Why is environmentalism considered to be a left-wing issue?

Why is environmentalism considered to be a left-wing issue?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=BpBnJq19R60
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168583X08001031
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Smuts#Holism_and_related_academic_work
m.phys.org/news/2017-01-renewables-paris-climate-goals.html
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html
theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Because they are tards

The left-right spectrum is completely useless and garbage. We would be better off if we got rid of it altogether. The real divide these days is globalism and nationalism

Environmentalism = I'm a degenerate wastrel that drinks $7 coffee so I planted this tree to make up for it.

Save the planet, kill a Liberal.

Something easy to get grant money for.
Most lefties are in/working at a university.

>The term "ecology" was invented in Germany in the nineteenth Century by the pioneering zoologist Ernst Haeckel. Via his widely influential writings and lectures, Haeckel elaborated a holistic view of man's symbiotic relationship with the natural world. To Haeckel, and those who followed his philosophy of "Monism", natural laws governed the workings of the natural worldandhuman civilization alike. Haeckel and others of his philosophical school taught respect for nature and preached conservation.

>What many people do not know about Haeckel, however, is his connection to national socialism. Haeckel placed his views about nature conservation into a world view similar to that of Social Darwinism Here, only the strong (both individually and on a national scale) and those willing to fight, survived the constant upward struggle that characterized national evolutionary development. Nations, cultures, and peoples could therefore be categorized "scientifically" into those that were superior and those that were inferior, with the latter being considered expendable and even worthy of destruction. Haeckel also had racial views similar to Hitler.

It's not

Because they use it as justification to steer the economy.

If you really want to have your mind blown, look into "Ducks Unlimited". It's an organization that is run and funded almost exclusively by hunters and it has saved more wetlands than all other environmental organizations combined.

because they want big daddy government to solve the problems

It's a shame that there isn't really an established "green right"

A strong, healthy and fertile land is just as important as having a strong, healthy and fertile race. You can't have one without the other.

suprisingly the far right and nazis in europe actually DID have an eco right wing

Because anyone with a modicum of perspective understands that the damage humans can do in the scale of the earth (both in physichle size and longerivy) is minuscule,

our entire species could be wiped out in nuclear hellfire tomorrow and compared to the life of the earth we were nothing more than a fleeting moment, unworthy of mention in the story of our world

This. A lot of people that joined Greenpeace in the mid 90s showed up wearing Che shirts.

Because it's not true environmentalism. It's just a scam that some corporations use to gain more money.

Or some bullshit from the government to make more taxes on CO2 or something like that

There is nothing more reactionary than ecology but the leftists hijacked it because it also offers alternatives to the religious heaven and hell. Which completely suits their Promethean and immature need to save the world.

>Greenpeace
Funny you should mention them...

youtube.com/watch?v=BpBnJq19R60

Because environmentalism was co-opted by marxists, and now is used as nothing more than a bludgeon to attack The West

Blood and soil

Deep Ecology

volkisch movement

Savitri Devi

pol should get into gardening more

Our right wing PM is an environmentalist. In most countries environment is not a left right issue. It's only in the US where the oil lobby has pumped enough money in anti-science efforts for a significant population to completely disbelieve man-made global warming and reject any efforts to combat it.

I've never understood this....Tehcinally liberals are anti enviornment especially with their immigration stance. They say we have room so they want to fill up every inch of our lands...How is this good for our carbon footprint??? Growth is greed. And liberals love to espouse the big business mantra of growth is good.

Also I'd like to add feeding the third world makes for a bigger third world population...You're actually feeding the problem....People aren't too bright.

Right wing: "Science? You mean evolution? I ain't a monkey PRAISE CHRIST!"
Left wing: "YOU CORPORATE FAT CATS ARE RUINING THE WORLD WHY CAN'T YOU JUST LET ME GETE RAILED BY TYRONE AND JUAN DAD!"

People are just fucking retarded.

based leaf. the best way to stop the overpopulation in africa is to stop feeding the fucking niggers

They were pro animal rights and pro environment before it was trendy.

They are also against nuclear energy, which is absolutely insane. We should be pumping money into Molten Salt Thorium Reactor development.

It's not. Literally Hitler tryed to preserve and expand the Deutscher Lebensraum.

