“Was not their mistake once more bred of the life of slavery that they had been living?—a life which was always looking upon everything, except mankind, animate and inanimate—‘nature,’ as people used to call it—as one thing, and mankind as another, it was natural to people thinking in this way, that they should try to make ‘nature’ their slave, since they thought ‘nature’ was something outside them” — William Morris

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

The Death of the Death of Environmentalism

I was disturbed as ever by this editorial by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger in today's LA Times.

Greens and Democrats are toast, say they, because we didn't argue for cheaper energy through new technology. Instead, we expected things to move via more expensive gasoline and emissions capping. The “Green Bubble” has burst.

Only in their heads I'm pleased to report.

Did I hear anyone Green or Democrat arguing against cheaper alternative energy? Thought not.

And since when did scientific truth become a reason to shy away from Green action just because it wasn't tasteful or popular? N and S are claiming that we shouldn't have moved on Green policy because “people” were less into global warming than “we” thought.

Imagine N and S writing an editorial just before slavery was abolished. Slavery shouldn't be abolished, they write, because people are less into abolition than the Washington "elites" think.

The more I read them, the more N and S come across as zombies programmed by the right.

Either that, or they're deliberately messing things around. Which is worse?

No comments: