WHAT we consider to be the ‘right’ sort of environmental protection is necessarily going to be influenced by our understanding of nature.
According to Harald Kehl, the modern environmentalist either subscribes to a dualistic-anthropocentric (speculative) definition of nature with a philosophical-religious background or a scientific (hypothetical-deductive) proposition influenced by modern epistemology.
Those who subscribe to the dualistic-anthropocentric definition would probably consider global warming foremost a moral issue, while the latter might consider it more a technological problem.
Some may argue that the distinction is unnecessary and that global warming can be considered both a moral and technological issue.
But those who are honest to the beliefs and values that logically follow from the scientific definition of nature would have no problem, for example, with technological solutions that require no change in lifestyle.
Purely technological solutions, however, have limited appeal to the great majority of politically active environmentalists in places like Australia and the US who like the ‘Australian Greens’ advocate we make fundamental lifestyle changes including reversing our growing demand for energy.
Professor Kehl also claims that for most environmentalists nature is understood first and foremost as the antithesis of culture. But if its protection requires lifestyle change, what Kehl describes as protection by culture, how can it maintain its independence?
The Australian government places the portfolio of Environment with Heritage and Arts. So we have Peter Garrett as the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Arts – perhaps recognising that environmental protection, for the vast majority of Australians, is an issue of culture because as a nation we subscribe to the dualistic anthropocentric definition of nature with its philosophical-religious background.
****************
Notes and Links
“Conventional Concepts of Nature vs. Pragmatic Conservation:
An irreconcilable Conflict?” by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Harald Kehl
Berlin Technical University, Institute of Ecology, 2000, http://www.agnos-online.de/kehl_iserlohn_engl.htm
The photograph, the beach scene, was taken near Seal Rock, on the NSW coast, by Jennifer Marohasy in January 2007.
Part 1, http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/defining-%e2%80%98the-greens%e2%80%99-part-1/
Part 2, http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/defining-the-greens-part-2/
Concepts of Wilderness , http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/tag/wilderness/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
surely the modern non-enviro is split in those two groups too. Those who think God made the planet and humans could not change it/it is here for us to exploit as per god’s wishes…. and those who are “scientific” but tend to think for example that AGW is not happening (despite science telling us otherwise)
I also reject the notion that the greens insist on massive lifestyle changes… when in fact those lifestyle changes are driven by the fact that science requires them unless we can manage some technological breakthrough.
I’d be interested in your thoughts of “environmentalists” who think that unless solutions can preserve our “lifestyle” then they should not be considered…
AGW is 100% in my books about preserving lifestyle for the long term.
Yet again I’m afraid you are talking about the post-modern condition, and suggesting that the apparent contradictions only apply to the Greens… wrong.
MattB,
Just checking whether or not I understand what you have written … Would you be happier if I crossed out ‘The Greens’ and wrote ‘Defining Us’?
Coherence is not easy when you are responsible for the 1yo and 3yo for the pre-daycare shift!
MattB
So, you write incomprehensible drivel, and blame the reader for not understanding?
Great.
The way that these anti-science freaks behave is an attack on our honour. And it must be seen to be that way. It has to be a “step outside” scenario.
I want to stress that I’m not wanting to see any permanent physical damage upon anyone. Unlike an anti-DDT advocate for example.
But they call us names like denialist and delusionist. And yet most of us on the skeptical side are quite able to differentiate between science worker sentiment and scientific evidence.
So when they call us these names THEY ARE CALLING US LIARS.
Now I don’t know where you people come from. But I’m a yokel. A rube. A hayseed. A person who gathered eggs and burnt my own rubbish. And I’m not putting up with it. This is a matter of honour.
They cannot expect to go out in public after calling me a liar, and calling every single honest scientist a liar and expect me not to show up and overturn tables or demand these accusers to step outside.
Its not funny anymore.
If you are a competent scientist and they call you a denialist they are calling you a liar. If you are a woman they are further calling you a whore.
For reasons of honour and for personal reasons this cannot and must not continue. But it cannot continue for utilitarian reasons either. Because we have come to a point in industrial history where we are a a bottlekneck energy and capitalwise. The Club Of Rome types will argue this was inevitable. I will argue its the result of the assault on liberty. That particular argument is not necessarily a matter of one side lying by accusing the others of lying but this carbon dioxide story IS just this sort of scenario.
I’m not putting up with it anymore.
If anyone calls someone like Ian Plimer a denialist then I will consider it the case that they are calling me a liar. And these are fighting words. We don’t have that much time to dilly-dally with these people.
Jennifer’s series of diatribes is labelled “Defining the Greens” but appears to me to be based on a false premise.
For a start she needs to define her terms. “The Greens” are Australia’s third most popular political party and continue to grow in membership and voter support. They have a broad range of policies which are readily available on their web site. The policies are developed from the ground up with all members having an opportunity to have input.
The Greens long ago ceased to be just a party devoted to just environmental issues. I joined the Greens because they are the only party with a genuine commitment to human rights and social justice issues.
Greens members and supporters back the party for all sorts of reasons. I can’t speak for others but it is significant to me that the Greens are not beholden to any outside body whether it be business, unions, religious groups or donors wanting to influence policy.
The Greens as a political party are totally transparent and don’t need to be defined by Jennifer or anybody else with an axe to grind.
Quite separate from the Greens are a much broader “green movement” which includes international groups such as Greenpeace down to single issue local conservation groups. These greens concerns cover issues such as whales, forests, uranium, alternative energy, climate change, recycling,etc etc. Some people might consider the AEF is part of this broad church green movement.Some members/supporters of these groups may be members of the Greens but are just as likely to support other political parties. Some people might support a number of these green groups, others just one.
These “greens” are such a diverse group I defy anyone to “define” them.
So Jennifer just what did you have in mind in seeking to define “the Greens”. What are your parameters? Unless you clearly separate the Greens political party from the greens movement you are on a pointless exercise.
