BLOG LIFESUPPORT NEEDED!
Posted by: rational
| 04 Jun 09 | 9 comments
Wow. You’d think with the planet falling apart and all, more people would be more interested in commenting. There are rarely more than a handful of comments on the staff blogs, and the measly Member Blogs never draw more than one or two responses. The Greenpeace Blogoshpere appears to be pretty darned weak! What do you say?
Could it be that the green-bubble has burst? I know I’ll be shunned as a heretic for this, but here’s a well-written article that presents that possibility… Are we open minded enough to consider it? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/04/green_with_guilt_96828.html
(If the link is censored, Google: George Will green with guilt) Recent Posts
Comments (9)
Leave a comment
You must have a Greenpeace or Facebook account and be logged in to post comments.
Please log in
or create an account to share your comments
or connect with facebook:
About Me
rational
Logic & reason, mixed with a healthy portion of fun, from the heart of fly-over country. Architect & writer: "Climate change is real, and so is the misguided effort of those who think we can prevent it. Sustainability is a worthy goal... let's go there the right way."
Invite rational to
Your Personal Activist Network
I found the point about the Prius, most supportive of this.
People must see that this green society that is grown over the last decade or so is a life-style built on the foundation of environmental awareness.
The great activist of the 60 and 70s would be ashamed. I think that thought we have the technology, the environmental movement is still grassroots.
here's a few links to counterbalance the article you sent around, let's see if you're open-minded enough to read them:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/9/111716/2550
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/19/2437/56076
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/26/11102/0505
i did read the article you linked to, and i have to say, using a cartoon as your chief evidence that the "green bubble" has burst is pretty weak. and anyway, what matter if some "green bubble" has burst? environmentalism as a fad has come and gone before. all fads come and go. that has absolutely no bearing on the urgency of the environmental crises we're facing today.
global warming is a reality. deforestation is a reality. eco-injustice is a reality. no bubble inflating and subsequently bursting changes that, just as it doesn't change the dedication of the people at Greenpeace and countless other organizations who are working to build a sustainable future for our grandchildren to live in.
Will also cites Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, and that carries more weight than a cartoon, to be sure. but Wills' use of them is specious at best. Will is trying to support his contention that "greenness" will always only amount to a fad, because George Will is fundamentally a global warming denier.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/where_theres_a_george_will_theres_a_way_to_deny_gl.php
unlike George Will, Nordhaus and Shellenberger are offering nuanced critiques of the modern environmental movement with the hope of making it more effective. they aren't arguing against environmentalism, per se, as George Will probably would if he were a more intellectually honest man.
Nordhaus and Shellenberger are arguing against "utopian environmentalism":
"The idea that a common connection to nature might allow us to overcome our divisions and transcend the essential messiness of politics is an idea that is as old as it is fantastical. Politics will always involve conflict, contradiction, and compromise. Fashioning a way forward will require us to frankly acknowledge our different interests as well as our common interests. While utopianism has a bright side--it is a way of imagining a better world--it also has a dark side characterized by escapism and a disengagement from reality that marks all bubbles, green or financial."
i think Shellenberger and Nordhaus make some excellent points that the environmental movement may do well to heed. but again, i ask: so what if some imaginary "green bubble" has burst?
Thank you for the three countering opinions (I suggest other bloggers read them too)…
1) Eugene Robinson’s complaint against George Will was about another subject, not “Green Guilt.” (And Eugene seems to have chip on his shoulder, doesn’t he?)
2) Your second reference is so objective it calls George Will “such an ass.” Now THAT sets an objective foundation for criticism of the point! Again, the author is countering another subject (biking to work), not “Green Guilt.”
3) Jed Lewison is making fun of George Will’s example of McDonalds sales as an economic indicator… Whoa, now THAT’S germane to the subject at hand.
We could continue to roll out our list of sources that counter each other’s points, but that would be futile. You concede that environmentalism fads come and go, but that it has nothing to do with the environmental crisis we face today. Bubble inflating and deflating DOES have a bearing because those are bubbles of perception, and as far as the “masses” are concerned perception is reality. Perception is the only currency Greenpeace uses. I do applaud your mission to create a more sustainable future for our grandchildren and don’t mean to impugn your dedication and passion for the cause… I do think your methods are ineffective and have created the general perception that Greenpeace is just a bunch of whackos with too much money. (I have an image of inflatable boats full of college students and banners circling my house…)
You do have a habit of tagging anyone that asks probing questions “a denier.” It’s your way of brushing off the problem altogether, and avoiding an open-minded exploration of criticism. Personally I don’t deny that global warming is happening, but I do question why it is necessarily “bad,” and I do deny that human activity is the primary cause. I guess I didn’t know that “eco-injustice” was in your agenda, and really don’t understand the subject. I’m sure that you can convince me that it’s a crisis approaching catastrophic disaster of some kind or another…
You very adroitly stated that “Fashioning a way forward will require us to frankly acknowledge our different interests as well as our common interests.” Good thought! I think that sustainability is an admirable goal… and I think peace between Arabs and Jews is an admirable goal. Not impossible to achieve, but a rocky road.
