Why so much hate for environmentalism?

There's one thing I never understand about global warming deniers.  "Demand debate!" they say, as the plane over the NJ LiveEarth concert did.  "It's natural!" they say.

Okay.  Let's assume for one minute that they're completely, entirely, 100% correct.  Al Gore and 90%+ of climate scientists are wrong, but we're all suckered into believing their wild and crazy "science".

We go out, and conserve energy.  We create energy efficient appliances and reduce our dependence on oil.  We invest a ton of money creating new technologies and jobs related to cleaning the air.  Improving the health and quality of life of all of us, our children, and the generations to come, even if all of our efforts didn't affect the climate one bit...

But how is this a bad thing, even if it wasn't a matter of life and death?

I suppose it's the money they're worried about.  They claim that it will cost too much to combat global warming, but when money is spent it's not just buried in a hole or composted.  Money spent on new technologies and research is funneled back into the economy, opening up new possibilities and industries.

Toyota seems to be doing pretty well seems with their hybrids, an example of embracing new technology... "Toyota sales are booming because of its good image around the world about reliability and ecological technology", says Koji Endo, an auto analyst with Credit Suisse in Tokyo.  No wonder Toyota plans on going all hybrid.  Many other companies are likewise doing well by embracing the green challenge.

If we reduce our reliance on dirty coal plants, there will be less CO2, mercury, and other pollutants in our air.  Fewer pollutants in the air means happier, healthier people.  Better to breath nice clean air than smog, right? The threat of global climate change doesn't have to be the only reason we should seek out cleaner lifestyles.

Mister Global Warming Denier, why are you willing to spend so much money attempting to disrupt our environmental awareness concert?  Why do you consistently side with the corporations that are poisoning our water, land, and air?  Why do you hate* and slander* the people that are trying to point out that something just might be wrong?  

Do you really hate the future that much?

I just can't understand why someone might be pro-pollution.  It just doesn't make any sense to me, so if anyone has any clues, please, I just want to understand.  The only way I can even conceive of it is by being so devoid of scruples as to make Jean-Baptiste Emmanuel Zorg seem like a role model, or having a conscience sold to the highest bidder.

* Indirect links to the hate, since I can't bring myself to link directly to the offending sites.  At least this way there's a nice filter between us and them.

Edit: Changed the title to be significantly less inflammatory.

•  First time!

  Since the concert, the question has been going through my head continuously.  Please help me understand!

  by aseth on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 05:31:25 PM PDT

  •  Okay, let's go over this.

    First let's discuss the Little Ice Age Back about a thousand years ago, during what's called medieval warm period, the average temperature was slightly warmer then it was now, and then around 1200 CE, there was a major cooling. This cause famine and desease, not to mention the end of the British wine industry.

    The climate epoch lasted until the middle of the 19th century, when a period of global warming began.

    To understand how the climate was back then, it's best to think about Napolean's invasion of Russia in 1812. Remember reading about how his troops froze to death in that horrible winter? Guess what? It took place mostly in October of that year. That's right, they didn't get back to northern Germany until early November.

    Winters were long, and summers short. In the 17th century, it was that way even in Italy.

    Now after a hundred and sixty years of warmer temperatures, of course things are different.

    However, nobody who "denies" global warning is pro pollution. NOT EVEN BUSH.

    by YoursTruly on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 05:50:01 PM PDT

    •  Still...

      Let's say I agree with you and it's completely natural.

      Why not reduce emissions and pollution anyway?  Why not reduce our addiction to oil and our unhealthy dependence on the middle east?

      Bush is 100% pro-profit.  Pollution is completely irrelevant to him, regardless of who it hurts.

      by aseth on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:01:20 PM PDT

      •  good question. very good question.

        chirp...chirp....chirp....chirp

        by Winnie on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:16:29 PM PDT

      •  That's the wrong question.

        Why not reduce emissions and pollution anyway?

        you see, saying that not believing the myths about global warming means that you want more pollution is a read herring. I never said that I, or anyone else wants more pollution.

        I am very much against pollution. I don't know anyone who actually is FOR pollution. Hybrid cars are great things, oil is a finite resource, and the scuttling of the electric car initiative in California was a genuine crime. China and India are the major polluters now, and the cutting down of the Brazillian rain forest is partly a reaction to European and American lefties screaming "save the rain forest!" back in the '80s and '90s.

        by YoursTruly on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:56:36 PM PDT

        •  Lol.

          You are the one that brought up the fact that global warming has happened in the past and said that because it was natural in the past, it must be natural today.

          That's not the way it works.

          Just because something happened because of one reason in the past, does not mean it will always happen because of the very same reason.  Global warming occurred naturally in the past, the evidence suggests that today's warming is not natural.  It is man-made.