Actually Marcus I’ve had a chance to re-read my 1st post and it makes complete sense so I’m not really sure what the confustion is. Secondly at no time did I blame the reader for anything, so I think the problem is you are incapable of reading:)
And Graeme – you’re not a liar… deluded and irrational are words I would use. I don’t really get how a “step outside scenario” is not about causing physical harm to someone? I’m also interested in why you think it is ok to call good honest scientists liars, unless you think that good honest scientists are only good and honest if their conclusions match your own.
Rosco is right except for labelling Jen’s entries “diatribes” – I think they are quite reasonable except that it only considers opinions that have lead her to her form of greenery… it is not a genuine analysis of the Green Movement.
Take the german Landscape guy she quotes… well even contemporary landscape architects are split between all the common themes of postmodernism… shoe could have quoted many many esteemed Landscape Gurus who do not hold that view…
Can you define what YOU are saying in a bit of a nutshell? I think you’ve wandered about a bit and haven’t said anything much at all.
I think “Greens” was being used for the wider environmentalist movement. And we are talking a movement that says that nature is INTRINSICALLY GOOD regardless of context. Well this is not true. Plus it produces a shadow-cult and driving-motivation, which says, in-effect, that anything humans do is intrinsically-evil. Which is not true either and its a wicked philosophy.
If you had a problem with the word “Greens” I do think the problem was all your own.
Let us not forget we are talking a movement that has murdered many tens of millions of people already. And a movement that set up the killing in Victoria this January with grim obsessiveness.
Birdy – Name two people – and how many died in which country.
Not only have we killed millions.. the kicker is that we encourage them to be atheists so they burn in eternal damnation too.
Little Hamisi. And he could be driving a dingo-dinger using Australian liquified-coal by now and building wealth for his community.
What are you on about Luke you moron? You want the millions of childrens names and addresses? Same address as it was that their Mother wailed all night and there father felt helpless.
How many black children do you think you can hide underneath the floorboards Luke? Do you want all of their names and addresses?
Malaria would have been history by now if the war on it had not been centralized and regulated.
Well thats it then. Lukes a holocaust-denier. There aint but no question about it and was there really ever any doubt?
THIS IS WHAT THE ENVIRONMENTALIST MOVEMENT IS. Its death on wheels.
“Not only have we killed millions.. the kicker is that we encourage them to be atheists so they burn in eternal damnation too.”
You racism sickens me Matt. Here you are trifling with the mass murder of tens of millions of black kids performed over decades without remorse and without end because it still continues.
Get used to your new status mate. How long have you been a holocaust-denier.
THIS IS THE ENVIRONMENTALIST MOVEMENT.
This is what its all about. Human eradication and belligerent with it.
come on Graeme – you’ve got better than that surely? GIve us the kind of rant that makes you a blogosphere personality-ranter.
Sadly Matt. I couldn’t make all this murder go away if I wanted to. I couldn’t go back in time and change it.
One supposes the only functional choice would to be like you. Help the mass-murder along, and get yourself a cover story.
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2007/04/14/ddt-holocaust-denial-getting-with-the-real-world/
Thanks Jennifer for the reference to the Harald Kehl article, I found it very worthwhile. There are many on this blog who attack such philosophical discussion without reading or attempting to understand they only seek to suppress anything outside their narrow perceptions. It is pity that is so but even though I am not religious the phrase “pearls before swine” does come to mind. It is a pity that concern for the environment has gone to shit and become a fundamentalist religion.
A green group was stopped recently in the UK from doing serious damage to a power station. Over a 100 were arrested. Maybe if such action is successful the threat posed by this escape from reality will be recognised by the general population.
Rossco et al.,
By ‘The Greens I am referring to those who feel comfortable with this label.
I am using it in the same way one might label someone a ‘classic liberal’, ‘neocon’, ‘Christian’, ‘farmer’, ‘surfer’…
Jennifer either Rossco et al are dumb and stupid or trying to lead the thread of into a different discussion as per usual.
Comment from: MattB April 22nd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Actually Marcus I’ve had a chance to re-read my 1st post and it makes complete sense so I’m not really sure what the confustion (sic) is. so I think the problem is you are incapable of reading!
‘————————————
I also have re-read your 1st post, and since it’s still unclear to me, what you are on about, I have to bow to your superior judgement, and admit I am ” incapable of reading”
Havagoodone!
DHMO,
I am somewhat intrigued that since I first introduced this topic, with the post on “Eastering musings on life and environmentalism” there has been an effort to suggest the greens can’t be defined.
I would have anticipated many keen to give us their view of what it means to be green.
Indeed I have been part of many discussions on what it means to be a liberal, classic liberal, libertarian, neo con etcetera. Interestingly libertarians tend to claim me as one of their own … thanks John Humpreys! http://blog.libertarian.org.au/
And you can see recent musings on this here: http://andrewnorton.info/2009/04/are-classical-liberals-and-conservatives-the-same/
And this is interesting from the above link:
“The survey provides no evidence of the religious influence sometimes claimed by critics on the left. 62% of classical liberals and 72% of libertarians say that they are either agnostics or atheists. Their pro-abortion views and overwhelming support for either improved legal recognition of gay relationships or marriage being a matter of private contract are consistent with this strong secular stance…
In general, the survey is consistent with the impressions I had of the differences between the two groups [classic liberal and libertarian], though it did not ask questions on deeper philosophical points and could not measure intellectual style. Classical liberals and libertarians are on the same side of the political debates covered in this survey, with libertarians tending to be more radical. However, there are substantial differences of opinion within both groups, including sometimes large minorities holding views apparently inconsistent with their broader ideological commitments.”
I guess through this series on ‘Defining the Greens’ I am trying to get a sense of the broader ideological commitments of greens and whether they are consistent.
Now now Birdy – how could it be that millions have died and you can’t name even two !
Jennifer,
As an engineer, if I had a buck for everytime someone has put forward using a technological solution and it hasn’t worked then I would have enough money to have financed all of George Bush’s election campaigns.
