ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

stumeade said 09/16, 04:58 AM
The failure of communism to really catch on in the U.S. has resulted in the Green movement becoming the anti-capitalism vehicle of choice. That the well-intentioned masses don't realize the extent to which they are being used doesn't mean that they aren't being used.

As to the charge of "catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming," who are we to say that our current global temperatures are optimum? The Earth's average temperature is historically warmer than it is now. The cycles are predictable and run about 1500 years. If we were to predict any temp change based on these cycles, we would predict global warming.

While I agree that we should avail ourselves of every means by which to extract the U.S. from our foreign-oil dependence, I do so in order to keep more of our domestic assets working in a capitalistic manner to further advance the economic might of the U.S.

Drill down through the Green movement's propaganda, suggest capitalist-friendly solutions, and observe the resistance you encounter.

It's not surprising to me that you haven't connected the Greens with anti-capitalists. That's what they're counting on.

stumeade said 09/17, 01:39 AM
I haven't said that the Green movement is communistic, just that it tends to work in the same direction. I don't know to what extent there is active support. My concern is that there is a common thread in both camps that favors government control and onerous taxation of capitalistic endeavors. The Green proposals favor the subordination of industry to an unproven theory.

As far as overwhelming support from the scientific community goes, so what? Science doesn't require popular support. Rather, the scientific method requires challenges from its ranks. This is the only way in which science advances.

Again, by what authority do you assert that our current global temperatures are optimum? For the majority of the Earth's existence, temperatures have tended to be warmer than now.

I don't think that alternative energy development and capitalistic advancement are mutually exclusive. I do think, however, that the Green movement resists capitalistic-friendly solutions, when there are available other solutions that will also slow the economic motor of the U.S. Try suggesting nuclear energy development to them, and see how they react.

stumeade said 09/19, 02:17 AM
I have no major beef with those who wish to conserve for its own sake. It is actually the point with which I am most sympathetic with the left. My problem with the Green movement lies with the need to exaggerate the threat and to overstate the case. There is no evidence to support the claim that our current global temperatures are optimal. Yet we still have to contend with policy proposals that assume life on Earth is doomed if we don't do everything in our power to maintain current global temperatures. The proposed solutions always involve onerous restrictions on capitalistic industry.

Incidentally, criticism of the Green movement isn't tantamount to supporting a subsidized oil industry.

Given the lack of evidentiary support for impeding such industry, and the absence of proof that free-market alternative solutions aren't mutually exclusive of extant endeavors, why then are Greens so determined to enact only those laws that provide impediments to existing commerce?

In other words, if the Green movement isn't anti-capitalist, by what means can we tell the difference? What specific proposal of theirs can you identify that is decidedly in favor of free-market capitalism?