A leading proponent of action against global warming says that many of his "green" "allies" are hurting the cause:

He says: "There is a suspicion, and I have that suspicion myself, that a large number of people who label themselves 'green' are actually keen to take us back to the 18th or even the 17th century."

He characterises their argument as "let's get away from all the technological gizmos and developments of the 20th century".

"People say 'well, we'll just use less energy.' Come on," he says. "And then there's the real world, where everyone is aspiring to the sort of standard of living that we have, which is based on a large energy consumption."

King calls global warming the biggest challenge our civilisation has ever faced, and famously, in a 2004 article in the journal Science, berated the US for its inaction, describing climate change as "more serious even than the threat of terrorism". But his vocal support for nuclear power and genetically modified foods has led to tensions with environmental campaigners.

No kidding.

They're called "watermelons"--green on the outside, red on the inside. Socialism lost its luster with the fall of the Soviet Union, so they're simply latching on to this latest ideological fad to try to keep it going under a different name.

And of course, as is well known, socialism is completely opposed to technological innovation.

And in any case, why worry about a problem that doesn't exist?

It doesn't matter whether socialism is opposed to technological innovation. What matters is whether it could deliver. What really matters, in the context of AGW hysteria and alarmism, is whether the gang of neo-Luddites which comprise the modern environmental movement would allow their imagined utopia to be sullied by advanced technology, and the processes required to get to that level. Given the extraordinarily common fascination with and approval of primitive subsistence-level lifestyles the watermelons evince, I seriously doubt many would approve of anything beyond Stone Age technology. Even fire might be taboo (C02! Heretic!).

Only a technology so advanced it is totally transparent will allow these idiots to live in their eco-utopia without all the Hobbesian baggage, I.E. Short, nasty and brutish.

I always wonder how they propose to return us to the 12th or 13th century and refrain the Mongolian hordes at the same time.

>>>>>I always wonder how they propose to return us to the 12th or 13th century and refrain the Mongolian hordes at the same time.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 13, 2008 12:35 PM

Not a problem. The hordes will be so impressed with the superior culture that they will forget to raze the villages* and build skull pyramids. They won't even consider spoiling the peaceful eco friendly lands with herds of ponys and annual hunts killing everything in a fifty mile diameter area. They won't rape and kill the unarmed people sniffing the flowers that grow without effort. In short Mike, you are obviously worrying about things that couldn't possibly happen.

*No cities in the perfect eco future.

What hilarity erupts here when someone suggests conserving some energy. All the middle ages and the mongolian hordes... Or is my sarcasm meter broken?

With the real communism thing, yeah, there are some people and organizations that can be seen as green and also left at the same time.

There are also some who are on the complete opposite side from communism, preaching about individualism, strong will and personal decisions and responsibility. Who also live without electricity and do pretty fine.
I think their expectations from humanity are too high in a sense.

Most people want an easy lazy material life.

Most green people that I know are engineers and think that capitalism is a pretty good system for dividing resources if it is regulated in the right way (like no free pass for pollution) and it's understood that the fastest possible short sighted economic growth is not the sole purpose of society. (Or is that communism not believing so?)

Watermelons

I like that!

Good turn of phrase. Glad people are catching on.

:)

Your sarcasm meter is broken, mz. Besides that, your fine tuning seems to be out of whack. You have missed that no one is apparently opposed to "conserving some energy". Heck, I'm all for efficiency and against profligate wastefulness. I believe that what the people here are talking against, that to which they are opposed, is the attempt to turn back technology to beyond the point where it could comfortably and healthily support the world's population. There are some "environmental" activists whose positions cannot be reasonably differentiated from advocating mass murder — in the billions — if that's what it takes to "rid the Earth of this plague of humans." In case you are wondering, that is an exact quote from a person on a mailing list my wife is on.

"There are some "environmental" activists whose positions cannot be reasonably differentiated from advocating mass murder — in the billions — if that's what it takes to "rid the Earth of this plague of humans." In case you are wondering, that is an exact quote from a person on a mailing list my wife is on."

Healthy bodies develop cancers. Apparently, this guy is humanities cancer.

So sure in his agressive malmorphism that he in effect advocates destroying the host in his unthinking progressions.

That joker sure could benefit from some chemotherapy.

I'm all for personal conservation, particularly since that also means saving money.

But the simple fact is that personal conservation, and those little things that get claimed as "helping things out" like carpooling, turning the lights off when you don't need them, turning down the heat or air, using CFLs for lighting, etc., don't amount to a hill of beans at the macro scale, even if everybody started doing them. I still recommend that folks read the old energy posts on USS Clueless, particularly the one on orders of magnitude.

Frankly, the single most promising possibility that I see WRT energy is if the polywell works. Barring that, the only alternative that doesn't involve killing or impoverishing millions seems to be fission (including possibly Thorium). Solar, wind, and biomass just have too many inefficiencies in scaling, controllability, or energy input requirements.

I agree that the current crop of environmental fanatics are the type who used to identify with socialism, but I don't all socialists are necessarily environmentalists. The common characteristic of the fanatics is that they're emotionalists - their reactions are driven more by an emotional response than by a rational analysis. As such, they're generally pretty ineffectual and hence harmless, unless they gain political influence by being unchallenged by the rationalists.

capitalism is a pretty good system for dividing resources if it is regulated in the right way

Da, comrade. That's the way to prove Rand's point.

Leland, I know, everything I say can prove that I'm a witch... I mean, communist.

You are completely and utterly crazy.

I don't know what that "regulated capitalism" as a hotbutton word means, I've never seen it used. Every country with capitalism does regulate it.

Well, what happens in these comments is one of the laughing stocks among my friends... "I said this or that and then they immediately called me a leftist / communist / said Da, comrade". Rand's blog sure attracts certain kind of people.

Btw I also think that individual voluntary changes don't amount to very much (laudable still) and aren't very rightful either as they give advantages to people who don't do them - ie the most arrogant who produce the most nuisance to others get the most benefit. That's the reason why we have laws at all - to force even those who don't voluntarily take others into account to do so. Anarchism in my view isn't a very efficient way of doing things, or probably it wouldn't last anyway since people would immediately form communities with their own rules.

Most people wouldn't like to have an expensive army or get conscripted for military service but they realize it's necessary, or otherwise things would be even worse, since they would probably be exploited by some stronger nation. Hell, most people would just like to be lazy or do only what they like and not have to go to work.
Hence the common meme that many employ that "people just want to use more energy" implying it's the only way because people want it, is not thinking very far. The consequences have to be made explicit too.

I'm not talking of going back to the caves or to the middle ages. Now, looking at going back to the eighties usage ... nah, impossible, horrible how it was back then, it was an age of constant despair, devoid of Happiness and Freedom.
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/policies/images/es3.jpg

Hey, here's an idea: How about (gasp) becoming more energy-efficient and energy-independent by ADVANCING OUR TECHNOLOGY? After all, cars have become cleaner and cleaner through advancing technology since before I was born (the only reason they're still a concern is that there's so many MORE of them); why not take some of that technological ingenuity and let it loose on the energy-independence issue?

I'm all for energy efficiency and energy independence. Doesn't mean I have to do it because AGW Expert #461 tells me so.

More specifically, to mz: Going back to the '80s would mean going back to cars that produce more than twice as much pollution as today's cars, to provide one example. The prime mover of carbon dioxide usage etc. is not inefficiency but numbers; going back to the '80s would remove the technological advances that have taken place since then while leaving the numbers in place. I'd rather move forward.

I remember the 80's too.