Honest Environmental Manifesto
Alan Connor
I'm an Environmentalist.
I want to Save the Earth!
Errr....That is, I want to save what's _left_ of the Earth after
me and all my friends get _our_ pieces of it.
Oh. And those pieces need to be extracted and transformed into
all the stuff I want a long way from where I live and hang out,
and for that matter, a long way from _anywhere_ I might want to
visit or live or work in the future.
I _really_ don't want _my_ view defaced or _my_ water or air
polluted!
And when I take my kids (it's all those black and brown
and yellow primitives who are causing overpopulation, after all)
out to the Public Forests once a year, they better be nice and
pretty and there better not be any clearcuts around!
And I most certainly do not want to see or associate with any of
those unenlightened subhumans who are trashing the planet in
order to make all the stuff I want.
Alan
--
See my headers.
john fernbach
Are you challenging honest environmentalists to confront their own
excessive consumption, and to do a better job of sharing the planet
with black, brown, and other nonwhite people?
Or are you mostly saying that too many environmentalists are hypocrites
or otherwise flawed human beings - and therefore it's fine to ignore
what they're saying, and to keep wrecking large pieces of the planet?
If you're challenging most Western environmentalists, many of whom are
upper-middle-class and white, to do a much better job - as a green
radical, I have to agree with you.
If you're saying that we're just as imperfect morally as everyone else
on the planet, however, and that "THEREFORE" it's okay for the work to
ignore problems like global climate change and the destruction of the
world's fisheries - I think you're not showing good judgment.
A lot of environmentalists think of ourselves as canaries in the coal
mine.
The point of having a canary in the coal mine is not to learn superior
morality and ethical behavior from the bird -- it's to have a warning
system against disaster. Environmentalists clearly don't have to be
morally perfect -- which we're not, of course -- to be providing the
world with an urgent warning against disaster.
Alan Connor
<1153598392.8...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "john
fernbach" wrote:
Top posting corrected. Please put your comments after the
material you are responding to. Makes for much more readable
articles, eh?
>
> Alan Connor wrote:
>
>> I'm an Environmentalist.
>>
>> I want to Save the Earth!
>>
>> Errr....That is, I want to save what's _left_ of the Earth
>> after me and all my friends get _our_ pieces of it.
>>
>> Oh. And those pieces need to be extracted and transformed into
>> all the stuff I want a long way from where I live and hang
>> out, and for that matter, a long way from _anywhere_ I might
>> want to visit or live or work in the future.
>>
>> I _really_ don't want _my_ view defaced or _my_ water or air
>> polluted!
>>
>> And when I take my kids (it's all those black and brown and
>> yellow primitives who are causing overpopulation, after all)
>> out to the Public Forests once a year, they better be nice and
>> pretty and there better not be any clearcuts around!
>>
>> And I most certainly do not want to see or associate with any
>> of those unenlightened subhumans who are trashing the planet
>> in order to make all the stuff I want.
John,
> Alan - I'm a little unsure what your point is, here.
>
> Are you challenging honest environmentalists to confront their
> own excessive consumption, and to do a better job of sharing
> the planet with black, brown, and other nonwhite people?
Close enough. And very perceptive.
>
> Or are you mostly saying that too many environmentalists are
> hypocrites or otherwise flawed human beings - and therefore
> it's fine to ignore what they're saying, and to keep wrecking
> large pieces of the planet?
>
Again, you are right on the money (so-to-speak...).
But you are also implying that the 'environmentalists' are doing
something that is saving the planet, and they are not.
The so-called 'environmentalists' are the biggest impediment to
real environmentalism on the planet, because people believe in
them.
They want to have their Earth and eat it too, and that won't
work.
They simply will not accept the obvious fact that this
civilization/culture/economy is _based_ on trashing the planet to
turn resources into material things.
The only thing that will save the planet is to quit trashing
it, and they cannot do that or even advocate that.
After all, they have a lot material expectations, don't they?
And if they advocated minimizing consumption, the Corporations
who finance them through charitable donations would pull the rug
out from under them.
I do realize that there are many educated, intelligent,
dedicated, and hard working people in the environmental movement
who really believe that they are saving the planet.
But they aren't, and this is obvious as hell.
It is being trashed at a faster rate, every year now, with China
and India and Russia successfully adopting variants of the Middle
Class American lifestyle.
With the very active help of the Corporations that finance
the 'environmental' movement. And the help of all the
'environmentalists' who love all that investment income and all
those cheap goods. And work for those Coporations, directly or
indirectly.
> If you're challenging most Western environmentalists, many of
> whom are upper-middle-class and white, to do a much better job
> - as a green radical, I have to agree with you.
It's obvious that you aren't one of them. You have your mind
open.
>
> If you're saying that we're just as imperfect morally as
> everyone else on the planet, however, and that "THEREFORE" it's
> okay for the work to ignore problems like global climate change
> and the destruction of the world's fisheries - I think you're
> not showing good judgment.
No. I don't mean that at all. I'm just saying that if we don't
radically change how we live, then the fate of a people who
trash the environment they depend on is going to be ours.
It's looking like increased competition for resources and
ecosystem services (cheap labor and markets too) have already
started WWIII, which is probably what will cause the collapse of
Industrial Civilization, which is a house of cards in its most
stable state.
>
> A lot of environmentalists think of ourselves as canaries in
> the coal mine.
Talking about it is the first step.
But if it's also the last, then nothing is accomplished.
>
> The point of having a canary in the coal mine is not to learn
> superior morality and ethical behavior from the bird -- it's
> to have a warning system against disaster. Environmentalists
> clearly don't have to be morally perfect -- which we're not,
> of course -- to be providing the world with an urgent warning
> against disaster.
Sure.
Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Economic Damages
Alan Connor wrote:
> The so-called 'environmentalists' are the biggest impediment to
> real environmentalism on the planet, because people believe in
> them.
> And if they advocated minimizing consumption, the Corporations
> who finance them through charitable donations would pull the rug
> out from under them.
Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty has received
$160,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Africa Fighting Malaria has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research
has received $1,309,523 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Council on Science and Health has received $110,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research has
received $1,625,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory
Studies has received $105,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Friends of the Institute for Economic Affairs has received
$50,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Legislative Exchange Council has received $1,189,700 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Spectator Foundation has received $15,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Arizona State University Office of Cimatology has received $49,500
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Aspen Institute has received $61,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Atlantic Legal Foundation has received $20,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Atlas Economic Research Foundation has received $680,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Capital Research Center and Greenwatch has received $190,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Cato Institute has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for American and International Law has received $177,450 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for Strategic and International Studies has received
$1,112,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise has received $230,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for the New West has received $5,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has
received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Centre for the New Europe has received $170,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Chemical Education Foundation has received $80,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Citizens for A Sound Economy and CSE Educational Foundation has
received $380,250 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow has received $472,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Communications Institute has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $2,005,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Congress of Racial Equality has received $250,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Consumer Alert has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies has received
$75,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment has
received $210,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Fraser Institute has received $120,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Free Enterprise Action Institute has received $50,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Free Enterprise Education Institute has received $80,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation has received $857,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
George C. Marshall Institute has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
George Mason University, Law and Economics Center has received
$185,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis has received $30,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Heartland Institute has received $561,500 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Heritage Foundation has received $555,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University
has received $295,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Hudson Institute has received $25,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Independent Institute has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Institute for Energy Research has received $147,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Institute for Regulatory Science, 9200 Rumsey Road, Suite 205
Columbia, MD 21045 USA
Institute for Senior Studies has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Institute for the Study of Earth and Man has received $76,500 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
International affiliate of the American Council for Capital
Formation.
International Policy Network - North America has received $295,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
International Republican Institute has received $105,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
James Madison Institute has received $5,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Landmark Legal Foundation has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Lexington Institute has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Lindenwood University has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Mackinac Center has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research has received $175,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Media Institute has received $60,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Media Research Center has received $150,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Mercatus Center, George Mason University has received $80,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Mountain States Legal Foundation has received $2,500 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
National Association of Neighborhoods has received $75,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Black Chamber of Commerce has received $150,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Center for Policy Analysis has received $390,900 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Center for Public Policy Research has received $280,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Environmental Policy Institute has received $75,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Legal Center for the Public Interest has received $215,500
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Wilderness Institute has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
New England Legal Foundation has received $7,500 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Pacific Legal Foundation has received $110,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy has received $370,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Property and Environment Research Center, Political Economy Research
Center has received $115,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Reason Foundation has received $381,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Science and Environmental Policy Project has received $20,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Stanford University GCEP has received $100,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station has received
$95,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Texas Public Policy Foundation has received $15,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Inc. has received $40,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy has received
$688,575 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Justice Foundation (formerly Texas Justice Foundation) has
received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Washington Legal Foundation has received $185,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy has
received $120,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
KOCH OIL Funding Acton Institute For The Study of Religion and
Liberty = $212,500
KOCH OIL Funding American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy
Research = $50,000
KOCH OIL Funding American Legislative Exchange Council = $393,000
KOCH OIL Funding Americans for Tax Reform Foundation = $20,000
KOCH OIL Funding Aspen Institute = $1,115,000
KOCH OIL Funding Atlantic Legal Foundation = $20,000
KOCH OIL Funding Atlas Economic Research Foundation = $68,500
KOCH OIL Funding Brookings Institution = $829,400
KOCH OIL Funding Cato Institute = $12,999,240
KOCH OIL Funding Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation =
$12,906,712
KOCH OIL Funding Competitive Enterprise Institute = $666,420
KOCH OIL Funding Consumer Alert = $10,000
KOCH OIL Funding Defenders of Property Rights = $55,000
KOCH OIL Funding Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy
Studies = $1,262,200
KOCH OIL Funding Foundation for Research on Economics and the
Environment (FREE) = $1,205,500
KOCH OIL Funding Fraser Institute = $23,221
KOCH OIL Funding Free Enterprise Education Institute = $30,000
KOCH OIL Funding George C. Marshall Institute = $30,000
KOCH OIL Funding George Mason University = $4,753,754
KOCH OIL Funding George Mason University Foundation, Inc. =
$19,194,643
KOCH OIL Funding George Mason University Institute for Humane
Studies = $3,111,457
KOCH OIL Funding Heartland Institute = $77,578
KOCH OIL Funding Heritage Foundation = $1,952,000
KOCH OIL Funding Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace =
$5,000
KOCH OIL Funding Hudson Institute, Inc. = $32,650
KOCH OIL Funding Independent Institute = $160,000
KOCH OIL Funding Institute for Energy Research = $62,000
KOCH OIL Funding Landmark Legal Foundation = $5,000
KOCH OIL Funding Mackinac Center for Public Policy = $5,000
KOCH OIL Funding Manhattan Institute for Policy Research = $575,000
KOCH OIL Funding Media Institute = $80,000
KOCH OIL Funding Media Research Center = $975
KOCH OIL Funding Mercatus Center, George Mason University = $427,000
KOCH OIL Funding National Center for Policy Analysis = $517,000
KOCH OIL Funding National Environmental Policy Institute = $12,500
KOCH OIL Funding Pacific Legal Foundation = $10,000
KOCH OIL Funding Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy =
$1,070,800
KOCH OIL Funding Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) =
$135,000
KOCH OIL Funding Reason Foundation = $2,231,212
KOCH OIL Funding Reason Public Policy Institute = $25,000
KOCH OIL Funding Tech Central Science Foundation = $25,000
KOCH OIL Funding Texas Justice Foundation = $40,000
KOCH OIL Funding Texas Public Policy Foundation = $110,874
KOCH OIL Funding Washington Legal Foundation = $602,500
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding American Enterprise Institute
for Public Policy Research = $7,022,124
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding American Legislative Exchange
Council = $215,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Americans for Tax Reform
Foundation = $525,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Atlantic Legal Foundation =
$210,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Atlas Economic Research
Foundation = $5,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Brookings Institution =
$1,217,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Capital Legal Foundation =
$150,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Cato Institute = $832,500
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Center for Media and Public
Affairs = $730,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Center for Security Policy =
$261,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Center for Strategic and
International Studies = $2,112,318
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Citizens for a Sound Economy
Foundation = $1,375,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Competitive Enterprise
Institute = $230,300
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Consumer Alert = $28,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Federalist Society for Law and
Public Policy Studies = $4,008,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding for ASCH = $865,500
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Foundation for Research on
Economics and the Environment (FREE) = $484,250
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Fraser Institute = $10,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding George C. Marshall Institute =
$350,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding George Mason University =
$6,665,824
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding George Mason University
Institute for Humane Studies = $797,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Heartland Institute = $40,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Heritage Foundation =
$8,320,835
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Hoover Institution on War,
Revolution and Peace = $5,015,660
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Hudson Institute, Inc. =
$3,034,840
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Independent Institute =
$65,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding John Locke Institute = $15,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Landmark Legal Foundation =
$320,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Manhattan Institute for Policy
Research = $4,899,500
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Media Institute = $148,750
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding National Center for Policy
Analysis = $1,069,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding National Center for Public
Policy Research, Inc = $100,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding National Legal Center for The
Public Interest = $63,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding National Wilderness Institute
=$25,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding New England Legal Foundation =
$75,200
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Pacific Legal Foundation =
$665,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Pacific Research Institute for
Public Policy = $735,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Property and Environment
Research Center (PERC) = $640,775
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Reason Foundation = $276,500
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Southeastern Legal Foundation
= $145,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Washington Legal Foundation =
$2,460,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Weidenbaum Center = $94,650
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Media Research Center = $495,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Mercatus Center, George Mason
University = $80,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Accuracy in Media, Inc. = $4,075,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Acton Institute For The Study of Religion
and Liberty = $565,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding American Council on Science and Health =
$205,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research = $6,251,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding American Legislative Exchange Council =
$1,545,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Americans for Tax Reform Foundation =
$700,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Atlantic Legal Foundation = $1,530,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Atlas Economic Research Foundation =
$2,325,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Capital Legal Foundation = $425,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Cato Institute = $2,057,500
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Center for Market Processes, Inc =
$100,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Center for Media and Public Affairs =
$1,272,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Center for Security Policy = $4,001,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Center for Strategic and International
Studies = $8,443,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide
and Global Change = $100,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation =
$2,335,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow =
$1,020,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Competitive Enterprise Institute =
$1,800,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Defenders of Property Rights = $1,265,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Federalist Society for Law and Public
Policy Studies = $,980,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Foundation for Research on Economics and
the Environment (FREE) = $1,405,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Fraser Institute = $275,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George C. Marshall Institute = $2,827,500
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University = $1,731,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University Foundation, Inc.
= $3,665,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University Institute for
Humane Studies = $1,050,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University Law and Economics
Center = $860,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Heartland Institute = $335,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Heritage Foundation = $22,296,640
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and
Peace = $9,768,900
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Hudson Institute, Inc. = $3,329,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Landmark Legal Foundation = $6,260,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Mackinac Center for Public Policy =
$100,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Manhattan Institute for Policy Research =
$3,813,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Media Institute = $645,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Media Research Center = $1,652,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Mountain States Legal Foundation =
$280,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding National Center for Policy Analysis =
$2,010,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding National Center for Public Policy
Research = $925,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding National Legal Center for The Public
Interest = $125,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding New England Legal Foundation = $855,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Pacific Legal Foundation = $3,280,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Pacific Research Institute for Public
Policy = $2,472,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Property and Environment Research Center
(PERC) = $2,292,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Reason Foundation = $2,043,500
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Southeastern Legal Foundation =
$1,750,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Washington Legal Foundation = $3,870,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Acton Institute
For The Study of Religion and Liberty = $166,500
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research = $448,800
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Atlas Economic
Research Foundation = $1,524,742
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Cato Institute
= $217,600
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Center for Media
and Public Affairs = $110,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Citizens for a
Sound Economy Foundation = $35,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Competitive
Enterprise Institute = $90,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Defenders of
Property Rights = $7,500
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Federalist
Society for Law and Public Policy Studies = $380,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding George C.
Marshall Institute = $100,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding George Mason
Universit = $980,155
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding George Mason
University (Arlington) = $59,500
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Hoover
Institution on War, Revolution and Peace = $380,474
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Hudson
Institute, Inc. = $71,783
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Independent
Institute = $58,095
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Institute for
Energy Research = $5,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Institute of
Economic Affairs = $542,291
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding John Locke
Institute = $5,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Mackinac Center
for Public Policy = $113,300
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Manhattan
Institute for Policy Research = $315,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding National Center
for Policy Analysis = $35,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding National Center
for Public Policy Research = $25,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding National Legal
Center for The Public Interest = $63,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Pacific Legal
Foundation = $10,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Pacific Research
Institute for Public Policy = $134,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Property and
Environment Research Center (PERC) = $386,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Reason
Foundation = $10,000
--- http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php
--- http://www.mediatransparency.org/kochaggregate.php
--- http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=13
--- http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=7
--- http://www.mediatransparency.org/scaifeaggregate.php
R Philip Dowds
Mostly, however, they do not call themselves environmentalists. They
call themselves fundamentalists, I think. Or maybe Republicans?
RPD / Cambridge
Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.
Alan Connor
Sure. It's all somebody else's fault. You and all of the scores
of millions of people like you, who couldn't live as you do
without cheap oil, don't have anything to do with it.
You _are_ an Exxon stockholder/investor, Fool. Through your
insurance company(s) or pension fund or bank, etc.
And no Corporation could exist for a week without customers.
You need to sue yourself, Fool.
Make that "Obnoxious Fool".
<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
You are denied permission to send articles to my newsreader via
the Usenet. Nor will any responses to them be downloaded.
Regardless of which alias you are cowering behind at the moment
with your tail between your legs where your balls should be.
Alan Connor
<Lcxwg.1682$gF6...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "R Philip
Dowds" wrote:
> There are certainly a fair number of Americans who feel
> as you do. Mostly, however, they do not call themselves
> environmentalists. They call themselves fundamentalists, I
> think. Or maybe Republicans?
>
Another arrogant, motormouthed psuedo-intellectual who thinks
that quippy remarks are intelligent discourse.
And immediately launches ad hominem attacks against anyone who
dares to disagree with him.
You needn't bother posting to me again. I won't be downloading
your articles from the server.
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
R Philip Dowds
Results 1 - 86 of 86 posts in the last year
1 alt.agriculture
1 alt.california
1 alt.coffee
1 alt.conspiracy
1 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
9 alt.global-warming
1 alt.law-enforcement
1 alt.org.sierra-club
1 alt.politics.bush
2 alt.politics.democrats
3 alt.politics.greens
1 alt.politics.usa.republican
3 misc.headlines
10 ne.general
18 ne.general.selected
6 ne.politics
2 rec.backcountry
2 sci.energy.hydrogen
8 sci.environment
1 sci.med.diseases.cancer
1 sci.physics
1 soc.culture.usa
1 soc.retirement
1 talk.bizarre
8 talk.environment
1 talk.politics.misc
I thought your posting history looked weird. This certainly
isn't your only alias.
But not to worry. None of your other ones will make it past
my newsfilter either. Trust me here. I eat trolls for
breakfast.
<snip>
Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Economic Damages
Alan Connor wrote:
> Another arrogant, motormouthed psuedo-intellectual who thinks
> that quippy remarks are intelligent discourse.
>
> And immediately launches ad hominem attacks against anyone who
> dares to disagree with him.
Alan Connor
<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
> Subject: Rightwinger Troll Alan Connor <snip>
When it comes to the environment, there is _no_ difference
between Left and Right.
Except in their rhetoric.
They all live basically the same way. They all have approximately
the same ecological footprint within an economic class.
The Left, many of which are as clueless as this obnoxious child,
really _want_ to save the planet.
But they want all of their material priveleges a
_whole_lot_more_.
Sure, they'll get a bicycle. And it will spend most of its life
strapped to the top or rear of their automobile. As for actually
giving up their automobiles, don't make me laugh.
They lobby for mass transit. They don't use it.
They protest Big Oil and then rush to the gas station to refill
their tanks after the protest.
And cram their investment portfolios full of those very
profitable oil stocks and bonds. Or their pension fund does it
for them. And their insurance companies and banks are invested in
Big Oil too.
And will they turn down a big charitable donation from an oil
company to their environmental org? Not a chance.
Gotta have that eco-vacation in Costa Rica, don't you know?
They cost a bundle.
The Right is composed of people who don't care whether they trash
the planet or not. They are going to take what they want and die
and leave the suckers after them to live with the mess.
But there's nothing the Left is doing or proposing that will have
any different outcome, so how are they different?
In their own minds, that's all. The Right wing and Left wing are
both part of the same bird, and that bird eats the environment at
an incredible rate.
-------------------
To the clueless hypocrite whose subject line I responded to
above:
You won't be able to suppress my right to free speech. Really.
I'll post what I want and you'll live with it, and your articles
will be left on the server.
No, I am not suppressing your right to free speech. You can
post anything you want.
Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Economic Damages
runs away, like a Monkey in a Zoo.
Alan Connor wrote:
> No, I am not suppressing your right to free speech. You can
> post anything you want.
>
> Alan
OK. I want to post this:
Sun Myung Moon's Gun-Running and Olin's Right Winger Ammo Smuggling
linked to Anti-Environmentalism.
The crazed psychopathic killers will tell any lie to keep flowing
weaponry into Bush Wars and bushwars. Keeping people-with-consciences
occupied defending Global Warming Science keeps the heat off of the
gunmen's suppliers. While both MOON and OLIN have pollution concerns,
and anti-environmental axes to grind, they support the petrochemical
lobby on Global Warming obfuscation in exchange for return favors to
keep the peaceniks helpless, using the exact same network of propaganda
mills, think tank$ and in$titute$.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/analysis/1101moon.htm
One piece of the Moon corporate puzzle, Kahr Arms, manufactures weapons
at a factory in Worcester, Massachusetts. Justin Moon, son of Sun Myung
Moon, serves as the Chief Executive Officer. (60) The Kahr website says
that the younger Moon designed the ultra-compact Kahr semi-automatic
pistol, a popular product which is "designed for concealed carry."