Because it's a massive tax scheme disguised as something else.

tried

>using a salt cooled reactor
>ever
chernobyl anyone? water cooled is self-stabilizing.

He even created the first animal rights laws and nature reserves

>They say we have room so they want to fill up every inch of our lands...
It's not only that. You can easily compare modern immigration to invasive species.
>an "invasive species" is defined as a species that is: 1) non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and. 2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.
I mean...

>Salt-cooled
user, you're fired.

Any modern reactor designs are a good solution. If climate change caused by CO2 production is such a world-ending apocalyptic event, environmentalists should be all over nuclear power. But they aren't, because they don't care about their pet issue any more than to pay it lip service.

maybe i used the wrong terms specifically, but the point stands, leaf. it's been years since my nuke classes.

Yeah. I seriously can't take the stupidity of people. It's just common sense to me. What's wrong with everyone? I'm a REAL environmentalist REEEEEEE

Is that john romeros garden?

It's not.

There are two "green" parties in Portugal.

The second one emerged from the first one becuse the first one couldn't stop being a commie.

Chernobyl was water cooled you mongoloid.

Quake 3 thread?

because greater government power = left wing
less government power = right wing

Nah man, I can't see any dead bunnies

fugg. maybe i should learn2google before making a fool of myself

Well, first they blamed the government and corporations, then they wanted bigger government to clean it up and regulate everything.

Corrupt American Republitards obviously pocketing money for saying shit that isn't true.

It's not using the wrong term, it's having the entire thing fucking backwards.

The molten salts ARE the fuel. Instead of having fuel rods (which are spent inequally along the length of the bar), you have particles of thorium within the molten salts (The main developmental goal at this point is to gradually reduce the size of the thorium particles). This allows for a more complete and consistent expenditure of the energy within the thorium particles. The entire thing is done in an enclosed system and failure at any given point immediately stops the reaction. It literally CANNOT sustain itself on its own. It is physically impossible for it to melt down.

The isotopes we are currently burning for fuel are FAR less common than what Thorium reactors use. It's like burning platinum for fuel. It's fucking retarded.

Come on, ecology was hijacked by leftists way earlier than the global warming thing.

...

Its not we all agree on basic enviromentslism. Nature conservation is fine and so is beutification. Don't make a place unlivable or filthy. I have yet to meet one right winger that isn't agaist littering fees or isnt for reducing population.
The main difference is that the left wants to claim it as there because of climate change. They side with alarmists and idots who want to destroy the economy. I think this is because they see human progress as bad. I'm not agaist common sence shit but all the (((alarmist))) shit in climate change needs to stop especially since big change wont happen anytime soon and unless our population worldwide is reduced to a quarter of what it is with a standard of living like that of South America its not likely we will be able to stop it.

Dr Seuss remains my favourite children's book author.

Because of ''watermelons''
>green on the outside
>red on the inside

"Girls Unlimited" has saved more Thai villages than all people attracted to adults combined

because by subsidising corporations and their consumers in the city beyond what is productive and helping perpetual mass overpopulation is.... something something.

The green party needs to break away from "the left"

The left is an old outdated concept for perpetuating the industrialized society.

this is getting too meta

Haha based suess. In all seriousness we need to change this. I've awakened quite a few hippy liberals to how bad immigration is and overpopulation of the third world for the environment etc etc etc. We have to stay the course and never give up!

Sup Forums is no where near the level of intelligence that the original Nazis of the 1930's had.

why are people badmouth pol so much lately?

is it cool to call everyone else stupid now?

Awakening leftists is one of my favourite hobbies. Discussing lab-grown meat and the ethics of hunting with vegans is 10/10 stuff.

Fun fact: The fastest growing demographic of hunters in Canada is hipsters.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism

Soon

You are confusing x and y axis.
More government means totalitarism, not left wing.
Less means libertarian, not right.
Alao, you can have environmental friendly ideals while also being anti government, just look geolibertarianism up.
There are many ways to come up with a solution to any given problem, you know?

Because it became politicized once feel-good environmentalists (people who don't actually care about the environment except as a way to prove how morally superior they are) became a voting bloc

>lefties concerned about global warming
>carbon footprint of first world inhabitants manyfold greater than third world's
>therefore they're almost to a man against mass immigr...
>hey, wait a minute

Also you really want the oil Jew to do a small he pleases? You pulled out of that EU whore at the right time as invade & invite 2 could happen any month now.