          I am very much against pollution. I don't know anyone who actually is FOR pollution.

          They may not be for it, but are they for government regulation to stop it?  Bush would never admit to being for pollution, but what has he done to stop it?

          by 0wn on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:20:16 PM PDT

        •  red herring

          If global warming is not occurring, or is at least not due to anthropogenic factors, than it is not due to increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2, which are demonstrably due to burning of fossil fuels by humans. Since it has no affect, CO2 is not a pollutant, so your concession about not wanting more pollution means jack in this context. And I think you know that perfectly well.

          To continue another of your green-baiting remarks, I would love to hear you explain the causal link between past concern for the Amazon rain forest and the cutting down of same to which you refer.

          I predict it will be a piece of the standard perversions of the 'law of unintended consequences' according to which any attempt to address a market failure by non-market means automatically has exactly the opposite result.

          by Boreal Ecologist on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:25:51 PM PDT

        •  You're a Retard

          You don't say what is the right question. You don't say why that question is the wrong one.

          You lie about no one being "for" pollution, when your boy Bush and his Republican Congress wrote all kinds of laws to increase pollution. Just because they're really "for" the money, and pollution is a way to get it, that doesn't mean they're not "for" pollution. Their active, knowing creation of more of it, and huge campaign to lie about their making it, makes them "for" pollution.

          You think this debate is a chance for you to blurt out Limbo claptrap about China and India, and some kind of demented idea that the Brazillian rainforest is cut down just to spite some Americans who care about it. How stupid is that? Retarded stupid.

          by DocGonzo on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:54:17 PM PDT

        •  Forgive my question

          but can you explain your statement

          and the cutting down of the Brazillian rain forest is partly a reaction to European and American lefties screaming "save the rain forest!" back in the '80s and '90s.

          by ohcanada on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:11:11 PM PDT

    •  What exactly does that have to do with today.

      No one who believes global warming is man-made denies the fact that climate has changed before, but the difference is:

         *

      Legend 4 - Global warming is all part of natural variability; the climate is always changing.

         * The only way to assess whether the recently observed warming fits with a pattern of natural variability is to look at how temperature has varied in the past. This can be done using paleoclimatic evidence from tree rings, glaciers, corals, and other geologic records. Figure 2 shows several different reconstructions of temperature for the past two thousand years with the instrumental record shown in black. It is clear that the magnitude and rate of change over the past century far exceeds any natural variation that occurred in the past two millennia.
         * While there have been large variations in climate over the course of Earth history, paleoclimatic evidence can often tie these to specific changes in climate forcings, such as variations in Earth orbit or changes in atmospheric composition. Once variations resulting from known external forcings are removed, the magnitude of natural fluctuations from the chaotic variability inherent to the climate system appears to be significantly smaller than changes in global average temperature over the past century, suggesting that this change is a response to forcing from increased greenhouse gas concentrations caused by humans rather than a simple internal oscillation.
      Link

      by 0wn on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:21:43 PM PDT

      •  I have never understood how invoking the

        Little Ice Age has come to mean that we needn't take positive action on global warming. To me, it should mean precisely the opposite. When the world experiences increased solar activity during a time when there is far more CO2 in the atmosphere than ever before, and we have 6 billion people on the earth in addition to our livestock, powerplants, planes, trains and automobiles, if you're looking at the Little Ice Age rationally, you're probably going to come to the conclusion that we may be just a few volcano blasts away from total environmental disaster.

        by pat bunny on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:37:23 PM PDT

      •  actually, if you look at world temperatures

        The late century has been pretty stable and during the '70s and '80s, the temperatures have gone down. Then they went up.

        Remember, this doesn't mean that pollution is GOOD.

        by YoursTruly on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:00:22 PM PDT

        •  A link..

          You may want to read this Link

          I hope that link will answer some of your questions.

          Remember, this doesn't mean that pollution is GOOD.

          Wait, what are you saying is pollution?  I saw you made the same statement above.  What type of pollution are you talking about?

          by 0wn on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:11:49 PM PDT

        •  Hmmm ...

          And why was there cooling? Did it have anything to do with combination of natural (volcanic activity) and manmade activity (particulate pollution).  Hmmm ... and there was a reduction in mandmade particulates (get sulphur down to reduce Acid Rain) and the masking of the warming effect went away ...

          See -- there are combinations of manmade and natural effects / causes to the changes in the past century.  

          You seem to be denying any ability of humanity to be influencing, even driving global effects.  

          Yes, nature changes, climate is variable.  Issue is that humanity is now a driving factor playing upon that variability, creating instability where relative stability is far better for humanity's future than creating a reckless path toward a rollercoaster future of variability.