(61) In 1999 Kahr expanded by buying additional weapons lines from
Numrich Arms, including both handguns and the famous Thomson submachine
gun known as the "Tommy Gun," a weapon best-known for its use by
gangsters in the 1920s but still selling in modernized versions.
Kahr Arms is a part of Saeilo USA whose operations include a machine
tool and machining company with facilities in four states. (62) The
corporate parent, Saeilo Inc., a large international group
headquartered in Blauvelt, N.Y., is believed to be owned by One Up
Enterprises(63) The Moon organization also manufactures arms such as
M-16 automatic rifles in other countries, including Korea and Japan,
and it has acted as a dealer for arms exports and imports to and from
Korea, the United States, Japan and elsewhere. (64) Tongil [or Tong Il]
Heavy Industries of Korea, a branch of Saeilo, says on its web site
that it manufactures anti-aircraft canon, heavy machine guns, mine
launchers, decoy systems and parts for armored vehicles. (65) The mine
launcher is designed for land mines, a type of weapon now almost
universally condemned.
(Source ---
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=7 ---)
OLIN = Winchester Arms, Black Talon Bullets, Dioxins, Chlorine, DDT
puppetmaster.
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding ASCH = $865,500
John Beardmore
<i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> writes
>> Are you challenging honest environmentalists to confront their
>> own excessive consumption, and to do a better job of sharing
>> the planet with black, brown, and other nonwhite people?
>
>Close enough. And very perceptive.
>
>
>> Or are you mostly saying that too many environmentalists are
>> hypocrites or otherwise flawed human beings - and therefore
>> it's fine to ignore what they're saying, and to keep wrecking
>> large pieces of the planet?
>
>Again, you are right on the money (so-to-speak...).
>
>But you are also implying that the 'environmentalists' are doing
>something that is saving the planet, and they are not.
Depends what you mean by "saving the planet".
Seems to me that the planet is just fine. It's the green and pink scum
in the ecosystems on the surface that's in trouble.
>The so-called 'environmentalists' are the biggest impediment to
>real environmentalism on the planet, because people believe in
>them.
I'm not at all sure that the 'believe them', never mind 'believe in
them'.
And even if they are believed, what's the problem ? Especially where
they are correct ?
>They want to have their Earth and eat it too, and that won't
>work.
Environmentalists need much the same tools as everybody else to do what
they do. That doesn't mean that their observations are inaccurate, or
their interpretations incorrect.
>They simply will not accept the obvious fact that this
>civilization/culture/economy is _based_ on trashing the planet to
>turn resources into material things.
As far as I can see, all the numerate ones accept it, but maybe you are
making the mistake of lumping all environmentalists together in your
mind, and making hopelessly naive assumptions about what they think and
how ?
>The only thing that will save the planet is to quit trashing
>it, and they cannot do that or even advocate that.
Errrrrr... Well as far as I can see, pretty much most of them do.
What planet are you on ?
>After all, they have a lot material expectations, don't they?
They generally choose to live more modestly than most of their
neighbours, but not necessarily like church mice. Nor do they generally
commit suicide to reduce their environmental impact.
>And if they advocated minimizing consumption, the Corporations
>who finance them through charitable donations would pull the rug
>out from under them.
Doesn't sound as if you've heard of ideas like 'contraction and
convergence' yet.
>I do realize that there are many educated, intelligent,
>dedicated, and hard working people in the environmental movement
>who really believe that they are saving the planet.
>
>But they aren't, and this is obvious as hell.
There is a difference between succeeding you your goal, and working to
achieve it.
Environmentalists may be acting to 'save the planet', and their actions
may be consistent with that. But that doesn't mean that people will
want to hear their message even when it's correct, never mind act upon
it.
As it was once put at a meeting I attended,
"it may not be about saving the earth, so much as
going down with dignity...".
>It is being trashed at a faster rate, every year now, with China
>and India and Russia successfully adopting variants of the Middle
>Class American lifestyle.
:) They are no where near a Middle Class American lifestyle yet, nor
will there necessarily ever be the resources to get them there !
>With the very active help of the Corporations that finance
>the 'environmental' movement.
Can't think of any that finance it much round here !
> And the help of all the
>'environmentalists' who love all that investment income
All which investment income ?
> and all
>those cheap goods. And work for those Coporations, directly or
>indirectly.
We all like cheap goods - environmentalists are not alone in that, so
if you are trying to imply some criticism, I think you are out of luck
unless you can show that the purchasing decisions of the 'environmental
community' are actually less ethical than the wider population ?
>> If you're challenging most Western environmentalists, many of
>> whom are upper-middle-class and white, to do a much better job
>> - as a green radical, I have to agree with you.
>
>It's obvious that you aren't one of them. You have your mind
>open.
Well, he may still be an environmentalist by his definition, though
perhaps not by yours. Maybe you should open your mind to the breadth,
diversity, and very wide range of skills and skill sets within the
environmental community ?
>> If you're saying that we're just as imperfect morally as
>> everyone else on the planet, however, and that "THEREFORE" it's
>> okay for the work to ignore problems like global climate change
>> and the destruction of the world's fisheries - I think you're
>> not showing good judgment.
>
>No. I don't mean that at all. I'm just saying that if we don't
>radically change how we live, then the fate of a people who
>trash the environment they depend on is going to be ours.
Ours ? Who are the WE here ?
You mean that the unethical mass of consumers and greedy corporates will
destroy the back yard of the righteous ?
Yup ! Sounds about right !
>It's looking like increased competition for resources and
>ecosystem services (cheap labor and markets too) have already
>started WWIII,
Hmmmm... That might be a premature conclusion...
> which is probably what will cause the collapse of
>Industrial Civilization,
Some risk of that.
> which is a house of cards in its most
>stable state.
OK. Now you're beginning to sound like an environmentalist, (or
economist), your self !
>> A lot of environmentalists think of ourselves as canaries in
>> the coal mine.
>
>Talking about it is the first step.
>
>But if it's also the last, then nothing is accomplished.
But it's not the last.
Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore
John Beardmore
<i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> writes
>On uk.environment, in
><1153608799....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Prosecute
>EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Economic Damages" wrote:
><article not downloaded:
>http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>
>> Subject: Rightwinger Troll Alan Connor <snip>
>
>When it comes to the environment, there is _no_ difference
>between Left and Right.
Well, there are certainly people with differing environmental
performances in both camps, but left and right are very blunt
instruments when it comes to describing environmental perceptions and
attitudes.
>Except in their rhetoric.
If it's a cross cutting issue, what do you expect ?
>They all live basically the same way. They all have approximately
>the same ecological footprint within an economic class.
But the distribution of economic classes may be different.
>The Left, many of which are as clueless as this obnoxious child,
>really _want_ to save the planet.
And the right have any more clue ??
>But they want all of their material priveleges a
>_whole_lot_more_.
And indeed to do anything very effective in our society, you probably do
need access to phone, internet, a car etc. Though maybe the
environmentalist will tend to get a smaller one.
>Sure, they'll get a bicycle. And it will spend most of its life
>strapped to the top or rear of their automobile. As for actually
>giving up their automobiles, don't make me laugh.
>
>They lobby for mass transit. They don't use it.
Well - in some situations mass transit works really well, but there a
vast raft of transport problems it doesn't address well. What do you
expect ?
>They protest Big Oil and then rush to the gas station to refill
>their tanks after the protest.
Yes - but maybe with smaller cars they will use less and have a smaller
environmental footprint ?
>And cram their investment portfolios full of those very
>profitable oil stocks and bonds.
Some will and some won't. There is an ethical investment market, over
here at least.
> Or their pension fund does it
>for them. And their insurance companies and banks are invested in
>Big Oil too.
Quite so, but short of dropping out of society altogether, there's not
much they can do about that. It's a matter of having what influence you
can, and not giving up because you can't influence everything.
>And will they turn down a big charitable donation from an oil
>company to their environmental org? Not a chance.
This is just tosh. There are plenty of sound grass roots environmental
groups who won't accept money from oil.
>Gotta have that eco-vacation in Costa Rica, don't you know?
A few are like that. Most I know can't afford that sort of thing, and
the few that can choose not to.
>They cost a bundle.
Though carbon may be the bigger 'cost'.
>The Right is composed of people who don't care whether they trash
>the planet or not.
A perilous generalisation.
> They are going to take what they want and die
>and leave the suckers after them to live with the mess.
>
>But there's nothing the Left is doing or proposing that will have
>any different outcome, so how are they different?
:) With reduced consumption, the L will take longer to screw it up
totally.
>In their own minds, that's all. The Right wing and Left wing are
>both part of the same bird, and that bird eats the environment at
>an incredible rate.
A good sound bite, but maybe your bird would fly in circles.
J/.
--
John Beardmore
john fernbach
think.
To quote the title of one of Lenin's books, although I don't currently
consider myself a Leninist, "What is to be done?"
You're saying that the mainstream environmentalists aren't doing the
correct things, or aren't doing enough. Okay ..we'll accept that for
the sake of argument.
Well - so What Is to Be Done?
In your opinion, that is.
------------
John Beardmore
fernbach <fernba...@yahoo.com> writes
>Excuse the top posting,
I find it hard...
> but I'm responding to your whole message, I
>think.
So post at the bottom ?
>To quote the title of one of Lenin's books, although I don't currently
>consider myself a Leninist, "What is to be done?"
>
>You're saying that the mainstream environmentalists aren't doing the
>correct things,
If so, what would have them do ?
> or aren't doing enough.
Even if they aren't doing enough, criticising them seems a bit
disingenuous unless
a) they are doing less than the rest of the population
which clearly isn't the case, or
b) they are doing less than you
which isn't easy to see from here.
john fernbach
"cowering" with one's balls between one's legs don't add a damned thing
to this discussion, frankly.
Why don't we just drop all of the personal insults and counter-insults
as NOISE, therefore.
As for Alan's accusations that we're "all stockholders" of Exxon Mobil
... uh, what's the point here?
Are you saying THEREFORE, as "stockholders," we should cheerfully go
along with Exxon Mobil and its competitors and colleagues in the fossil
fuel industry continuing to trash the planet?
If not, Alan, what are you saying?
Again, the question is, if the mainstream environmental groups aren't
doing the
right things -- a debatable point, but a point -- what SHOULD they and
we be doing?
All of the blame game to the side --
"What Is to Be Done"?
--------------------
Alan Connor wrote:
> On uk.environment, in <1153603373.5...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Economic Damages" wrote:
>
> Sure. It's all somebody else's fault. You and all of the scores
> of millions of people like you, who couldn't live as you do
> without cheap oil, don't have anything to do with it.
Well, it's a problem, admittedly. I certainly try not to minimize my
use of Exxon products
by not driving a car, and by mostly going without AC this hot summer in
Washington, D.C., and by unfortunately not having any insurance at the
moment.
>
> You _are_ an Exxon stockholder/investor, Fool. Through your
> insurance company(s) or pension fund or bank, etc.
There's a difference between being A, a customer, and B, a
stockholder/investor.
And there's also a difference between being a "stockholder/investor"
and being a
VOTING stockholder/investor.
Are you recommending that those of us with pensions from pension funds
invested in
the big oil companies also do our best to help the "investor
responsibility" groups -- radical
Catholic nuns, etc. -- to challenge the decisions of corporate
management at
stockholders' meetings?
Or are you just saying "we're all guilty ... THEREFORE let's allow
Exxon Mobil to do whatever it damn well wants, and too bad about the
environment"?
> And no Corporation could exist for a week without customers.
Granting that we're all energy users, and therefore in a sense "Exxon
Mobil" supporters -- we still don't do much to shape corporate
policies, which tend to be set by corporate management
or the holders of the biggest blocks of stock -- the Rockefeller
family, maybe, or corporate
raiders like Warren Buffett and George Soros, tc.
So what about a campaign to have the government nationalize Exxon, and
put the EPA on the board of a reorganized public/private corporation,
along with representatives of some leading environmental groups and
consumer protection groups? That would give the average American
voter/American consumer a real voice in running this corporation, which
has such an overwhelming effect -- not just on the profits of
stockholders, but also on the environment, the American economy, and
the profitability of so many other private corporations and industries.
In a sense, what you're saying is that Exxon, by its sheer size, is in
reality a "public" enterprise, not a strictly private one. Exxon is
"all of us," according to your logic. So shouldn't all of us have
equal votes in deciding how it should be run?
john fernbach
environmental groups, so I'm not out to condemn them. Although I do
criticize them from time to time
But Alan clearly is condemning them -- uh, I should say "us," because
undoubtedly he dislikes some groups I support.
So what I'm asking is -- what is Alan's proposed alternative?
John Beardmore wrote:
> In message <1153616676.5...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, john
> fernbach <fernba...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >Excuse the top posting,
>
> I find it hard...
>
>
> > but I'm responding to your whole message, I
> >think.
>
> So post at the bottom ?
Is that any better? I was trained as a journalist, at least somewhat.
And in journalism, you want to have a "gripping lead." You want to get
your main point across in the first paragraph. Or you at least want to
say something interesting enough in your first paragraph to keep people
reading.
If the internet etiquette is to weave comments and counter-comments in
among the texts, which people have already ready, I can do that, too.
>
> >To quote the title of one of Lenin's books, although I don't currently
> >consider myself a Leninist, "What is to be done?"
> >
> >You're saying that the mainstream environmentalists aren't doing the
> >correct things,
>
> If so, what would have them do ?
>
>
> > or aren't doing enough.
>
> Even if they aren't doing enough, criticising them seems a bit
> disingenuous unless
>
> a) they are doing less than the rest of the population
>
> which clearly isn't the case, or
>
> b) they are doing less than you
>
> which isn't easy to see from here.
John - I don't know if you're responding to me, or responding to Alan.
If you're responding to me, I guess I didn't communicate my message
that well. I'm not
especially antagonistic to mainstream environmental groups -- and as I
indicated above, I give them small donations when I can. I think they
perform an essential function in keeping the global environment from
being trashed worse than it already is.
>
Alan, on the other hand, is damning "environmentalists" in general for
being ineffective, or hypocritical, or just generally bad. I want to
know -- what's his alternative? What should people be doing?
Seems like this is your concern, too, right?
Fried Fred fkasner @fuckoff.com
the newsgroup.
john fernbach wrote:
> John - when I have a little money, I contribute to the mainstream
> environmental groups, so I'm not out to condemn them. Although I do
> criticize them from time to time
>
> But Alan clearly is condemning them -- uh, I should say "us," because
> undoubtedly he dislikes some groups I support.
>
> So what I'm asking is -- what is Alan's proposed alternative?
His proposed alternative is to throw balls of shit at the newsgroup --
can't you read you freaking moron?
john fernbach
or both.
But I'd like to suggest that SOME environmentalists in fact do use mass
transit,
and don't fly to Costa Rica on vacations, and don't have any major
investments in the oil companies.
And since we don't own cars, we don't put our bicycles on top of the
car and then drive to a place where we bicycle -- because we don't
drive to those places.
However, I'd like to ask Alan again -- are you primarily an advocate
for "lifestyle" environmentalism, for simple and ecological living in a
very radical sense?
Or are you just saying that because Al Gore, for example, has owned an
SUV and has flown places on jetliners, THEREFORE he can't say anything
about the environment?
-----
John Beardmore wrote:
> In message <slrnec5dm6....@b29x3m.invalid>, Alan Connor
> <i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> writes
> >On uk.environment, in
> ><1153608799....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Prosecute
> >EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Economic Damages" wrote:
> ><article not downloaded:
> >http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
> >
> >> Subject: Rightwinger Troll Alan Connor <snip>
> >
> >When it comes to the environment, there is _no_ difference
> >between Left and Right.
Depends on WHICH "left" and "right" you're discussing, I think.
Historically, I think, many Marxist socialists of the 1850 - 1950
period were in fact just as "pro-development," pro-industry, and
dedicated to the "conquest of Nature" as the most enthusiastic
capitalists.
Some of us on the Green left have been working to change that, however.
And I think there's a new crop of anarchists (Andre Gorz, Murray
Bookchin), European and Australian social democrats (Australian
eco-writer Hugh Stretton) and even some Marxist socialists (James
O'Connor, "Nature and Socialism" magazine) who are working to get a
greener outlook.
> Well, there are certainly people with differing environmental
> performances in both camps, but left and right are very blunt
> instruments when it comes to describing environmental perceptions and
> attitudes.
>
>
> >Except in their rhetoric.
>
> If it's a cross cutting issue, what do you expect ?
>
>
> >They all live basically the same way. They all have approximately
> >the same ecological footprint within an economic class.
>
> But the distribution of economic classes may be different.
>
>
> >The Left, many of which are as clueless as this obnoxious child,
> >really _want_ to save the planet.
Depends on who you're talking about on the Left, I think. If you're
one of the Leftists who is out to save the planet, however - well,
congratulations. Keep up the good work.
Insulting the average member of the Sierra Club or the Royal Society
for the Protection of Birds on the grounds that they're not as "pure"
as you are, however ,may not be the best way to spread the green
leftist gospel. In fact, it may get your ideas hated.
> And the right have any more clue ??
>
>
> >But they want all of their material priveleges a
> >_whole_lot_more_.
"They" -- being who? ALL of them?
Or 90%? 60%?
>
> And indeed to do anything very effective in our society, you probably do
> need access to phone, internet, a car etc. Though maybe the
> environmentalist will tend to get a smaller one.
Alan - do you have any figures on how polluting/destructive these
different commodities and services are?
For example - you don't NEED a car in many places. Especially not if
you live in a major city with mass transit. Although this probably
will mean that you inadvertently pollute in some other ways.
Telephone service isn't all that energy-intensive, I believe. Although
I may be wrong on this.
Internet -- I believe the energy analysts are discovering that Internet
use is quite energy-hungry. If only because it forces the electric
power companies to maintain a very constant stream of power running
through their lines, so as not to cause surges in power that damage
computers or shut Internet connections down.
Does anyone here have the technical knowledge about IN, computer power
needs and the electric power grid to comment on this topic, one way or
another?
>
> >Sure, they'll get a bicycle. And it will spend most of its life
> >strapped to the top or rear of their automobile. As for actually
> >giving up their automobiles, don't make me laugh.
Well, Alan, some of us gave up cars 10, 20 or 30 years and haven't gone
back.
Although I know I cheat by taking cabs. But in a big city with a good
mass transit
system, you don't really need a car to get around.
Secondly, if you as an environmentalist live in a place where you DO
need a car,
or think you do, there's still a difference beween constantly driving
it to go nearly everywhere, and economizing on your driving time as
much as possible. You might live in a place where you drive to the
grocery store and to work, for example, but don't choose to take the
car on long vacations. Or to drive around aimlessly for fun.
> >
> >They lobby for mass transit. They don't use it.
Speak for yourself, Alan. I use mass transit and have been using it in
Washington DC for about 25 years now. And I'm not alone in riding on
the buses and the subway here. Especially at rush hour, the buses and
the metro are crowded.
> Well - in some situations mass transit works really well, but there a
> vast raft of transport problems it doesn't address well. What do you
> expect ?
>
>
> >They protest Big Oil and then rush to the gas station to refill
> >their tanks after the protest.
Those of us who don't own cars don't actually do that, Alan. If you're
expressing
a wish that more people who denounce Big Oil also try to avoid using
the product - I agree with you.
> Yes - but maybe with smaller cars they will use less and have a smaller
> environmental footprint ?
>
>
> >And cram their investment portfolios full of those very
> >profitable oil stocks and bonds.
>
> Some will and some won't. There is an ethical investment market, over
> here at least.
In the US there are ethical investment funds, too. Some of us rely on
them.
>
> > Or their pension fund does it
> >for them. And their insurance companies and banks are invested in
> >Big Oil too.
>
> Quite so, but short of dropping out of society altogether, there's not
> much they can do about that. It's a matter of having what influence you
> can, and not giving up because you can't influence everything.
>
>
> >And will they turn down a big charitable donation from an oil
> >company to their environmental org? Not a chance.
> This is just tosh. There are plenty of sound grass roots environmental
> groups who won't accept money from oil.
>
>
> >Gotta have that eco-vacation in Costa Rica, don't you know?
Alan - the whole questions of "eco vacations" is a little dicier and
trickier than it first appears.
If you go to East Africa and look at the big game parks for lions,
elephants, rhinos, giraffes, etc. that they have over in Kenya and
Tanzania, you'll find that these animal preserves survive through ...
eco tourism. Before they attracted lots of Western tourists armed with
cameras, they attracted members of the super-rich armed with rifles,
and fees generated by Kenyan hunting safaris -- along with the shooting
of elephants for their ivory -- was essential to the funding of the
East African wildlife agencies.
It's an increasingly crowded planet, and poor people living in the
neighorhood of the East Africa, Costa Rican and East Indian game parks
and national parks need to have some way of making a living from the
preservation of these wild lands .. because if they can't get any kind
of income from preserving the animals or preserving the landscape,
they're just as likely to shoot the animals for food, or for ivory to
sell on the black market. Or they're likely to invade the parks and
start doing farming there.
"Eco Tourism" at its best is a way of generating revenues from the
preservation of wild landscapes, or semi-wild landscapes, in order to
give the poor citizens of East Africa, India, Costa Rica etc. an
incentive to support conservation.
I agree that the jet fuel used to get people to the parks is an
environmental problem. But simply condemning "nature tourism"
automatically, as some kind of indulgence for spoiled rich people,
misses the point that this kind of tourism is important in making
conservation more or less "economic" for these countries.
