|
|
Post by Stephen on May 16, 2017 7:48:25 GMT
Might be interesting discussing the green/environmentalist movement
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on May 16, 2017 8:32:13 GMT
I have never paid that much attention to it, not being of a scientific mindset, but I have two thoughts:
1) It would seem to be a highly conservative cause. Conserving nature and putting curbs on human excess is as conservative as anything.
2) I can understand how it might sometimes be a front for anti-natalism and supranationalism, and indeed this seems often to be the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on May 16, 2017 12:27:12 GMT
I am personally against the green/environmentalist movement in general as it is anti-Human. I would like to see a Green conservative movement.
Climate change happens and always has. I reject so much of what is said about fossil fuels/nuclear/hydroelectric power. I personally wish to grow my own food, plant native trees and not to pollute.
|
|
|
|
Post by bryanreynolds on May 18, 2017 12:10:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bryanreynolds on May 18, 2017 12:11:17 GMT
I agree, it's a traditional conservative issue!
|
|
|
|
Post by ClassicalRepublican on May 18, 2017 12:22:59 GMT
The Green parties of Sweden and Germany have been infiltrated by The Muslim Brotherhood. It's hard not to notice similar with the Irish Greens when you see them at the forefront of the Ibrahim Halawa campaigns.
|
|
Seáinín Mac Brádaigh
Guest
|
Post by Seáinín Mac Brádaigh on May 23, 2017 18:08:16 GMT
The Environmentalist issue isn't left or right, or at least it shouldn't be. The movement is now generally dominated by leftists, progressives and hippies but that really shouldn't be the case.
I proudly describe myself as an environmentalist. While I may have doubts about the exact nature and scale of human induced climate change, I do believe in it.
Taken from a religious point of view, environmentalism is, excuse the pun, only natural. God made man a steward of creation and like all stewards, we are to be good and responsible ones. Likewise, from a conservative or nationalist point of view, caring for the environment is only to be expected as it is the physical manifestation of the nation and of our patrimony. To wilfully, or even wittingly destroy that is a direct contravening of that ideal.
Likewise, many aspects of the Green movement help, rather than hinder, traditionalist or toryist ideals. The restoration of the rural environment, greater self reliance on a personal, communal and national basis, the restoration or revival of an agrarian lifestyle, the breaking up of huge mega corporations monopolies on resources such as food, fuel and water are all ideals that many conservatives aspire or dream of.
So yeah, the Environment and the Green Movement should be reassumed by conservatives and nationalists, in my opinion anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on May 23, 2017 19:49:53 GMT
Very well put, Seánín. I completely agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on May 26, 2017 7:36:23 GMT
I am personally against the green/environmentalist movement in general as it is anti-Human. I would like to see a Green conservative movement. Climate change happens and always has. I reject so much of what is said about fossil fuels/nuclear/hydroelectric power. I personally wish to grow my own food, plant native trees and not to pollute. I am not a scientist, and suspect you know much more science than I do, Stephen! Still, I do trust the near-consensus on fossil fuels and global warming. But I fully agree with you that the Green movement has become "anti-human" in so many, many ways. Yes a "Green conservative movement" is terribly needed and I tried in my big book to encourage this. I am so slow typing ... I think I will take the easy way out and quote myself a little, where I also speak about this in relation to the integral Catholic culture Ireland once had: Pg 427 Cor Jesu Sacratissimum - bolding and paragraphs broken down for easier screen consumption ... |
|
|
|
Post by seangladium on Jun 5, 2017 6:24:32 GMT
I have a background in atmospheric science, so I am very interested in the current debate/research on climate change. The climate is always and has always been in a state of flux. It is true that humans have affected our environment; however, I am not yet convinced that this change has significantly altered the climate by itself. I am also not sure we can currently measure it against the natural variation within the climate. The greatest long term driver of climate is the sun and variations in the Earth's orbit around it (Milankovitch Cycles). I have noticed that carbon levels in the atmosphere appear to follow the temperature in the past rather than seeming to lead it (probably mostly due to the carbon sinks in the ocean which are temperature dependent). Although it is a greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide is still a very small percentage of the atmosphere. The greatest greenhouse gas is water vapor, and this is the hardest to model properly due to its highly variable quantity and location. If the Earth warms a bit this might actually be beneficial if the growing season is lengthened and greater carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is good for agriculture. I think a mitigation strategy is the only possible way forward as the cost to the poor and the economy would be too great for draconian energy cuts. Due to their dependency on the sun, renewable energy from wind and solar will never be able to replace other sources of more compact, economical sources like coal or gas. I think nuclear energy is the only realistic alternative to fossil fuel sources especially liquid fluoride thorium reactors as they are safer than conventional light water reactors currently in use for power production.
|
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Apr 30, 2018 2:19:37 GMT
Might be interesting discussing the green/environmentalist movement A Professor George Church (can't get over the name) reportedly spoke at a Vatican-hosted medical(!)conference about his plan to genetically engineered super-elephants using 44 preserved woolly mammoth genes. You COULDN'T make this up! He claims it will give them ability to live in a wider range, eat a wider range of vegetation and will save them from poaching as, somehow, they'll grow smaller tusks (in any pictures that I've seen of mammoths the tusks are actually quite impressive). Unlike some of the people who have commented in this section I can make no claim of a background in science. But, despite being all on for conservation, one can't help doubting that the whole thing would end in disaster, most likely for the elephants-remember Dolly the sheep , crippled with arthritis, dying at a young age? As a layman in these things,I would fear a huge stuff-up, resulting in total extinction. And it's actually not unlike what has been done through the centuries already through good old-fashioned cross-breeding resulting in pure-breeds being extinct or extremely rare. And if it IS successful? Resilient elephants expanding their range- the prospect of an environmental disaster for what's left of Europe's and other places' ecosystems? Reports don't mention if Vatican medals were awarded after. |
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Apr 30, 2018 6:50:52 GMT
Interesting topic! I´ve "always" been tied to this idea but unfortunately without any knowledge in any sciences related. By instinct, more or less, opposed to nuclear power, but somehow more because of the fatal risks and the risks involved in any human (or human-generated..!) administration of it. Can´t wait for the major Conservative parties everywhere to practically get hold of the whole thing and making a Green Economy/Green industry independently from the left. (In Swedish politics I didn´t know about the Green party but their ally, or previous ally, the Social Democrat party´s "christian branch" has been reported as having, even in an offical or semi-official way, chosen the Muslim Brotherhood as their partner in pursuing something for society. It wasn´t stated as partner-in-crime though!)
|
|
|
|
Post by unfortunately on Apr 30, 2018 19:53:11 GMT
Early in the last century the original environmental movement was seen as representing right wing interests. It was large land owning aristocrats who wanted to protect their estates and who opposed mainly left wing drives to build housing, infrastructure, power plants etc for the masses.
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on May 2, 2018 12:04:32 GMT
There seems to be an ancient venerable link between conservatism and a preference for an idealised rural environment under threat from industrialised urbanism.
Apart from the examples already mentioned the Roman Poet Virgil praises rural life and values in his Ecologues and Georgics over 2000 years ago. The authors of Genesis going back even further see the fall of mankind as linked to our expulsion from the idyll of Eden , the rupture with nature and the rise of the first cities.
Like many modern progressive movements environmentism seems to a updated or more often a heretical form of a very old idea
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on May 2, 2018 13:07:33 GMT
It's one of the few subjects on which I don't really have an opinion. My conservative instincts are also conservationist instincts, but I don't understand the science involved.
|
|