I really find it naive to hear people talk about technological solutions as though they are divorced from our behaviour and decision making. Can you point me to one technological change that hasn’t influenced lifestyle (that favourite word of the Sydney Morning Herald). Or this faith position that our society needs more and more energy, always expressed in liturgical fashion (and I know liturgy when I hear it), when energy comes via different carriers and its what we do with energy that matters e.g. if we have an increasing number of homes and we use electric hot water heaters to heat water then, yes, we will have a growing demand for energy via a particular carrier but if we get rid of the electric hot water heaters and use solar hot water heating i.e. using another energy carrier then the demand for energy looks completely different and that is just one example of how to look at it.
Using the government of lumping Environment in with Heritage and Arts as one department as an example of Australian subscribing to a dualistic anthropocentric definition of nature is drawing a long, long bow, could it be instead just demonstrating what little importance those three areas have in government. As a contrast the UK rearranged government departments last year to create the Dept of Climate Change and Energy which sort of kicks your example into touch.
Why do you try and define things only from an ideological perspective, boxing people up, it makes me wonder if you have a limited idea of free will which doesn’t sit with the concept of libertarianism.
Perhaps you are just very religious and don’t realise it.
Jeremy,
So you understand the concept of Libertarian, but not Green.
And you label Jen “very religious”, when she has already said she is an atheist.
You Greens are perhaps unusually inconsistent in your approach to issues, and surprisingly coy when it comes to self examination?
Dennis,
Being religious means worshiping something, thats all, go look at the dictionary. Your god can be a 1971 orange Charger in mint condition or it can be Baal. Because we have this ignorant idea that religion and worship only involves supernatural being thingys then we don’t realise that a lot of what we do is from a religious perspective. Perhaps the reason Jennifer is so intent on pursuing the smellies is that that they are a rival religion to hers.
Brian Naylor and his wife Luke. Now what is this tortured logic all about.
EVERYONE TAKE NOTE. This is environmentalism. Luke trying to hide tens of millions of murdered black children under the floorboards BY A SERIES OF VERBAL TRICKS. He’s not claiming that no-ones died of malaria ever mind you.
We just have to understand that that Environmentalism is every bit as wicked as German Fascism. And can you not see it right there? Luke gloating openly about the deliberate eradication of large swathes of, in his book, unwanted populations.
See the crawling evil of this geek. See the gloating at their deaths. Thats environmentalism.
A few years ago, before the spraying started up bigtime again, this would have been a massive underestimate from wiki:
“Malaria causes about 250 million cases of fever and approximately one million deaths annually.[24] ”
Now notice Luke you evil, eugenicist filth ……………. though the wiki makes this claim of a pretty lowball figure of one million deaths a year from malaria. Though the wiki claims that one million people die from Malaria each year. Though this is the case the wiki DOES NOT GIVE THEIR NAMES AND ADDRESSES.
Notice that Luke had a ready-made verbal trick up his sleeve just for this holocaust denial. THATS ENVIRONMENTALISM. This is what the environmentalist movement is all about.
Environmentalists are fascists and eugenicists. Instead of nuclear energy and spacious high-rise, as a way of dealing with a planets limitations….. Instead of that what they want is for some many of millions of people to just go away. And they particularly seem to want black African children to just disappear somewhere. And they act obsessively in pursuit of their wish for these kids to go away.
Its perhaps completely irrelevant but is that a photo of Joseph McCarthy on Graeme Bird’s postings?
Interestingly Graeme – I’m a greenie who is s strong advocate of high density living, and some potential forms of nuclear power. So where do I fit in? There are many many non Greens who oppose high density living – ie pretty much anyone in Perth especially the western suburbs (strong Liberal majority of like 80%).
It is not that you can’t define Greens Jen, it is just you can;t define them with one definition, other than have a deep passionate desire to make sure we live well without doing serious damage to the environment… and by that definition I’m 100% certain you yourself are included…
Almost fifteen years ago now, I thought I start up a discussion group. And yes, the first (and only) session was about the Greens, the Greenies I called them:
Do the Greenies fail Society?
Boy, did I step into ‘ants nest’ with that question.
In the introduction, I defined Greenies as…
“…anyone who really cares for the environment and lives accordingly.”
Hi Jennifer,
The “Green” movement really needed the kick you have given it in the past 3 posts and the comments are varied but also informing. In our part of the world where the average daily increase of human population is about 220000 ( as for the past 40 years) and is projected to continue for the next 40 years the world is faced with a huge unemployment, as well as financial crisis. The green parties are not getting anywhere with even the most scientific and technically inclined people as evidenced by the votes they get in political elections. This, in my opinion, is because they, as any other political party, avoid to address the population issue due to fear of vote loss. As I have no “vote loss” anxiety I shall give some hints on what can be done:
1) We can postulate that humans come to existance outside their will power, strive to continue to live forever instinctively, outside their will power, their life comes to a halt out side their will power.
2) Each human is born with a life long energy budget (about one million kcalories/year) which he/she must consume for survival.
3) Humans are the only species on earth that can rationalize processes related with the above.
Because of (1) we can say that it is within human rights boundries to have 2 children.
Because of (2) a third child will be consuming energy that should be saved for another family’s two children.
As for those who prefer spirituality over the scientific approach, here is what is happening:
http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/1081/Chicken-a-la-Carte
I hope the greens will start to divert some of their attention from whales to humans, for when human population is stabilized the whales will automatically be saved!
best regards
Luke name 2 just people who have been killed by AGW.
Yes DHMO
A Mr D Ortega, Paraguay
and Mr F.U. Wong – Mongolia
Jennifer the comments about not being able to define the Greens is just obfuscation in order to avoid discussing the central thrust. That is “Conventional Concepts of Nature vs. Pragmatic Conservation: An irreconcilable Conflict?” by Harald Kehl. It has a lot to say to anyone who is not part of the fundamentalist religion now named environmentalist. When you say Greens they know who they are even if they wish to deny it.
The AGW crowd are very short on answers they really don’t offer them. I naively thought the opposition on this blog would try to convince me of their wisdom and how they propose to fix “the problem”. But no they vilify and insult in the main.