> A few are like that. Most I know can't afford that sort of thing, and
> the few that can choose not to.
>
>
> >They cost a bundle.
>
> Though carbon may be the bigger 'cost'.
>
>
> >The Right is composed of people who don't care whether they trash
> >the planet or not.
>
> A perilous generalisation.
>
>
> > They are going to take what they want and die
> >and leave the suckers after them to live with the mess.
> >
> >But there's nothing the Left is doing or proposing that will have
> >any different outcome, so how are they different?
>
> :) With reduced consumption, the L will take longer to screw it up
> totally.
>
>
> >In their own minds, that's all. The Right wing and Left wing are
> >both part of the same bird, and that bird eats the environment at
> >an incredible rate.
Again, Alan - if you don't like A) the environmentalists, B) the Right,
and C) the Left - uh, what remains to fix the environmental problems?
If you're impatient for someone to hurry up and for God's sake fix the
major problems -- well, a lot of us feel the same way. But it's not so
damned easy to make major changes, whether you're on the right or the
left or in the middle. And most of us try to do what we can while
scheming, hoping, planning, dreaming of some really effective
alternative. If you have such an alternative - great.
If you're most impatient, scared and angry at how little effective
seems to be getting done - join the club, guy.
Maybe you can help to fix this if you study hard enough, and sacrifice
enough, and get enough practical experience working with people on the
right or the left or in the middle for a better & greener planet.
Your feeling angry and critical about what's not getting done now is
not necessarily bad, I think. The German philosopher Hegel, in "The
Phenomenology of the Spirit," argues that all action, all thought,
indeed all individual consciousness and creativity ultimately have
their roots in "negativity."
Being dissatisfied with existence and society as they are today can
produce the energy, the will power, the zeal for learning and research,
and the creative thinking that lead you to make them better. If that's
where you are right now -- well, good luck in turning your negativity
in action for positive change.
Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Heat Deaths
john fernbach wrote:
> However, I'd like to ask Alan again -- are you primarily an advocate
> for "lifestyle" environmentalism, for simple and ecological living in a
> very radical sense?
Alan the Rightwinger-Troll has already said he is a Zoo Monkey Flinging
Insults wrapped in Fecalballs at people in the Newsgroup. He said that
in every message he wrote. GAWDDD you are a dumbfuck!!!
john fernbach
Prosecute - Thank you for sharing.
To the extent that Alan is just a rightwing hack for the fossil fuel
lobby, who's pretending to be an environmental purist - I guess I'd
like to establish this. I'd like to ask him to explain himself -- it
may take some time, of course -- so that he shows for all the world
just what he is. If he's a fool or a faker, I think he'll show himself
for what he is, if we give him the opportunity.
I like to think of what I'm trying to do as the Socratic method,
although I'm not some big dome thinker like Socrates supposedly was.
But I kind of like the dumb questions that Socrates asked.
If somebody throws a bunch of monkey crap in here, I think it makes
sense to question the monkey crap. To ask it to explain itself.
Because if there's a lie or a delusion at the core of what a troll is
saying, I believe the right kind of questioning will bring it out.
Even if the questioner is as simple-minded as I am.
Above all, I don't think honest environmentalists have much to fear
from trolls paid to defend the fossil fuel industry. To the extent
that they're defending an environmentally indefensible industry - which
I think they are -- honest dialogue and curiosity should bring that out
clearly over time.
To the extent the Greens are right about global climate change being an
urgent problem that our civilization has to tackle, or suffer terrible
consequences, of course -- I think honest debate and questioning,
coupled with attention to the daily news, will bring that out, too.
And if there are a few details about the truth that we greens have
gotten wrong -- hey, let's expose them, by all means, and let's change
our position, so that we get it right in the end. Certainly let's make
sure that our own ego investments in being "right" and "virtuous" don't
get in the way of the important stuff -- which is the state of the
world's climate, and the connections between climate change and the
causes of climate change, and the question of how do we fix the
problems.
Whether Alan is a rotten troll, or whether you are or I am, or whether
we're all misunderstood geniuses, really isn't important compared to
the question of what the climate is doing, and whether our current
world civilization is sustainable, and what needs to happen to make our
civilization sustainable, if it's not.
Certainly whether one or more of us is messing with "monkey shit," or
has no balls, or is gay or straight or brave or cowardly or foolish or
wise has NOTHING to do with the state of the damned climate and the
sustainability or lack thereof of this civilization. So let's focus on
the important stuff, and let the minor stuff go.
-------------------------------
"Only the truth is revolutionary."
-- Antonio Gramsci, The Prison Notebooks
"Of everything, one must doubt." - The Greek philospher Heraclitus
"It is not against men that we struggle, but against principalities and
powers in high places."
-- St. Paul
"NATURE BATS LAST" -- Green bumper sticker.
---------------------------------------------
john fernbach
In another comment on your complaint that I'm taking "Alan the
Rightwinger-Troll" too seriously, I wonder if you noticed my suggestion
that if, indeed, we all are "stockholder/investors" in Exxon -- which
is Alan's argument -- we should pressure the US government to
nationalize the company, so that we stockholders will actually have
some say in how Exxon-Mobil is run.
As an environmentalist who wants Exxon to get out of the fossil fuel
business, I think I really do not favor nationalization, which of
course also would encounter all kinds of horrified opposition from the
right wing and the Libertarians in the U.S.
But the logic of Alan's position that in some sense, "Exxon R Us," that
we ALL have some economic interest in how well Exxon succeeds, suggests
to me that ALL of us should have a vote in the annual stockholders'
meetings.
A good case also could be made that when a company like Exxon gets to
be so large and so economically powerful that it can affect the
destinies of entire regions, countries, and perhaps even continents, it
is no longer really a "private" business. It is as "public" in its
effects on society and the environment as the US government is -- and
probably more influential economically and environmentally than the
government of France, or Germany, or England, or Canada.
Why shouldn't this vast PUBLIC power for economic good and evil, for
environmental virtue and environmental folly, therefore be subject to
PUBLIC control?
Arguably, not only the people of the United States, but the citizens of
a host of other nations around the world should probably have at least
SOME say in elections to the Exxon board.
Just the way that we need to have some say in the election of our
federal, state and local political leaders -- many of who influence our
lives far less than the board members of Exxon Mobil do.
Alan Connor
<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
We've met. And I quit reading your articles a long time ago.
I guess you were just too busy running your mouth to notice.
You may lift your fat cheeks and fart on the Usenet to your
hearts content. For someone else to read.
Your ilk are the single greatest impediment to progress on
the planet.
Because people believe the psuedo-scientific drivel that comes
from your mouths.
And fail to notice that not only are you not saving the Earth,
but that its health is being degraded at an ever increasing
pace as time goes by.
Alan Connor
<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
Here's how you spot a phony like "John Beardmore": None of his
alleged solutions will involve any fundamental changes in
_his_ lifestyle.
He will not give up his material priveleges for anything. And
they are considerable. In fact, he doesn't produce anything
that he consumes.
(Someone is doing all that work, but he doesn't know who, and
he couldn't care less.)
And he enjoys powers that a king of 2 centuries ago would not
have dreamt of posessing. Such as mounting a giant metal bird
at will and flying to the far side of the planet in the time it
would have taken that king to reach the next town.
And all by himself, JB will lay waste to approximately 14 acres
of land during the course of his lifetime. (His ecological
footprint.)
Entire _nations_ of 'Native Americans' didn't do that much
harm to the Earth over centuries.
But he's an ENVIRONMENTALIST.
Just ask him.
After all, he puts his garbage in colorful plastic containers
instead of drab metal ones.
And is conveniently unaware of the fact that a real
environmentalist would not _have_ that garbage to dispose of in
the first place.
That's right, JB: There are ugly mines and refineries and
factories galore behind all that stuff you have.
No, really. I'm not kidding. Google it.
Nor will he be aware of the fact that every study of recycling
has shown that it does more harm to the environment than just
throwing the stuff in a landfill.
Which is why, for example, that recycled paper, even with massive
subsidies, is still far more expensive than freshly made paper.
Recycling is just another ugly industry that phonies like JB
here can invest in while pretending that they are saving the
planet.
Got any Waste Management Inc. stocks or bonds, JB? Yep, that
multi-national has taken over a lot of the recycling industry.
And we know how much those good old boys care about the
environment, don't we, JB?
Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Heat Deaths
"environmentalism"
He is a sick and demented person who came to start fights and make
trouble. He's out to prove that "enviros" as as piggish as anybody and
therefore don't waste your time with "environmentalism -- just consume,
consume, consume and bash anybody who points it out.
Alan Connor wrote:
> On uk.environment, in <1TfSuMYa...@wookie.demon.co.uk>, "John Beardmore" wrote:
>
> <article not downloaded:
> http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>
> Here's how you spot a phony like "John Beardmore": None of his
> alleged solutions will involve any fundamental changes in
> _his_ lifestyle.
Alan Conner doesn't seem to have given up telephones, computers or
internet servers. That's consumption. Where does Conner start this
fight? He comes with an "Honest Environmental Manifesto" that has seven
brief paragraphs.
The first is a lie. The second is a lie. The third is an insult,
flinging feces like a monkey in the zoo. The fourth is likewise more
feces. 5th, 6th & 7th more feces flinging.
So Alan Conners, likely a fakename, is basically a feces thrower
misrepresenting what the state of the world was when we were born and
what it is now. Especially, he is hiding what it will be if there is no
"environmentalist" successes.
> He will not give up his material priveleges for anything. And
> they are considerable. In fact, he doesn't produce anything
> that he consumes.
More feces flinging. A doctor doesn't "produce" anything but performs
valuable and needed services. Trade is not automatically
anti-environmental, but it certainly can be. It is not known how Conner
gets his personal information about Beardmore -- perhaps they have
known each other well and long, but perhaps Beardmore is only a target
of opportunity for a vicious sniper lashing out at what he perceives as
prey.
> (Someone is doing all that work, but he doesn't know who, and
> he couldn't care less.)
That's as likely to be true for the majority of the people everywhere
in the industrial age. Even 100 years ago when people still sewed much
of their own clothing, most of them didn't know who made the needles or
who wove the cloth. And they couldn't care less. Who tended the weaving
machine that made the cloth for your pants, Conner, and what does it
matter if you know her name or not?
> And he enjoys powers that a king of 2 centuries ago would not
> have dreamt of posessing. Such as mounting a giant metal bird
> at will and flying to the far side of the planet in the time it
> would have taken that king to reach the next town.
What the hell does this have to do with anything. Put down the damn
crackpipe Conners. You are gibbering like an idiot.
> And all by himself, JB will lay waste to approximately 14 acres
> of land during the course of his lifetime. (His ecological
> footprint.)
Nobody actually knows this is true or false. It's some number pulled
fresh hot and stinking out of Conner's ass. Some people are forest fire
fighters who rescue more acres than you will ever walk on in a
lifetime. Some invent something new that helps millions live better
(with less waste).
I don't think things pulled out of Conner's ass are the best place to
seek Honesty about environmentalism or anything else.
> Entire _nations_ of 'Native Americans' didn't do that much
> harm to the Earth over centuries.
Ah, the Myth of the Nobel Savage.
In fact native Americans exterminated the Giant Sloths, possibly
contributed the majority to extinction of the Wolly Mammoths, maybe had
a hand in extinguishing the giant cave bear and saber toothed tiger.
The evidence has mostly crumbled to dust and "we" (the human race that
is) may never really know the facts. Forests WANTED to cover the plains
but the indians set fires to them to keep them from doing that. The
reality we do know about is the buffalo changed it's entire life
strategy from mostly soletary animals to herd animals under the
stresses of human predation, and that in turn led to millions of
buffalo in herds trampling down who knows what rare wee things under
foot.
Creatures that used to eat fruit and spread the seeds went extinct, and
indians did that. Critters that used to depend on those seeds likewise
went extinct. We can never recreate the world of the past.
What's your point crackhead? Just an excuse to toss a fusillade of
shitballs at somebody?
> But he's an ENVIRONMENTALIST.
>
> Just ask him.
More shit flinging, like a monkey in a zoo.
> After all, he puts his garbage in colorful plastic containers
> instead of drab metal ones.
Putting it in contains at all is a big improvement over throwing it in
the street as has been done in past times. Even human body waste was
tossed in the gutters. What's your point Monkey?
> And is conveniently unaware of the fact that a real
> environmentalist would not _have_ that garbage to dispose of in
> the first place.
How do you know so much stalker, Peeping Tom?
> That's right, JB: There are ugly mines and refineries and
> factories galore behind all that stuff you have.
>
> No, really. I'm not kidding. Google it.
And your point is, Monkeyman?
> Nor will he be aware of the fact that every study of recycling
> has shown that it does more harm to the environment than just
> throwing the stuff in a landfill.
Now that is really really shit. Fling those turds monkeyboy. You
realize that businesses have to lock up their cardboard, newsprint,
glass and aluminum wastes or people will steal them to sell? There are
places where it doesn't pay to ship the recycleable to where they can
be used and no local industry to use them right there -- true -- but
there are many many places that do have brisk markets for other's
wastes.
You are just flinging shit, monkeyboy.
> Which is why, for example, that recycled paper, even with massive
> subsidies, is still far more expensive than freshly made paper.
Probably because they see fools like you coming and jack up the price.
Nobody is subsidizing recycled paper, shitflinger. For longer than you
have been alive there has been a market for used paper.
> Recycling is just another ugly industry that phonies like JB
> here can invest in while pretending that they are saving the
> planet.
The proven pheny here is you. You are the one that began this thread
with lies and insults and nothing you have said is true.
> Got any Waste Management Inc. stocks or bonds, JB? Yep, that
> multi-national has taken over a lot of the recycling industry.
> And we know how much those good old boys care about the
> environment, don't we, JB?
>
> Alan
The Waste Management trucks in my neighborhood have seperate
compartments for different colored recyclable bins that give you a
wedgie thinking about it. California has a law requiring 55% of solid
wastes be recycled. Petaluma has trash inspectors that will give you a
%50 ticket for putting too many recyclables in the landfill garbage. A
city in Japan has 14 different containers for recycling. Get over it.
Back in the 50s there was a ragman that had a weekly route past my
house to collect peoples recyclable rags. Boy scouts had paper drives
to help pay for summer camp. Get over it. You have the anger that you
can't just throw away your trash and so you fling shitballs at the
people who make you an outlaw if you do that. Grow up monkeyboy -- the
world is not your toilet.
R Philip Dowds
> On uk.environment, in
> <Lcxwg.1682$gF6...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "R Philip
> Dowds" wrote:
>
>
>
>>There are certainly a fair number of Americans who feel
>>as you do. Mostly, however, they do not call themselves
>>environmentalists. They call themselves fundamentalists, I
>>think. Or maybe Republicans?
>>
>
>
>
> Another arrogant, motormouthed psuedo-intellectual who thinks
> that quippy remarks are intelligent discourse.
>
> And immediately launches ad hominem attacks against anyone who
> dares to disagree with him.
>
...
Did I imply that your views are much like those of fundamentalists or
Republicans? I thought that could be taken as a compliment, not an
attack. (Had I called you an "idiot" or a "troll", now that would have
been an ad hominem attack. But I didn't do that.)
RPD / Cambridge
“The enemy isn’t conservatism. The enemy isn’t liberalism. The enemy
is bullshit.” Lars-Erik Nelson.
John Beardmore
<i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> writes
><article not downloaded:
>http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
So ?
>We've met. And I quit reading your articles a long time ago.
Well - you still seem to be doing it !
>I guess you were just too busy running your mouth to notice.
How am I supposed to notice ? I guess if you stop arguing, either you
agree or you given up. People come and go from group discussions all
the time - it's no big deal. Why should I notice you in particular ?
>You may lift your fat cheeks and fart on the Usenet to your
>hearts content. For someone else to read.
>
>Your ilk are the single greatest impediment to progress on
>the planet.
>
>Because people believe the psuedo-scientific drivel
I don't see you coming up with any better arguments, though obviously
you invest a lot in name calling. It's clear that you do insults much
better than any quantitative or rational counter argument.
> that comes
>from your mouths.
If people think what I say makes sense, that's fine by me, but up to
them.
>And fail to notice that not only are you not saving the Earth,
>but that its health is being degraded at an ever increasing
>pace as time goes by.
So you say, but I don't agree.
It seems to me that either you are in denial about what is happening, if
so, specifically what do you challenge ?
Or perhaps that you think I am somehow standing in the way the problem
being solved. If so specifically how, and in what respect ?
Can you answer such questions specifically without insult ?
J/.
--
John Beardmore
John Beardmore
fernbach <fernba...@yahoo.com> writes
>John - when I have a little money, I contribute to the mainstream
>environmental groups, so I'm not out to condemn them.
When I had a lot of money so did I, though I guess over time I got
disillusioned with Greenpeace, and many of them seem to take too narrow
a view of specific issues. Over time I got dragged into increasingly
direct action, though more in the technical than the activist sense.
> Although I do
>criticize them from time to time
Seems fair !
>But Alan clearly is condemning them -- uh, I should say "us," because
>undoubtedly he dislikes some groups I support.
Part of the problem seems to be that in his mind we are all one entity
with a shared view, and presumably shared attitudes and objectives.
>So what I'm asking is -- what is Alan's proposed alternative?
A very good question !
Well Alan ??
>John Beardmore wrote:
>> In message <1153616676.5...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, john
>> fernbach <fernba...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>> >Excuse the top posting,
>>
>> I find it hard...
>>
>>
>> > but I'm responding to your whole message, I
>> >think.
>>
>> So post at the bottom ?
>
>Is that any better? I was trained as a journalist, at least somewhat.
>And in journalism, you want to have a "gripping lead." You want to get
>your main point across in the first paragraph. Or you at least want to
>say something interesting enough in your first paragraph to keep people
>reading.
:) OK.
>If the internet etiquette is to weave comments and counter-comments in
>among the texts, which people have already ready, I can do that, too.
Well - I came to the net form a very technical background, but the
notion of a response being a 'close analysis of the text' doesn't seem
to be a bad one.
>> Even if they aren't doing enough, criticising them seems a bit
>> disingenuous unless
>>
>> a) they are doing less than the rest of the population
>>
>> which clearly isn't the case, or
>>
>> b) they are doing less than you
>>
>> which isn't easy to see from here.
>
>John - I don't know if you're responding to me, or responding to Alan.
>If you're responding to me, I guess I didn't communicate my message
>that well.
Both really. I suppose the point is that environmentalists can be
criticised, (not least self-criticised), for not doing enough, but
criticism is perhaps best directed at those who still do nothing, than
those who are doing at least something.
> I'm not
>especially antagonistic to mainstream environmental groups -- and as I
>indicated above, I give them small donations when I can. I think they
>perform an essential function in keeping the global environment from
>being trashed worse than it already is.
Yes - while sometimes technically inept, they do at least keep things
on the agenda.
>Alan, on the other hand, is damning "environmentalists" in general for
>being ineffective, or hypocritical, or just generally bad. I want to
>know -- what's his alternative? What should people be doing?
>
>Seems like this is your concern, too, right?
Yes. The feeling I get is that his preferred outcome is no so much that
we are better at what we do, so much as silent and ineffective. But
let's see what he says for him self I guess.
John Beardmore
<i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> writes
><article not downloaded:
>http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>
>Here's how you spot a phony like "John Beardmore": None of his
>alleged solutions will involve any fundamental changes in
>_his_ lifestyle.
Any how much changes have you made to your lifestyle ?
Seems you know nothing of my history and experience, yet you are really
quick to attack me personally.
>He will not give up his material priveleges for anything.
Depends what you mean by "give up".
> And
>they are considerable.
They certainly are, but none the less, a lot less than they might have
been had I not made some effort to reduce my consumption etc.
> In fact, he doesn't produce anything
>that he consumes.
I'm not sure that's actually all that important. Surely what matters is
the size of your environmental footprint rather than whose hands
resources pass through on the way to you ?
>(Someone is doing all that work, but he doesn't know who, and
>he couldn't care less.)
Obviously someone has to do all the stuff that gets done. This is not
news. No, I don't know them all personally. So what ? Do I care
who ? Well - up to a point I'll try and purchase ethically, but I'm
not going to accept your invitation to beat myself up that I don't know
the first name of every staff member in my 'supply chain'.
>And he enjoys powers that a king of 2 centuries ago would not
>have dreamt of posessing.
So does every internet or bicycle user. Do you have a point ?
> Such as mounting a giant metal bird
>at will and flying to the far side of the planet in the time it
>would have taken that king to reach the next town.
Getting somewhere fast is not a problem per se, that's just so much
emotive baggage.
For what it's worth, I guess I fly less than average, and part of the
reason for that is environmental impact.
>And all by himself, JB will lay waste to approximately 14 acres
>of land during the course of his lifetime. (His ecological
>footprint.)
The point about environmental footprint is that it is the are of land
required to meet your needs WITHOUT the use of irreplaceable resources.
If 14 acres was my footprint, the whole point is that its the area
required such that it was not "laid waste". Maybe you should study the
concept ?
>Entire _nations_ of 'Native Americans' didn't do that much
>harm to the Earth over centuries.
Well - there's a surprise.
>But he's an ENVIRONMENTALIST.
According to some people, including you apparently.
>Just ask him.
I can't get excited about it myself.
>After all, he puts his garbage in colorful plastic containers
>instead of drab metal ones.
More to the point, I try and get them recycled rather than land filled.
Your 'analysis' of waste separation is disingenuous.
>And is conveniently unaware of the fact that a real
>environmentalist would not _have_ that garbage to dispose of in
>the first place.
Well - to be fair, we don't have that much.
>That's right, JB: There are ugly mines and refineries and
>factories galore behind all that stuff you have.
You don't say !!
One of the things I do is industrial energy audit and design advice.
Oddly enough - I have noticed these things.
