Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
476 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I know many of you put a throne on Al gore but listen to this, I got this forwarded to me today in my email. *I added the authors name I am not plagiarizing!

This was written by Dennis Gartman - global investment strategist

ON THE POLITICAL FRONT, we listened
to some of the idiocy coming out of the Live Earth
concerts this weekend, and in retrospect the more we
consider what it was that we heard the more convinced
we are that the "Global Warming" protesters really are at
their core anti-capitalists, with the vast majority of those
attending and agreeing with the general thesis wholly
unaware of the real nature of the movement. Listening to
Robert Kennedy Jr. explain to those attending that it is
their duty to stop American industry from polluting the
world in the name of profits is terribly disconcerting, for in
the doing of it he has "convinced" tens of thousands of
mis-educated youths of the veracity of his position and of
the wrong-ness of America.
We could not care a whit that the entertainers flew to their
venues in private jets, drove huge limousines and added
carbon to the atmosphere, for that is their right. If they
have the money to do so, so be it. We shall protect their
right to do so. However, what we do care about is that
Gore, Kennedy, bon Jovi et al are using their wealth and
positions to teach the young people of the world that the
US is the world's enemy and that her position of economic
imminence is to be undermined when and where it can be.
Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Gore have their millions already
earned, all of which we suspect (and hope) is safely
invested so that it shall keep them in limousines and
private jets forever, but they are telling those attending
these events that the world is an evil place, that profits are
an evil circumstance, that the future is bleak and that
capitalism is the fault. Shame upon them, for they know
better... or at least we hope they do.

Hope you enjoyed, please share your thoughts;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,903 Posts
I think that is an accurate claim about some in the environmental movement. It is a political movement with the environment being secondary to them. Penn and Teller did a BullS$%t episode on this phenomenon. Worth checking out. Using key phrases like, "big corporations use lots of it" they got some environmentalists to sign a petition against di-hydrogen monoxide. Patrick Moore, co-founder of greenpeace, has also written on the topic.

This subset of, ostensibly, environmentalists, latched onto global warming to push a general notion of original sin (we should live in the trees...civilisation was a bad idea). Their often knee-jerk opposition to technologies like nuclear, coal with sequestration and, more recently, biofuels and large scale wind power show that when cleaner technologies look like they may have the capacity to clean up the world and keep us rich, the nutters turn on them and/or push junk science.

I'm not sure Gore pushes that, given what I've seen him say. From what I've seen, he's relatively honest about being for growing wealth and a cleaner environment.

The funniest are communist anit-capitalists versus your run-of-the-mill anti-capitalists that want a vague unknown utopia. Communist regimes have been notorious for environmental destruction that only gets limited by being relatively poor, not actually giving a rats butt about the planet. Not surprising given that nobody owns anything or has rights to protect the environment or themselves.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
31,013 Posts
Hmmm Cuba has perhaps the best marine preservation system on the Caribbean yet is poor and they make us look very wasteful in food management/growth versus fossil fuel. 12 calories of food for 1 calorie of fuel - ours is the inverse.
They are literate and well serviced by the medical community.
That part ( not the marine preservation ) is by necessity is really of little consequence.

Bit vitriolic there Beej.

The globalization debate HAS gotten tangled with the decarbonization movement tho there are many cross over aspects - slow food, soil management, organic sans fossil based fertilizers etc.

Speaking of knee - jerk you can't exactly pat the fossil fuel industry on the head for refraining from EAGERLY pissing upriver of the drinking water and actively fighting those that would see it otherwise.
That kind of systemic recalcitrance does not endear the "capitalists" to the environmentalists or the anti-globalization crowd.
Makes them vulnerable to valid accusation.

This image still holds for many in the "war footing" the UN head has called for on climate change.



There are radicals on both sides - unfortunately for the planet the radicals on the "what global warming" side, Bush and Co amongst a few others wield an awful lot of power.

Fortunately...that's slowly changing.

This growing accusation of "politics" - ie the IPCC being accused etc is a worrisome and perhaps purposed deflection from the large task at hand.

Perhaps Gartman may not LIKE the Ugly American view much of the world holds....nevertheless that's been reality for a long time.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,903 Posts
Hmmm Cuba has perhaps the best marine preservation system on the Caribbean yet is poor and they make us look very wasteful in food management/growth versus fossil fuel. 12 calories of food for 1 calorie of fuel - ours is the inverse.
Our intensive agricultural development is part and parcel with wealth, lots of land and, of course, the climate sucks and agriculture is deeply subsidised as per the voters' wishes. Darned voters. ;)

It's easy to preserve when you have no use, but Cuba is quite enamoured with tourism dollars (they need capitalists ;) ).