I am all for killing liberals, but deforestation is a problem so even buying a little bit of land to plant a tree is not a bad idea.

Thanks for the info

Because the left is usually progressive while the right is conservative.

Europe, for instance, is also a left project.

liberals are horrible environmentalists

>I'm driving a Prius XD
>look at my new trendy products, they are ""organic""
>I want the new iPhone LOL XD
>people are more important than stupid rules! (like conservation)

Liberals only pretend to be for environmentalism because it works with their "muh doing good feels". Whereas republicans are mostly advocating for goals and efficiency. Republicans would in theory be in favour of conserving the environment, but corporations are way more important.

This is awesome.

It's become mine in the last few months as well. In Canada the environment angle will give you big wins. It works so well for our cause without being obvious. They all spout CBC stuff and don't even realize it. They're sheep that easily change course.

"But but we have so much room our country was built on immigration". Me - "well that's the past I care about the future and I don't want to see beautiful Canada destroyed by immigration"

Throw in some trigger words like carbon footprint, global warming etc and you're golden!

Also, this doesn't mean conservative can't adopt left issues if it suits their agenda.

Because when commies became gauche they infested environmentalist movements to borrow political legitimacy and sneak in the back door.

All green organisations are watermellons. Green on the outside, red on the inside.

One time, as I was getting off the subway in Montreal, some guy from GreenPeace was handing out pamphlets. I asked him what his shirt was made out of. I spent 10 minutes telling him about how cotton is the most polluting crop in the world. I asked him about what his jewelry was made out of and then spent another 10 minutes telling him about how it is one of the two biggest sources of mercury pollution worldwide (the other being burning coal). I think I broke him.

Is that you Vegan Gains?

Making up non issues to virtue signal
Gonna go ahead and /thread this

WATERMELONS
When the atrocities of soviet commies became public many America commies just became green environmentalists. Green on the outside red inside.

THIS

It shouldn't be. Most people (or at least white people and Asians) are "environmentalists," they like nature, they'd like to keep some of it in a close-to-pristine condition for their own pleasure. Being around green things has all kinds of positive benefits.

But it's not an ideology, and the "ecosystem" model is severely flawed. Nature is chaotic and the biggest mass murderer there is. There's no "equilibrium," the planet is constantly entering into and being drawn out of extremes of temperature and climate.

I sometimes read "green anarchy" sites (better known by most as ecoterrorists and ecoterrorist supporters). It's amazing, they're all basically furries that want to be dogs and bears and -- RAWR! -- wildcats! (They do hate trannies though, they consider them men and out of tune with nature. Basically they're TERFs.)

that's a good question, OP.

i wish i knew

The sad reality is those that would do the most for the environment are those the greens oppose hardest. Nuclear engineers looking to build new reactor types to minimise enviro footprint, chemical companies looking for more efficient and elegant solutions to farming and material production etc.

Companies that treat environmental damage as an externalities should be controlled and make to put the costs of their activities on their activity sheets but that does not mean all human activity is negative.

The true objectivbe should be to minimise enviromental footprint per unit gain, not go back to living in mud huts. The reality is we use less land per capita in terms of resources and food production than ever before, mostly due to mass production and fossil fuels (esp fertilisers and chem industry). We cant go back to nature and living in mud huts because there isn't enough mud.

HAH. If I were vegan, I'd have died. 15 years of undiagnosed pernicious anemia fucked my shit up, senpai. Only survived by eating the copious amounts of meat that my body craved (against the advice of every doctor who failed to diagnose the B12 deficiency).

Preserving nature is stereotypically seen as a left wing hippie thing, but all reasonable people want protection of the environment.

Pic related.

It's not. Right wingers are just waiting for actual solutions that don't just involve taxation that just ends up getting pissed into the pockets of lobbyists.

And the left only pretends to like the environment but goes through the motions of the very pointless indulgent consumerism that is destroying the planet because they are too retarded to take the 5 seconds of research needed to see how all those "green product" labels are full of shit.

Beautiful.