I have asked three simple questions that should be easy to answer if their position is the correct one.
1. If “climate change” is a reality in that it is not natural when in the past was it not happening?
2. Since the perception is that is mainly to do CO2 what was the level then?
3. If the alternative is so easy then surely the WWF or Greenpeace could build one equivalent emmisions free power station to a Coal power station as a demonstration. So why don’t they?
I expect silence to these questions because reason nor logic is their currency only belief in pathetic “solutions”.
Luke I think Graeme is right you are an idiot!
Luke,
The topic is ‘greens’.
Graeme is rightly putting the movement to stop all use of DDT as a part of the greens.
The radicals who imposed the complete ban on DDT are indeed responsible for killing millions.
We can also discuss how ethanol, by distorting grain markets, has killed many. We can also discuss how Brazilian reliance on sugarcane for fuel is destroying Amazon jungle and water quality in the Amazon basin.
The poor thinking that permits allegedly smart people like yourself to confuse iceshelves breaking with iceshelves melting is emblematic of the poor thinking that dominates the green political movement.
Oddly enough, you who screech on about AGW skeptics being deniers are the true denialists.
There has never been a global DDT ban. Just for the record.
For me a ‘green’ is a person who places humanity second to the idealised concept of pristine nature; this is different from a person who has a concept of humans needing a place to live and regarding nature as something to be preserved because it is where humans live; one issue which manifests this distinction is population; a Malthusian [as the extreme example] has the [misplaced] view that population needs to be drastically curtailed because increases in population will see humanity, or at least humanity with a desirable standard of living, destroy itself or the capacity to have that desirable standard of living; the green wants human numbers drastically curtailed because humans have exceeded a natural threashold; their concern is not with a desirable standard of living but any encroachment or compromise with nature. There are many examples of such people; Clive Hamilton, Glenn Albrecht, John Reid, Lovelock, Kirk Huffman, Gus Speth, every member of PETA.
Also greens have no sense of humour.
Well cohenite, either you are wrong about what a ‘green’ is, or I’m not a green. For sure some greens hold those concerns about population etc, but then so do many non-greens.
For heavens sake we’re not going to debate the old DDT / “crops for fuel” right wing bullshit ruses are we? How tedious. We’ll only quote the endless reams of tripe that have already been spread. Trying to pin that on the majority of greens is simply vile.
Funnily enough you never hear people who rant on about these issues express any concern about situations like Iraq. So for right wing scum which most of you are – you don’t really give a rat’s arse about the starving millions in Africa and elsewhere – it’s all just crocodile tears. All you grubs are concerned about is making as much loot by any means possible. And if that having shares in the military industrial complex – well all the better.
Cohenite – if you don’t think population is not a long term issue (and that doesn’t mean going around killing people) along with food security – then you’re not on the page. Do you really believe that preposterous load of bunk that you’ve just penned is relevant to most persons having green sympathies. What bilge. Time to put the boot into lawyer parasites I think… let’s just rant off … let’s just make some shit up. Just like sceptics do every day.
Now what was Direct Factory Outlet (DFO) on about.
1. If “climate change” is a reality in that it is not natural when in the past was it not happening?
What a deliberately stupid comment. Climate can change for a number of reasons. Major climate shifts can wipe out entire civilisations. Imagine how northern hemisphere would go under an Ice Age style glaciation. You’d just call uncle Bob up ask for Plan B !! hahahahaha Check out how the Mayans went in the MWP.
CO2 is not an exclusive driver of climate – try not to be so totally dishonest as to imply that’s what we’re saying.
2. Since the perception is that is mainly to do CO2 what was the level then?
Utterly stupid dense comment for the reason above.
3. If the alternative is so easy then surely the WWF or Greenpeace could build one equivalent emmisions free power station to a Coal power station as a demonstration. So why don’t they?
Err probably coz governments typically authorise after lengthy approval processes then build them with massive private enterprise engineering expertise. You can imagine the abuse greens would get if they tried to do it anywhere. Would be NIMBYing someone’s back yard. Indeed the whole issue of CO2 scrubbing and sequestration is in the research phase.
Who said the alternatives are simple. Nobody promised that. But isn’t it amazing what can be done when firms like Google put their minds to “greening” their enterprises. Or even WalMart with energy use. Like typical right wing scum – you’re a carping denier and green basher. You can’t imagine anything more than a nice CO2 spewing power stack will ever work. In the era of chimney sweep Dickensian London, you’d be telling us that it will always be this way. And in the slavery era – the South will never function without slaves. I’m sorry it’s just intolerable.
MattB, Luke, etc.
Denialism from you Greens seems rather pervasive.
…”Silent Spring” resulted in a large public outcry that eventually led to most uses of DDT being banned in the US in 1972.[4] DDT was subsequently banned for agricultural use worldwide under the Stockholm Convention, but its limited use in disease vector control continues to this day in certain parts of the world and remains controversial.[5]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
And the relevance of discussing the high price of enviro-extremism on humanity is that your inability to consider issues like this rationally is evidence of the idea that ‘Green’, like the belief in AGW, is a social movement that is not based on scientific evidence.
And Luke,
Thanks for posting an actual photo of yourself.
It is rare that a portrait captures the inner person as well as yours does.
I have a friend who I’d class as a classic greenie. She’s in her mid 40s and single – she lives in a mudbrick house she built herself and has a magnificent organic garden full of veges. (fertilised by the poo from battery chickens and grain fed beef.)
She is primarily vegetarian but occasionally eats white meat, i.e she prefers mercury soaked seafood and “organic” battery chickens over the healthy, hormone and antibiotic free grass fed cows that roam the hills around her.
She appears to have an inherited wealth or is on some kind of welfare as she doesn’t have regular employment, she drives an old Korean car and of course owns a Macintosh computer. 🙂
When I suggested that maybe global warming was a fantasy she looked the other way and muttered something about agreeing to disagree.
then of course there is this style of greenie
http://www.smh.com.au/national/greenie-accused-of-being-a-space-cadet-20090422-affm.html?page=-1
“Because of (1) we can say that it is within human rights boundries to have 2 children.
