greentara wrote:kim, Thanks I know all about Rachel Carson and the Tree sitter in Tasmania.
greentara wrote:The moment you raise your voice against the banks and the big end of town, they'll shut you down very fast!
Not true - or only about 5% true, anyway (unless you live in China, Iran or under a similarly repressive regime - and even there, people get away with quite a lot). In places like Australia, Europe and the US, fringe groups are tolerated even when some of their actions are perhaps illegal, and genuine dissent from people with a stake in the issue is generally given a hearing. In time, the fringe groups become mainstream if they attract enough support - for instance, our Greens party, now with members in federal and some state parliaments, began as a group of radical greenies getting themselves arrested for chaining themselves to bulldozers in the Tasmanian wilderness. As for the gentler side of affirmative environmental action, it is positively celebrated - Landcare and so on are given government grants for community engagement programmes.
greentara wrote:Huseng is spot on "still need to ask India, China and Indonesia among other up and coming nations to do the same, which is politically infeasible because stability depends on industrialization and the elites maintain their positions by pushing economic growth."
I don't think Huseng is 'spot on' at all with that claim. That's the second time he has made it but he hasn't presented any evidence for it and I haven't seen any evidence anywhere else. I think he - and you, in turn - have swallowed a narrative that is designed to inhibit any action. You are not the only ones, and I am not the only one to speak against it, as you will see from this bit of discussion on RealClimate:
RealClimate wrote:Superman1 wrote: “To dodge the major impending climate catastrophe that we project today, harsh restrictions on energy use by all global citizens will be required”
That is just plain false.
Photovoltaic panels installed on all the flat commercial rooftops in the USA would generate more electricity than all the nuclear power plants in the country. Concentrating solar thermal power plants on just five percent of the USA’s deserts would generate more electricity than the entire country uses. The same is true of the wind energy resources of just four midwestern states.
And those examples represent just a small fraction of the USA’s vast solar and wind energy resources. According to a study by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, “At least three-fifths of the fifty states could meet all their internal electricity needs from renewable energy generated inside their borders.”
The fact is that we have abundant, endless sources of energy, and we have the mature and powerful technologies needed to harvest those sources, and those technologies are getting more powerful and less expensive every day.
Moreover, because we waste so much energy, we have an enormous opportunity to get more utility out of the energy we consume simply by implementing the most obvious and lowest-cost efficiency measures.
I don’t know why you insist on pretending otherwise. Frankly, your comments often read like coal industry propaganda of the sort designed to discourage people from supporting action to reduce emissions by scaring them with “if we stop burning coal we’ll all have to shiver in the dark and live in caves” alarmism.
Comment by SecularAnimist
(From the Comments to http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/11/climatedialogue-exploring-different-views-on-climate-change/
Finally, you said, "You can be scared, angry or both but you still have to be realistic about what can really be done regarding the exploitation and degradation of the environment."
I'm neither scared nor angry but I believe I am still realistic - and I have chosen
to act as best I can within my (self-determined) limits. Letting myself be bluffed into doing nothing is as bad for my fellow sentient beings as not caring in the first place, and I think doing nothing while the world walks off an environmental cliff is as unethical as letting a blind man step off the footpath in front of a bus.