George Monbiot: "Environmentalists Fail to Practise What They Preach"

Discussion in 'Politics' started by clusteringflux, Mar 12, 2008.

  1. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,766
    George Monbiot, prominent enviro activist, makes an observation a few years back. Would you agree with these points?
    If so, is it worse or better today than in 2005 when it was published?

    Why or Why not?





    "Environmentalists Fail to Practise What They Preach

    Show me an environmentalist, and I will show you a hypocrite. In an interview with the Guardian recently, Chris Martin, the lead singer of Coldplay and all-round good guy, spoke of his concerns about climate change.
    On his new album there's "an intense, angry track encouraging people to make the right decisions about how they live their lives and how they treat the planet."

    A few paragraphs on, he revealed that he was about to "fly by private jet to Palm Springs ... The band can now afford to fly wherever possible". Neither Martin nor the interviewer appeared to recognise the contradiction.

    At the beginning of his "Organic Bible", Bob Flowerdew explains that organic gardening means minimising "any bad effects we may have on the environment."

    He goes on to boast that "when most people are only planting their [new potatoes] on Good Friday ... I am eating mine." How? By growing them in a heated greenhouse.

    I do not excuse myself. I rail against cars, but try to forget about the impact of the train journeys I take. I convince myself that when I fly to other countries, the work I do there somehow counteracts the effect of my carbon emissions.

    There's no environmental difference, of course, between my journey and that of the person next to me. And as for flying to my in-laws' home in Sweden ...

    But I'm not half as bad as most prominent environmentalists. I know men and women who spend their lives telling other people what not to do, but take their holidays snorkelling in the Pacific, throw their bottles and cans in the bin, eat tuna and cod. I don't know how many times I have seen that embarrassed smirk when I've asked, apple core in hand, where the compost bin is.

    In the absence of government action, environmentalism is, and always will be, for other people. At its best, it is a faltering and contradictory effort to do the right thing.

    At its worst, and especially when articulated by the elite, it is a means of securing ecological space for yourself against the competing claims of the hoi polloi.

    The environment movement in Britain and its colonies arose in part from anti-poaching efforts: game reserves were turned into nature reserves for the continued benefit of the hunting class. Will climate change campaigns now reserve airspace for pop stars?

    Nothing of any substance can happen through self-enforced abstinence. However well-meaning we are, we will overlook our own assaults on nature, while recognising other people's.

    We will persuade ourselves that we are doing the right thing by making the odd meaningless gesture, while continuing to consume as much as our credit cards allow.

    The only way in which climate change, or any other environmental impact, can be addressed is through government action: rules and taxes which apply to everyone, rather than to everyone else.

    "Consumer democracy", "voluntary simplicity" and "mindful living" have proved to be a disastrous distraction from the political battle. They don't work for all sorts of reasons, but above all because of the staggering hypocrisy of well-meaning people. If we want to change the world, we must force governments to force us to change our behaviour.

    This, of course, is the last thing they want to do. The leaked drafts of the G8's climate change agreement have placed the future in square brackets.

    The latest version refuses even to accept that climate change is taking place, let alone that anything should be done about it.

    Tony Blair is as big a hypocrite as any of us, boasting that "we have led the world in setting a bold plan and targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions", while planning an airport expansion sufficient, by itself, to cancel out all the initiatives he's launched.

    As he admits, "there is a mismatch in timing between the environmental and electoral impact". By the time the decisions he makes come home to roost, he will be writing his memoirs.

    The political cost of preventing us from spending our money as we please is high, while the political cost of letting us get on with it is low.

    Our task must be to raise the cost of the second option. We must turn the greatest threat we've ever faced into the world's foremost political issue.

    Blair was incautious enough to make climate change "a top priority for our G8 presidency". He has invited us to hold him to account if he fails to call in his political loans to George W Bush, and fails to use all the brutal tactics he has deployed elsewhere to strike a meaningful agreement. But he will listen to us only when we stop pretending that we don't need his help. "
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Those who work for such rules, and such taxes, especially those not focused on telling people how to spend their personal money, are not hypocrites then.

    Is that it ?

    Framing the whole debate around the personal hypocrisy - invented, even, where it does not exist - of celebrities and elites, is just one way of getting rid of the debate.