Because of (2) a third child will be consuming energy that should be saved for another family’s two children.”
No we aren’t going to be rationing children, energy or anything else and you can come out from under your Muslim cover with that hateful jive. The pro-abortion mantra is out there; “my body my choice” and all that rote-learned stuff. Its a decoy to fool our girls as to where the real violation to their liberty and person lies.
The real violation by the state comes, not from preventing late-term killing of healthy children but rather from busy-bodies or governments trying to ration kids. And using any amount of violence, trickery, psychological blackmail and just plain persuasion to achieve this.
Instead of the Doctor making a house-call to see your pregnant aunty then its the forced abortion team. Or people slip anti-fertility drugs in along with the vaccines so that black people will lose their children. Or the environmentalist doctor talks the lady out of the pregnancy. Perhaps claiming that it will endanger her health. Or lying and saying that the child itself is not healthy. This sort of thing is the ultimate crime along with the late late late-term abortion via bureaucratising centrally, how Malaria will be dealt with.
The answer is not environmentalist murder trickery and hectoring, but rather economic science. With a special emphasis on land-substitutes. Land-substitutes and access to energy. Hyper-abundant energy. As a responsible country Australia ought to aim at producing, consuming and exporting more energy per capita then any other country and no-one coming close. Being without peer in energy production, consumption and export.
As far as the land substitution is concerned, this means putting together the overall legal and tax basis which allows a more or less permanent surplus of specifically high-rise living and working space (and multi-level basements too). HYPER-SPACIOUS high-rise living and working space. 12 foot ceiling minimums. Giant rooms. Not apartments but SKY HOUSES.
Ziggurat-style buildings that straddle the roads. What is the legal framework that would make such investments and projects doable? Not by crony-town but as a natural way of putting together an investment with even a collection of mom-and-pop types? What legal framework do we need to “homestead” the space that lies above the roads? We are light-years away from this sort of thing. And there is a very good reason why we have not progressed in this direction.
We need to be able to discuss important matters with the air clear of leftists, globalists and environmentalists lying relentlessly, round the clock, world without end. If lying is no longer fashionable, or indeed acceptable, we can get it together to solve all these problems.
“High-density” is an ugly phrase. This is in no way what I’m talking about. If we wind up with 14 billion people in the world, all these people cannot rightly aspire to the Australian idea of a quarter-acre block. Or the Classical Greek norm of a hoplite with ten acres of land in Attica.
But each and every one of these hypothetical 14 billion people can potentially, under economic science and abundant energy, aspire to a half acre sky-house with 12 foot ceilings. Its entirely doable and I think people have the right to be able to expect such a thing down the track.
The more people that choose this sort of (what by todays standards would be) astonishing luxury then the more chance there is for anyone who wants to ride his horse out of town and rope off ten acres for himself… well there would be more opportunity for that other extreme also.
So there is never any need to ration kids, energy or anything else. The idea is simply to follow economic science and science more generally. With vertical development land substitutes totally overmatching any actual increase in population, matters will be able to progress along the following lines.
1. At first the non-agricultural land use per capita can start coming down, even as the volume of living and working space per capita grows at a very fast clip.
2. Then the non-agricultural area used by humans IN TOTAL can even start falling, but with volume per capita still expanding very fast.
3. Then even the agricultural-space PLUS non-agricultural area being used by humans can begin to fall, AND STILL WITH per capita volume of living and working space expanding unimpeded.
This is what we want. We don’t want parasitical lunatics like Luke getting a warm inner glow knowing his rich white international taxeater brethren are using every conceivable cunning to eradicate the children of other tribes. This Club Of Rome nightmare of the exponential series can be over-matched by human reason but the pre-requisite is we have to stop tolerating people lying all the time.
Its not funny anymore.
What a flow of drivel from one of the great libertarian liars of all time.
“Instead of the Doctor making a house-call to see your pregnant aunty then its the forced abortion team. Or people slip anti-fertility drugs in along with the vaccines so that black people will lose their children. Or the environmentalist doctor talks the lady out of the pregnancy. Perhaps claiming that it will endanger her health”
Even Jared Diamnond wouldn’t be able to fabricate some drivel like that. Have you got a scintilla of proof of any of that? Of course not. And coming from one of the blogosphere’s greatest sexist racist morons it’s laughable.
The most horrid thought is that you’d be allowed anywhere near children or have any say in what women do or don’t want to do in terms of children. Go back to telling us Obama isn’t an American so we can all have a good laugh.
New Scientist’s Fred Pearce looks at the growing conflict between “preservationists” and “sustainable developers” concluding:
Environmentalists will inevitably find themselves on the barricades defending the natural world from other environmentalists intent on generating clean energy.
Left on left conflicts based on ideological purity tend to be especially nasty; there could be a huge bloodletting just over the horizon.
(H/T J.F. Beck)
Janama
Owns a Macintosh computer – yes, I’ve noticed that – I believe mostly it’s purely ideological – Wintel machines are produced by the Great Satan American Capitalists.
The thread may be bare but it did start with a simple dichotomy of seeing environmentalism as either a moral or a technological issue. Can I suggest that the whole point of environmentalism is not to create artificial and seductive dichotomies; the environment is about seeing the whole, not the holes. The urge to split stuff is often why we have problems – too many scientific disciplines to poorly connected is one example of rampant reductionism, and of one-eyed scientists seeing the world through a discipline coloured microscope. Some geologists are the saddest example from a science point of view. Ignoring externalities is the worst in terms of environmnetal impacts. So less fission, more fusion; less splitting, go the lumpers. A bleeding obvious enough example of the relative value of the two approaches can be found in the previous two contributions.
No thats rubbish Bazza. Environmentalists are broad-minded holisticians. They are narrow evil nazi bigots. Everything they are for is against authentic sustainability. We see this with every speech they make and every policy they support. Where have you been and tell me how to affect this evergreen naievete, just in case I want to take up amateur theatre or something.
