> Doug wrote:
> >>Some days ago James Heartfield made some points on
environmentalism in
> >>reply to a post of mine:
>
> >James is offline until Tuesday. I fowarded this to him, but don't
> expect a prompt reply.
>
> Hopefully someone besides James is interested in this . I noticed,
for
> example, that you seemed more than three quarters convinced that
> environmentalism is anti-worker and anti-progressive. This is not a
> position you have taken previously, and I'd hate to see you adapt
it. Of
> course I understand that on this kind issue the facts are more
important
> than the philosphy -- but I hated to let the philosphical points
pass
> unanswered anymore while I finished my research.
>
> In point of fact on two of the points the research was fairly easy
to
> do.
>
> In terms of "over-population" the malthusians are wrong, and the
> anti-malthusians right.
>
> In terms of the Greenhouse effect not only are the enviromentalists
> correct. We are pretty much overwhelming correct. Even Bjorn Lomborg
> acknowledges that global warming is happening and human caused. He
tries
> to minimize the effects, and maximize the cost of preventing it. The
> really sad thing is that we could reduce fossil fuel consumption per
> unit economic output sufficiently to allow full third world
development,
> and continued first world growth at a cost low than finding,
reducing
> and refining that quanity of oil. In short we could end global
warming
> at essentially zero net cost if capitalism did not stand in the way.
=========
Patently untrue.
Ian