          By the way, even if you deny humanity's impact on Global Warming, might you consider that massive reductions in CO2 emissions would make sense due to acidification of the oceans? Or, would you deny that as well?

          by A Siegel on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:52:09 AM PDT

    •  ?

      nobody who "denies" global warning is pro pollution. NOT EVEN BUSH

      It's my understanding that Bush and the Republican Congress disabled, destroyed, or undermined every anti-pollution agency and measure they could.  I'm not certain what you'd call that, but in my book if you're deliberately attacking anti-pollution measures, you're pro pollution.

      by tovan on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:46:07 PM PDT

    •  Go check out RealClimate

      To learn a little bit about what your are talking about.

      If, that is, your are interested in the truth, which I beg leave to doubt extremely.

      Myths of climate change, indeed. Time for recipes.

      by Boreal Ecologist on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:08:31 PM PDT

    •  Liar

      What we're talking about is whether humans can slow or stop the climate change we're already seeing threaten us. Which we can. Even if we're in a "natural cycle" (what else is there? Do you think humans are aliens, or robots?) we can still do a lot to mitigate the risk and reduce the damage before we lose all chance to do anything.

      Enough with your useless guilt trips and Bush apologies. Just shut up already with your lies and irrelevancies, and stop getting in the way of the adults who are saving your worthless ass because we care about ours, and realize we're all in it together. Whether we like saving your or not.

      by DocGonzo on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:50:19 PM PDT

      •  BRAVO, Doc G !

        Very well said !

        by The Werewolf Prophet on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:00:53 PM PDT

        •  Winning the Blame Game

          Thanks.

          I don't know why sensible people reinforce the Greenhouse deniers' gibberish about "blame", or whether humans are "causing" the current crisis.

          All that matters is that humans have the power to avert the crisis, whether or not we caused it, or just face a cycle.

          What's typically "ironic" (really just a cruel lie by now) is that the exact same Greenhouse deniers are also lined up to spend all the credit we might have left on Star Wars "missile defense" justified by some bizarre paranoia about "apocalyptic incoming asteroids".

          I wish people fighting to protect our environment and us would just start chanting "people have the power to change our fate" until this retarded zombie army starts to swing in the direction of the better advertisements. Who cares why they switch, just so long as they stop killing us.

          by DocGonzo on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:30:05 PM PDT

    •  Cause of the Little Ice Age

      There is a school of thought that puts the plague as the cause of the Little Ice Age. The duration of the Little Ice Age is highly controversial, but it's almost always set as beginning after the plague years. That makes more sense to me, since insect-borne disease outbreaks are more common in warm climates than cold, and the famine that accompanied the plague was the result of depopulation - not enough people to grow food.

      With the plague destroying something on the order of 1/3 of the population of Europe and parts of Asia, fields went untended and farms were abandoned. The fallow ground was taken over by a succession from grasses to weeds and brush to trees, each step increasing the biomass, and consequently locking up more and more CO2. As atmospheric CO2 decreased, temperatures became colder, and it took until the 19th century for population levels and human activity to reverse the trend.

      That's someone's theory anyway. Whether it's true or not, I couldn't say.

      by badger on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:31:38 PM PDT

    •  Well ...

      do you have the open mindedness to actually read on the subject?

      Why not check out this Daily Kos discussion, today: How We Know Humans Cause Global Warming (4 of 5): Medieval Warming Period?

      You don't need to stray far to see the errors of your comments.

      There may have been a warm period during Medieval times, but current studies show that (a) temperatures were not as warm as today, and (b) it wasn't global.

      ....

      The graph below is from a sidebar in the IPCC assessment called "Hemispheric Temperatures in the 'Medieval Warm Period'". As you can see, when you look at temperature estimates from around the world - not just Western Europe - there's no clear spike in temperature until our own time.

      

      If you don't trust the temperature proxies, here's evidence that is perhaps even more telling. Andean glaciers that have been intact for more than 5,000 years are now rapidly melting. If the Medieval Warming Period was truly global, these glaciers would not have survived.

      Hmmm ... hmmm ...

      PERCEPTION: You are creating noise -- like so many skeptics -- trying to confuse rather than enlighten.

      by A Siegel on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 09:06:24 AM PDT

  •  Money

    by TocqueDeville on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 02:37:08 AM PDT

•  I don't believe they think about their children

  when they think about things like this. Ideology precedes family. Just look at abortion clinic bombers. They want their sons to follow their footsteps, their daughters to marry men like they were.

  by haruki on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 05:43:56 PM PDT

•  The air quality

  in California's San Joaquin valley is so abysmal something like 14% of kids develop asthma. How on earth anyone could argue that more fuel efficient vehicles, transportation alternatives, etc, etc, would not be of immediate benefit is beyond me.  Then again, it's a low-income area, so maybe that has something to do with it--right-wingers don't care.

  by decembersue on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 05:44:34 PM PDT

•  Disturbing.