>No, really. I'm not kidding.
You're not really making much of a point here...
>Nor will he be aware of the fact that every study of recycling
>has shown that it does more harm to the environment than just
>throwing the stuff in a landfill.
Some recycling has been pretty inept I grant, though I'm not at all
convinced that you are right in the general case.
>Which is why, for example, that recycled paper, even with massive
>subsidies, is still far more expensive than freshly made paper.
I suspect not. More likely that environmental harm is reduced by at
lest some paper recycling, but that this has a financial price.
Your suggestion that recycled paper is more expensive BECAUSE of
environmental harm is again disingenuous.
>Recycling is just another ugly industry that phonies like JB
>here can invest in while pretending that they are saving the
>planet.
Not sure that I invest in at all actually.
>Got any Waste Management Inc. stocks or bonds, JB?
Not that I'm aware of.
> Yep, that
>multi-national has taken over a lot of the recycling industry.
No doubt about it.
>And we know how much those good old boys care about the
>environment, don't we, JB?
I don't see most serious environmentalists disagreeing with this, but if
business of any size is reducing environmental impact by recycling
processes that life cycle analysis indicated offers a net benefit, I'm
not going to stand in their way. And why should I ?
Anyway - that's enough snide comments from you about me. What do you
do to make the world a better place ?
J/
--
John Beardmore
John Beardmore
>The DIShonest Ugly Troll Alan Conner just came to bash
>"environmentalism"
> It is not known how Conner
>gets his personal information about Beardmore -- perhaps they have
>known each other well and long,
Not as far as I know.
> but perhaps Beardmore is only a target
>of opportunity for a vicious sniper lashing out at what he perceives as
>prey.
Possible.
But I seem to be a target for both the anti environmentalists and the
less numerate activists, so I must at least be engaged in the debate...
>I don't think things pulled out of Conner's ass are the best place to
>seek Honesty about environmentalism or anything else.
Indeed.
>> And is conveniently unaware of the fact that a real
>> environmentalist would not _have_ that garbage to dispose of in
>> the first place.
>
>How do you know so much stalker, Peeping Tom?
Actually, it's some consolation that he doesn't seem to know so much
about me. :)
>Back in the 50s there was a ragman that had a weekly route past my
>house to collect peoples recyclable rags. Boy scouts had paper drives
>to help pay for summer camp. Get over it. You have the anger that you
>can't just throw away your trash and so you fling shitballs at the
>people who make you an outlaw if you do that. Grow up monkeyboy -- the
>world is not your toilet.
:)
John Beardmore
fernbach <fernba...@yahoo.com> writes
>Internet -- I believe the energy analysts are discovering that Internet
>use is quite energy-hungry. If only because it forces the electric
>power companies to maintain a very constant stream of power running
>through their lines, so as not to cause surges in power that damage
>computers or shut Internet connections down.
>
>Does anyone here have the technical knowledge about IN, computer power
>needs and the electric power grid to comment on this topic, one way or
>another?
Most computing equipment uses switch mode power supplies that are fairly
tolerant. Some will even work form 90 to 300 volts AC or DC.
There were fairly tight restrictions on how far grid voltage could
fluctuate, number of cycles per hour, per day etc long before computers
were common. Not sure that the Internet has much effect that way. The
'always on' infrastructure will consume power though, but CPU power per
watt continues to increase, and use of the internet reduces to the need
to travel for face to face meetings, and for the sending of physical
paper post, so the net effect is likely to be very positive.
> if you as an environmentalist live in a place where you DO
>need a car,
>or think you do, there's still a difference beween constantly driving
>it to go nearly everywhere, and economizing on your driving time as
>much as possible.
Quite so.
>Maybe you can help to fix this if you study hard enough, and sacrifice
>enough, and get enough practical experience working with people on the
>right or the left or in the middle for a better & greener planet.
Now you're getting real !!
John Beardmore
fernbach <fernba...@yahoo.com> writes
>Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Heat Deaths wrote:
>> john fernbach wrote:
>> > However, I'd like to ask Alan again -- are you primarily an advocate
>> > for "lifestyle" environmentalism, for simple and ecological living in a
>> > very radical sense?
>>
>> Alan the Rightwinger-Troll has already said he is a Zoo Monkey Flinging
>> Insults wrapped in Fecalballs at people in the Newsgroup. He said that
>> in every message he wrote. GAWDDD you are a dumbfuck!!!
>------------------------------------------------
>Prosecute - Thank you for sharing.
ROFL !!
>To the extent the Greens are right about global climate change being an
>urgent problem that our civilization has to tackle, or suffer terrible
>consequences, of course -- I think honest debate and questioning,
>coupled with attention to the daily news, will bring that out, too.
Yes.
>And if there are a few details about the truth that we greens have
>gotten wrong -- hey, let's expose them, by all means, and let's change
>our position, so that we get it right in the end.
Yes !!
Phil Bradshaw
<waves>
>
>
>>And fail to notice that not only are you not saving the Earth,
>>but that its health is being degraded at an ever increasing
>>pace as time goes by.
>
> So you say, but I don't agree.
>
> It seems to me that either you are in denial about what is happening, if
> so, specifically what do you challenge ?
>
> Or perhaps that you think I am somehow standing in the way the problem
> being solved. If so specifically how, and in what respect ?
>
> Can you answer such questions specifically without insult ?
>
:-)
john fernbach
Alan - Is there any way you can say what you think ought to be done,
without also insulting mainstream environmentalists in the process?
I'm not too interested in your anger at environmentalists, including
me. But I might be interested in knowing what you think is needed to
fix the world's problems.
For looking up your archives, I get the impression that you're a
practicioner of Transcendental Meditation. Whether or not you're
really a corporate troll, are you really someone who sees in TM the
answer to all our woes? If so, please explain.
>From what you're writing in here, you're certainly implying that you
major, major lifestyle changes are needed to bring our civilization
into greater harmony with environmental constraints.
I'm not sure that everyone in here really has a problem with that.
Some of us might favor extreme changes in lifestyle, and some of us are
trying to make at least modest changes already. But of course, we're
not likely to heed your message if you combine it with angry attacks on
us for supposedly being "hypocrites." If you uncoupled the angry
personal attacks from the idea of the lifestyle changes, we might
listen a little better.
I think, however, that there are at least two potential problems with
"voluntary simplicity" and "lifestyle environmentalism" as the ONLY
routes to environmental change. And I'd like to share them here -- not
to stop you from explaining the lifestyle changes you may think are
needed, but because I think they're important.
The first problem is that given our existing capitalism economy,
millions of people today have jobs that depend on the production and
sale of one luxurious extravagance or another. If we all just give up
stuff we really don't need, instantly, large numbers of our neighbors
are going to be out of work, and the economy is going to slow
dramatically, and a lot of people will be pushed into poverty.
How does our society create NEW jobs and NEW sources of income for us
and for our neighbors, then, as we move from our resource-hungry,
gluttonous habits towards more frugal and sustainable habits?
Maybe the answer lies in "green capitalism," in the entrepreneurial
creation of new, ecology-friendly products and services and the jobs
that go with them. Maybe the answer lies partly in Big Government
programs to put people to work doing "green" projects -- as Franklin D.
Roosevelt, in the 1930s, created new jobs for the unemployed through
the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Product Administration,
as well as other federal spending programs.
Maybe the basic answer lies in a radical reduction of the average work
week so as to give people more leisure, coupled with a certain
redistribution of work, leisure and income so as to spread the
remaining work around more equally -- an idea that the French anarchist
Andre Gorz was exploring in the 1970s.
Maybe the answer lies in the federal government and Big Business
cooperating in the creation of new "Green industries" -- in something
like the launching of a "Global Marshall Plan" to put US industry to
work making climate-friendly energy technologies available to the Third
World, so as to promote greater economic development overseas, good
jobs and new sources of profit at home, and a greener planet generally.
That's more or less what Al Gore proposed in 1992 in his book on
global climate change.
Maybe the real solution will have to include a mix of these different
strategies.
But SOMEHOW, some way, "real" and "honest" environmentalism has to
address the problem of keeping Americans and other Westerners alive,
and employed, and at least reasonably prosperous as we move toward a
greener future - EVEN if Western society also needs to radically
restrict its consumption of natural resources, so as to lessen
eco-destruction and to leave more oil and minerals behind for other
people to use.
So do you have a sense of how to make the drastic lifestyle changes
you're apparently proposing, while also keeping people employed, Alan?
If so, please share with us. If you haven't thought about this issue --
well, your lifestyle recommendations may still be valid, and important,
but you need to develop a "jobs" perspective, I think.
A second potential problem with your call for drastic lifestyle
changes, of course, is that an "honest" environmental movement
advocating this stuff can easily be caricatured as wanting to destroy
capitalist prosperity and force people to return to living in caves and
gathering roots and berries for a living.
How do you tackle that danger, Alan?
Because we live in a political world; we live among millions of other
human beings who have a healthy regard for their own comfort and their
own material self-interest. If we want these people to listen to us,
then we probably can't follow the example of Jesus, and demand of our
followers: "Sell all you have, give the proceeds to the poor, and pick
up your cross and follow me." I mean - look what they did to Jesus for
saying that stuff.
To sell environmental simplicity and environmental lifestyles as the
cure to eco-crisis, we have to show people that they'll be getting more
by making the change than they'll be giving up in the process.
How should we do that, Alan? I'm not saying it's impossible -- but
it's something that needs to be done IF WE HOPE TO WIN THE SUPPORT OF
THE PUBLIC.
So how do you think we can do it? Because although I personally like
the idea of playing the Prophet Crying in the Wilderness, demanding of
the multitudes that they abandon their lives of Sin -- I don't think
it's the path to winning friends and influencing people.
So I'd really like to hear (a) what you really think needs to be done
(WITHOUT the insults, please!) and if possible, (b) how you would make
your program economically workable, workable for people who need to
work for a living, and also (c) how you plan to make "lifestyle"
environmentalism popular -- popular enough to change habits, and win
elections.
If you're the troll everyone says you are, I don't expect you to answer
these questions. But I think they're valid questions, and if you're
sincere, I'd like to know how you deal with them.
Alan Connor
"Alan Connor" wrote:
> I'm an Environmentalist.
>
> I want to Save the Earth!
>
> Errr....That is, I want to save what's _left_ of the Earth
> after me and all my friends get _our_ pieces of it.
>
> Oh. And those pieces need to be extracted and transformed into
> all the stuff I want a long way from where I live and hang out,
> and for that matter, a long way from _anywhere_ I might want to
> visit or live or work in the future.
>
> I _really_ don't want _my_ view defaced or _my_ water or air
> polluted!
>
> And when I take my kids (it's all those black and brown and
> yellow primitives who are causing overpopulation, after all)
> out to the Public Forests once a year, they better be nice and
> pretty and there better not be any clearcuts around!
>
> And I most certainly do not want to see or associate with any
> of those unenlightened subhumans who are trashing the planet in
> order to make all the stuff I want.
Looks like the above statement really upset the local
psuedo-progressives.
That doesn't surprise me a bit.
<shrug> Gives them the opportunity to do the only thing they
ever do: Run their big mouths.
(for someone other than me to suffer)
While they live just like the people that they want us to believe
they are immeasurably superior to.
Alan Connor
Elifritz" wrote:
> Hey asshole, I live on an island, in the Atlantic Ocean,
Yeh. That means that even more resources are needed to get the
stuff you consume to you than would be needed for the typical
person living closer to centers of production and commerce.
> with
> solar panels and wind generators I design and construct myself,
From parts that have to be shipped in.
As will any replacement parts. Like when those giant batteries
wear out.
> in a concrete Earth home I constructed myself with local
> materials,
You made the concrete? You quarried and crushed the limestone
and built the kilns and mined the clay?
May I assume that you had to cut down a rather large number of
trees to make the charcoal to fuel those kilns?
And I guess you must have built a glass tank too. Or do you
not have windows?
> and I sail around in a little sailboat I pulled off
> of the bottom of the ocean by myself,
It still had to be manufactured in the first place.
And I doubt that it was just you in your birthday suit and
a rope made from kelp.
And we all know just how expensive boats are.
> and I use hydroponic
> plant growing equipment I designed and constructed, myself.
From manufactured parts that had to be shipped in.
>
> Quoting Dick Cheney ... go fuck yourself.
If you'd like to try, you two-bit phony, mail me and I'll
send you the directions to my place.
But you better be better at combat than you are at being
self-sufficient and Earth-friendly.
Here we have another elitist, psuedo-progressive playing at being
Robinson Crusoe with the help of a hundred factories and mines
and power plants that, just coincidentally, can't be found on his
little island paradise where they'd mess up his view.
You aren't any more self-sufficient than a yuppy in Manhattan.
But your lifestyle does more harm to the world than theirs.
Some achievement.
Listen: You are just a spoiled consumer playing with your toys on
an island somewhere. At the expense of the rest of the world.
That doesn't make you a hero.
Coby Beck
news:slrnec59q2....@b29x3m.invalid...
> On uk.environment, in
> <Lcxwg.1682$gF6...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "R Philip
> Dowds" wrote:
>
>
>> There are certainly a fair number of Americans who feel
>> as you do. Mostly, however, they do not call themselves
>> environmentalists. They call themselves fundamentalists, I
>> think. Or maybe Republicans?
>
> Another arrogant, motormouthed psuedo-intellectual who thinks
> that quippy remarks are intelligent discourse.
Another Irony Meter blown of the dashboard...
> And immediately launches ad hominem attacks against anyone who
> dares to disagree with him.
Damn! Two in one post!
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
John Smith
"Alan Connor" <i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> wrote in message
> On uk.environment, in
> <1153608799....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Prosecute EXXON
>
> <article not downloaded:
> http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>
>
> When it comes to the environment, there is _no_ difference
> between Left and Right.
>
>
> They all live basically the same way. They all have approximately
> the same ecological footprint within an economic class.
>
> really _want_ to save the planet.
>
> _whole_lot_more_.
>
> strapped to the top or rear of their automobile. As for actually
> giving up their automobiles, don't make me laugh.
>
>
> their tanks after the protest.
>
> for them. And their insurance companies and banks are invested in
> Big Oil too.
>
> company to their environmental org? Not a chance.
>
>
>
> The Right is composed of people who don't care whether they trash
> and leave the suckers after them to live with the mess.
>
> But there's nothing the Left is doing or proposing that will have
> any different outcome, so how are they different?
>
> both part of the same bird, and that bird eats the environment at
> an incredible rate.
>
>
> To the clueless hypocrite whose subject line I responded to
> above:
>
> You won't be able to suppress my right to free speech. Really.
>
> I'll post what I want and you'll live with it, and your articles
> will be left on the server.
>
> No, I am not suppressing your right to free speech. You can
> post anything you want.
>
> Alan
Good Grief! Well said!
--
If I could not go to heaven but with a [political] party, I would not go
there at all.
--Thomas Jefferson
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Alan Connor
<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
Another psuedo-progressive dodging the important points I raise
and no doubt posting a bunch of snotty, juvenile insults.
That's what they do when they encounter someone who refuses to
believe that every word from their mouths is the Gospel Truth.
They call themselves 'Environmentalists' because they like the
idea of preserving the health of the planet, not because their
lifestyle's are Earth-friendly.
But we aren't supposed to notice that.
Here's what he doesn't want to think about, my original post
on this thread:
I'm an Environmentalist.
I want to Save the Earth!
Errr....That is, I want to save what's _left_ of the Earth after
me and all my friends get _our_ pieces of it.
Oh. And those pieces need to be extracted and transformed into
all the stuff I want a long way from where I live and hang out,
and for that matter, a long way from _anywhere_ I might want to
visit or live or work in the future.
I _really_ don't want _my_ view defaced or _my_ water or air
polluted!
And when I take my kids (it's all those black and brown
and yellow primitives who are causing overpopulation, after all)
out to the Public Forests once a year, they better be nice and
pretty and there better not be any clearcuts around!
And I most certainly do not want to see or associate with any of
those unenlightened subhumans who are trashing the planet in
order to make all the stuff I want.
/quote
Alan Connor
<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
"John Smith". Right.
You are, of course, one of the people who's already posted to
me under a different alias.
Now you are hiding behind this one in order to post some juvenile
insults to me while evading the responsibility for them.
And of course, I'm not going to download your article.
:-)
Get back to me when you find your balls, Junior.
You must be a psuedo-progressive. Probably call yourself a
'vegetarian' and put on a disguise when you sneak over to Burger
King several times a week.
Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Heat Deaths
in the Zoo.
Alan Connor wrote:
> Another psuedo-progressive dodging the important points I raise
> and no doubt posting a bunch of snotty, juvenile insults.
Conner never raised any important points. He wrapped insults inside
shitbals and flung them at strangers like he was a Monkey in a Zoo.
> That's what they do when they encounter someone who refuses to
> believe that every word from their mouths is the Gospel Truth.
Nobody cares what you believe. In fact I doubt even your mother cares
if you live or die (unless she has a fat insurance policy on your life,
in which case hire a food-taster for when you drop by for tea and
crumpets).
> They call themselves 'Environmentalists' because they like the
> idea of preserving the health of the planet, not because their
> lifestyle's are Earth-friendly.
More insults wrapped in feces. Conner is just pissed because people
make him feel bad about his massive consumption habits and he wants to
strike back by calling them no better than he is. Imagine that: his
most potent insult is "You are just like ME". That is some form of
confession that he recognizes that he is seriously mentally ill.
> But we aren't supposed to notice that.
But we did notince the confession of your mental illness.
Here's what he doesn't want to think about, my original post
> on this thread:
>
>
> I'm an Environmentalist.
Lie. You are a gross pig.
> I want to Save the Earth!
Lie. You are an advocate of mindless consumption.
> Errr....That is, I want to save what's _left_ of the Earth after
> me and all my friends get _our_ pieces of it.
This is an insult wrapped in shit. Conner's at least honest in
describing his grasping at pieces of the Earth.
> Oh. And those pieces need to be extracted and transformed into
> all the stuff I want a long way from where I live and hang out,
> and for that matter, a long way from _anywhere_ I might want to
> visit or live or work in the future.
More Feces Flinging by the Monkeyboy. Some things, like concrete, are
always manufactured locally because of the weight transportation price
penalty makes imports non-competitive to locally-produced. Other things
like coffee and tea do not grow well where all the consumers are
located. Some things, like oil, are only found in a few locations.
Mostly, it is Conner's pals in industry who make decisions to exploit
foreign workers by outsourcing, and the consumers have no say-so. The
sweatshops of Nike and iPod are famous examples where a smsall core
group makes decisions that leaves no choices to the general public.
Conner's is saying it is OK to exploit workers whose salary making your
shoes is 3 cents of the purchase price of $100, and it is OK that the
workers get paid $5 a day while the Nike boss get $100,000 a day.
None of this has to do with "environmentalism" -- it has to do with
sociology, a different subject completely.
Since Conner has no "enviro-detector" machine, he flings shit at
everybody, hoping some will stick where he meant it to go. Conner can
see if you have Nike shoes on and are listening to an iPod clipped on
your belt, but he can't tell if you are "enviro" or not from those
clues. He can't tell if the iPod-Nike guy uses public tranportation
mostly, because in cars you can't see the Nikes or the iPods. So he
just flings shit and more shit, at everybody.
> I _really_ don't want _my_ view defaced or _my_ water or air
> polluted!
That is a very sane approach, except that Conner makes the insane
assumption that one must deface views or pollute air or water. There
are at least two other choices not offered in Conner's narrow
selection: (1) don't foul your own nest or anybody elses if there is
known cleaner methods to accomplish the same thing, and (2) tailor your
definitions to suit reality. Neither of these two are an option
considered by Conner.
> And when I take my kids (it's all those black and brown
> and yellow primitives who are causing overpopulation, after all)
> out to the Public Forests once a year, they better be nice and
> pretty and there better not be any clearcuts around!
More insults wrapped in shit flung by Monkeyboy.
> And I most certainly do not want to see or associate with any of
> those unenlightened subhumans who are trashing the planet in
> order to make all the stuff I want.
Stated as an insult encased in a gob of turds for flinging purposes, it
actually is good policy to ostracise the malevolent psychopaths who go
to excesses. No, we don't want association with Conner and his Monkey
Zoo shit-flingers.
> Alan
>
> --
> See my headers.
You bright Blue Babbon Butt is notabably conspicuous.
john fernbach
what do you think needs to be done?
You accuse the mainstream environmentalists of being hypocrites who in
fact are consuming a lot. You also accuse us of being elitists and of
considering various Third World people to be "subhuman" -- which,
frankly, doesn't sound like the conclusion that the Green groups were
reading in 1992, at the time of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. But
anyway, that's what your original post indicates.
You have lots of accusations against environmentalists to hand around.
But what would YOU do to tackle environmental problems such as
(a) global climate change
(b) the expansion of deserts and deforestation across much of the
world,
(c) the depletion of important ocean fisheries due to excessive
commercial fishing -- in the Grand Banks, etc.,
(d) the heavy air and water pollution afflicting many rapidly
industrializing Third World cities -- especially in China, but not
exclusively there,
(e) the increasing scarcity of water, and especially clean drinking
water, in much of the world,
(f) the bleaching of coral reefs, which are among the world's most
ecologically diverse and biologically productive kinds of ecoystem,
(g) potential long-term problems in the West with the storage of
long-lived radioactive wastes from nuclear power production,
(h) the contamination of the human food chain, and of course the food
chain of other creatures as well, by "bioaccumulative" chemical wastes
and heavy metals,
(i) pesticide poisonings throughout the Third World, and also the rapid
evolution of new "super pests" that are immune to all existing
pesticides, so that that farmers in much of the world are rapidly
losing the effectiveness of the chemicals they employ to kill
destructive insects and other pests ...
I could go on and on about other global environmental woes, too,, but
there's no need to.
