Comments Coyote369 has made

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, 1 month ago 38 Responses

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, 3 months ago 29 Responses

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, 4 months ago 13 Responses

Grassroots

His thesis is that their bank accounts translate to less change on the ground than if the same cash were spread amongst the many smaller groups out there.

This is an old refrain that I heard when I was doing grassroots activism in the mid-90s. Undoubtedly still as true now as it was then.

I can see parallels in my own profession. I worked for a large non-profit that pissed more money away on useless crap than a drunken hotel heiress. Because of their fiscal mismanagement, they ended up laying off (or driving off) most of the professional staff, resulting in a near total loss of expertise and institutional memory. In the end, they had very little to show for their spending. Yet the state just gave them a couple more million dollars to piss away, with exactly zero accountability as far as I can tell. Smaller non-profits doing the same kind of work could have done a lot more with that money. Yet they starve while the big boy eats filet mignon.

That's why the only enviro memberships I have are in local or statewide groups. I don't think I've ever belonged to or volunteered for a national group.
On For shame posted 2 years, 4 months ago 29 Responses

Slightly-less-filthy coal

"Clean coal" is an industry propaganda term, not to mention self-negating. I know as soon as I hear it that I'm talking to an industry hack, a kool-aid drinking technotopian, or someone who knows absolutely nothing about energy issues and just repeats what they hear on the TV.

Makansi, I'll maybe think about beginning to possibly consider "clean coal" and nukes, but only AFTER we institute (1) a massive conservation effort and (2) a massive renewable energy expansion program. I'm talking New Deal scale, Manhattan Project scale, BIG BIG BIG! Make it THE major national priority, involving every level of government and industry. Take every red penny we currently spend on oil/gas/coal/nuke subsidies and divert them to conservation and renewables for 10 years. And maybe the Pentagon can do without a toy or two. If at the end of that 10 years we are still hurting for energy, get back to me about building "clean coal" plants.

I've been an NRA member for quite some time and I have yet to hear them talk about taxes, unless those taxes are directly related to guns. But then again, they don't invite me to their vast right-wing conspiracy meetings either.

Anyhow, Kos seems to be suggesting that his branch of the Corporate Party should have a monopoly on environmental protection and conservation. If we followed his advice, environmentalism will continue to be just another "liberal issue" that can be dismissed with all the other moonbat stuff that comes out of the Left.

If environmentalism is to be effective---and it absolutely needs to be for all our sakes---then it has to rise above partisanship, go beyond Left and Right. The fact that global climate change is still a rabidly partisan issue here in the US shows how destructive the "partisan-izing" of environmentalism has been.

I say environmentalism is already bound far too tightly with "progressivism." If anything, enviros desperately need to reach out to conservatives. That would be far more effective than further entrenching environmentalism in the liberal/progressive ghetto.
On For shame posted 2 years, 5 months ago 29 Responses

Plug ins

I keep hearing the "plug-in hybrid" mantra. But one thing I rarely hear PHEV supporters mention is where all this extra electricity is going to come from. And don't tell me wind and solar. Those are barely keeping pace with rising demand as it is, and they still only make up an insignificant fraction of overall production (~1% here in Oregon). We need to retire older fossil and hydro plants, which new wind and solar could make possible, but only absent a massive new source of demand like PHEVs.

I don't buy the off-peak argument, either. Here in the Pacific NW, water through turbines is water taken away from fish, regardless of what time of day that electricity is produced. And running coal plants at night releases just as much pollution as running them during the day. I don't swallow the claim that using off-peak power will forestall the need to build new facilities. It may for a short while, but how long is that going to last?

Because wind and solar won't provide nearly enough juice to run tens of millions of cars, PHEVs will require the construction of even more gas and coal plants, and probably nuclear plants (which some PHEV supporters think is just fine).

PHEVs will also require the massive expansion of strip mining in places like New Caledonia (nickel doesn't grow on trees). And after all that, PHEVs will still require gasoline.

This is a "green" solution?
On What next? Socialized medicine? posted 2 years, 5 months ago 28 Responses

Mud slinging in glass houses

You lost me at "fringe environmentalist." You're going to do have to do a hell of a lot better than name calling and self-administered back pats if you want the support of this "fringe environmentalist" for your arrogant geoengineering experiment.
On In an op-ed, Russ George claims his company has been unfairly maligned posted 2 years, 5 months ago 29 Responses