  I am disturbed by the title of this diary, it contributes nothing to helpful discussion but does remind me of places like Rove, Fox, and RNC.

  We as Democrats can stand on principals, and our ideas.

  When attack were justified in defending ourselves, but this type of tactic only contributes to the acidic nature of politics.

  I know global warming exists, the much compiled evidence here has convinced me of that, but I don't anything would be lost by not allowing debate on it.

  You don't show the stupidity of an idea by trying to hide it, that only tends to make people wonder what exactly your so afraid of.

  The idea should be shown into the light, and shown for what it is.

  I hope in the future we can refrain from insinuating if a parent loves their child or not, it degrades us and our party.

  by BlueDogD on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 05:45:44 PM PDT

  •  Fair enough.

    I've changed the title to be less inflammatory.

    by aseth on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 05:54:29 PM PDT

    •  I admire.

      Your ability to accept constructive criticism, it shows an impressive amount of character.

      by BlueDogD on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 05:57:13 PM PDT

  •  I agree; I expect the diary is well-

    intentioned, but the rhetoric of the title really does not engage anyone in the debate that is needed.  They don't hate their children.  They make a lot of mistakes, but that's not one.

    by JPete on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 05:56:30 PM PDT

    •  The title was in transition as I

      typed this, but I'm still wondering whether "hating environmentalism" captures the important points of  divergence of opinion.

      by JPete on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 05:58:13 PM PDT

  •  Debate is fine.

    However, if the choice is between debate and action.  I'll go with the action.  The debate behind global warming has lasted over 30 years.  And "debate" for global warming deniers means one thing:  No action.  So, we can debate all day, but only to the extent that the debate does not hinder immediate action to reduce CO2 levels.  We should be debating the best way to reduce CO2 levels.

    by 0wn on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:15:27 PM PDT

    •  wish I could give you more than one rec for that!

      by Winnie on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:18:56 PM PDT

    •  I'm skeptical about anthropogenic warming

      But actually agree with most of the solutions for other reasons.  I want to see more nuclear power to reduce the use of coal and oil.  I've wanted my electric car since I was a child.  I want increased use of solar power -- if for nothing else then so that the third world can be brought into the modern era without running a lot of copper.

      Oil will run out, is increasingly expensive and we keep getting into these adventures to assure a source.

      Polution is real and not fun to breath whether it is causing warming or not.

      I don't really buy the doom and gloom, but think life will be better if we advance these technologies.  So, by all means, let's keep doing this stuff while we debate.

      by william shipley on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:46:29 PM PDT

      •  Your scepticism has to be based on

        science you know that? Otherwise it's not scepticism but bullshit.

        So where is your peer-reviewed paper which questions anthropogenic global warming?

        It's not nature which increased CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 384 ppm in little more than 100 years. We know that it came from fossil fuels. (See the isotope studies).

        So you say, OK, CO2 has gone up by that much. And global mean temperature has also gone up during the same period. But this is just coincidence because the real reason for the warming trend is....what?
        And where is you evidence?

        by elender on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 05:59:50 AM PDT

        •  Key issues

          Knowledge of medieval history including Viking expansion period leads me to believe things were this warm before.

          Well known sunspot cycles controlling hurricanes and other climates.

          Ice core CO2 trailing temperature -- indicating that the warmer biosphere increases the CO2

          Recent studies linking cloud formation with gamma rays moderated by solar activity.

          Lack of correlation between CO2 in 20th century and temperature other than in the last couple decades.

          Current shuffling of theories because the temperature is not tracking the global warming projections of even two or three years ago.  Note all the diaries saying "it's even worse than we thought" -- that translates to "it's something other than what we thought".

          I am very disturbed by the amount of villification and name calling that is going on in what is supposed to be a scientific endeavor.

          by william shipley on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 08:21:35 AM PDT

•  easy; it's that....

  Environmentalism would require humans to be exceptionally conscious of the resources they consume, and what goes into making the products that we all take for granted as part of our everyday lives, and have the intellectual and behavioral smarts to use less, recycle everything humanly possible, and not treat the world as our own private garbage bag.  That's hard work, and pretty demanding, and too much for most people to handle.  So it's easier not to think about it.

  by chingchongchinaman on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 05:58:04 PM PDT

  •  What s/he said ...

    Plus, the wingers think they're above "all that" i.e. conscious, careful living; in a word, "thrifty".