    It is not the "environmentalists" - the people who find their intellectual milieu in Aldo Leopold and John Muir et al two back, Bil Gilbert and Wendell Berry and Bernd Heinrich and Wes Jackson one back - who are responsible for framing the debate around the personal behaviors of celebrities and socialites.

    I could introduce Mr Monbiot to a couple of my friends, who have money, and live in a fairly large city house indistinguishable from other elites' houses, and do what other elites do, except on bicycle and by push mower and with a little roof-mounted solar water heating system that back-loads its excess capacity into the general heating system, and yes - a compost bin.

    But that would be beside the point.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I would ammend that to say rich environmentalists that jet around the world and own monstrous houses and cars are hypocrites (with the exception of Al Gore, he actually did some constructive things). It's probably guilt that made them environmentalists in the first place.

    Being environmentalist means doing everything on a smaller scale, so people without much money are more likely not to waste and pollute.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    A a New Apollo Environmentalist, I advocate for massive public change: enough talk, buy a EV or at the very least biodiesel hummer, don't just tell other people to change and change your self, show other people how they can change and get better of from it both in health and financially, then people will really want to be "environmentalist", so stop saying how global warming is going to end the world and start saying how nice it would be to drive in a EV and how much money you could safe in gas.
     
  8. Pinocchio's Hoof Pay the Devil, or else.......£ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    None of us are saints and none of us can claim infallablity unless they have missed their meds.
    Even though I am not perfect I try, Enviromentalism is something which I have only recently started to take seriously. Which has come about through delving into the murky depth's of the "Disease called America" yet, BROTHER'S we are all biologicaly the same but some more duped than others, Just as I see religion having no place in "Human existance" neither does any belief outside the primary goal of survival including mine.

    Anybody who listen's to people who, make a living by getting people to listen to them (And they will lean which everway the money roll's) , needs to check the equation.

    You mentioned (clusteringflux) "absence of government action" the other alternative which some deaf governments have learnt is through agressive action as it truly speaks louder than word's, bureaucracy is designed to delay indefinatly (by the time it comes about its too late).

    The political cost of war is all that bothers the govenment's at the moment?
    mucho wonga padre.

    With your mention of political action I ask you.
    How can we deal with the warmongers that threaten our existance, How do you deal with those that's outlook on life revolves around a financial cycle whose only beneficiant is themselves.
    Is politics dead....has it run its course......look at zimbabwe how far can a government go before the people turn for their own survival.

    Blair was a "FOOL" 1996 the sun printed "A BLAIR NEW WORLD" mmmuaahahah pull my chods, Blair was an american puppet. Like big bird only less educational.(even thoough bb it was canadian)

    If you have a solution I would listen if you think those who you will plead to listen have either interest or ears,:scratchin: I would Question your judgement.
    if you think you will find progression in something so corrupted , you will only progress corruption.

    If we all do our bit at least we do something
     
  9. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    I fail to see how we are going to stop emitting all this carbon dioxide while the planet is adding 100s of millions and soon BILLIONS more people. It's impossible. The only way this planet is going to be anywhere close to carbon neutral is if a pandemic wipes 90% of the human species off it.
     
  10. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Easy. First it is possible to be carbon neutral even carbon negative with a combination of electrification and biomass to materials, throw in some CO2 sinks like control algae blooms, limestone production from sea water and electricity, or controlled aerosol production and then stop using coal, oil and NG, and unsustainable agriculture. Alternative you could just adapt to global warming which we will have to do anyways.

    Next step involve knowing a little trivia: Did you know that First World Countries have low or even negative birth rates: Once people have high standards of living they stop breeding like rabbits, so get everyone up to high standards of living! This might sound like a lofty goal but its better then the alternatives (building gas chambers and ki/eer humanly euthanizing billions of people)

    Last is the the coming technological singularity: barring any world wide disaster which regresses civilization we will eventually reach a technological ability to become transhuman. Transhumans are immortal, needing neither water, nor food, nor air, nor even free space, completely free of the limits of the meat bag nature of the human body and the limits of the talking monkey human mind, people will leave the this putrid mud ball of a planet for clean and limitless space, leaving the earth once again to nature.
     
  11. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,766
    Keep banning discoveries like DDT.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Pinocchio's Hoof Pay the Devil, or else.......£ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    GROWTH CONTROL..... the lisencing of child birth would balance out the pop' with relation to resources in 100 yrs without having to kill anyone?
     