How would YOU fix these things, Alan?
Because if you don't have any real alternatives to suggest, and you're
just damning the existing environmental movement for being imperfect,
you're not helping anything.
Hell, those of us who have long supported the environmental movement
know that it's imperfect. But we think it's better to take imperfect
actions to head off ecological disasters of various kinds than it is to
avoid taking any actions at all.
Tell us what we and the rest of the public need to do better, Alan. If
you have good ideas on this score.
Unless you are a corporate troll, and you just want the environmental
problems to go unaddressed until we really destroy something serious --
like the stability of the global climate, for example -- with continued
industrial activity and human population growth.
Any response, Alan? If you're not a corporate troll, and you really do
ideas on how things could go better, here's your chance to testify.
Alan Connor
<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
> Subject: Re: The DIShonest Ugly Troll Alan Conner just came to
> bash "environmentalism"
No. I am not bashing environmentalism. I am crticizing a bunch
of people who are _pretending_ to be environmentalists.
But they have the same ecological footprint as the people they
revile for being non-environmentalists.
Where I come from, if you say you can play the violin, then
we make you pull it out of the case and play a tune.
We don't just take your word for it.
You wouldn't like it there.
john fernbach
would ask environmentalists to do differently.
And as far as I can tell - you're not answering the question.
Why not, Alan?
I don't care about where you come from and how they "play the violin,"
there. But what I would like to know is what Greens of all
descriptions could be doing better.
As an admittedly imperfect American environmentalist who has tried to
reduce his ecological footprint -- no car, no children, aversion to
using my air conditioner, and damned few vacation trips, etc. -- I
really am interested in seeing practical ideas on how the environmental
movement can do a better job.
And how we can persuade other people to join us -- since averting
global climate change and other eco-disasters obviously is a tremendous
task, and we'll need millions of people cooperating if we want to
succeed at it.
So what are your ideas on what we need to do better, Alan?
And what are you doing in this direction, and what practical tips do
you have to offer the rest of us?
Assuming you're not just a corporate troll, that is.
---------------------
Alan Connor
"Alan Connor" wrote:
In response to the posts of:
26:[Thomas Lee E]
58:[john fernbac]
Whose articles were left on the server.
Every year since the first Earth Day, more of the Earth has been
destroyed or seriously damaged or seriously polluted than the
year before.
The rate is dramatically increasing, not decreasing.
At the same time, the number of people claiming to be
environmentalists and who belong to environmental organizations,
has been increasing. The _number_ of environmental organizations
has been increasing. The number of universities that offer
degrees in environmental studies has been increasing.
And so on.
A rational person would conclude that the environmental movement
was an abject failure.
And it is.
2+2=4
And we don't _have_ another 40 odd years to go on pretending that
we can have our Earth and eat it too.
There's only one way to save the Earth, and that's to quit
trashing it.
Which is impossible when you have billions of people with
incredibly high material expectations.
Start preaching non-consumption, guys. Or kiss it all good-bye.
John Smith
"Alan Connor" <i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> wrote in message
LOL You are, of course, correct - I am not John Smith. There are too many
"peace or I'll kill you" types running about usenet. Your description of
me is almost 180 degrees out of phase. I was drawn into this news group by
one of the Bush hating, pseudo-"scientists" from this ng spamming another ng
that I read. When I challenged his "data" I got called a bunch of names. I
came over here to see what was going on in this ng and found your post. I
found it very enlightening to find someone besides myself that finds it
ironic that, among other things, someone like Gore burns thousands of
pounds of fuel to fly, then has 10 limos drive him 2 blocks to view his
little film on the environment with a group of the biggest posers on the
planet. I was agreeing with you for what that is worth. And for future
reference I am an omnivore just as nature made me, and although I like
Burger King, I usually go to What-A-Burger.
> --
> See my headers.
John Beardmore
<i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> writes
>On uk.environment, in
><1153644576....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "Prosecute
>EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Heat Deaths" wrote:
><article not downloaded:
>http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>
>> Subject: Re: The DIShonest Ugly Troll Alan Conner just came to
>> bash "environmentalism"
>
>No. I am not bashing environmentalism. I am crticizing a bunch
>of people who are _pretending_ to be environmentalists.
Well, you might take the trouble to get to know them first !
>But they have the same ecological footprint as the people they
>revile for being non-environmentalists.
How on earth did you measure that ?
>Where I come from, if you say you can play the violin, then
>we make you pull it out of the case and play a tune.
And what instrument are you playing ? That seems to be a pretty well
kept secret.
>We don't just take your word for it.
>
>You wouldn't like it there.
Oh I don't know ! Anyway, too bad you have so little idea where I am !
John Beardmore
<i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> writes
>On uk.environment, in <slrnec7sf2....@b29x3m.invalid>,
>"Alan Connor" wrote:
>> On uk.environment, in
>> <1153644576....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Heat Deaths"
>> wrote:
>><article not downloaded:
>>http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>>> Subject: Re: The DIShonest Ugly Troll Alan Conner just came to
>>> bash "environmentalism"
>>
>> No. I am not bashing environmentalism. I am crticizing a bunch
>> of people who are _pretending_ to be environmentalists.
>>
>> But they have the same ecological footprint as the people they
>> revile for being non-environmentalists.
>>
>> Where I come from, if you say you can play the violin, then we
>> make you pull it out of the case and play a tune.
>>
>> We don't just take your word for it.
>>
>> You wouldn't like it there.
>
>In response to the posts of:
>
>26:[Thomas Lee E]
>58:[john fernbac]
>
>Whose articles were left on the server.
>
>Every year since the first Earth Day,
So what do you mean by Earth Day ?
> more of the Earth has been
>destroyed or seriously damaged or seriously polluted than the
>year before.
Well, certainly in the last 100 years mankind has done a lot which is
polluting, some of which may have caused irreversible change / damage.
>The rate is dramatically increasing, not decreasing.
Globally perhaps, though taken country by country, some are starting to
improve and the others can learn lessons from that if they choose.
>At the same time, the number of people claiming to be
>environmentalists and who belong to environmental organizations,
>has been increasing. The _number_ of environmental organizations
>has been increasing. The number of universities that offer
>degrees in environmental studies has been increasing.
>
>And so on.
>
>A rational person would conclude that the environmental movement
>was an abject failure.
Or that other factors are in play as well.
>And it is.
Well - it hasn't resulted in a sustainable global society, but should
you criticise the environmentalists or those that choose to ignore the
message ?
>2+2=4
That at least is easy to demonstrate.
>And we don't _have_ another 40 odd years to go on pretending that
>we can have our Earth and eat it too.
Well we probably do, but it will get increasingly damaged as we delay
serious action more.
>There's only one way to save the Earth, and that's to quit
>trashing it.
Agreed. Now...
What is the best way to deliver that ?
Locally ?
Globally ?
>Which is impossible when you have billions of people with
>incredibly high material expectations.
>
>Start preaching non-consumption, guys. Or kiss it all good-bye.
You have to start with a message that your audience is prepared to
listen to.
Non-consumption is an impossibility - we have to consume something or
we die. For most people, this is not an option. YMMV.
The issue are
the standard of living that a given population can share while
maintaining sustainable agricultural practices and without
ongoing damage to other ecosystems,
hotly followed by
how wealth might be distributed.
So, the key issues are population, standard of living and wealth
distribution, as well as the facilitating technologies.
So - how do we do it better ?
John Beardmore
<i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> writes
>On uk.environment, in <SPPwg.124687$I61.88469@clgrps13>, "Coby Beck" wrote:
>They call themselves 'Environmentalists' because they like the
>idea of preserving the health of the planet, not because their
>lifestyle's are Earth-friendly.
Any who voted you gatekeeper of the use of word 'environmentalist' ?
>But we aren't supposed to notice that.
You can notice what you like, though you fail to have spotted that most
environmentalists freely admit that all our lives fall far short of
being sustainable. The fact they have not get there yet personally
doesn't invalidate their message, and they may be a lot closer than the
rest of the population of their society / locale.
>Here's what he doesn't want to think about,
Who ?
> my original post
>on this thread:
>
>
>I'm an Environmentalist.
I wouldn't call a vote on that if I were you...
>I want to Save the Earth!
</satire> ?
>Errr....That is, I want to save what's _left_ of the Earth after
>me and all my friends get _our_ pieces of it.
>
>Oh. And those pieces need to be extracted and transformed into
>all the stuff I want a long way from where I live and hang out,
>and for that matter, a long way from _anywhere_ I might want to
>visit or live or work in the future.
>
>I _really_ don't want _my_ view defaced or _my_ water or air
>polluted!
>
>And when I take my kids (it's all those black and brown
>and yellow primitives who are causing overpopulation, after all)
>out to the Public Forests once a year, they better be nice and
>pretty and there better not be any clearcuts around!
>
>And I most certainly do not want to see or associate with any of
>those unenlightened subhumans who are trashing the planet in
>order to make all the stuff I want.
>
>
>/quote
Well - if you want to be taken seriously you need to be clearer about
what you mean and answer questions about your position. Are you a man
or a troll ?
John Beardmore
fernbach <fernba...@yahoo.com> writes
>The first problem is that given our existing capitalism economy,
>millions of people today have jobs that depend on the production and
>sale of one luxurious extravagance or another. If we all just give up
>stuff we really don't need, instantly, large numbers of our neighbors
>are going to be out of work, and the economy is going to slow
>dramatically, and a lot of people will be pushed into poverty.
Hmmm... How to dismantle the machine without killing those that depend
on it ?
I guess firstly you need to educate all the people that depend on it.
>Maybe the answer lies in "green capitalism," in the entrepreneurial
>creation of new, ecology-friendly products and services and the jobs
>that go with them.
Don't know. That's a very 'MBA' answer, but you need people to be ready
to buy these ecology-friendly products and services, and until 'the
people' understand what these things offer, I don't see the market being
there. A bootstrapping issue.
> Maybe the answer lies partly in Big Government
>programs to put people to work doing "green" projects -- as Franklin D.
>Roosevelt, in the 1930s, created new jobs for the unemployed through
>the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Product Administration,
>as well as other federal spending programs.
:) Would go down like a lead balloon in some quarters.
>Maybe the basic answer lies in a radical reduction of the average work
>week so as to give people more leisure, coupled with a certain
>redistribution of work, leisure and income so as to spread the
>remaining work around more equally -- an idea that the French anarchist
>Andre Gorz was exploring in the 1970s.
Maybe necessary, but will it be acceptable, fair and practicable ?
>Maybe the answer lies in the federal government and Big Business
>cooperating in the creation of new "Green industries" -- in something
>like the launching of a "Global Marshall Plan" to put US industry to
>work making climate-friendly energy technologies available to the Third
>World, so as to promote greater economic development overseas, good
>jobs and new sources of profit at home, and a greener planet generally.
Hmmm... If Clear Skies and the Low Carbon Buildings Program are
anything to go by, I won't hold my breath...
>But SOMEHOW, some way, "real" and "honest" environmentalism has to
>address the problem of keeping Americans and other Westerners alive,
>and employed, and at least reasonably prosperous as we move toward a
>greener future - EVEN if Western society also needs to radically
>restrict its consumption of natural resources, so as to lessen
>eco-destruction and to leave more oil and minerals behind for other
>people to use.
Did I hear anybody say 'contract and converge' ?
>So do you have a sense of how to make the drastic lifestyle changes
>you're apparently proposing, while also keeping people employed, Alan?
>If so, please share with us. If you haven't thought about this issue --
>well, your lifestyle recommendations may still be valid, and important,
>but you need to develop a "jobs" perspective, I think.
I think if people are well enough educated, the process will start (is
starting ?) spontaneously.
>Because we live in a political world; we live among millions of other
>human beings who have a healthy regard for their own comfort and their
>own material self-interest.
And an unhealthy regard for how that sits globally.
> If we want these people to listen to us,
>then we probably can't follow the example of Jesus, and demand of our
>followers: "Sell all you have, give the proceeds to the poor, and pick
>up your cross and follow me." I mean - look what they did to Jesus for
>saying that stuff.
:) Well - we can try, and we can set whatever example we are able.
>To sell environmental simplicity and environmental lifestyles as the
>cure to eco-crisis, we have to show people that they'll be getting more
>by making the change than they'll be giving up in the process.
Not sure where this notion of environmental simplicity comes from. Seems
to me that if we are to really get footprint down, things may be less
simple, and certainly far more effort.
Nor am I sure if Alan is using the term "environmental lifestyles" in a
pejorative sense ?
>So how do you think we can do it? Because although I personally like
>the idea of playing the Prophet Crying in the Wilderness, demanding of
>the multitudes that they abandon their lives of Sin -- I don't think
>it's the path to winning friends and influencing people.
Quite so. Anything less than pragmatic is wont to be dismissed as hippy
nonsense or worse.
john fernbach
> destroyed or seriously damaged or seriously polluted than the
> year before.
>
> The rate is dramatically increasing, not decreasing.
>
> At the same time, the number of people claiming to be
> environmentalists and who belong to environmental organizations,
> has been increasing. The _number_ of environmental organizations
> has been increasing. The number of universities that offer
> degrees in environmental studies has been increasing.
>
> And so on.
>
>
> There's only one way to save the Earth, and that's to quit
> trashing it.
>
> Which is impossible when you have billions of people with
> incredibly high material expectations.
>
> Start preaching non-consumption, guys. Or kiss it all good-bye.
>
>
> Alan
--------------------------------
Thank you, Alan, for what seems to be a more or less clear statement of
your position.
Personally, I partly agree with it and partly disagree with it.
I think ACHIEVING a reduced level of resource consumption here in the
West is essential. Whether PREACHING it is the best way to achieve
this, is another question.
I also insist that the environmental movement MUST acknowledge the need
that ordinary people have to earn a living, both in the Western
capitalist countries and in the Third World. And that because of this,
"non consumption" alone, with no qualifications, is a practical and
political impossibility.
In addition to persuading people and helping people to ratchet down
their resource use, we're also going to have to ensure that they have
ways to support themselves in relatively non-polluting,
resource-conserving businesses or industries -- or nobody is going to
follow our "preaching," whether it's good preaching or not.
Reduced consumption of natural resources, ALONG with public and private
efforts to create new, "eco-friendly" jobs, might go a ways towards
safeguarding the planet form further destruction.
Therefore I think that the creation of new "green industries" and green
services that provide people with pleasure in exchange for money, but
with far fewer impacts on the planet's resource base, is essential.
So, too, is the Green movement's support for women's rights, the legal
availability of birth control devices and the continued legality of
abortion, in my view. Because we do, in fact, need to limit further
growth of the human population. And in addition to working for greater
reproductive freedom for women, environmentalists clearly should
advocate more sexually responsible behavior for men -- as some of us
have been urging for 30 years now.
But anyway, Alan - thanks for clearly stating your views.
John Beardmore
<philbr...@dsl.pipex.com> writes
>John Beardmore wrote:
>> If people think what I say makes sense, that's fine by me, but up to
>> them.
>
><waves>
Hi Phil !
John Beardmore
fernbach <fernba...@yahoo.com> writes
But when you strip out the insults, is
" Start preaching non-consumption, guys. Or kiss it all good-bye"
really the best you can do Alan ?
Setting aside the fact that non consumption is a non starter, why do you
expect us to do your preaching for you ? Or does it make your Tourettes
kick in ?
Alan Connor
<snip>
90:[Thomas Lee E]
116:[John Beardmo]
41:[John Beardmo]
130:[John Beardmo]
70:[John Beardmo]
67:[john fernbac]
(articles left on server)
I gave you each a chance. I will not be your whipping boy.
(Assuming that those aliases don't all belong to the same
person.)
Don't you realize that your violent abreaction to what I have
posted could only be the result of the fact that you know that it
is basically true?
I can assure that anyone else reading this thread who has
half-a-brain does.
You want to make environmentalism a political battle and a search
for magic technologies that will keep you from having to make
fundamental changes in your lifestyle.
Sorry. It isn't going to happen. Technology = Industry and guess
what's doing more damage to the planet than anything else?
Industry. More of it is obviously counter-productive.
Grow your own food with human power outside your back door and
you'll have significantly reduced your ecological footprint.
Create more mines and factories and you haven't.
DUH.
Alan Connor
<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
Now why did he remove sci.environment from the newsgroups header?
(which I have reinstated)
-----------------------------------------
61:[John Beardmo]
15:[John Beardmo]
15:[John Beardmo]
116:[John Beardmo]
40:[John Beardmo]
130:[John Beardmo]
84:[John Beardmo]
41:[John Beardmo]
52:[John Beardmo]
173:[John Beardmo]
108:[John Beardmo]
122:[John Beardmo]
36:[John Beardmo]
44:[John Beardmo]
70:[John Beardmo]
From this thread.
Man, can this guy run his mouth.
I ran into him on another group a while back and gagfiled him
there, for sloppy reasoning and abuse and being unable to
tell the difference between science and promotional materials
distributed by supposed 'green companies'.
There's no way that an intellectual-ideological bully like this
has only one alias. So you can bet he actually has more posts on
this very recent thread than the above.
Alan Connor
Knowing that I wouldn't be reading his article. I won't be
anyone's whipping boy and he got his one lick in already.
Lot of bullies on the Usenet think that everyone is just going
to lie down and read abusive article after abusive article from
them.
All such people have more than one alias. It's a form of
cyberstalking: They are going to make you read their abuse,
one-way-or-another.
(If they can.)
Bet this is 'John Beardmore'.
<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
Here's what an honest 'John Beardmore [et al]' would say:
I'm an Environmentalist.
I want to Save the Earth!
Errr....That is, I want to save what's _left_ of the Earth after
me and all my friends get _our_ pieces of it.
Oh. And those pieces need to be extracted and transformed into
all the stuff I want a long way from where I live and hang out,
and for that matter, a long way from _anywhere_ I might want to
visit or live or work in the future.
I _really_ don't want _my_ view defaced or _my_ water or air
polluted!
And when I take my kids (it's all those black and brown
and yellow primitives who are causing overpopulation, after all)
out to the Public Forests once a year, they better be nice and
pretty and there better not be any clearcuts around!
And I most certainly do not want to see or associate with any of
those unenlightened subhumans who are trashing the planet in
order to make all the stuff I want.
Alan
--
See my headers.
john fernbach
screen name.
Well, "John Fernbach" is not an alias for Elfritz or Beardmore,
anyway. JF is not actually my legal name, but I'm not trying to beat
up on you by calling you names under some other alias.
I really don't think angry name calling -- by anybody -- contributes to
solving environmental problems. And I don't care whether my side or
the other side is doing it. I think it's NOISE, not signal - and the
signal is what matters.
As for other reactions to your vision, please see below.
Alan Connor wrote:
> On uk.environment, in <slrnec81i3....@b29x3m.invalid>, "Alan Connor" wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> 90:[Thomas Lee E]
> 116:[John Beardmo]
> 41:[John Beardmo]
> 130:[John Beardmo]
> 70:[John Beardmo]
> 67:[john fernbac]
>
> (articles left on server)
>
> I gave you each a chance. I will not be your whipping boy.
>
> (Assuming that those aliases don't all belong to the same
> person.)
They certainly don't ALL belong to the same person. My alias is MINE -
not Beardmore's or Elfritz's or Prosecute Exxon's.
> Don't you realize that your violent abreaction to what I have
> posted could only be the result of the fact that you know that it
> is basically true?
I don't see how this necessarily follows. It could be that we think
your posts
are half-truths, or utterly misleading although potentially seductive
to a certain
kind of environmental idealist.
We may be "abreacting" to you violently -- Whew! Great vocabularly
there, guy! --
because we think you're trying to mislead honest environmentalists and
pull them in
destructive directions.
Such as wholesale rejection of existing environmental lobbying groups
in London or Washington, DC, for example.
As a green radical, I personally find the mainstream eco-lobbying
groups VERY limited
and imperfect -- but also essential. Since they're often all that
stands between the environment and totally lawless, unrestricted
pollution on the part of capitalist corporations
and hidebound government bureaucracies. If you tear them down because
of their obvious imperfections, Alan, I think you'll do more harm to
the environment than good.
>
> I can assure that anyone else reading this thread who has
> half-a-brain does.
>
> You want to make environmentalism a political battle and a search
> for magic technologies that will keep you from having to make
> fundamental changes in your lifestyle.
"Magic" is always a good pejorative term, isn't it?
Again, I think you're making a false dichotomy here. And I think
you're 100% right about PART of your message -- the need for
"fundamental changes in lifestyle."
But why can't we have BOTH fundamental lifestyle changes -- as noted,
some of us long ago gave up the idea of driving, car ownership, and
raising children, primarily for environmental reasons -- AND the
development of new, NON-magic technologies that
are environmentally friendlier?
Prime example being the development of solar photovoltaic cells and
ultra-efficient windmills to produce electricity, as opposed to
generating it through the burning of coal or the splitting of uranium
atoms in nuclear power plants?
Solar PV cells, windmills, biomass fuels are not "MAGIC" at all. And
they won't in themselves solve all environmental problems. But
chemistry, physics and earth science
indicate that they'll contribute less to global climate change than our
existing fossil fuel technologies do.
SCIENCE tells us -- not that it's immoral and greedy to dig up
underground carbon that's been locked away since the age of the
dinosaurs, but rather than burning this carbon for fuel is going to
reinject CO2 into the atmosphere and all of the various other global
systems linked to it -- the photosynthetic cycle, the oceans, etc. And
SCIENCE tells us -- or is beginning to tell us -- that this reinjection
of buried carbon into the global ecosystem is likely to have some
gnarly, nasty, uncomfortable side effects.
So why not turn to the SCIENCE of alternative energy production --
solar PV cells, biomass fuels, windmills, tidal power, etc. -- to
ameliorate at least some of the bad side effects?