    Thrifty = Poor = Brown People, and OMG, they cannot have that ! They think profligate waste is proof of their Not-Browness.

    by The Werewolf Prophet on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:10:20 PM PDT

    •  thanks / NPR feature for you

      Slightly off-the track of this thread, but did you hear this feature on Morning Edition?

      by chingchongchinaman on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 05:47:43 PM PDT

•  Pretty simple IMO

  What's the unit markup on a Prius?  A couple thousand?  What's the unit markup on an Escalade?  four or five times that amount.  That's the motivation for the string-pullers.  Of course, they ahve their easily swayed "grassroots":  "The Libruls are trying to take away our masculinity reflected by our right to use an F-350 as a communter vehicle!"  "Why do Libs hate God and NASCAR?"

  by ActivistGuy on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:03:56 PM PDT

  •  If only all those NASCAR fans

    drove the cars whose bodies are used in NASCAR races, rather than giant SUVs, we'd save a hell of a lot of gas.

    by decembersue on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:09:23 PM PDT

    •  Many do ,as well as drive little economy cars

      At least this NASCAR fan and almost every other one I know.

      Talk to the soccer moms with the Suburban to drive little Biff and Muffy to choir practice.

      In the meantime lay off the motorsports which are some of the fastest growing in terms of fan appeal.

      by buddabelly on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:29:30 PM PDT

      •  They are using up bunches of oil, though,

        and it will have to be addressed eventually.  But I love racin.  Lived in Daytona, a mile from the track.  But I went to the drag races and on motorcycle rides when I was 3.  And I married a mechanic.  I wish NASCAR would find a way to lead in the environmental movement.  If one of the drivers did, it would be phenomenal.  

        by godislove on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:36:18 PM PDT

        •  Actually nascar is about to switch to Ethanol

          Probably within a season or two. The tech is already there they'll still be pulling the ponies.

          What do you think of the car of the future. Personally a wing on a stock car just ain't right.

          American Le Mans was racing today and the
          p1 prototype Audi is running a 10 cylinder turbocharged direct injection diesel.

          And apparently winning with it this season.

          Soon the carbon semi neutral race car.

          by buddabelly on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:42:12 PM PDT

          •  I haven't watched as much since the divorce,

            thrilled to hear they are already moving in that direction.  My ex would love you and you would have such fun, probably, in his shop.  I'm not a car fanatic like him.  That Audi sounds like somethin.

            by godislove on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:52:38 PM PDT

            •  I can't help it been a gearhead all my life

              worked in the field for 20 years until I blew my back out for the last time.

              That's one thing that most race haters don't understand, Almost every innovation in their cars from ABS to Traction control to Safty cage construction to seat belts, comes directly from racing.

              Without racing we wouldn't be driving the technological marvels we do today. There has been quantum leaps in automotive technology in just the last 35 years.

              by buddabelly on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:05:15 PM PDT

          •  Yeah, I heard about this

            I heard about NASCAR making the change, or at least one of the teams is.  I think I saw something about it on Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel or something of that nature.  

            by KDJ on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:25:13 PM PDT

      •  "lay off the motorsports"?

        I had no idea they were sacred and immune to criticism...

        by decembersue on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:34:44 PM PDT

        •  Not sacred and immune Just the first thing pulled

          out when someone wants to feel superior to the "NASCAR fans".

          And to be quite honest this liberal is getting a bit tired of being lumped in with the rednecks and thoughtless wastrels that could only be the "NASCAR fans" which is the implicit denigration involved.

          NASCAR comes up every time someone feels like slamming the south or anyone not like them in their Prius.

          And guess what there's a hell of a lot of us liberal, Democratic party voting, "NASCAR fans" along with fans of the rest of the motorsports.

          by buddabelly on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:04:34 PM PDT

•  For better or worse, environmentalism is now

  a Democratic value. So anything the Democrats say about the environment is inflammatory. It's not just global warming -- look at endangered species, the EPA, property rights, federal land management, use of alternative fuels. The Left and Right passionately disagree on many of these issues.

  The GOP used to pretend that they cared about the environment -- even when they were weakening environmental regulations behind closed doors. But it seems that lately, the Right doesn't care if they appear anti-environment. They are moving to the extreme, and that leaves environmentalism solely as a Leftie issue.

  And so when we take a stand on environmental issues, we come under attack -- for our politics and ideology.

  The danger here for the Republicans is that they are abandoning environmental values to the Dems just when the public is getting most interested in protecting the environment. That's a dangerous path for the Right, because it leaves the Democrats as the planet's sole political savior -- if we wish to take up that challenge.

  The best thing the Democrats could do is take advantage of this situation, and push our environmental values to the American public.

  We can make America strong economically, while protecting our environment and keeping our families healthy and safe.

  This is a value that the Dems can use to their advantage.

  by Naturegal on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:04:04 PM PDT

•  To answer your question

  Polluting corporations and their front groups buy lots of advertising in all media.

