Comments on Ethics Climate: Shallow Thinking

The strategy of the editorial is common here in th...

2009-02-13T20:36:00.000-08:00

The strategy of the editorial is common here in the US: cast a radical deep green blanket over the progressives. Keeps them in line. But get rid of them? No way! There's a lot of green-washing to be done!

I thought this was a blog about the ethics of climate change. Wind farms and solar thermal won't even absorb the global GROWTH in energy consumption, let alone the drastic reductions needed by 2030 to keep us under 450ppm. (as if that would save us)

Progressives keep the public safe in the illusion that something is being done about climate change. I wonder how they sleep at night. Read the science! You want to do something about global warming? Stop having kids! Now that's what I call an ethical response.

Dishonest, sensationalist journo's? Who'd have tho...

2009-01-15T12:39:00.000-08:00

Dishonest, sensationalist journo's? Who'd have thought it. You can add the Daily Telegraph to the list (http://quolltracks.blogspot.com/2009/01/journalistic-claptrap.html). Good work Glenn, looking forward to seeing your next update.

As long as people see climate change and sustainab...

2009-01-14T17:33:00.000-08:00

As long as people see climate change and sustainable practices as about isms we'll be in it deep. The Right chose to blame AGW on the loudest voices - left-green voices - and have perpetuated respectability for denial of science based understanding of reality as a consequence. Rather than have to face that worst of political indignities - admitting they were wrong - the untenable position that climate change is a creation of the Green Left is perpetuated. Meanwhile it's not Greenpeace that informs my views of this issue, although I think their interpretations of the state of climate science seems sound, or Al Gore, it's bodies like NOAA, NCAR, NAS, Hadley CRU, CSIRO.
Green agendas only gain mainstream credence when what they say is in agreement with mainstream science, wherupon the radical fringe find themselves left out in the cold. I don't want the radicals to control the agenda, I want LibNats and Labour, at the centre, taking AGW seriously because the science is sound and the consequences too enormous to fail to act upon. Of course that isn't happenning except on the most superficial way - like having 5% emission reductions targets onshore whilst we increase coal exports that will add 30 times that to global emissions.
As for The Weekend (and Weekday) Australian, I suggest not reading it's editorial and opinion pages. I don't.

Fabulous post Glenn.I sometimes post on forest iss...

2008-12-15T19:32:00.000-08:00

Fabulous post Glenn.
I sometimes post on forest issues and I have a nemesis who writes like he's a forestry insider and pops up with strange alacrity whenever I post on the subject. He accused me of being a deep green the other day, so I had to go and look it up. I don't think some of their ideas are that radical, IMO. The fact that there are limits to growth is only moderate green stuff as far as I can see.

The big con with this "heroic workers vs. urban tree huggers" wedge is that the big media and corporations behind it don't give a shit about the heroic workers. They'll export their jobs to India as soon as they see a profit in it.

Hi there, in my view environmentalism has argued f...

2008-12-15T14:52:00.000-08:00

Hi there, in my view environmentalism has argued for a transition to green or eco-Capitalism. Have a look at Paul Hawkin and others of his ilk. They want free markets but want them to go green. Deep Greens oppose Capitalism but not because they are any species of Marxist. They oppose Capitalism because it defies the laws of thermodynamics (Daly) and ecology (Commoner). Most Deep Greens also oppose socialism because it is supportive of infinite growth of an industrial-technological society.

A tiny minority of radical greens are also socialists. However, I feel that they live uncomfortably with this marriage.

Students who show up to climate change protests do not read Marx. They read the IPCC reports and other climate science sources. There is no ideological pattern repeating from the 1970s ... the world has changed! There is no cold war ... but there is a Hot War!

Regards,

Glenn.

It was a silly article, but surely you don't deny ...

2008-12-14T23:29:00.000-08:00

It was a silly article, but surely you don't deny that environmentalism has indeed become more concerned with anti-capitalism over the years?

Even one of the founders of Greenpeace left the organisation because he felt Greenpeace had become anti-capitalist rather than conservationist.

There is also a definite pattern that the kind of students today who in the 70's would have been Trotsyites are now showing up at climate change protests.

I concur. That was an atrocious piece. One of thos...

2008-12-14T18:37:00.000-08:00

I concur. That was an atrocious piece. One of those contributions that leaves a very bad taste, but also makes me wonder at how deeply unserious and cynical the author must be. It was the same with Paul Kelly's recent diatribe against the 'green-scientists-media' conspiracy. As someone mentioned with regard to Kelly's lame effort: the Australian has transitioned seemlessly from the house organ for Climate Change skeptics to the defender of the 'we must not act too hastily' approach.