We can be moralistic and angry, or moralistic and self-sacrificing
about this, I agree. And we may need to be, to fix the climate
problems that our scientific analysis of the fossil fuel business has
uncovered. But let's not assume that because some moral and ethical
reform is needed, that science has no role at all in fixing what's
broken!
> Sorry. It isn't going to happen. Technology = Industry and guess
> what's doing more damage to the planet than anything else?
>
> Industry. More of it is obviously counter-productive.
>
> Grow your own food with human power outside your back door and
> you'll have significantly reduced your ecological footprint.
Alan - If you're living in some remote rural area and in fact growing
your own food with your own human power -- congratulations. Good for
you.
When I was studying natural resources policy at the University of
Michigan in the
1960s and 1970s, however, my professors generally agreed that the human
population of the world has grown much too large for small-scale,
subsistence agriculture to be the ecological "solution" for everyone.
The sense of my environmental professors, anyway,
was that the human species cannot abandon industrial technology
completely, not at this point, without suffering from a catastrophic
population crash. Because it doesn't look as if there's land enough or
unspoiled natural resources enough for everyone to succeed at this.
Maybe my profs were wrong, of course. And maybe you can cite some
authorities, besides your own sense of moral mission, that proves the
professors were wrong. But my sense as a graduate of the U-M School of
Natural Resources is that we have to tame industrial civilization and
reformulate it -- not abolish it completely -- to avert human and
ecological disaster.
I also think that environmental researchers who looked into Third World
environmental destruction in the late 1970s and mid-1980s found that
for maybe 600 million very poor people around the world, "growing your
own food on your own doorstep with human labor" is not an environmental
solution. These people have been pushed into ecologically marginal
parts of the Third World -- the arid lands of the Sahel in Africa, the
denuded mountain tops and high valleys of the Himalaya Mtn range in
Asia, and some of the African and Latin American rainforests and
forested hillsides -- where subsistence agriculture is destroying the
land.
At least for these 600 million people or soul, "growing your own food
with human labor" means destroying the landscape that's supporting you
-- wrecking your own homeland.
If you're doing subsistence farming in Vermont or the north of England
or some other place where the local ecological conditions are really
favorable, Alan, you probably aren't wrecking the planet by growing
your own food. You may well be living a more virtuous ecological
lifestyle than some of us in the cities. But while your solution is
good for you, and virtuous for you, it just won't work for everybody.
I think the environmental movement, in the broad sense, needs to
respect and support the subsistence livestyle of "survivalists" and
back-to-the-landers, on the one hand. But also combine that with
efforts to make progress in other places where subsistence farming
isn't going to work. There should be room in the Green movement for
both approaches.
> Create more mines and factories and you haven't.
>
> DUH.
Too many of us love to say "DUH" or the equivalent -- "troll," "fool,"
"idiot," butt-fucker, etc. to our debating partners, IMHO. Let's
stop.
Alan Connor
<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
I should never have responded to one of your articles in the
first place. As a rule, only trolls (people hiding their true
posting history, by using multiple aliases in this case) post
through google groups.
It is a painfully inadequate method of accessing the Usenet,
and you are obviously an old Usenet hand:
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
john fernbach
Results 1 - 100 of 1,160 posts in the last year
1 alt.atheism
1 alt.energy
2 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
11 alt.global-warming
1 alt.magick
17 alt.politics
3 alt.politics.bush
1 alt.politics.clinton
1 alt.politics.conservative
4 alt.politics.greens
1 alt.politics.gw-bush
1 alt.politics.libertarian
4 alt.politics.republicans
2 alt.religion.islam
1 alt.rush-limbaugh
3 alt.society.liberalism
1 az.general
1 sci.anthropology
12 sci.environment
1 soc.men
1 talk.bizarre
7 talk.environment
23 talk.politics.misc
An average of only three posts a day for someone who favors the
political debate groups? I don't think so.
And that is not a natural posting history. Too specialized.
It's a fragment of a posting history.
See all those 'single posts in a year on a group'? That's
often a troll backing up another one of his sockpuppets when
it's been backed into a corner.
I think that you have other aliases with which you use a real
newsreader and newsserver.
Anyway, I could be wrong, but you'll need to learn to use
a real newsreader and newsserver if you ever expect me to
read one of your articles again.
It's hardly difficult. And after reading a few dozen of your
posts in the Usenet Archives it's clear that you fancy yourself
knowledgable about technology.
Believe me, once you use a real newsreader you'll never go back
to google groups.
Unless you are a troll.
Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Heat Deaths
"environmentalism"
Alan Connor wrote:
> On uk.environment, in <1153758625....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, "john fernbach" wrote:
>
> <article not downloaded:
> http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>
> I should never have responded to one of your articles in the
> first place. As a rule, only trolls (people hiding their true
> posting history, by using multiple aliases in this case) post
> through google groups.
Actually Google groups is a great convenience which lets you browse
topics without downloading any of them first. Then you can get a
snapshot in context or review past thread comments further back than a
server might store them, if you wish, or ignore them if you wish.
Oh, and it does add a layer of insulation from harrassers, a extra
bonus.
> It is a painfully inadequate method of accessing the Usenet,
> and you are obviously an old Usenet hand:
Fernback is a lightweight idiot, much like yourself, who can barely
feed himself without poking his eye out with the fork forgetting which
organ the food goes in. You are the only person who has given Fernbach
credit for intelligence -- most think he is a windbag who can't ever
get to the point by the fadstest route. Your magnification of Fernback
says more about you than of him.
This message has three groups crossposting,
talk.environment,uk.environment,sci.environment, of which I only
subscribe to one. Google will show posts by me to the two I don't
subscribe to, even though I have never been there or posted there even
once. You decreasing respect is based on your faulty assumption that
you wrecklessly put into public.
> And that is not a natural posting history. Too specialized.
> It's a fragment of a posting history.
>
> See all those 'single posts in a year on a group'? That's
> often a troll backing up another one of his sockpuppets when
> it's been backed into a corner.
>
> I think that you have other aliases with which you use a real
> newsreader and newsserver.
>
> Anyway, I could be wrong, but you'll need to learn to use
> a real newsreader and newsserver if you ever expect me to
> read one of your articles again.
>
> It's hardly difficult. And after reading a few dozen of your
> posts in the Usenet Archives it's clear that you fancy yourself
> knowledgable about technology.
>
> Believe me, once you use a real newsreader you'll never go back
> to google groups.
>
> Unless you are a troll.
>
> Alan
Real trolls use paid connections to usenet that hide their IP and any
other personal data. Look at RayLo...@yahoo.com for an example -- you
cannot even determine which country he is posting from based on his
header information.
Fernbach is considered a troll, but one on your side. He is the "good
cop" in the "good cop, bad cop" ploy. At the end of the day, both
Fernbach and Conner will have expressed that we are helpless and the
situation is hopeless unless we are willing to make sacrifices and
compromises that give up more than half of what we would like to
defend. Conner, the "bad cop", argues that enviros are a hoax and they
should give it all up. Fernback. perpetuating habits of recurrent
surrenders, suggests we should give up some as the only way to get
some. Tag-team shilling, a two-some in the audience seeming to argue
between themselves, is a technique historically recorded in the
literature going back way more than 100 years.
Alan Connor
<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
Now why would you respond to an article like that?
Do you fancy that you have a right to tell me whose articles I
have to read?
Or is it that you are, in fact, "john fernbach"?
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Results 1 - 100 of 1,470 posts in the last year
1 alt.atheism
1 alt.autos.toyota
3 alt.conspiracy << trolls only
1 alt.culture.alaska
2 alt.energy
2 alt.fan.howard-stern
5 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh << trolls only
23 alt.global-warming
1 alt.impeach.bush
2 alt.politics
3 alt.politics.bush
1 alt.politics.greens
2 alt.politics.republicans
1 alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
1 alt.tv.pol-incorrect
1 misc.health.alternative
1 misc.kids.health
1 misc.survivalism << trolls only
1 rec.animals.wildlife
1 rec.crafts.metalworking
1 rec.pyrotechnics
1 sci.econ
1 sci.energy
1 sci.energy.hydrogen
18 sci.environment
1 sci.physics.relativity
2 sci.space.history
17 sci.space.policy
1 soc.culture.filipino
1 talk.bizarre
1 talk.environment
1 talk.politics.misc
Once again, that is too specialized of a posting history.
With too many groups that only trolls would go near.
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
john fernbach
Results 1 - 100 of 1,160 posts in the last year
1 alt.atheism
1 alt.energy
2 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
11 alt.global-warming
1 alt.magick
17 alt.politics
3 alt.politics.bush
1 alt.politics.clinton
1 alt.politics.conservative
4 alt.politics.greens
1 alt.politics.gw-bush
1 alt.politics.libertarian
4 alt.politics.republicans
2 alt.religion.islam
1 alt.rush-limbaugh
3 alt.society.liberalism
1 az.general
1 sci.anthropology
12 sci.environment
1 soc.men << didn't notice that before
trolls ONLY
1 talk.bizarre
7 talk.environment
23 talk.politics.misc
Now we are getting closer to the real posting history of
a political motormouth who can't stand to lose an argument
and doesn't have the integrity to post under a single, unique
alias.
And I notice that you don't have a posting IP in your headers.
How about that?
Trolls love NSPs that don't show their posting IP.
You needn't worry about me ever reading one of your articles.
Regardless of which alias you are hiding behind at the moment.
Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Heat Deaths
to bash "environmentalism"
In fact GOOGLE does show the IP insertion point for posts.
John Beardmore
<i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> writes
>On uk.environment, in <gXKX$N3IXD...@wookie.demon.co.uk>, "John
>Beardmore" wrote:
>
><article not downloaded:
>http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
Why do you keep going on about not downloading articles only to
speculate wildly on the opinions of the author ?
>Now why did he remove sci.environment from the newsgroups header?
Because Phil Bradshaws
<waves>
message didn't seem relevant to them. Perhaps you'd have understood if
you'd read the message ? Want to make a federal case ?
>(which I have reinstated)
That's big of you. Lucky them...
> 61:[John Beardmo]
> 15:[John Beardmo]
> 15:[John Beardmo]
>116:[John Beardmo]
> 40:[John Beardmo]
>130:[John Beardmo]
> 84:[John Beardmo]
> 41:[John Beardmo]
> 52:[John Beardmo]
>173:[John Beardmo]
>108:[John Beardmo]
>122:[John Beardmo]
> 36:[John Beardmo]
> 44:[John Beardmo]
> 70:[John Beardmo]
>
>From this thread.
So ?
You ?
>Man, can this guy run his mouth.
Where as you run what ?
>I ran into him on another group a while back and gagfiled him
>there, for sloppy reasoning and abuse and being unable to
>tell the difference between science and promotional materials
>distributed by supposed 'green companies'.
I trust you can evidence this ?
>There's no way that an intellectual-ideological bully like this
So am intellectual-ideological bully is what ?
Anyone who disagrees with you and stands up to you ?
Anyone who can explain the world better than you ?
Anyone who can explain their actions better than you ?
Anyone who uses any resources at all to save the planet ?
Anyone who uses any resources at all ?
If that's your best defence against a reasoned argument, it's pretty
sad.
>has only one alias. So you can bet he actually has more posts on
>this very recent thread than the above.
And evidence that ?
So in essence, you think I post a remarkable amount, and therefore I
must also be posting under pseudonyms ?
Presumably you conclude this where ever more than one reader of a
newsgroup thinks you're deranged and pointless ?
J/.
--
John Beardmore
john fernbach
Environmentalism should look like?
Or does it just seem that way?
---------------------------------------
I think you raised some moderately interesting points about lifestyle
changes as one route to
environmental change. And I think other points you raised were highly
debatable.
If you choose, you can now decide to break off the entire
debate/discussion by accusing me of being a "troll" if you think
that's a good idea. But I don't see why this is very interesting. And
I do think it's off-topic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Whether I'm a troll or a billy goat, and whether you are, what's really
important is what's happening to the planet, no?
And how human beings in general should respond to what's happening to
the planet.? And what the environmental movement -- in all its many
different facets -- should be working to do, so as to bring human
practice in line with environmental realities?
So I think that in terms of environmental importance, who the
mysterious "John Fernbach" is really doesn't matter much compared with
these issues listed above.
Although frankly, what you see is pretty much what you get -- a Yank, a
nervous green socialist, former libertarian, sometime environmental
journalist, sometime Christian, sometime pacifist, sometime racist, now
opponent of racism, part Jewish ancestry, part Christian upbringing,
some technical background, fairly wide reader, opponent of "kill them
all" version of population control, etc., etc.
Even though John Fernbach is not my legal name.
But quite apart from my marvelous personality, what about "honest"
environmentalism, Alan?
Regardless of whether you're a corporate troll or not. Because your
personality and mine, although they may distort or enhance our
presentations of big environmental issues, really don't matteras much
as the big environmental issues. Which are what people in this talk
group presumably want to think about.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Connor wrote:
> On uk.environment, in <1153758625....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, "john fernbach" wrote:
>
> <article not downloaded:
> http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>
> I should never have responded to one of your articles in the
> first place. As a rule, only trolls (people hiding their true
> posting history, by using multiple aliases in this case) post
> through google groups.
>
> It is a painfully inadequate method of accessing the Usenet,
> and you are obviously an old Usenet hand:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan - you started this particular message string about "Honest
Environmentalistm"; I didn't.
I actually don't know a damned thing about using the Usenet, except
through the "painfully
inadquate" method of going through Google groups. .
This is partly because I'm half Luddite. It's partly because I think
the pace of technical change has gotten to be so intense that we all
suffer from "Future Shock," as Alan Toffler has written. Which makes me
feel it's impossible to try to keep up with EVERY technological change
.. including the use of real newsreaders.
But again, I don't see what my posting usenet skills have to do with
the questions you raised in your original message.
----------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
God - I'm "unnatural" ... Oh, I am so ashamed. ouch, ouch, ouch.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I'm sure that this is a gross under-count. I'm sure I've
posted far more to many of these
groups that this list would indicate. Far more than 12 posts to "sci.
environment," far more than 23 posts to "talk.politics.misc., " et
cetera. Although I guess if you multiply each of these figures by 10
or 12, maybe the results are plausible. Anyway, who cares.
---------------------------
> See all those 'single posts in a year on a group'? That's
> often a troll backing up another one of his sockpuppets when
> it's been backed into a corner.
I don't remember just how I responded to those single posts. I think
most are cross-posts, replies to someone who posted from one of those
other groups into "talk.environment" or the other major groups I
follow. And they represent me being oinionated, usually in response to
something provocative or interesting someone else said. I don't own
any "sock puppets," actually. Prefer marionettes.
>
> I think that you have other aliases with which you use a real
> newsreader and newsserver.
------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, no. This is the alias I've stuck with for the past year or
two. But I can get some other aliases if you like. Jesus, Clark Kent,
the Compassionate Buddha, John Muir, Trotsky, Mickey Mantle, Tiger
Woods ... Madonna?
I just don't see the point, though
-----------------------------------------------
The point is, "who I am" doesn't have anything to do with the points I
made in
response to YOUR posts.
What's far more important than my secret identity [e.g. Mr. Fantastic]
is that lifestyle change is an important PART of environmentalism, and
something we all should applaud. As you, of course, have indicated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
But lifestyle change is not the ONLY path that members of the
environmental movement should be pursuing. Which I think is where
your original post was partly wrong.
----------------------------------------------------
"Hypocritical" middle class and even upper-class environmentalists who
perhaps consume a bit more of the world's resources than they should,
and who may have "bad" lifestyles, ALSO have made crucially important
contributions to safeguarding the planet --- by lobbying for
protective laws, for working to save wildlife both in the West and the
Third World, by promoting the growth of "green" businesses specializing
in new products such as PV cells, by purchasing those damned bicycles
they put on the backs of their Volvos, by taking trips to Costa Rica to
spend money on "ecotourism," and in other ways.
So shouldn't you be supporting them, Alan, and not attacking them? Or
if you must be attacking them, shouldn't you partly be supporting them
at the same time?
Because one of the best ways corporate polluters might prevail on
questions like global climate change, to take one glaring example,
would be to practice "divide and conquer" politics in the Green
movement.
Get the political lobbying groups fighting against the lifestyle
radicals, and vice versa, get the Malthusian population types fighting
against the Green social organizers working with labor groups and
low-income communities on toxic chemical issues. Get the green
socialists and green anarchists fighting against the political
liberals, moderates and conservatives ....Divide people also along
racial and religious lines -- blacks vs. whites vs. Hispanics
vs.Asians, Christians vs. Jews. vs. Muslims vs. Atheists vs. Wiccans --
we all know the drill.
If we Green types fall for these divisive tactics -- if we turn to
fighting each other rather than pressing the private sector and the
government to act on global climate change, we're going to get our
butts whipped, aren't we, Alan?
So let's not do this.
Let's not ANY of us do this. Not you, not me, not Prosecute Exxon, not
Roger Coppock or John Beardmore ... but let's remember to focus on the
problem of CO2 emissions and global climate change, and the different
ways we can do something to fix it.
"Solidarity forever ... solidarity forever ... for the union makes us
strong."
-----------------------
Another point on your vision of subsistence agriculture as the "only"
eco-pure lifestyle, Alan.
As a believer in Judeao-Christian-humanist values -- which permeate our
culture, our "intellectual environment," -- I wish to say again in
response to your posts that environmentalists MUST address the
employment and income
needs of our fellow humans on this planet.
We MUST work to ensure that in a greener, more sustainable economy, our
fellow human beings will be able to find enough paying work to survive,
and to enjoy themselves a good deal beyond merely breathing.
Otherwise,
environmentalism will go nowhere politically - and you and I may as
well have taken up some other hobby. Because the great mass of the
public will reject us, and all of our favored policies will fail.
----------------------------
To me, all these points cast some doubts on your espousal of
"non-consumption" or subsistence agriculture
as the ONLY valid choice for the "honest" environmentalist, Alan.
But that doesn't mean your lifestyle environmentalism is wrong, if
you're really pursuing it. I think your lifestyle environmentalism --
if indeed, you're pursuing it as "honest" environmentalists should --
is partly a very good thing. Maybe it's something the rest of us could
learn from. Maybe you can give us some valuable tips on practical
routes to simple, sustainable living.
------------------------------------------------
Alan, if you'd like to address these substantive points of mine --
right or wrong -- rather than speculating
about who I "really" am in disguise, I believe our debates would be
more valuable for readers. Assuming
we have any readers, of course.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Anyway, I could be wrong, but you'll need to learn to use
> a real newsreader and newsserver if you ever expect me to
> read one of your articles again.
Alan - I don't much give a damn if you read my articles.
But in fact, you are wrong about this. There are some days I'm busy at
work and don't post at all; other days I have little to do and try to
post dozens of times. Hence the odd posting averages, I suppose.
If anyone wants to tell me what a "real newsreader and newserver" is,
and how I'm supposed to use it,
I suppose I could learn. So long as it doesn't cost too much, and so
long as it doesn't take away too much time from the study of real
environmental issues -- global climage change, environmental economics,
and environmental history, for example. As with any technology, it's
important that we don't begin to worship our tools rather than using
them to do things.
John Beardmore
<i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> writes
>On uk.environment, in <slrnec81i3....@b29x3m.invalid>, "Alan
>Connor" wrote:
><snip>
>
> 90:[Thomas Lee E]
>116:[John Beardmo]
> 41:[John Beardmo]
>130:[John Beardmo]
> 70:[John Beardmo]
> 67:[john fernbac]
>
>(articles left on server)
Indeed !
But you seem to respond very enthusiastically to the presence of the
headers !
>I gave you each a chance.
Oh gee ! Thanks !
> I will not be your whipping boy.
Not at that distance anyway...
>(Assuming that those aliases don't all belong to the same
>person.)
Maybe you should engage in enough debate to find out ?
>Don't you realize that your violent abreaction to what I have
>posted could only be the result of the fact that you know that it
>is basically true?
That the environmental movement has failed to deliver a sustainable
world is uncontested.
That some things could be done better by the environmental movement is
also uncontested.
That you know of a better way is not demonstrated. Despite all your
huffing and puffing, smoke blowing and attacks on individuals, you seem
to have nothing to contribute.
You may be a depressing distraction, but you don't change the big
picture !
>I can assure that anyone else reading this thread who has
>half-a-brain does.
That's pretty damn clever given that you keep claiming not to be reading
many of the posts.
>You want to make environmentalism a political battle and a search
>for magic technologies that will keep you from having to make
>fundamental changes in your lifestyle.
Well, if you want to change life styles, you will need to sully yourself
with politics. Some technology already plays some part in making our
population more sustainable. And I have already mad a lot of changes to
my lifestyle thanks. But what would you know ? After all, you don't
read my posts do you ?
>Sorry. It isn't going to happen.
Well - we'll have to see won't we ? Unless of course you can show us
something better ??
> Technology = Industry
Well - they are kind of co-dependent...
> and guess
>what's doing more damage to the planet than anything else?
Well - clean and sustainable technology will have a net benefit.
Filthy polluting technology won't. Simple really.
>Industry. More of it is obviously counter-productive.
Well the work I do is either focussed on greening traditional
manufacturing industry, providing design advice on greener industrial
practice, or the promotion and installation of renewable energy systems.
But what would you know ? After all, you don't read my posts do you ?
>Grow your own food with human power outside your back door and
>you'll have significantly reduced your ecological footprint.
Indeed, and we are fortunate to have some space where we grow some
fruit, but I'm more interested in engineering than horticulture
personally, and most people don't even have land to grow any of their
own food these days.
>Create more mines and factories and you haven't.
Depends what they make and how they make it.
I don't think you can support a population of 10 billion by divvying up
the land and letting each person have a smallholding. Do you ?
J/.