  Many news employees of those media businesses, as much as they will deny it, know that, and report what their bosses want them to.

  by devtob on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:05:06 PM PDT

•  There Isn't

  Why so much hate for environmentalism?

  It's corporate bloviating bleated by the sheep. I keep telling ya'll -

  quit buying their shit. The only way to hurt them is in the wallet.

  by Unique Material on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:13:45 PM PDT

  •  quit buying what from whom?

    by Winnie on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:21:14 PM PDT

    •  The Outsourcers

      The ones who send our jobs overseas so they can get fat corporate profits.

      Turn down your AC. Quit giving the power companies more revenue for less service. INSIST that your state legislators stand up to their bullying. (This does vary by state)

      What else? hmm...support your local mom & pop (if there are any left where you are)

      Grow your own. Recycle. Shop Goodwill and Salvation Army.

      Be a voice for change.

      Do you really need Starbucks every week? McD's? Target?

      Anyone and everyone can institute change. We all do it one at a time. One drop of water does nothing but collectively water wears away the hardest stone.

      by Unique Material on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:47:00 PM PDT

•  You Fail to Understand Their Mindset

  People who oppose environmentalism oppose anything they perceive as favored by the others.

  They aren't actually for anything, opposition and ridicule is all they have.

  by The Baculum King on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:21:19 PM PDT

  •  You have said it. It's US vs THEM ...

    .... and anything that has THEM prominently associated with it, especially Al Gore, must be crushed.

    It doesn't matter what IT is ... because it's not really about the issue at all. It's about driving in, over and over, that you must hate THEM!

    That is at the core of "Movement Conservatism." If they had a real ideology and direction for this country that actually had a chance of working, don't you think they would actually seek out competent people who could put it into place?

    But their ideology is ONLY about staying in power permanently, and keeping THEM out.

    In this approach, the key thing is to never, ever acknowledge that your opponent has any good ideas, or for that matter, is even a human being like you are? This isn't related to the quality of an argument, only to WHO makes it.

    by Ducktape on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:47:04 PM PDT

    •  Exactly

      It's easiest to see at places like FreeRepublic, where the "Culture of Opposition" doesn't even have any veneer obscuring it.

      If Liberals are for free beer, they will automatically oppose it.

      by The Baculum King on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:59:08 PM PDT

•  because

  if we worked together based on the best science, the right wing couldn't complain about democrats trying to infringe on the american way of life or otherwise practice the politics of resentment, all funded by big oil money.

  by DemHillStaffer on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:23:51 PM PDT

•  It's not a thought position

  It's an identity position. It's an aspect of what Colbert calls truthiness. If I define myself by not being you, then I define myself by taking a position opposite to yours. It's crazy but it's very common. And it doesn't just infect the right, but also the left. It's really a combination of laziness and ignorance. It is annoying but in the global heating debate, you are on the winning side.

  by Batfish on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:25:20 PM PDT

•  Limits.

  Because when you really get down to it, it means limits.  It means living within boundaries.  It means balance.  It means respect for others.  It means selflessness.  It means believing in something beyond yourself - and respecting that something.

  All things incongruent with the modern American lifestyle.

  by environmentalist on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:25:52 PM PDT

•  Generally

  People don't want government telling them how to live their lives.  If Toyota builds efficient cars and people buy them, most people don't have a problem with that.  Those who oppose "environmentalism" generally oppose government forcing people to buy hybrids instead of their SUVs or trucks which they choose for a reason (whether it is size, use on the farm, carrying 4 kids around, or safety, they choose it for a reason).

  If environmentalism focused on private-sector technological advances, it would probably be an uncontroversial issue.  It is when government says "you can't drive the car you want" or "use one piece of toilet paper or we'll fine you" that some people have a problem with it.

  At least that's my impression from talking with many people who consider themselves "conservationists" but laugh at "environmentalism."  Most of them are also rural to some extent and thus don't like city folk telling them how to use their land and meager resources.  They find it funny that a bunch of people living in highly dense urban environments have such strong feelings about how a rancher should use his land.

  by Adam C on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:28:26 PM PDT

  •  And a bit of hypocrisy

    Also, people watching Gore fly around in a private jet telling them the government should make them more energy efficient through the use of the law strikes many as hypocritical the same way a thrice married Republican talking about the importance of marriage does.

    by Adam C on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:31:36 PM PDT

    •  enough of wingnut talking points

      apparently, Al Gore takes commercial flights over 90% of the time.

      by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:52:06 PM PDT

    •  This hypocrisy meme has really got to be

      addressed.  It seems to be the starting and stopping point for analysis of global warming for certain people.