  13. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Like I said you don't need to eve go that far, just bring up everyone standard of living and they will stop breeding all on their own.
     
  14. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,766
    You folks are proving the theory that evironmentalists are more interested in population control than anything else. When it comes to this topic, can we not also say that change starts with oneself.
    Funny how quickly we can jump from "I can do better" to "without so many people, I wouldn't have to try as hard".
    Now, hurry and try to justify stripping a woman of her right to have children with "it's for her own good,and the good of the world".
    You believe in gods and you believe you are those gods. Good luck with that.
     
  15. Pinocchio's Hoof Pay the Devil, or else.......£ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    It's nothing to do with stripping women of their right to child birth more making sure people who want them can afford and support them.
    women can still have children, just not 15 kids and live on welfare, if you can't afford it don't have it

    The poulation doubles every 35 years..............pre-industrial revolution it doubled every 1,700 years.............just after the ind'revolution it double every 200 years.................so it is the rate that is the issue as it causes the amount.
    so if you want to act there are surely various factors that could be put in place. from this moment in time you have about 35-40 years till your ideas would be outdated why,? because the pop would have doubled and the need for action will be greater and more drastic.

    As an enviromentalist what do you suggest that could have immediate effect ,this could solve part of the problem in 100 yrs , if you do nothing in that time you will have 50 billion + people on your hands....?

    And I don't believe in Gods.................just man
     
  16. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,766
    Some perspective: Every man women and child in the USA could easily stand in a corner of the smallest continental state Rhode Island.
    Rhode Island occupies under .0005 of the land area in the Continental USA.

    I'm hardly worried....And I would encourage those who are worried to start with themselves and not encroach on others.
     
  17. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    I don't think people disagree with starting with them selves, but changing your self might do nothing at getting everyone else to change. The focus should be on changing everyone, including your self.
     
  18. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    No, you're worried about the environmentalists. Oddly, of all the players out there, you see them as having enough power to hurt you.
     
  19. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,766
    Let me help you with the math. The USA population could increase 8000 times and we wouldn't be standing on each others feet.
    Don't have kids, Great. Steralize yourself, fine. Stay the fuck away from MY rights.
     
  20. Pinocchio's Hoof Pay the Devil, or else.......£ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    so what do you suggest..........?

    If they all stand there..... what if you need a leak..? bit unsanitary, feel sorry for the dude in front of you...ever tried to make your way to a toilet at a gig with 301 million,:bugeye:

    So what do you suggest you started with trying to get politics to hear you, yet, politics only has a face bush,blair,brown,bullsh*t. Politics has no ears, only beuracray. The polititians incompetence to deal with real issues to humanity over the interest in finance is an error without forgiveness, without second chance.

    "Tomorrow will not forgive us for today, we can only learn for yesterday"

    I suggest to all do our bit is a start (many bits make a whole...blah blah), to mock for doing a bit because it is not more, is :crazy::shrug:

    What can you envisage for the enviromental certainty of humanity's future without politics? Is all opinion outside politics irrelevent outside the political arena.......

    What do you suggest?
    Do you need power? control? understanding? co-operation? the clock's ticking when the facts, figures were printed in 1970 the pop was 3.6 billion, it wasn't far off what's the pop (tik tok tik tok) now? what will it be in 2040 (tik tok tik tok). Words promote action, words with no action.....
     
  21. Pinocchio's Hoof Pay the Devil, or else.......£ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    Who's on about sterilization that's a bit of a negative.... it means you have denounced the possibility "of birth control" with absolutly no knowledge behind "birth control"....if you want 15 kids with no means of supporting then then you are ticking the p*ss........if you want 1 or 2 kids and are financialy secure, and the area can accomadate(pre-planning) whats the prob.??
     
  22. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,766
    I elect you to go to the ME and show Haji and his four wives how to use a rubber.
     
  23. Pinocchio's Hoof Pay the Devil, or else.......£ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    But if power had been given to the right people. And you had a mediator to speak to leaders with influence on religious edict through modern meditation instead of ignorance, demands, dirty tactics surely would give a more reasonable outcome.........Oh but the west has its own religious edict's enforced so the rationality in the fact that we are all different has no meaning............?
     

Share This Page