So, as a theoretical goal, maybe. As a practical matter, we will get taxes on energy producers to offset the externality of CO2. Blechh.

    Anybody who thinks the environment isn’t worth saving if it means giving up on redistributing income–isn’t really committed to saving the environment.

    Anyone who thinks redistributing income is the way to save the environment is a lot more interested in redistributing income. How, exactly, does taking my money and giving it to the guy down the street help the environment?

    The last piece of the puzzle is accepting that the technological solutions that work best will be the solutions people choose for themselves rather than the solutions our politicians inflict on them.

    I agree, and posit that this can happen without income redistribution or taxing externalities.

    1. Anyone who thinks redistributing income is the way to save the environment is a lot more interested in redistributing income. How, exactly, does taking my money and giving it to the guy down the street help the environment?

      Surely you know what argument follows that? The guy down the street has been vetted by a five-member panel on the EPA as doing something/having big ideas that will reduce our carbon footprint. That person down the street is doing something about the environment, not just doing something to the environment like you are.

    2. What an excellent argument for why people should be able to harm other people and their property for free.

      1. You have to prove harm, first. Just saying you were harmed does not make it so, especially if you are a pathological liar.

        1. And I suppose you have to have an individual tort… It’s a good thing bodies of water and the atmosphere have magic barriers at every property line.

          1. Tony|3.1.11 @ 7:18PM|#
            “And I suppose you have to have an individual tort… It’s a good thing bodies of water and the atmosphere have magic barriers at every property line.”

            Quit the armwaving, idiot. You still haven’t shown the harm.

            1. *yawn*

              Is Tony bitching about pollution again?

            2. Science has. Ever hear of science?

    3. So, as a theoretical goal, maybe. As a practical matter, we will get taxes on energy producers to offset the externality of CO2. Blechh.

      A better way to do externality taxes is to place the burden on the consumer of the end product, not on the producer of the product. Such a method would allow externalities to be taxed even if the externality occured in a place external to the point of consumption (8 letter alliteration bonus, FTW). Allowing the consumer to make effective decisions on the basis of the universal dislike for paying tax.

      Anyone who thinks redistributing income is the way to save the environment is a lot more interested in redistributing income. How, exactly, does taking my money and giving it to the guy down the street help the environment?

      You’re right and it doesn’t.

      In fact if the consumer is being taxed the high external costs of combatting climate change, income taxation is almost certainly bad for the enviroment. The existance of government itself is bad for the enviroment if the consumer is paying for externalities as the government is functionally immune to the effect of this taxation, the government is never subject to taxation in any meaningful way and therefore unconstrained by the externalities it consumes. Similarily state deficit spending is bad for the enviroment, again because state spendings externalities are not taxable.

      We need to make sacrifices to save the planet – we need to drastically reduce the size of government.

  14. Ronald,

    Exactly how is human technical genius currently leashed?

      1. And how, precisely, is an existing subsidy leashing an individual’s “technical genius” in regards to solving environmental problems?

        1. The magic of subsidies. The MAGIC OF SUBSIDIES!!! Multiplier Effects! Just, give me your money and quit arguing!

        2. Because subsidies distort price signals and incent investment in politically-favored solutions rather than practical ones.

          1. Yes but how does this result in the leashing of “technical genius”? The market isn’t forced to pursue government largesse, it chooses to. There are more than a few instances of government sponsored incentives failing to deliver the intended effects, so the use of subsidies would not seem to preclude pursuit of alternatives.

            1. Subsidies result in the leashing of technical genius by crowding out private investment. Investors are drawn to the ostensibly less risky yields of government bonds (backed by the power of taxation, of course) when they might otherwise have engaged in other ventures. When you factor in the rent-seeking inherent to any government spending decision, it is far from clear that subsidies in research and development would yield more innovation than the unhindered market might otherwise have done.

        3. You’re a progressive right?(the fact that you think scare quotes belong anywhere credit is given to individuals gives you away)

          Think corn subsidies. You have everything you need to answer your question you just aren’t going to think about it. You’re probably choosing not to think right now.