--
John Beardmore
John Beardmore
fernbach <fernba...@yahoo.com> writes
>We can be moralistic and angry, or moralistic and self-sacrificing
>about this, I agree. And we may need to be, to fix the climate
>problems that our scientific analysis of the fossil fuel business has
>uncovered. But let's not assume that because some moral and ethical
>reform is needed, that science has no role at all in fixing what's
>broken!
Yes - there is a certain irony in that science has a role in both
causing and identifying the problems, never mind curing them !
As it is in some sense our abstraction of how nature is, turning away
from science would leave you with what exactly ?
>I think the environmental movement, in the broad sense, needs to
>respect and support the subsistence livestyle of "survivalists" and
>back-to-the-landers, on the one hand. But also combine that with
>efforts to make progress in other places where subsistence farming
>isn't going to work. There should be room in the Green movement for
>both approaches.
There should, but again it comes down to land use. Could you roll out
communities like http://www.hockerton.demon.co.uk/ globally ? Is there
enough land ? If not, it can only be a partial solution at best !
Permaculture, the 'organic movement' etc, need to address environmental
footprint and carrying capacity issues as surely as mechanised farming
and industry.
48um...@sneakemail.com
Alan Connor wrote:
> I'm an Environmentalist.
You're a C/R spammer, dipshit
>
> I want to Save the Earth!
No, you want to spam it.
>
> Errr....That is, I want to save what's _left_ of the Earth after
> me and all my friends get _our_ pieces of it.
>
After you spam the shit out of it.
> Oh. And those pieces need to be extracted and transformed into
> all the stuff I want a long way from where I live and hang out,
> and for that matter, a long way from _anywhere_ I might want to
> visit or live or work in the future.
>
> I _really_ don't want _my_ view defaced or _my_ water or air
> polluted!
Then stop polluting usenet.
Nobody is interested in the slightest bit in your C/R bullshit in
news.admin.net-abuse.email
twerp.
John Beardmore
<i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> writes
Maybe he just doesn't have the time ?
>And that is not a natural posting history. Too specialized.
>It's a fragment of a posting history.
So who's to say what's normal ?
>See all those 'single posts in a year on a group'? That's
>often a troll backing up another one of his sockpuppets when
>it's been backed into a corner.
>
>I think that you have other aliases with which you use a real
>newsreader and newsserver.
>
>Anyway, I could be wrong,
You don't say ! Hell - you could even be seriously deluded !
> but you'll need to learn to use
>a real newsreader and newsserver if you ever expect me to
>read one of your articles again.
So the technology is more important than the message then ?
>It's hardly difficult. And after reading a few dozen of your
>posts in the Usenet Archives it's clear that you fancy yourself
>knowledgable about technology.
Must be a crime.
>Believe me, once you use a real newsreader you'll never go back
>to google groups.
>
>Unless you are a troll.
WTF has that to do with it ?
J/.
--
John Beardmore
John Beardmore
<i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> writes
>On uk.environment, in <419xg.108$Eo7...@fe07.lga>, "Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote:
><article not downloaded:
>http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>
>Now why would you respond to an article like that?
>
>Do you fancy that you have a right to tell me whose articles I
>have to read?
>
>Or is it that you are, in fact, "john fernbach"?
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition !
Any yet you carry right on posting to him !
J/.
--
John Beardmore
John Beardmore
<i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> writes
>On uk.environment, in <lcYwg.2133$7C....@fe06.lga>, "Thomas Lee
>Elifritz" wrote:
>Knowing that I wouldn't be reading his article. I won't be
>anyone's whipping boy and he got his one lick in already.
You mean I asked you a question you didn't want to deal with ?
>Lot of bullies on the Usenet think that everyone is just going
>to lie down and read abusive article after abusive article from
>them.
You among them I guess !
>All such people have more than one alias. It's a form of
>cyberstalking: They are going to make you read their abuse,
>one-way-or-another.
If you post something provocative and / or apparently wrong minded, many
people will respond to your posts. One way or another...
>Bet this is 'John Beardmore'.
>
><article not downloaded:
>http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>
>Here's what an honest 'John Beardmore [et al]' would say:
You say on the basis of articles you won't download...
>I'm an Environmentalist.
>
>I want to Save the Earth!
>
>Errr....That is, I want to save what's _left_ of the Earth after
>me and all my friends get _our_ pieces of it.
>
>Oh. And those pieces need to be extracted and transformed into
>all the stuff I want a long way from where I live and hang out,
>and for that matter, a long way from _anywhere_ I might want to
>visit or live or work in the future.
>
>I _really_ don't want _my_ view defaced or _my_ water or air
>polluted!
>
>And when I take my kids (it's all those black and brown
>and yellow primitives who are causing overpopulation, after all)
>out to the Public Forests once a year, they better be nice and
>pretty and there better not be any clearcuts around!
>
>And I most certainly do not want to see or associate with any of
>those unenlightened subhumans who are trashing the planet in
>order to make all the stuff I want.
Well as I said earlier - too bad you don't know me and aren't prepared
to find out what I think.
J/.
--
John Beardmore
Phil Bradshaw
> In message <k92dnVKbCtpY817Z...@pipex.net>, Phil Bradshaw
> <philbr...@dsl.pipex.com> writes
>>John Beardmore wrote:
>
>>> If people think what I say makes sense, that's fine by me, but up to
>>> them.
>>
>><waves>
>
> Hi Phil !
>
Got yourself a live one here, huh?
'Sloppy reasoning etc.' made me laugh.
Have fun :-)
John Beardmore
>John Beardmore wrote:
>> In message <k92dnVKbCtpY817Z...@pipex.net>, Phil Bradshaw
>> <philbr...@dsl.pipex.com> writes
>>>John Beardmore wrote:
>>>> If people think what I say makes sense, that's fine by me, but up to
>>>> them.
>>>
>>><waves>
>>
>> Hi Phil !
>>
>Got yourself a live one here, huh?
Down sock-puppet !!
>'Sloppy reasoning etc.' made me laugh.
>
>Have fun :-)
Well - at least this one doesn't have a cabal, and probably not a
motorbike !
Gotta look on the bright side !
Heard from Huge recently ? Wonder what he would make of it
all ?
Phil Bradshaw
> In message <DPCdnVVVzY9exVjZ...@pipex.net>, Phil Bradshaw
> <philbr...@dsl.pipex.com> writes
>>John Beardmore wrote:
>>> In message <k92dnVKbCtpY817Z...@pipex.net>, Phil Bradshaw
>>> <philbr...@dsl.pipex.com> writes
>>>>John Beardmore wrote:
>
>>>>> If people think what I say makes sense, that's fine by me, but up to
>>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>><waves>
>>>
>>> Hi Phil !
>>>
>>Got yourself a live one here, huh?
>
> Down sock-puppet !!
LOL
>
>
>>'Sloppy reasoning etc.' made me laugh.
>>
>>Have fun :-)
>
> Well - at least this one doesn't have a cabal, and probably not a
> motorbike !
Ol' dogbreath is still going on
and on
and on....
and getting pasted for it of course.
Been quite amusing in uk.t lately.
>
> Gotta look on the bright side !
Hmm.
Like there can't be that many lunatics with buggerall between the two brain
cells?
I begin to wonder...
>
> Heard from Huge recently ? Wonder what he would make of it
> all ?
>
Still posts in uk.t sometimes. Came out with a classic put-down of Duhg
recently; absolutely right for the moment. Natch :-)
friends...@yahoo.com
Alan Connor wrote:
> On uk.environment, in <1153758625....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, "john fernbach" wrote:
>
> <article not downloaded:
> http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>
> I should never have responded to one of your articles in the
> first place. As a rule, only trolls (people hiding their true
> posting history, by using multiple aliases in this case) post
> through google groups.
be trolls or maybe some people find it useful for whatever reasons?
I'm not a troll, neither do i use multiple posting aliases so there are
exceptions to your rule.
> It is a painfully inadequate method of accessing the Usenet,
> and you are obviously an old Usenet hand:
funny that you slag it off and then use it to get info in the next part
of your post.
I use google to post, its not an ideal way of accessing usenet but it
does the trick and fits the current requirements i have.
Fod
john fernbach
I think it's obvious that there are some people in here who are
pretending to
hold opinions that they really don't. And I'm sure that to pursue
various
personal agendas, there are men in here pretending to be women, women
pretending
to be men, gays pretending to be straight, straights pretending to be
gay etc. etc.
I also strongly suspect there are rightwingers pretending to be
leftwingers
and the opposite, corporate types pretending to be greens, etc.
But is that all that's meant when the "troll" label is used? Too much
of the
time, it seems to me that we just use "troll" to insult anyone we
happen to disagree with. And I'm not sure in many cases that we can
tell the "trolls" from the honest fools/
This is my intro to saying that rather than trading accusations, I
think it would be better for the environment and the brains of the
readers if we went back to discussing the issue of what "honest"
environmentalism is -- on its merits.
I really have no use for Alan's original suggestion that mainstream
enviromentalists are simply hypocrites, and that extreme lifestyle
changes, apparently accomplished overnight, are the only "honest" way
to safeguard the planet. On the other hand, if Alan could point out
practical ways in which basically middle-class environmentalists like
myself can significantly reduce our ecological footprint by making
further lifestyle changes -- I think that's a valid project, and a
really important one. I might like to hear much more about it.
Similarly, I might be interested in John Beardmore [or if you are
actually "Satan," John Beardmore, then I guess I'm asking this of Satan
:-) ] explaining at greater length what the contributions of "Green"
engineering can be. And what the limits are to the "organic
permaculture" approach, as John sees them.
What I don't think is at all helpful is different people just screaming
insults and accusations at each other. Granted that some of us may be
"trolls," I still think when we allow environmental debates and
discussions to fall to the level of screaming matches, we simply turn
away all but the "true believers." And I can't imagine that this is
good for the planet or for the environmental movement, in any of its
different facets.
If our civilization is as dangerously out of sync with planetary
realities as both Alan and John are saying it is, which I personally
believe is the case, then we urgently need to engage the public in
thinking about the problems and fixing them, don't we?
But if we make the whole realm of environmental debate incredibly ugly,
unpleasant and confusing, we only alienate possible supporters
I can't see how anyone gains from this except the worst polluters. And
not even them, really .. since their kids will live in a thoroughly
screwed up world unless something is done SOON to fix things. So could
either Alan, or John, or both, return to writing about environmental
problems and possible environmental solutions, and not the clash of
personalities?
John Beardmore
fernbach <fernba...@yahoo.com> writes
>This is my intro to saying that rather than trading accusations, I
>think it would be better for the environment and the brains of the
>readers if we went back to discussing the issue of what "honest"
>environmentalism is -- on its merits.
I'm not sure that the idea of an 'honest environmentalist' has much
value beyond any other kind of honest person.
All approaches to all activities have their limitations, and we should
admit them freely. If you google my old posts, you'll see that I've
been quite openly critical about the limitations of many of the big
techniques in environmental science such as Life Cycle Analysis, and I
don't see this as 'letting the side down', so much as 'characterising
the range of problems to which the technique can be applied', while
acknowledging that flawed though it is, in many circumstances, LCA
remains the best tool we have, albeit only semi-quantitative. This self
critical / reflective strategy is as applicable to the making of
environmental improvements as it is to the growing of plants, education
of our children, writing poetry, playing sport etc. It is not specific
to environmental practice.
The 'sins' as far as I can see, are failing to be honest about what you
do and why, very hotly followed by never doing anything because you
can't do whatever you want to do perfectly. This applies about as much
to making music or art, as saving the world, or raising awareness of
social issues.
>I really have no use for Alan's original suggestion that mainstream
>enviromentalists are simply hypocrites, and that extreme lifestyle
>changes, apparently accomplished overnight, are the only "honest" way
>to safeguard the planet.
Good. It would force the vast bulk of the population to disavow making
any contribution to environmental progress at all, as forsaking all
consumption as Alan suggests, to a significant extent, takes you out of
society. Might work in a Buddhist community perhaps, but I don't plan
to 'get religion', change continent and migrate to another less greedy
culture, just as a means to an end...
> On the other hand, if Alan could point out
>practical ways in which basically middle-class environmentalists like
>myself can significantly reduce our ecological footprint by making
>further lifestyle changes -- I think that's a valid project, and a
>really important one. I might like to hear much more about it.
Indeed - though there is a plethora of sources beyond Alan, and at risk
of lowering the tone, I guess many of them have a clue !
>Similarly, I might be interested in John Beardmore [or if you are
>actually "Satan," John Beardmore,
I may have missed something here. Should I burn some sulphur or
something ?
> then I guess I'm asking this of Satan
>:-) ] explaining at greater length what the contributions of "Green"
>engineering can be.
Hell - that could need a long reply !
As somebody whose primary enthusiasm is renewables, it very slightly
pains me to say, that the most cost effective thing will always be to
aim for a modest (ideally sustainable !) consumption, in conjunction
with the appropriate use of passive measures, e.g. solar gain, heat
recovery, passive ventilation etc.
Next will come renewable energy technologies.
Next in the hierarchy is likely to come systems such as heat pumps that
use moderate resources to harness ambient energy that is there in
nature. Crudely, you can see these things as 'amplifiers' for whatever
energy source powers them, so if you run them off renewables, they might
be seen as using a moderate amount of [renewable] electricity, and a
larger amount of [renewable] low grade ambient heat to provide renewable
space heating etc. Capital cost is high, but running cost moderate.
Even if run from fossil energy sources, nuclear power etc, the bulk of
the thermal output will come from the renewable low grade heat.
Next down will come techniques such as co-generation where a fuel is
burned, but some of the energy released is made available as
electricity, which has a higher cash value than the thermal output.
What's more, if that electricity is used in the home, the bulk of the
electrical energy is typically released as low grade heat, so you get
two bites of at least part of the cherry.
Ultimately, we need to be able to live sustainably, and I hope in
reasonable comfort. Green engineering is no more than the tool kit we
need to make that happen, and the preceding paragraphs are no more than
a trivial gesture at identifying the approaches required. Lovins and
many others have much to contribute in terms of establishing goals and
new models for sustainable business practices, but in the mean time,
green engineering for those at the sharp end, is about making the best
of the present situation, slowing down the rate of damage, and getting
new tools available to the public and industry that are all around us.
To get a flavour of the things I'm interested in personally, see the web
sites at the end of the message. It's not that we make much money at
it, but when I get up in the morning, at least there seems to be a point
- a thing I was beginning to miss as a software engineer !
> And what the limits are to the "organic
>permaculture" approach, as John sees them.
Main things seem to be scale and time / effort. I've no more against
individuals doing permaculture than I have against their putting solar
panels on their roofs, but is there enough land for the whole world to
live this way ? Same issue applies to conventional agriculture once the
nutrients are washed away and the oil runs out. And are we willing, or
do we have time to make the effort ? Will we have a choice ??
Limitations are not just found in the 'alternative' approaches...
Similarly, I don't have a problem with organic food, but it seems to me
that it's 'farming with one hand tied behind your back', and some of the
views about the use of chemicals seem to be founded on prejudice rather
than risk assessment. But can extensive organic agriculture feed a 10
billion population sustainably ? The same question should be asked of
GM ! While acknowledging some risks from GM, maybe this is 'big
science' that we'll need ?
>If our civilization is as dangerously out of sync with planetary
>realities as both Alan and John are saying it is, which I personally
>believe is the case, then we urgently need to engage the public in
>thinking about the problems and fixing them, don't we?
Certainly, but what part should the Peoples Front of Judea play ?
Or to phrase it less pejoratively, how much can inumerate knee jerk
activism contribute to a debate which is rendered difficult enough
already, by the complex character and, to some extent at least, the
social construction of the topic itself ?
>But if we make the whole realm of environmental debate incredibly ugly,
>unpleasant and confusing, we only alienate possible supporters
Indeed, but we aren't 'putting on a show for the public' here, so much
as testing our own belief systems, and testing ideas, to see which stand
up and under what circumstances.
This isn't necessarily pretty if people want to let of steam as they go,
but it goes with the territory of 'messy / wicked problems'.
And anyway - if we all claim to agree with each other with no regard
for fact, or the social and political realities of the situation, we can
never effectively characterise, or engage with, the problems we
collectively face.
Some debate is inevitable. It is inevitable that some of it will be
'robust'. Is this our shop window or our shop floor ?
It's certainly interesting how quiet uk.environment got when all the
'inumerate knee jerk activists' wandered off for a while, and the
sensible people just shut up and got on with their lives.
So what do 'inumerate knee jerk activists' bring to the party ? Well -
for a start they make the debate, test the prevailing theories. It can
be ugly,
unpleasant and confusing, but setting aside the personal attacks and
cries of 'troll', one 'rebel without a clue' activist can trigger a far
greater flow of reasoned argument in a week, than six months of
indifferent mild consensus. This is probably why some members of u.e
remember Mr 'Natural' Bollen so fondly, even if life is too short to
want to hear from him all the time.
>I can't see how anyone gains from this except the worst polluters. And
>not even them, really .. since their kids will live in a thoroughly
>screwed up world unless something is done SOON to fix things. So could
>either Alan, or John, or both, return to writing about environmental
>problems and possible environmental solutions, and not the clash of
>personalities?
I don't think I've ever stopped addressing the environmental issues, but
at the core of this, is less a clash of personalities, than a clash of
assumptions and methodologies. If Alan and I argue, it is because we
start with different assumptions, and consider different approaches
realistic.
I'm quite happy that Alan does what he wants to do his way, but if part
of what he wants to do is turn up in a news group I read, and sound
forth allegations of a fairly personal nature while denying that he
reads my posts, I guess he can't be too surprised if the response he
gets is fairly robust and challenging, and it's hardly surprising that I
be keen to differentiate 'his kind of environmentalist' from 'my kind of
environmentalist'.
While I admire your diplomacy and instinct to find common ground in a
positive and constructive way, sometimes life seems too short, and its
not as if I don't have better things to do than lavish my time on those
that seem wilfully misguided.
Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore, B.A. (Oxon), PG Dip EDM (Open), MIOSH, AIEMA, MEI.
Managing Director, T4 Sustainability Limited. http://www.T4sLtd.co.uk/
Energy Audit, Design Advice, systems construction and installation.
Chair, Energy21 Trust board of trustees. http://www.energy21.org.uk/
Director, Bio-power UK Limited. http://www.bio-power.co.uk/
Chair, Derbyshire Alternative Technology Association.
P:0845 4561332 F:0870 0522417 M:07785 563116 Skype:t4sustainability
john fernbach
is harder for me to respond to, right off the bat, than scurrilous name
-calling .. which is a point you make below, I believe. So this is a
brief and somewhat inadequate reply.
1. I strongly agree with the point you make about the environmental
movement making no progress at all, or damned little, if it demands
that people immediately adopt perfect lives, as the "only" way to
tackle issues like global climate change.
I don't know if Alan is writing in bad faith or if he' s sincere when
he calls for massive livestyle changes as the only way forward.
But I agree with the wit, whoever he or she was, who observed that "The
perfect is the enemy of the good."
I have great respect for individuals - Buddhist monks, Amish farmers,
etc. -- who seek lives of environmental perfection. But if they demand
that everyone else enter the monastery, instantly, it isn't going to
happen.
If some trendy, intellectually shallow, and supposedly superficial
brand of Green activism can inspire 100 million people to rely more on
mass transit than cars, and to
use lower-wattage light bulbs and to turn off their computers when
they're not in use, I think that will do more for human civilization's
"CO2 footprint" than persuading 1,000 people to enter a Green monastery
where they imitate the life of St. Francis.
2. I partly agree with you and partly disagree on the subject of
organic farming, I think.
I do think that serious environmentalists should avoid making a fetish
of what's "natural" as opposed to what's "synthetic" or "artificial."
Using latex condoms or chemical birth control devices to limit the
number of offspring one has, rather than enthusiastically breeeding
like rabbits, is arguably "unnatural." But the "unnatural" behavior
here limits the impacts of population growth on the environment, and
the "natural" behavior does not. I think it's obvious which is
preferable.
On the other hand, there's a lot of evidence that chemical pesticides,
particularly, have been grossly oversold and over-used in many parts of
the world. You're familiar I imagine with the "pesticide syndrome,"
where the first application of DDT or some other chemical bug killer
has an enormous beneficial effect on agriculture.
However, the insects quickly evolve resistance to the pesticides, so
that over a period of 2 or 3 decades the pesticide that once was a
"miracle chemical" becomes virtually useless, and more and more of it
has to be applied to the fields to have an effect, and farm workers are
exposed to poisoning and the food chain is contaminated in the process.
In the case of at least some agricultural chemicals, therefore -- DDT
and several of its relatives, especially -- I think a good case can be
made that the benefits derived from them are strictly temporary. In
the long run, organic farming methods probably are preferable. But
from the little reading I've done on this, I wouldn't extend this
critique to all agricultural chemicals, or to all pesticides.
3. On GM foods - I'm torn. I can't imagine that ALL genetically
modified foods will be bad, and at any rate there's some continuity
between plant breeding, which human beings have been doing for
centuries, and some of the more high-tech approaches using gene
splicing and actual micro-tinkering with DNA.
I am worried about the possibility of "Frankenstein foods," however.
And I think it's obvious that most of capitalist industry, especially
the most technologically sophisticated branches of capitalist industry,
is perpetually at risk of what I'd call the "Socerer's Apprentice
Syndrome."
Look at the history of the modern chemical industry, and you see that
the researchers have invented something on the order of 7 million to 10
million synthetic chemicals in a span of two centuries that never were
seen before in nature. Many of these new molecules are sitting on
shelves in chemical research labs, and have never been used for much,
but a good 100,000 or so are widely used in commerce around the world.