      Why is it so hard for people to grasp that Al Gore is not suggesting that we all need to live in hollow trees?  Why is it so hard to accept that Al Gore needs to travel to get this job that he is doing done?  And he flies commercial nearly all the time, not on a "private jet."  And he has outfitted his house to be energy-efficient, including installing a great number of solar collectors, etc.  And he buys 100% renewable energy for his home.  And drives a hybrid.  And buys offsets for what he does use.  He even took the damned train from the D.C. to the N.J. Live Earth concerts. He walks the talk within the limitations of what it is that he DOES professionally.  It's just a NON-issue.

      The Al Gore is a "hypocrite" crowd amazes me.  The epitome of lazy, unproductive bashing.

      by Mother of Zeus on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:53:02 PM PDT

  •  agree there, the left wing can be just as

    authoritarian as the right.

    by buddabelly on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:32:20 PM PDT

  •  Winger-owned media ...

    ... has convinced a lot of people that they "need" things they don't.

    by The Werewolf Prophet on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:19:51 PM PDT

•  I'm reading this and recalling

  some research I once saw, about SUV drivers vs. the rest of the driving population.

  SUV drivers, who drive vehicles that endanger other drivers on the road, as well as sucking gasoline like nobody's business, distinguish themselves among American motor vehicle drivers for their selfishness, that is, for their lack of concern for others. This has been pinpointed through pencil-and-paper personality tests, given to SUV drivers and other drivers at random.

  The study was supposed to be pretty good, pretty scientific, and I thought it was fascinating. One woman in the study been in a crash in her SUV, and been unhurt, and thought this was impetus to get a "bigger SUV," for safety. Never mind the other drivers or pedestrians involved. Great lady. Maybe she's active in the local Republican Party.

  I think the same streak of selfishness and unconcern may prevail in people unconcerned about environmental degradation. "I have my home entertainment center, my Chip's Ahoy, and my life is fine."

  by karmsy on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:36:18 PM PDT

  •  A very caring and selfless lady I know

    drives a huge SUV saying she feels safe on the highway when she drive it.  I asked her if she thinks we all need to buy SUVs so we can protect ourselves from SUVs, and if everybody owns an SUV, will she need a tank?  She's a nice person and the thought has given her pause.  They sold her hussband's SUV, but she kept hers because she drives a lot of senior citizens to church every week.

    by azindy on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:52:33 PM PDT

    •  Well, there are always exceptions,

      aren't there? Think of the life-long chain-smoker who is still healthy at 92. Maybe this lady, in her own right, bucks the trend of selfish, thoughtless SUV drivers documented in the study.

      by karmsy on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:18:03 PM PDT

•  It's a good question and the answer in part is

  Change is hard and changing habits over a big huge problem that seems insurmountable is even harder. There's a natural inclination to 'duck and cover' or just avoid the problem. Besides we're told it's a problem that comes due in the future and many people are just trying to get thru the day or the week. It takes time and exposure to good info (as in watchable or listenable) to change. Otherwise it all looks like brussell sprouts or spinach.

  The one 'short film' on Live Earth that was roundly appreciated was the one about bags with the clerk and the customer. That was funny. Bonus points if you recognize the customer and what show she was on.

  I've noticed even on DKos there's a resistance to change when it comes to the environment..jus sayin

  by philinmaine on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:37:08 PM PDT

  •  Bag & Slap

    I don't know who the actor playing the customer, but I did laugh at how much slapping occurred; it was a good vid!

    by vacantlook on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:09:22 PM PDT

    •  It was John Cleese's wife

      on Fawlty Towers

      by philinmaine on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:21:41 AM PDT

      •  Ah, thanks.

        I don't think I've ever seen any of Fawlty Towers ever, unfortunately.  I do like John Cleese though.

        by vacantlook on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:21:26 AM PDT

•  Al Gore has some thoughts on your question

  There are good people who hold this at arms length because if they acknowledge it and recognize it, then the moral imperative to make big changes is inescapable.

  The statement comes at the end of the video.  

  by Mother of Zeus on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:43:06 PM PDT

•  Live To Shop, Shop to Live n/t

  by pletzs on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:47:31 PM PDT

•  It's long term vs. short term

  Environmentalism is about shared responsibility and long-term thinking.  Denying global warming and not caring about the environment the next generation will grow up is completely short-term thinking.  It's an "I'll get mine, you get yours, and who cares what happens next" attitude.  It's a very appealing lifestyle for some, because it is very simple to isolate the good from the bad.  Forward-thinkers, however, know that we cannot allow that type of attitude to prevail.  Unfortunately, we live in a media climate that gives everyone entitlement to their own facts and is only concerned with spin.  

  by KDJ on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:55:14 PM PDT

•  Saving the earth involves Sacrifice ...

  ... and, in this and many other aspects, these guys think "Sacrifice is for suckers."

  by highfive on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:34:52 PM PDT

  •  Not necessarily

    Developing other technologies for power doesn't necessarily mean sacrifice at all.  Doing without it does, but that isn't the only choice.