Get yourself another name champ. The name “Environmentalist” is not for you. Or forcefully steal back the name off of these blinkered sissy-boy nazis.
Everything I’m for is for sustainability. Everything the environmentalist lobby is in favour of is the opposite. And when they say sustainability thats code for virtual end of property-rights. Thats how these evil nazis got all those people killed in Victoria. By taking away their property rights and leaving them as mere powerless custodians rather than each man a sovereign of his own titled land.
You may well be a broad-minded holistician Bazza. You may be a gifted conceptualist. Don’t get me wrong. But thats not what the environmentalist movement is full of. I think of myself as a broadminded holistician actually. But my point is that the name is taken. You must either take it back or get yourself a new name.
Environmentalists are not the people to go for when you need some sort of big picture thinking. You CANNOT mean what you are saying. You think we want to drag our ass along to Penny Wong and Mr Baldy for them to breathe some big picture thinking into our feeble minds?
I don’t THINKso.
You wouldn’t want to go to see them for even either a song or to see what a Chinese woman looks like. They are not even good at anything they are supposed to be good for. Peter cannot sing, cannot dance, no good at science, whats the point to him?
Yes Hunter – but it is the vector control that was still undertaken that relates to malaria. what does tha agricultural ban have to do with it?
Stop the press – some people are greenies and do not take a 100% rational science approach…. welcome to the planet Hunter enjoy your stay.
Janama… your friend sounds pretty cool. What was the point of letting us all know you have a friend who lives as she chooses and is happy to let you live yours as you choose? As for Macs – they just work… pretty simple.
my point mattB was that she is so into her greeness that she won’t listen to any alternate ideas such as AGW being false. Full stop – No Way!
Hey – I lived in a house I built myself and have a totally organic vege garden etc, but my mind is open to new ideas about the climate.
She is typical of the majority of greenies – very closed minded, I have many greenie friends who are similar yet I class myself as a greenie – so there you go.
I’m more your Peter Andrew style greenie 🙂
Luke you say “CO2 is not an exclusive driver of climate” and by implication you say that climate change of the past was driven by other factors. If so then why the ETS or Cap and Trade? Why Kyoto why Copenhagan why earth hour? Look I will get out shovel I just got buried to neck in your BS. You are saying “climate change” is natural thank you. You are that case you are right the other 2 questions not necessary since you agree “climate change” and GW are a natural event.
BTW I voted labor and democrat most of my life. My brother was a cabinent minister in the Hawke government and also a member of the Whitlam goverment. You have adopted narrow beliefs and travel in a blinkered world which has only belief. You really are a coarse dumb yobo who sees your role as an abusive know it all defender of the faith of fundamental eco religion. You are in fact worthless.
Janama – it is your assumption that because she thinks what she thinks about AGW she is closed minded, same for all the rest of these greenie mates. I must admit when I encounter sceptics I rarely leave the discussion commenting on just how open-minded and science-oriented they are:)
I have seen birds that talk, birds that can sing, but it is the first time that I see a Bird that can write, and in English too. Thank you Jennifer for facilitating such event in your blog.
By the way, Bird, where did you find the terminology “economic science”? Is it your own coining or did some “bird” lure you to write it?
“By ‘The Greens I am referring to those who feel comfortable with this label.
I am using it in the same way one might label someone a ‘classic liberal’, ‘neocon’, ‘Christian’, ‘farmer’, ’surfer’…”
So the heading for this series of posts should really be “Defining greens”, as distinct from The Greens which is the political party.
Good luck with trying to come up with an all embracing definition for such a diverse range of individuals, organisations and causes. If you have such a broad definition as you have used it means nothing about what greens actually care about. What does Greenpeace have in common with my local conservation group Friends of Star Swamp? Many greens under your definition have diametrically opposed views to other greens.
I find it interesting that looking at the other “labels” you have identified I think that one person could wear each of these hats at the same time. Perhaps they could also be a green eg a Christian farmer who surfs and also belongs to a local landcare group. They might also belong to the National Party, play football and play in a band. So what are they? People do not fit neatly under simple labels.
Is the AEF a pro-environment group? Does that make the members “green”?
If you want to denigrate “greens” focus on issues and facts, not labels
“There has never been a global DDT ban. Just for the record.”
Are you able to buy it now unimpeded from your local store or the supplier of your choice? Are you allowed to set out to manufacture it? Thats a ban idiot. Don’t mess with the English language to distort history.
The whole case of the holocaust-enablers and deniers rests on a series of word-games. And thats it!!! They want to hide all the dead bodies under the floarboards on the strength of a series of verbal obstructions and word-games. So the hysteria about DDT thats gone on since the 1960’s is not a ban. We aren’t allowed to call it a ban.
Well there has never been a global ban on nuclear power but these loony-toons have got in the way of that as a 24 hour obsession. There has never been a total ban on CO2 release but these loony toons want to reduce this as much as possible.
So this is their big asset in their holocaust-denial. Unbelievable it sounds its just a series of wordgames. Like Luke wanting to give names and addresses for malaria victims without him even contesting that dozens have died in the last few minutes.
These people are nazi filth. You’ve just got to get used to it.
Luke tries to escape the Nazi tag by feigning ignorance of communist China’s one child policy and the forced abortions they perpetrated to make it stick. Which had the further knock-on effect of the aborting of healthy baby girls. This is all post The Club Of Rome. Apparently Luke reckons forced abortions never happened in communist China. But of course he does know about them and he approves. He’s trying to escape the Nazi tag by pretending to be totally ignorant. There is no getting around the essential fascist nature of the environmentalist movement.
“Forced Abortion” in the google. And what do you know? Pages upon pages of case stories. Hysterical women making it all up hey Luke? Every last one of them. This is the ultimate crime surely. And I think most of the stories will relate back to environmentalism in some shape o r form.
The environmentalists are much more industrial-scale murderers than Pol Pot. They are too evil for Pol Pot I would have thought. If they were to end up in hell with him Pol Pot would probably be disgusted with these people for moral and ethical reasons. He’d be bitch-slapping Beezlebub and making Hitler cry but the environmentalists would leave him sobbing for the inhumanity of mankind.