>cotton is the most polluting crop in the world
how?

global warming killed environmentalism

makes me sick how these idiots care more about "carbon footprints" than the massive die off in the pacific from fukishima or focusing on actual pollutants/toxins.

Yeah they're delusional and easy to break. Right wing enviornmentalist ftw. Reality > feelings

Good question because red and green don't really go together if you think about it.
A socialist wants the poor to be able to have the same living as the wealthy (before/while making everyone poorer). That means that a socialist wants everyone to be able to have a car, make vacations and so on.
A green (despite basically being a socialist) wants that people fly less, drive less, use less energy and resources. But such a thing can only be achieved via the price of energy intensive goods and services - by internalizing externalities like pollution and noise (which would be a very, dare I say it, capitalist approach).
Such a policy would lead to a very "unsocial" situation in which only the wealthy would be able to live a good life, to travel and so on.

tldr; Being green (and left, as thry are) is a contradiction in itself.

>Libertarian

You mean Anarchism, favela bro.
Libertarians are also known as Anarcho-capitalists and softer Libertarians are called minarchists (Minimum Government).

>Breeder reactors could, in principle, extract almost all of the energy contained in uranium or thorium, decreasing fuel requirements by a factor of 100 compared to widely used once-through light water reactors, which extract less than 1% of the energy in the uranium mined from the earth.

There is also work on "neutralizing" the toxic residues in the waste:
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168583X08001031

The key is to support the nuclear development rather than just making way for the low effort fat cats in the established industry.

It pisses me off because I hate suburbs and deforestation. But there is nothing you can do to stop it. All the environment groups are super hardcore leftist and all they do is smoke weed and talk about racism and social issues.

Totally read that in the voice of Jacob Rees-Mogg.

See also Holism, founded by one of the architects of South African apartheid

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Smuts#Holism_and_related_academic_work

I don't care about it but it drives lefties nuts when you tell them that environmentalism's founding fathers first applied it to races of people, not plants.

Uses a fuckton of water, pesticides and shit. Most of it is grown in nations that don't give a shit either (like India).

Libertarianism is half of the political spectrum, bruv.

Also this. If you want to make carbon dioxide your boogie man then the only way to effectively control it is to reduce human activity. Because yeah. It's pretty much unavoidable. And easily solved by re-planting those trees some faggot hippie cut down so he could grow hemp seed for his free-range granola.

Otherwise it's now nearly impossible to get any attention for any other environmental issues.

>the massive die off in the pacific from fukishima

Because the left is all about identity politics, they've made the environment a part of their identity.

Ecofascism IS Sup Forums

Because instead of wanting sane things like national parks and realistic pollution targets integrated into a larger policy like normal people, environmentalists are single issue voters that want to ban cars and factories, while the state forcibly repossess the entire country so we can all live in mud huts and smoke dope

Beacuse the left try to gain monopoly over every progressive idea. Whether or not is a good idea.

There is a massive die-off in the ocean. But it's not because of fukishima. It's because of ocean acidification. And no, ocean acidification is not fucking caused by CO2. I've done the fucking math. There is not enough CO2 on the planet to account for the increase in ocean acidity we've seen.
It's because of people dumping bullshit into the ocean and getting away with it because "muh globalism" has killed the protectionism required to force them to deal with it domestically.

That's a shill political spectrum using shill nomenclatures such as "Libertarian" instead of Anarchism.

In any Economy book Libertarians are called Anarcho-capitalists or minarchists. Meanwhile Anarchist cucks are never called Crazy-Libertarians or whatever using the term "Libertarian".

You're being blue pilled by degenerates that want to destroy civilization.

Fascism is the only way forward.

Exactly this. Plus for all the renewable plebs that blow up when you prepose nuclear as the most enviro friendly way of generating power I tend to link these.

m.phys.org/news/2017-01-renewables-paris-climate-goals.html

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html

Oh and wind turbines require significant rare earth mining so

theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution

It takes 20,000 liters of water to produce one kilo of cotton, which is about enough to make a pair of pants.

Because the rest of lefty politics are so shit that they need to rely on buzz-issues like environmentalism to get people to shift their way. Notice how when debates come up, the left is ALWAYS the one to initiate conversation about global warming, abortion, gender politics, etc. The right has opinions on these matters, but they are regarded as minor issues in selecting candidates. The left needs to use them as their entire platform.