          1. What “technical genius” is prevented from being conceptualized by corn subsidies? How do those subsidies interfere with individual thinking in solving environmental problems?

            Unless you are suggeting that human thought is entirely directed and controlled by capital flows. Is that your argument?

            1. Ben Wolf|3.1.11 @ 8:17PM|#
              “What “technical genius” is prevented from being conceptualized by corn subsidies?”

              Let’s try this v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y:
              At any given time, there is a finite amount of resources which can be spent on solving problems.
              Spending it in one one proposed solution means it is not available for use on others. Is that clear?
              ……………………

              “How do those subsidies interfere with individual thinking in solving environmental problems?”

              Once again, v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y:
              In most cases, thinking up actual solutions does not mean sitting in a coffee shop staring at the ceiling. It means research and development, all of which require those resources currently wasted on ADM stockholders.
              Got it now?

              1. But government subsidies don’t force the private sector to spend R&D dollars in a specific way.

                So I will ask again: what “technical genius” is being leashed?

                1. “But government subsidies don’t force the private sector to spend R&D dollars in a specific way.”

                  Wrong. You’ve just repeated the silly argument that ‘it’s stupid, but it’s only a little bit stupid’. Sort of like ‘well Frannie and Freddie only distorted the mortgage market by a little’. Market distortion causes those famous ‘unintended consequences’.
                  Subsidies are taken by tax from the general amount of resources. Only a certain amount of the resources are available for research, usually from savings. Take my income by taxes and make me use my savings for consumption, and I’m not gonna invest in “Sammy’s New Fart Powered Power Station”.
                  You really need to do reading so you don’t continue to embarrass yourself.

                2. Seriously? You’re trying to start a circle-jerk over a turn of phrase?

                  But government subsidies don’t force the private sector to spend R&D dollars in a specific way.

                  If I give you $100,000 to walk on the left side of the street instead of the right, which side will you walk on?

                3. Subsidies incentivize using R & D in a specific way. It makes research that would be less profitable more profitable. Since the private sector always tries to do what is most profitable, this causes research to skew towards whatever research the government is subsidizing.

              2. Or try googling Capitalism.

                1. The history of creativity pre-dates capitalism by at least six thousand years. And for that period of time governments have always engaged in subsidization of favored industries while creative thought has proceeded apace.

                  So what is it about current subsidies which prevents “technical genius”? Why is this time different?

                  Are you suggesting that a capitalist economy is more easily subverted than previous economic systems? If so, are you also suggesting the creative capacity of those within a capitalist economy is weaker, more dependent on externalities?

                  1. “The history of creativity pre-dates capitalism by at least six thousand years.”

                    Are you being willfully ignorant? WIH is this supposed to mean?
                    ………..

                    “And for that period of time governments have always engaged in subsidization of favored industries while creative thought has proceeded apace.”

                    Cites, including amounts spent on these subsidies. Or, you could shut up and not look as stupid as you do.
                    ………….
                    “So what is it about current subsidies which prevents “technical genius”? Why is this time different?”

                    See above.
                    ………………
                    “Are you suggesting that a capitalist economy is more easily subverted than previous economic systems?”

                    What?
                    ……………..
                    “If so, are you also suggesting the creative capacity of those within a capitalist economy is weaker, more dependent on externalities?”

                    Try English rather than brain-dead; not spoken much in these parts.

                  2. Yes Ben Wolf, human creativity has existed for quite some time. But creativity really didn’t start making a noticable positive impact on the way people lived until the last few centries. Life expectancy, standard of living, wealth, technology, etc. boomed in Europe and North America after capitalism developed. Capitalism developed as government power receded.

                    Get it?

                  3. “The history of creativity pre-dates capitalism by at least six thousand years.”

                    Progressive inevitably giveaway their Marxism.

                    Capitalism didn’t start in the 18th century, nor does it follow feudalism or any of the other garbage. People have been trading for profit since the beginning.

                2. “Or try googling Capitalism.”