Just a note to Graeme Bird.
It is true that DDT has been available in many places across the world ever since the UN ban. China has never stopped using DDT as far as I know. They were certainly using it extensively on my trips to agricultural regions up there during the 90s.
Also the United Nations officially sanctioned the use of DDT for the spraying of mosquitos in tropical regions some years ago.
There was also a report about the same time, I believe from the food and agriculture group of UN that said “Silent Spring” was largely false and misleading.
Don’t have time to search it out.
Pikey
maybe it would be easier if we defined what is NOT a Greenie.
MattB “…. and those who are “scientific” but tend to think for example that AGW is not happening (despite science telling us otherwise)”
Matt…how can you even begin to rebutt Jen’s arguements when you are not clear on the issues? When did ‘science’ tell us AGW was happening? Are you refering to the IPCC and its cronies? They told us very little. All they did was infer that AGW was happening, based on the short-sighted notion that nothing else was apparently causing the warming.
They didn’t even clarify what was meant by ‘warming’, infering a global warming which, in fact, is far from being global. There is warming, no doubt, and it is significant in small areas of the world, but it is highly localized. Because of the significant warming in those local hot spots, the globally-averaged warming is positive by a fraction of a degree over a century. The IPCC did not dwell on the cooling, which is almost as significant globally as the warming. Nor did they take an interest in why certain parts of the world have been cooling.
I think Jen is trying to say that Greens are a type of human who are willing to accept generalizations in science while ignoring specifics. They have a peculiar need to control in the same manner as religious fanatics need to control. They seem to think they know what is best for other humans, even if many those humans don’t want their solutions. They tend to use rhetoric as a guilt-trip, and the discrediting of people, rather than offering scientific rebuttal.
This is illogical – how can Bird call me a nazi – when Louis calls me a commie?
Anyway Bird is Nazi Marxist Leninist Communist libertarian nancy boy fabricator who can’t even get more than a handful of votes in an election. So how long have you been making up fairy tales now Birdy? Name two people that have died Bird. Betcha can’t.
rossco “I joined the Greens because they are the only party with a genuine commitment to human rights and social justice issues….”
Rubbish!! One of the stalwarts of the Greens is Greenpeace. They run a site called exxonsecrets whose mandate is to discredit legitimate scientists. What kind of people, who reputedly stands for human rights and social justice, can stoop to winning an argument through ad hom attacks on skeptical scientists.
The ex-leader of our local Green Party, diverted a question asking her what she’d do for people put out of work by her policies. She refused to answer the question, leaving the impression that sacrificing the welfare of humans was paramount to the implementation of Green policy.
You have a serious delusion that Greens care a hoot about other humans.
DHMO – OK Direct Factory Outlet – listen up – did I say I supported Earth Hour or the ETS or Kyoto?
Ever think to ask?
But on AGW being natural – nuh ! You can have Natural GW and AGW . Do you always order vanilla. Sometimes you can have vanilla, chocolate and strawberry all together. Golly gee – mixed impacts – isn’t that complex. Have a Bex and a good lie down DFO.
You see one might actually be a person who considers many environmental matters on their individual merits.
Thereby avoiding Jen’s straight-jacket classification system of right and left.
BTW do you realise I’m only as you want me to be as you denialist scum are so incensed with hate it stops you thinking.
Gordon asks “What kind of people, who reputedly stands for human rights and social justice, can stoop to winning an argument through ad hom attacks on skeptical scientists.”
mmmmm – let’s see – perhaps coz the opponents have on form been seen to be lying bastards who couldn’t lay straight in bed?
So the aborting Chinese administration are now greenies Birdy? Ever think of attending a course in logic?
I just realised what a total stupid question that is to a nutter. Sorry.
Luke: “This is illogical – how can Bird call me a nazi – when Louis calls me a commie?”
“mmmmm – let’s see – perhaps coz the opponents have on form been seen to be lying bastards who couldn’t lay straight in bed”
But I have never called you a commie Luke.
QED
Lysenkoist then ?
“You seem to be an arch Lysenkoist and an expert in writing non sequiturs” said Sinkers 20/10/2007
Wiki reports “Lysenko was admitted into the hierarchy of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union”
Close enough Looey !
Hey guys Chucky that murderous doll (other times even uglier) aka known as Luke. Has admitted it, “CO2 is not an exclusive driver of climate”. To say that and this “Climate can change for a number of reasons” means he believes it is not anthropogenic or else he is stupid. So what the hell is he trying to defend?
Luke,
Deeper and deeper you put your self into it. Obviously you never learnt that the pejorative Lysenkoist means a pseudoscientist, not a communist. And quoting Wiki – tsk tsk. Only the banal will do for you.
Oh and there isn’t much difference between a NAZI and a Communist – the Communists were slightly to the left of the NAZI’s, and both were quite left of centre, so Birdie was basically nit-picking.
No you’re a dumb bum.
Let’s see – climate might change from a number of reasons – solar (orbital changes or solar output), aerosols including volcanic dust, land use change, inter-annual or decadal oscillations, maybe even lunar influences – so called natural influences.
and oh yes – the dumping of vast amounts of greenhouses gases into the planet’s atmosphere might also cause some changes. Especially nasty if done in a very short period. So called – anthropogenic additional influences.
So attribution of the components is an important issue.
Perhaps the MWP might give us a taste of a warmer world.
Indeed this week’s news adds to the issue of circulation changes underway.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/flow.jsp
And indeed the more thinking members of the planet’s highest evolved primates might ponder their anthropogenic impact.
Of course intelligent analysis of the issue was blocked by right wing fuckwits who mistook it as a political issue.
Thanks Louis – you’re obsessed with this sort of reds under the bed crappola. I confess to not keeping up with the fine points of cold war trivia.
MattB,
You made an assertion that DDT was not banned worldwide and you were wrong.
You can dissemble all you want about astronomy.
