Coyote369’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Overpopulation is good for the environment.....

  Wow, that was quite the hit job there Glenn. Just letting your bias hang out for all the world to see, huh? Always nice to see so-called "environmentalists" openly apologizing for uncontrolled population growth, not to mention demonizing those who dare disagree. The people who oppose border enforcement are the same people who oppose workplace raids and the prosecution of illegal employers, who oppose local and state laws that prohibit the hiring of or renting to illegal aliens, who oppose giving free health care and education to illegal aliens, who oppose any reduction whatsoever in legal immigration, etc., etc., etc. In other words, who oppose any and all measures that would limit overpopulation via mass immigration.

  How is uncontrolled population growth through mass immigration good for America's landscape? Have environmentalists become so utterly coopted by the social(ist) Left that we are now expected to support anti-environmental social policies? Failing to control the influx of so-called "undocumented immigrants" (they're not immigrants, they're illegal aliens, colonists, settlers, invaders) has very real impacts on America's environment, even as far north as my state of Oregon. Our land-use laws here will rendered useless as long as we continue to encourage endless population growth, the majority of which is due to mass immigration.

  The ongoing colonization of the US by Mexico represents an environmental disaster of epic proportions at the local, regional, national, and global scales. But the enviro movement has been so utterly coopted that we are not only too cowardly to oppose this demographic disaster, we actually have some of our members actively supporting it. Truly astounding. This sorry state of affairs is indicative of what's gone wrong with our movement---the cooptation and partisanization of the enviro movement are two of the main reasons we are so pathetically ineffective these days.

  This is not a new state of affairs, unfortunately. The cooptation of the enviro movement by the social(ist) Left has been going on for decades now. Edward Abbey recognized it and lamented it in the 1980s. Here's what he had to say about illegal aliens and mass immigration from Latin America: "The United States has been fully settled, and more than full, for at least a century. We have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by allowing the old boat to be swamped. How many of us, truthfully, would prefer to be submerged in the Caribbean-Latin version of civilization? (Howls of 'Racism! Elitism! Xenophobia!' from the Marx brothers and the documented liberals.) Harsh words: but somebody has to say them. We cannot play 'let's pretend' much longer, not in the present world."

  Here here! As Glenn's article makes quite clear, ol' Ed Abbey wouldn't be welcome in today's "new and improved" environmental movement, where the root of our environmental problems is ignored because it might upset some people, people who, as it happens, don't give a rat's patoot about the environment.
  On Why environmental groups have been slow to fight the border wall posted 2 years ago 38 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Derrida was full of it

  Yep, jabailo, I'm sure global warming is just a semantic misunderstanding. What a good Deconstructionist you are! The world as text.

  As for the OP, this was an interesting insight:

  "It would also be a great irony if conservative Deniers -- who are blocking serious mitigation today because they don't like (a certain kind of) government intervention in our lives -- ended up forcing the country into far more government intervention in the near future."

  Indeed.On On the climate change 'point of no return' posted 2 years, 2 months ago 9 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  All our eggs in one basket

  Peter, thanks for the insight into enviro politics in the UK. Here in the US climate change is really only starting to become a regular topic of public discourse, and our politicians and corporations still have yet to do much about it. But I could definitely see how people could become too focused on climate change to the exclusion of other things like endangered species recovery. And I could see how the general public could get burnt out constantly hearing about it.

  Unfortunately, you greeners have experienced the downside of putting all your eggs in one basket.   Continued attacks and new data have eroded all the scientific underpinnings of Global Warming and the whole thing is headed towards hoaxdom.

  Ignoring the silly ignorance---nay, malicious falsehoods---conveyed in the last statement, I do think Mr. Troll has a point in his first statement, and that it reinforces the original post. Putting all our eggs in one basket is never a good strategy. Besides, not all enviro problems can be put in the climate change basket.

  Here in the Pacific Northwest salmon decline has been a major issue for quite a while, long before climate change was either known about or became an important global biophysical process. Climate change will certainly negatively impact salmon survival in the future, but that will be moot if they go extinct NOW. Focusing exclusively on climate change will not help the salmon. On the contrary, it will probably create even more resistance to the idea that we need to breach some large dams.

  Like an ecosystem, the enviro movement needs to be diverse. It needs to continue working on water pollution, wilderness protection, endangered species, "green technology," sustainable agriculture, science education, and all the other areas of interest that make this movement what it is and that give it strength. Focusing on one issue to the exclusion of everything else is a poor strategy that is destined to fail.
  On Other enviro issues are getting less attention posted 2 years, 2 months ago 29 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Red ain't green

  amazingdrx wrote: "Healthcare.  The green movement's best issue. Why?  Because it will help get a democratic majority in congress and a democratic executive branch."

  In other words, let's encourage the enviro movement to be co-opted even more by the socialist Left while alienating conservatives who might be sympathetic to environmental protection. No thanks. If that had been the strategy in the 1960s and '70s, we'd never have the ESA, the EPA, NEPA, the Wilderness Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, etc., etc., etc. Your suggestion is a recipe for marginalization and inefficacy. While we wait ten or twenty years for health care reform (it most certainly ain't gonna take two years), enviro issues will be on the back burner. Hell, you even suggest enviros start focusing on health care, which would obviously take energy away from enviro protection efforts. WTF?

  As for Sicko, it was nothing but socialist agitprop. If you actually listen to Moore's comments on the film, he intended to make a paean to socialism as an "indictment of our System." And that's what he did---it's not an accident that he visited Marx's grave and interviewed Che Guevara's daughter about the evils of America. The first half was actually OK, but the second half was nothing but lies and half truths only tangentially related to health care, typical of Moore's style. It puts forth an extremist agenda that will only set back any serious attempts to make much needed reforms in our health care system.

  And unless you're a watermelon who thinks a dictatorship of the proletariat will usher in an enviro-utopia, Sicko has nothing to do with environmental protection. On the contrary, centralized socialist governance and environmental protection have clearly proven to be incompatible.
  On Along with a rambling social commentary posted 2 years, 2 months ago 20 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Edwards hits grand slam, Obama/Clinton strike out

  Interesting link. Edwards definitely hit a zinger. Obama, not so much. Yet another display of his ignorance when it comes to energy issues, and his eagerness to please non-oil energy corporations (I wonder how much coal and nuke money he's taken in the form of bribes, er, "campaign contributions"). But he seemed even more eager to change the subject, circle round the question, and talk about anything but nuclear power and his support of it. At least he was honest for a nanosecond so we could see what he really thinks. When it comes down to it, this guy clearly doesn't give a rat's ass about the environment. It's just something to be negotiated away in favor of "more important" issues.

  Clinton took a decidedly uncourageous stand, avoiding the question like a real pro. Wishy wishy washy, but that's pretty much what I've come expect from her. Stick finger in air, gauge wind direction, and speak out of both sides of mouth, saying nothing and trying to please everyone. Her answer boils down to this: "We're America, we'll find a techno-fix that will make all that icky nuclear waste magically disappear. It'll be a win-win!" Okey dokey.
  On Lots of good answers posted 2 years, 3 months ago 13 Responses