Canada has enormous national parks; but also an enormous country with a low population. Our parks are something to be proud of, but the accomplishment can be overstated.

I've worked with a variety of environmental groups. Some, like Pembina, can bring a fresh and informed perspective, open to debate to the table. Others just bring their anger about civilisation, Bush and everything under the sun.

That subset of "environmentalists" (the fake ones) has opened themselves up to much criticism, including from real environmentalists.

"There are radicals on both sides" Definitely. Of course, seal hunters may have a different perspective, as would natives with hunting rights in the north. There are lots of reasonable solutions out there, but the 'radicals' (of all stripes) will not stand for it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,903 Posts
Patrick Moore's essay on environmentalism for the 21st century:
Environmentalism for the 21st Century

I think that the whole essay is worth reading but, for the topic at hand, Moore's discussion starts around page 4.

Environmentalism for the 21st Century
.................
They rejected consensus politics and sustainable development in favor of continued confrontation and ever-increasing extremism. They ushered in an era of zero tolerance and left-wing politics. Some of the features of this environmental extremism are:

Environmental extremists are anti-human. Humans are characterized as a cancer on the Earth. To quote eco-extremist Herb Hammond, "of all the components of the ecosystem, humans are the only ones we know to be completely optional". Isn't that a lovely thought?

They are anti-science and technology. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and unnatural. Science is invoked to justify positions that have nothing to do with science. Unfounded opinion is accepted over demonstrated fact.

Environmental extremists are anti-trade, not just free trade but anti-trade in general. In the name of bioregionalism they would bring in an age of ultra-nationalist xenophobia. The original "Whole Earth" vision of one world family is lost in a hysterical campaign against globalization and free trade.

They are anti-business. All large corporations are depicted as inherently driven by greed and corruption. Profits are definitely not politically correct. The liberal democratic, market-based model is rejected even though no viable alternative is proposed to provide for the material needs of 6 billion people. As expressed by the Native Forest Network, "it is necessary to adopt a global phase out strategy of consumer based industrial capitalism." I think they mean civilization.

And they are just plain anti-civilization. In the final analysis, eco- extremists project a naive vision of returning to the supposedly utopian existence in the garden of Eden, conveniently forgetting that in the old days people lived to an average age of 35, and there were no dentists. In their Brave New World there will be no more chemicals, no more airplanes, and certainly no more polyester suits.
.................


Penn and Teller's episode is also quite fun and worth finding.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
31,013 Posts
Our intensive agricultural development is part and parcel with wealth, l
The Amish would beg to differ. They are sustainable and abundant in producing from relatively small holding as is Cuba . You act as if Cuban tourism is any different than that of Niagara Falls.

Rather the relationship might be money, land and squandered resources coupled closely with lack of husbandry.....where conservatism actually arose.

It sure ain't wealth.

BTW Beej - you're doing a fine job of painting yourself into the opposite corner....quite hysterically.

Oh yeah Cubans live as long as American's - maybe longer.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,903 Posts
The Amish would beg to differ.
......
You act as if Cuban tourism is any different than that of Niagara Falls.
......
BTW Beej - you're doing a fine job of painting yourself into the opposite corner....quite hysterically.
......
Oh yeah Cubans live as long as American's - maybe longer.
Not a good example MD. Look a the larger picture. The capital and energy intensity helps make food cheaper (along with heapings of subsidies). You're attached to a perceived beautiful existence without looking at what it really takes to produce as much food as we do. Isolated examples...nice, but no go.

Someone, in their backyard, could get really good energy ratios, particularly if they got more intensive sunlight than in Canada. Big deal. Now who is paying for all that labour or, from another perspective, do you want to live with the Amish? ;)
.......
Quite the opposite. Look again.
.......
By providing quotes from a co-founder of Greenpeace? Mentioning a Penn and Teller episode? Hysterical indeed, MD.

Perhaps you're trying out a Fair and Balanced approach. I think that you're above that. Furthermore, we have enough posting history for you to know better and your comment comes off as the weak jab of someone with nothing to say. That's truly unusual for you. ;)

As you will note in my first post, I underlined the word, "some". I have experience with them and, within the environmentalist community, there is some discomfort with the radicals.

As per Fair and Balanced principles, would you be satisfied if I mentioned big bad corporations at least once for every mention of that "some"?
.......
Unrelated, particularly given that life is more than just length. You seem to have this protective desire regarding Cuba...it must be above reproach. Are you just feeling pointlessly argumentative today? I can help you satisfy that, if need be, but would prefer novel input if you're up to it.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top