Luke,
Your Chuckiness is becoming less rational more quickly than your ET persona.
But simply cursing at those who demonstrate more intelligence and maturity and rationality *is* a great way for a demon possessed stage prop to act.
And speaking of stage props, since it turns out that nearly all evidence of AGW is a fabrication designed to scare people, it is clear you are right on the mark as Chucky: One stage prop promoting another, as it were.
No end of ignorant snarky comments and commentary on this blog.
That sadly suits the nature of the posts.
Makes me feel that more people are recognising the fairer, smarter and more real appreciation of human culture and life and it’s place in the world the Green party reflects.
In as much as any political party can, an apparently necessary evil (political parties that is).
The diatribes and ignorance reflected in this blog post and many comments makes me feel amazingly calm today.
With such fear apparently motivating many amongst those propagating the rubbish found here, there must be a lot more people out there actually talking up more sensible things, for a change.
Go the Greens!
Hunter – don’t be a hypocrite – you guys are having one big cursing fit. Take Birdy for example. Your bias simple parses all that out as acceptable though doesn’t it.
And Chucky just helps you along doesn’t it – makes me just as you’d imagine it. Fuels that angst. Gets you all tense.
And may I say – devastating science in your reply (barf).
(We’re sorry Quoll – we know not what we do)
Luke,
If you confuse my laughter with your angst, that is your issue.
And as for your science….please feel free to start anytime. It will be your first.
Dismissal of all who disagree with you is not science. Confusing consensus for science did not work with eugenics or DDT, nor is it working with AGW.
The world is not facing any sort of manmade climate catastrophe from CO2. Deal with it, Luke.
You guys have never had one bit of evidence we were. AGW is complete and utter confabulation. Not one climate change we have experienced is outside the bounds of historical norms and the predicitive power of AGW models is zero.
Your defense of the other side of that is is as credible as the people who believe that Area 51 is full ET inspired technology.
As to suggesting that your choice of B movie prop is somehow my problem, well there you go confusing my laughter with your angst, yet again.
My angst – LOL – it’s yours mate. You’ve just penned another dozen lines saying absolutely nothing in a tedious attempt to justify your stupidity in face of facts. Keep biting dopey draws.
Luke,
You projecting your well demonstrated inner issues is one of the great draws of this site.
Please continue.
The bottom line is this:
AGW has failed to show any climate change or weather event that is not within historical norms. AGW has failed to make accurate predictions about either climate or weather.
AGW is a social movement based on fear mongering and apocalyptic myth.
Your hysterical and immature response simply underscores this.
LOL- there’s been plenty posted here on AGW evidence over the years. You’d be good in the 1970s police force mate – verballing I think the term is – now “AGW” is “predicting the weather”. hahahahahaha
“AGW is a social movement based on fear mongering and apocalyptic myth.” – no that’s just doghsit that denialists spin every day. Piss off clown.
“LOL- there’s been plenty posted here on AGW evidence over the years. ”
No there has never been any such evidence you are lying. And if there was you could just repost.
And you won’t. And the reason I know this, is not to do with having the gift of prophecy, but simply because you are lying.
“So the aborting Chinese administration are now greenies Birdy? Ever think of attending a course in logic?”
YES. Thats just an historical FACT. The upper level Chinese commie that convinced his comrades did so on the basis of going abroad and being taken by the findings of the Club Of Rome.
And here you were just a short while before pretending that these abortions didn’t happen. Now you’ve admitted they did when at first you called me a liar. Well I should be happy for the progress but still you are losing ground quickly hey Chucky-Luke?
Holocaust denier.
“Just a note to Graeme Bird.
It is true that DDT has been available in many places across the world ever since the UN ban.”
To me? To You? To any upper-middle-class philanthropist who is allergic to getting on his knees before taxeaters?
No no and no. When talking about something PLANET-WIDE the word “ban” is just fine as shorthand so loosen your tie and go hang yourself in the girls toilet now you Nazi. Because THATS A BAN. Thats a ban no matter what evil word-games you want to play.
You see these communists and nazi-Malthusians have found that they can kill millions of poor people just by throwing enough hoops in front of those who are well-meaning and with means.
Luke “Gordon asks “What kind of people, who reputedly stands for human rights and social justice, can stoop to winning an argument through ad hom attacks on skeptical scientists.”
mmmmm – let’s see – perhaps coz the opponents have on form been seen to be lying bastards who couldn’t lay straight in bed?”
Highly unimaginative response, Lukey. I’m disappointed. Take it away and have a better go at it, will you?
Jeremy C…”Being religious means worshiping something…”
Jeremy…the actual meaning of religious is to be serious. Some people can study math religiously, meaning they are serious about it and regular in their studies. In another context, a person can be serious about studying voodoo. The difference is that one person is studying an intelligent discipline while the other is immersing himself in delusion.
I imagine there are environmentalists who study the environment seriously and intelligently. Most would seem to be suffering from delusion, however. Intelligence and awareness go hand in hand just as delusion and self-centredness are related. Intelligence and awareness can only ‘be’ when the self is quiet and not in focus. Once the self acquires focus and importance, intelligence goes out the window. IMHO, greenies are self-centred and deluded, incapable of shutting off the noise in their minds long enough to receive insight that may be available to them. As a previous poster mentioned, they cut off intelligent conversation with an ‘agree to disgree’ mentality.
Well it’s true Gordon – everything you written on this blog is an embarrassing litany of utter crap.
Luke,
People are not buying what you are peddling. Reality keeps distracting them from your predictable litanies.
Face it: The ice ain’t melting, the storms are not getting stronger or more frequent, the temps are not getting hotter, the droughts are not drier, and the sea are not doing a thing they have not been doing forever.
You clowns do not know the difference between heat and temps, and you depend utterly on historical illiteracy.
And the vast sums of money wasted feeding the AGW scammers could have been spent actually helping the environment.
Luke “Well it’s true Gordon – everything you written on this blog is an embarrassing litany of utter crap”.
Sorry if I have embarrassed you by revealing the fallacies in your lame theories.