    Better to embrace new technologies, lower waste, and have more with less impact.

    by william shipley on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:52:23 PM PDT

•  The Irony

  The currently invested Energy Companies could cash flow $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  by hiring Green R&D and implementation programs. That has always led me to believe there is a secondary agenda we do not know about. I am not a conspiracy fan, but this area is MASSIVE money for the big Energy Cos. and they oppose it at every turn. What's up?

  by legalbengal on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:42:20 PM PDT

•  Man vs Nature

  Here's one: the myth of "man vs nature" is so heavily promoted in American culture as propaganda to steal the country from sustainable tribal development for corporate exploitation that Americans see nature as lethal competition.

  What I find enchanting about nature is that even against so much odds, it's still a compelling force for empathy and our best traits, even when people get only a small dose. It takes a nation of millions to hold that back. Even without an ad agency to fight back.

  by DocGonzo on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:46:57 PM PDT

  •  Man will Lose

    The odds aren't really in our favour versus nature. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

    We cannot destroy the planet - we can only destroy human life on the planet.

    Life will continue and something will take our place.

    A species evolved from cockroaches will study our stupidity in a few million years.

    by Outlier on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:21:25 PM PDT

•  It started in 1980

  Prior to that, environmentalism was bipartisan.  Nixon passed much ground-breaking environmental legislation.  

  I was brought up in a Republican household, but it was considered common sense to be an environmentalist.  

  Imagine my surprise when, in 1980, my first election, suddenly the Repubs were ridiculing environmentalists and basically saying that if elected they would rip apart years of environmental progress.  

  Why?

  Well, just to piss off environmentalists, basically.  Like it was fun to piss off the "tree huggers".  

  I've hated the GOP ever since and will hate them to my grave because of this.  You don't shit in my drinking water out of spite, just because you CAN.  May they rot in hell forever.  

  by theyrereal on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:56:22 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    Reagan's agenda was one which encouraged people to be self-centered on so many fronts, including a complete lack of concern for the environment.  

    by KDJ on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:22:30 PM PDT

  •  Yeah but

    back in those days most people thought 'environmentalist' just meant the opposite of 'litterbug'. If you tossed it into the trash can instead of on the ground you could pass for an 'environmentalist' in those days.

    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:44:09 PM PDT

  •  Didn't Reagan tear off the solar panels on the WH

    that Jimmy Carter had installed? How much taxpayer $$$ was wasted because Reagan did this? It's been downhill from there as far as environmentalism goes. You're right, theyrereal, I believe this was done for spite, and to pad the pockets of big energy. The GOP makes me sick.

    by Logical One on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 02:43:15 AM PDT

  •  it changed to being a "Republican" value

    when Reagan took over from Jimmeh Cartah and his energy policy: conservation and efficiency and solar power. In a big push to reverse the effects on the market of the arab oil embargo, we were getting too green for the industries that benefit from being brown.  

    The oil companies took control of Republicans and the auto companies wrote new protection safety rules that kept out the competition from Europe.

    by dotcommodity on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 02:55:13 PM PDT

•  The answer is simple:

  $$$$$$$$$$$

  by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:40:51 PM PDT

  •  Vested Interests

    Energy, oil, coal, agra, have large budgets to market the "truth".

    As an example..wonder who funds the OISM?

    Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
    From SourceWatch
    The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

    The OISM is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126). Located slightly east of Siskiyou National Forest, Cave Junction is one of several small towns nestled in the Illinois Valley, whose total population is 15,000.

    In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)

    None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. Today, the Marshall Institute is still a big fan of high-tech weapons. In 1999, its website gave prominent placement to an essay by Col. Simon P. Worden titled "Why We Need the Air-Borne Laser," along with an essay titled "Missile Defense for Populations--What Does It Take? Why Are We Not Doing It?" Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming.

    Courtesy Sourcewatch.

    This is only one example, there are many others.

    by ohcanada on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:35:46 PM PDT

•  Is this Vol. 1?

  Just kidding, there have been a spate of part diaries lately..

  People don't hate environemntalism per se, they just don't like when it impacts them personally.

  They don't like to be told they can't fish a pond on their own property or that because the state wants to add on to a highway or the property adjacent to them has just been designated forever while so their property will be taken by eminent domain.  

  Average folks who struggle to pay taxes and buy groceries really don't like to see environemntal advocates waste the very resources they are told to conserve on private jets or hummer limos.  They are not all stupid, they see the excess and ponder the obvious.

  by sylvien on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:43:51 PM PDT

•  What plane? I didn't hear about that.

  What's the source?

  by elender on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 05:49:50 AM PDT