We can also agree that Nordhaus and Shellenberger make some very good points. They aren’t radical enough for you, but they will provide a pragmatism that might slow the deflation of the green bubble. The bursting of the green bubble gives me hope that society is smarter than I thought…
you can't honestly believe anyone buys into this whole pretense to "open-mindedness," can you?
i mean it is abundantly clear you have your mind entirely made up already. check out my comment on your latest screed which i notice, like all your posts, are not backed up whatsoever with any actual links to real research or data.
you said: "You do have a habit of tagging anyone that asks probing questions “a denier.” It’s your way of brushing off the problem altogether, and avoiding an open-minded exploration of criticism."
hmm, projecting much? because it seems to me that's exactly what you do with your bogus claims of open-mindedness. simply saying you're open-minded is not enough, you do realize that, right? it's an actual state of intellectual curiosity which you do not display whatsoever.
couple of cases in point:
you said "I do think your methods are ineffective and have created the general perception that Greenpeace is just a bunch of whackos with too much money."
see this is just a lame rhetorical trick. you pretend to respect what GP does, then attribute your actual opinion to "general perception." i'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were trying to be civil and it wasn't simply that you didn't have the guts to come out and say it, but it's obvious this is your opinion: you think an organization with millions of members worldwide, an organization active in over 40 countries, is all easily categorizable with one pejorative term. very open-minded of you!
also, just to point out the obvious: if we're so ineffective, what the hell are you doing wasting your time blogging on our site? surely there are better venues for your climate denial proselytizing.
that brings me to my next point: i call George Will a climate denier because that's what he is. i would call you the same thing, based on this cognitive dissonance in written form:
"Personally I don’t deny that global warming is happening, but I do question why it is necessarily “bad,” and I do deny that human activity is the primary cause."
Um, that is the same as denying global warming, dude. If you're not using the term to mean "Anthropogenic Global Warming," then you really need to specify that, cuz the debate is not about natural fluctuations in global temperatures, but the unnatural rise in global temperatures we've been seeing for the past few decades. I mean hell, even the Bush Administration was finally forced to admit that global warming is real and humans are causing it.
Also, you're trying to revive the many, many times debunked denier claim that "Increased temperatures will be good for agriculture, etc." with your notion that it is not inherently bad. again, show me some data. like I said, this claim has been debunked many times.
Regarding the wasting of my time, you’re right! It’s the economy. Until things pick up I literally don’t have anything better to do, and this is fun. Actually I was curious about the intellect level of the average Greenpeace site visitor/user, and I’ve confirmed that most are too dream-infused to be taken seriously. No touch with reality… No threat to the cosmic order. Me, I’m a troll. And you? Well it’s obvious you can write… but I wouldn’t put you up there with the great scientists. (Pretty good gig you’ve got there Mike! I bet you’re making lots more than your peers outside the big corporate machine.)
You don’t have to worry about me spoiling your blogosphere because you’ve only got a handful of visitors. Be patient, I’ll have to go away as soon as the economy turns, or sooner if I recognize the futility of my ways. (Analogous to little inflatable boats getting their picture taken in front of nasty whaling ships?)
I have to agree with you that Greenpeace is quite the successful business. (I guess you agreed with my statement “whackos with too much money.”) You’ve arrived at the big corporate trough… pulling in millions of dollars and getting your action pictures in the newspapers a couple times a year. Protesting shoe manufacturers… now that’s what I call productive. Keep up the good work.
Cognitive dissonance? Okay. That’s like me calling you intellectually dishonest for dodging every one of my concept questions. Do you deny that there are any good benefits of global warming? If so, then just say so! No big deal. That will just expose your scientific blindness. But I don’t think anyone really thinks Greenpeace has 20/20 vision, so no damage done.
It’s a free country. If I’m a troll, then you’re a myopic wonk. I can live with that. I’m not nearly as open-minded as I was presenting. Touché. But I guess I can’t say the same about you because there’s never been the pretense of open-mindedness on your side.
You said it dude: “Even the Bush Administration was FORCED to admit global warming was real and humans were causing it.” Big accomplishment for those doing the forcing… sad day for those with the twisted arms.
Regarding the positive aspects of global warming, debunk these: (Try to stay on subject this time Mike.)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoQuestionsAnswers.html
After I debunk your debunking, let’s agree to keep it one-on-one, okay? (Hey blogoshpere, what do you want to bet this post doesn’t receive a reply?)