And not surprisingly -- while thousands, maybe the vast majority of
these synthetic substances have been beneficial or at least not harmful
to humans or the natural world, a few dozen or more have proven very
destructive -- DNA and the other chlorinated hydrocarbons, the
ozone-destroying CFC family of chemicals, some of the chlorinated
industrial solvents like PERC, that are potent pollutants of
groundwater.
What force is going to keep the new genetic engineering complex from
making the same kinds of disastrous, bone-headed mistakes with new
technologies and new products that some of the chemical producers have
made already, I wonder?
Hazel Henderson argued long ago for an extensive program of "technology
assessment" to gauge the potential risks of new technologies before
they're deployed, and for about 15 years the United States Congress
heeded this excellent advice and supported an Office of Technology
Assessment to ensure that when industry develops new techniques and
products like GM foods, it will both to look before it leaps.
But the American Office of Technology Assessment has since been killed
-- by Bill Clinton, I believe it was, for some reason that probably
seemed good to him at the time. And so my impression is that we're
returning to "Sorcerer's Apprentice" mode.
Capitalist industry, in alliance with ambitious academic scientists
with the major universities, pioneers in developing totally novel new
products like GM goods as quickly as possible -- usually to attract
venture capitalists and fill promising new market niches before someone
else does -- and then we all wait back and hope that the new food
product or crop is a commercial winner. Rather than a Frankestein
monster.
I think this is insanely stupid, insanely optimistic, given the
problems that we know we've had with CFC refrigerator coolants,
chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides, Teflon coatings for cooking pans,
and a host of other "new miracle technologies."
If the world is going to rely on GM technology for its food supply,
which I'm nervous about, I think we better damned well have a very,
very good grasp on the long-term risks and benefits of the technology
before it's implemented. Not simply because industry is "greedy" and
will callously sell us technology that may kill us, but because human
beings have limited knowledge and tend to make mistakes. And if we
rush ahead with completely revolutionary new technologies, based on
science that in some cases is no more than a few decades old, we're
almost certain to make some big mistakes -- not out of greed or malice,
but out of ignorance and carelessness.
I'm running out of intellectual steam at the moment -- no morning
coffee yet! -- and may already have taken up too much space with this
reply. But I'd like to ask you whether you can share a little bit more
about the sort of environmental engineering you do.
Thanks for your reasonably brief discussion of the best ways to tackle
global climate change, at least as you see them.
Alan Connor
<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
> Subject: The DIShonest Ugly Troll Alan Conner just came to bash
> "environmentalism"
No. I am criticizing people who claim to be environmentalists who
aren't saving the Earth. Who don't live any differently than the
people they revile for being 'anti-environmental'.
These elitist psuedo-progressives are the single greatest
impediment to the formation of a _real_ environmental movement,
because they have the economic power of the multi-nationals
behind them (their 'environmental organizations' would wither and
die without the 'charitable donations' from the multi-nationals
and their employees and investors) and thus are able to use
the Media to convince the masses that they are actually doing
something to save the Earth.
Entire forests have been clearcut to produce their books,
magazines and other literature over the last 30+ years. (since
the first Earth Day), just for starters.
Their message is simple:
"Relaxe and consume. We have the Best Scientific Minds in the
World working on marvelous new technologies that will allow us to
eat our planet and have it too.
"You don't have to give up your material dreams and
super-materialistic lifestyle. Just throw your garbage in those
attractive, multi-colored plastic containers instead of those
ugly old galvanized metal cans and everything will be all right.
"And be sure to rape even more of the Earth than you used to, in
order to make the extra money that you must send to us every year
so that we can save the planet for you while you just relaxe and
consume."
Alan Connor
And may say what he wishes. I've heard it all before.
<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
The environmental movement, as it is now, is an abject failure.
It has not even managed to slow down the _rate_ at which the
destruction of the planet has been _increasing_ since the first
Earth Day.
The reason for this is simple and obvious: The
'environmentalists' are all completely dependent on the very
corporations that _must_ continue to rape the planet or they
will cease to exist.
And those corporations are dependent upon them: No conumers or
workers or investors, and a corporation simply dies. Long before
then, actually.
The only thing that will save the Earth is to leave it alone.
But _this_ civilization is _based_ upon extracting natural
resources and turning them into material things and transporting
those things all over the place.
Therefore, this civilization has to be abandoned.
If it isn't, if we don't re-write civilization from the ground
up, then 2 probable futures await us:
1. The Industrial Insfrastructure collapses because of rebellion
by the underclass and war and natural disaster brought about
by scarcity of resources and damage to envronment.
2. The population of the planet is radically reduced by war and
starvation and disease.
John Beardmore
<i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> writes
>On uk.environment, in <quOyg.8636$db....@fe03.lga>, "Thomas Lee
>Elifritz" wrote:
>And may say what he wishes. I've heard it all before.
>
><article not downloaded:
>http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>
>The environmental movement, as it is now, is an abject failure.
I'm not sure that this is true. Things could be much worse, and maybe
they would have been without it.
>It has not even managed to slow down the _rate_ at which the
>destruction of the planet has been _increasing_ since the first
>Earth Day.
I really doubt that ! And I'm sure you won't be bothering to prove or
justify your assertion.
>The reason for this is simple and obvious: The
>'environmentalists' are all completely dependent on the very
>corporations that _must_ continue to rape the planet or they
>will cease to exist.
Some are. Many aren't. Your generalisations suck...
>And those corporations are dependent upon them:
I don't think corporations do depend on environmentalists in the general
case, though increasingly they need a few to address statutory
compliance and regulatory issues.
> No conumers or
>workers or investors, and a corporation simply dies. Long before
>then, actually.
Yes - so ? Environmentalist fit into this how ?
>The only thing that will save the Earth is to leave it alone.
I'm sure the Earth will endure whatever we do. It's a huge ball of rock
after all.
>But _this_ civilization is _based_ upon extracting natural
>resources and turning them into material things and transporting
>those things all over the place.
>
>Therefore, this civilization has to be abandoned.
No. In the long run this civilisation will become sustainable one way
or the other.
Either it will manage to get a grip on consumption, or something
horribly Malthusian will follow. I'm trying to encourage the former.
>If it isn't, if we don't re-write civilization from the ground
>up, then 2 probable futures await us:
>
>1. The Industrial Insfrastructure collapses because of rebellion
> by the underclass and war and natural disaster brought about
> by scarcity of resources and damage to envronment.
>
>2. The population of the planet is radically reduced by war and
> starvation and disease.
So we are in near total agreement then when you strip out the personal
attacks and offensive language.
J/.
--
John Beardmore
Alan Connor
<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
> Subject: Re: Since you aren't reading the posts, there is no
> reason to continue responding to you.
Why? You can say what you want. You can refute what I have said.
What you can't do, and this is what really bothers you, is to
move me from the arena of facts and logic and common sense to the
arena of verbal combat.
To a virtual courtroom, where clever lawyers can convince a jury
to convict a man they know to be innocent.
Where words are used to mislead and obscure and manipulate,
rather than to arrive at the truth.
That's what you pseudo-environmentalists do (many of you actually
believing the corporate sponsored psuedo-science you parrot,
which is a big part of the problem).
That's why we have an environmental movement that focuses only
on what comes out of the tailpipe of a car, and not upon the
mines and refineries and factories and powerplants needed to
create them in the first place, and the damage done by roads:
Mining and/or refining and/or manufacturing the surfacing
materials (and transporting them) and the heavy equipment needed
to make them, and then the land that is cut at the critical
soil/surface-water level and the billions of acres that are
sterilized by the road itself.
And by parking lots and spaces and buildings used for one aspect
or another of the car culture: Show rooms and gas stations...
And the millions and millions of animals and birds that are
killed by cars every year.
And by the petroleum products that drip from cars, a typical
large city sending more such poisons into the ground and waters,
via rain or snowmelt run off, every year, than was spilled by the
Exxon-Valdez.
What comes out of the tailpipe of a car constitutes perhaps 10%
of the environmental harm done by cars.
Yet that's all you ever hear them talk about.
Because they aren't going to give up their cars.
So they aren't ever going to be real environmentalists.
There will be an Earth-friendly car just about the same time
that there is a peaceful gun.
John Beardmore
<i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> writes
>On uk.environment, in <0wQyg.7342$8W7....@fe07.lga>, "Thomas Lee
>Elifritz" wrote:
>
><article not downloaded:
>http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>> Subject: Re: Since you aren't reading the posts, there is no
>> reason to continue responding to you.
>
>Why? You can say what you want. You can refute what I have said.
Only through personal experience and drawing our own conclusions.
>What you can't do, and this is what really bothers you, is to
>move me from the arena of facts and logic and common sense to the
>arena of verbal combat.
You what ?
>To a virtual courtroom, where clever lawyers can convince a jury
>to convict a man they know to be innocent.
But we don't know you to be innocent. At best you are incorrect and
unwilling to engage with reality.
At worst, you are aiming to discredit the environmental movement rather
address any environmental problems at all.
>That's what you pseudo-environmentalists do (many of you actually
>believing the corporate sponsored psuedo-science you parrot,
>which is a big part of the problem).
You'd have to be specific before I could comment.
>That's why we have an environmental movement that focuses only
>on what comes out of the tailpipe of a car, and not upon the
>mines and refineries and factories and powerplants needed to
>create them in the first place, and the damage done by roads:
So you've never heard of methods such as Life Cycle Analysis
then ?
For somebody so willing to criticise environmentalists, you haven't
taken much trouble to research the topic !
>Mining and/or refining and/or manufacturing the surfacing
>materials (and transporting them) and the heavy equipment needed
>to make them, and then the land that is cut at the critical
>soil/surface-water level and the billions of acres that are
>sterilized by the road itself.
>
>And by parking lots and spaces and buildings used for one aspect
>or another of the car culture: Show rooms and gas stations...
>
>And the millions and millions of animals and birds that are
>killed by cars every year.
So no mention of the benefits cars bring then ?
Let's face it - if oil were more abundant and climate change non
existent, far fewer people would be objecting to vehicle use.
>And by the petroleum products that drip from cars, a typical
>large city sending more such poisons into the ground and waters,
>via rain or snowmelt run off, every year, than was spilled by the
>Exxon-Valdez.
Yes. And precisely how much harm do these do ?
Do you think people would give up their cars for this ? Do you think
you should have the right to require it of them on that basis alone ?
>What comes out of the tailpipe of a car constitutes perhaps 10%
>of the environmental harm done by cars.
Well that depends how you measure the damage, but that's down to Life
Cycle Analysis, a technique you claim not to have noticed.
>Yet that's all you ever hear them talk about.
Only if you suffer selective deafness, don't read posts from people who
have a clue etc...
>Because they aren't going to give up their cars.
>
>So they aren't ever going to be real environmentalists.
>
>There will be an Earth-friendly car just about the same time
>that there is a peaceful gun.
People may well have to give up cars in their
--
John Beardmore
Phil Bradshaw
> In message <slrnecnk8c....@b29x3m.invalid>, Alan Connor
> <i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> writes
>>On uk.environment, in <quOyg.8636$db....@fe03.lga>, "Thomas Lee
>>Elifritz" wrote:
>
>>And may say what he wishes. I've heard it all before.
>>
>><article not downloaded:
>>http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>>
>>The environmental movement, as it is now, is an abject failure.
>
> I'm not sure that this is true. Things could be much worse, and maybe
> they would have been without it.
Yes; whether individual efforts have tangible effect now (be it quietly
consuming less through to proselytising at every opportunity against Big
Corp and much else under head of 'environmentalist') the sum total in the
end will be worth the effort.
'Whatever you do will be insignificant but it is very important that you do
it.' - Mahatma Ghandi.
>
>
>>It has not even managed to slow down the _rate_ at which the
>>destruction of the planet has been _increasing_ since the first
>>Earth Day.
>
> I really doubt that ! And I'm sure you won't be bothering to prove or
> justify your assertion.
Quite.
>
>
>>The reason for this is simple and obvious: The
>>'environmentalists' are all completely dependent on the very
>>corporations that _must_ continue to rape the planet or they
>>will cease to exist.
>
> Some are. Many aren't. Your generalisations suck...
Again, quite.
>
>
>>And those corporations are dependent upon them:
>
> I don't think corporations do depend on environmentalists in the general
> case, though increasingly they need a few to address statutory
> compliance and regulatory issues.
Yes :-)
>
>
>> No conumers or
>>workers or investors, and a corporation simply dies. Long before
>>then, actually.
>
> Yes - so ? Environmentalist fit into this how ?
I'd like to see cogent reasoning in this respect; all very well to seek
demise of a behemoth or anything that may seem monstrous in its consumption
but even the 'dumb beast' has its place in the scheme of things.
>
>
>>The only thing that will save the Earth is to leave it alone.
>
> I'm sure the Earth will endure whatever we do. It's a huge ball of rock
> after all.
>
>
>>But _this_ civilization is _based_ upon extracting natural
>>resources and turning them into material things and transporting
>>those things all over the place.
>>
>>Therefore, this civilization has to be abandoned.
Go ahead then; close the door behind you.
>
> No. In the long run this civilisation will become sustainable one way
> or the other.
>
> Either it will manage to get a grip on consumption, or something
> horribly Malthusian will follow. I'm trying to encourage the former.
Preferable too for likely more lasting effect than crisis management (Beirut
for example, again) no matter how slow progress meanwhile may seem to be.
>
>
>>If it isn't, if we don't re-write civilization from the ground
>>up, then 2 probable futures await us:
>>
>>1. The Industrial Insfrastructure collapses because of rebellion
>> by the underclass and war and natural disaster brought about
>> by scarcity of resources and damage to envronment.
>>
>>2. The population of the planet is radically reduced by war and
>> starvation and disease.
>
> So we are in near total agreement then when you strip out the personal
> attacks and offensive language.
>
Strange that... <grin>
Alan Connor
<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
Now let's complete the picture of environmental destruction
caused by the automobile:
Every person that has one (or more) has to destroy a great deal
of the planet in order to make the money to pay for their car(s)
and fuel and parts and licenses, and insurance and repairs.
And for the taxes to create the road system. And pay for the
policing of them, and maintenance.
Then there's the 150,000 or so people who will be seriously
injured by them every year, requiring massive amounts of money
(which comes from the Earth) for hi-tech and low-tech medical
services.
And don't forget the environmental cost of equipping armies
with all their gear and vehicles and weapons and clothing, ad
infinitum, to make sure that the car people control the resources
they need to live the car lifestyle.
And the direct destruction those armies inflict upon the
environment.
john fernbach
the earth's resources, if you don't mind sharing that with us?
For example, I'm wondering where you get the electricity to power your
computer and gain access to the internet.
Also, are you employed earning a salary or a wage somewhere? Or are
you supporting yourself by subsistence farming?
-----------------------
Phil Bradshaw
> Alan - what are you doing in the way of reducing your consumption of
> the earth's resources, if you don't mind sharing that with us?
Same thought had occurred to me.
>
> For example, I'm wondering where you get the electricity to power your
> computer and gain access to the internet.
>
> Also, are you employed earning a salary or a wage somewhere? Or are
> you supporting yourself by subsistence farming?
>
> -----------------------
>
>
> Alan Connor wrote:
>> On uk.environment, in
>> <1154194555.3...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, "john fernbach"
>> wrote:
>>
>> <article not downloaded:
>> http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>>
>> > Subject: The DIShonest Ugly Troll Alan Conner just came to bash
>> > "environmentalism"
>>
>> No. I am criticizing people who claim to be environmentalists who
>> aren't saving the Earth. Who don't live any differently than the
>> people they revile for being 'anti-environmental'.
By whose standards though? Does actively pursuing a minimalist lifestyle in
spite of the worst of 'consumerism' all around count for nothing?
John Beardmore
<i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> writes
><article not downloaded:
>http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>
>Now let's complete the picture of environmental destruction
>caused by the automobile:
>
>Every person that has one (or more) has to destroy a great deal
>of the planet in order to make the money to pay for their car(s)
>and fuel and parts and licenses, and insurance and repairs.
Well yes, though
a) this is no different to any other hardware that brings them benefit
and
b) if they didn't spend what they earned on a car, they'd probably
spend it something else which won't benefit the environment
either.
>And for the taxes to create the road system. And pay for the
>policing of them, and maintenance.
>
>Then there's the 150,000 or so people who will be seriously
>injured by them every year, requiring massive amounts of money
>(which comes from the Earth) for hi-tech and low-tech medical
>services.
Yes - but again this is offset by the benefit that cars bring.
>And don't forget the environmental cost of equipping armies
>with all their gear and vehicles and weapons and clothing, ad
>infinitum, to make sure that the car people control the resources
>they need to live the car lifestyle.
>And the direct destruction those armies inflict upon the
>environment.
Well quite so, but armies aren't just there to support car use. When
you think about it, political movements and individuals have expressed
them selves through violence since long before Mad Max was released !
J/.
--
John Beardmore
john fernbach
Alan Connor wrote:
>
>
> Looks like the above statement really upset the local
> psuedo-progressives.
>
> That doesn't surprise me a bit.
>
> <shrug> Gives them the opportunity to do the only thing they
> ever do: Run their big mouths.
>
Run their big mouths -- unlike YOU, Alan?
But maybe that's a cheap shot.
Alan - if you're serious about lifestyle change being the only "honest"
environmentalism, do you care to testify about the lifestyle changes
that you've made yourself in the direction of consuming fewer
resources?
Maybe the rest of us could learn from your good example.
Also, do you want to recommend any guides, manuals, books of helpful
tips on how to live a better life, environmentally?
There are manuals like this out there. I have one called "50 Simple
Things You Can Do to Save the Earth," and another on specific lifestyle
changes that people can make in order to slow CO2 emissions, reduce
energy use and help to fight global climate change.
What do you think of these, Alan? Have you taken any of the advice on
offer, and if so, how well is it working?
Because if all you're doing is invoking an imaginary "purity" in order
to beat up on environmentalists that you dislike for some other reason,
that's not too helpful for the planet.
If you can point to ways individuals can reduce their ecological
footprints, cut down on their fossil fuel dependence and help save the
planet, on the other hand -- that's interesting.
Alan Connor
<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
Yeh. I know. You aren't going to make any fundamental changes in
your lifestyle, regardless.
That's not on the table.
Therefore, you are _not_ an environmentalist of any kind.
Because _you_ are one of the Enlightened Ones: There is no
possibility that _your_ lifestyle has anything to do with the
destruction of the planetary ecosystem.
If your present approach to what you call 'environmentalism'
(which amounts to nothing more, in the final analysis, than
burning incense on your altar to Father Science) fails, there's
always your country's military to make sure that the corporations
that create all of your material things retain control of the
resources and cheap labor and markets you need to go on living
as you do.
I am well acquainted with your ilk. You sit on your fat butt and
run your big mouth while people all over the world toil and trash
the planet to make your lifestyle possible, while you condemn
their activities with your words and heartily approve of them
with your actions.
You are, simply and crudely put: Clueless elitist scum. A
spoiled and mindless consumer living in the upper reaches of the
merchantile pyramid, consuming many, many times what you produce.
You know absolutely nothing about the technologies/industries
that you depend on, and you don't want to know.
And right now you are doing the only thing you know how to do:
Run your big arrogant mouth while you sit on your meat fat butt.
john fernbach
Phil - If Alan or anyone else has succeeded in pursuing a minimalist
lifestyle, I MOSTLY think that's commendable. It doesn't "count for
nothing," in my view.
However, there are at least two possible problems with Alan's
politics:
[1] One possible problem is that he's merely demanded the impossible
or near-impossible from other people. Either to make himself feel
self-rigtheous and virtuous, or else to bash mainstream
environmentalists for personal or corporate reasons -- to discredit the
main green activists without actually living a simple lifestyle
himself.
If Alan for personal reasons or from some hidden agenda is demanding
that environmentalists be "perfect" when most people can't, I think
that's simply destructive.
Especially if he's making no efforts in this direction himself.
b. Even if Alan is actually doing what he can to reduce his resource
use, and even if that's mostly a step in the right direction, I still
think "simple living" ALONE will not make this civilization
sustainable.
The reason has to do with our economic system. Capitalism as we know
it, for good and for ill, partly prospers through excess -- through
making and selling huge numbers of goods and services that people don't
really need, and promoting them through advertising -- so as to keep
working people employed and to provide profits to capitalist executives
and investors.
Whenever the public stops demanding sufficiently large quantities of
more or less unneeded goods and services -- whenever "effective demand"
is insufficient for all of the PCs, automobiles, houses, and other
goodies available in the market -- we generally have a recession or in
severe cases a depression. And large numbers of people lose their
jobs, and either go on welfare or become very poor and hungry indeed.
To create a "green" and sustainable society without causing so much
poverty that people rebel and go back to the same old polluting
behaviors, then, environmentalists must go beyond "mere" simple living
ALONE.
There has to be some kind of effort -- massive efforts by millions of
individuals, or more likely, coordinated efforts by business and/or
government -- to create new jobs and sources of income for people who
will be made redundant by a bare-bones, ecologically frugal economy.
Or the ecologically frugal economic probably can't happen, at least not
without triggering social and political chaos.
I don't mean this to be a condemnation of idealistic environmentalists,
of any social class, attempting to live frugal, ecologically
sustainable lifestyles. I'm in favor of reducing one's impacts on the
planet, generally speaking. Try to practice it to some degree myself.
And if Alan has some times on how to accomplish this --hooray for him.
But assuming that Alan's sincere and that he practices what he
preaches, there still has to be some consideration given to a "green
jobs" and "green incomes" program. Simply destroying the existing
economic system through a campaign of personal non-cooperation --
assuming this is possible -- won't be enough to create a new economic
system that will work.
And we can't realistically ask people to commit suicide, or even to
embrace great economic hardships, simply for the "sake of the earth.."
We need to offer them an attractive alternative to the status quo, or
be rejected.
Phil Bradshaw
<snip cack>
Can't hack it huh?