                  Obviously a waste of time. Asshole has no interest in answers; asshole is trying to get someone to buy his assholery.

          2. Actually I find it odd that Ronald would use such a subjective, value-laden term as “technical genius”. It isn’t very helpful in determining how (as he suggests) creative capability is being restrained.

            1. “It isn’t very helpful in determining how (as he suggests) creative capability is being restrained.”

              He writes to an assumed level of competence.

              1. Then it should be relatively easy for you to explain its objective meaning and its role in quantifying creative capability.

                1. “Then it should be relatively easy for you to explain its objective meaning and its role in quantifying creative capability.”

                  I have, but I might also be writing assuming a competence that isn’t there.

                  1. Why be insulting? Why be rude? If you can’t answer the question, just say you don’t know. I’ll accept that.

                    1. “Why be insulting? Why be rude? If you can’t answer the question, just say you don’t know. I’ll accept that.”

                      Oh, no, asshole. The question has been answered to the level of, say, high-school freshman, asshole.
                      The reason I’m insulting is, well, you deserve it. You’re not asking questions, asshole, you’re stating your ignorance.
                      Willful ignorance deserves to be insulted, asshole.

                    2. I don’t know what you mean by “asshole”, please explain. What is this “freshman” that you speak of can you quantify this so-called “freshman”.

                      Back to “asshole” can you quantifisize the terminoligination of the intention so kindly, in a competent manner, of the “asshole?” Could you index it for me on a histiogram?

                    3. “Back to “asshole” can you quantifisize the terminoligination of the intention so kindly, in a competent manner, of the “asshole?” Could you index it for me on a histiogram?”

                      See “Ben Wolf”, above.

                    4. “”Ben Wolf””(double quotes, hah!) reminds me of another question asking dickhead that was recently around here.

                      The guy I’m talking about dealt in absurd hypothetical situations. What was his name?

                    5. Oops, forgot these ????, cause I’m just asking ???!

                      Insert ???? where needed…I am socrates! Qualify your impotence!

                    6. “Why be insulting? Why be rude? If you can’t answer the question, just say you don’t know. I’ll accept that.”

                      Leftard motto: Never be rude when passive aggressiveness is an option.

            2. It seems that you are just arguing semantics for kicks, but I’ll give it a go. It’s not that subsidies “leash” genius. There are plenty of brilliant people out there looking to solve problems. What subsidies do however is to reward political conniving over real imnovation

  15. In that report they declared that environmentalism had devolved into being merely another special interest.

    And when did this devolution suddenly take place? Because I can hardly remember a time when it wasn’t that way.

  16. I laughed a bit when I saw the whole Irish Green Party being demoted from parliament in this weekend’s election.

  17. Environmentalists are like Objectivists; even when you agree with them they’ll despise you for agreeing for the “wrong” reasons.

  18. From Paul Erlich’s warnings of a population bomb to The Club of Rome’s “Limits to Growth,” contemporary ecological politics have consistently embraced green Malthusianism despite the fact that the Malthusian premise has persistently failed for the better part of three centuries.

    “But… but… but nothing says that the Great Demise that Malthus promised will not be reached! You’ll see! YOU WILL ALL SEEEEeeeee!!!!” [while the environmentalist is being dragged wearing a straight jacket…]

    1. “but nothing says that the Great Demise that Malthus promised will not be reached!”

      What seems amazing is the total lack of self-knowledge in this sort of message.
      Don’t they see the obvious parallels to “The Rapture” and the end-times predicted in the Watchtower?
      Don’t they see how ridiculous they look when the “hockey stick bend” didn’t happen? When NYC didn’t have to board up the windows? When London remained habitable?
      Every time I ask this question, I get (I swear!) ‘well, Ehrlich is just wrong in some details.’
      Yeah, like every one.

  19. I really liked your article and I shared with my friends in my facebook account.welcome visit us.baseball hats

    1. As if I needed another reason to hate Kevin Fucktwaddle.

  20. The Long Death of Environmentalism? More like The Immediate Death of Subject-Verb Agreement. That thing is off the rails eight words in.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.