English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Saving the planet or trying to end capitalism?

2007-05-06 03:22:55 · 18 answers · asked by NONAME 3 in Politics & Government Politics

18 answers

The leaders of several environmental groups are on record as stating that maybe what they are trying to do will not work but at least it will bring down capitalism and the US economy.

That is what is all about.

from http://www.bitterroot.com/grizzly/ENVRONMT.HTM
Maurice Strong primary designer of the Earth Summit asked, "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" . Futurist Barr, Commoner writes that "nothing less than a change in the political and social system, including revision of the Constitution, is necessary to save the country from destroying the natural environment." He adds, "capitalism is the earth's number one enemy." Taking Commoner one step further, Judi Bari of Earth First! says, "I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. "I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don't think it is possible under capitalism."

from http://www.sovereignty.net/p/ngo/ron.html


"I have three important premises to provide a general context for my perspective. First, nature bats last. The second premise is that the house is on fire. Finally, in times of crisis our plans [should] be commensurate with the scale of the problems. We need something akin to another Marshal Plan-starting with restructuring the rulemaking processes for the global economy-to provide a roadmap to help reverse dangerous trends and get us to a better world."

The first two premises are bogeymen we must fear if we are to answer his later call to action.

* Nature bats last. Catchphrase meaning nature will destroy you if you violate her rules, and capitalism violates nature's rules. We're doomed.

* The house is on fire. Capitalism is the fire, earth is the house, capitalism is destroying everything, air, water, soil, all life on earth. We're doomed.

That's sufficient reason to justify destroying capitalism.

2007-05-06 04:00:05 · answer #1 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 3 3

it really is genuinely that Gore isn't the greenest human being each and each and every. through way of no skill, via actual reality he eats meat and that is about as "ungreen" as you'll get. yet i does no longer be indignant through way of this evaluation. He did now no longer recommend that the enemy is a human being. he's now no longer implying that those who do now no longer beleive in international warming are Nazi's. he's genuinely comparing a warfare that for the length of contact the completed international, to a distinct warfare that consists of the completed international. And genuinely, it really is a international warfare. If one u . s . a . is a important polluter which will damage all different u . s . a .'s interior the end. no matter if you do now no longer beleive in international warming, undergo in suggestions that maximum of scientist in all feilds beleive in international warming and that it is going to now no longer be a political challenge. And it must be alot smarter to take the suggestion of those scientists, than to scorn them. For they comprehend so a lot more beneficial with reference to the earth and it really is strategies than any baby-kisser who claims international warming is organic and organic. the only reason environmentalists allow you to comprehend to stay eco-friendly, is through technique of the particular reality your decision impacts genuinely each and everybody interior the international. genuinely like those judgements made for the length of WW2. it really is what Gore meant.

2016-12-05 10:41:05 · answer #2 · answered by kasee 4 · 0 0

A one world socialistic government. They see the Democratic party in America as their vehicle to achieve this lofty goal. Hugo Chavez and Hillary Clinton are virtually identical. Al Gore's theories have more holes than the ozone layer.

To all you people whom think the KEYOTO treaty is the way to go, the fact is even if all countries who attended complied it would have little or no effect on global warming at the cost of trillions of dollars and YES the only way to achieve a minimal change in global warming is a one world socialistic government don't be fools.

2007-05-06 03:31:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5 3

There is no man caused climate change. There is real evidence that the planet goes through normal ups and downs.

We all know the Al Gores of the world are a do as I say, not as I do.

This whole thing is about control over our lives, which is the liberal goal. This is nothing more than a fanatical religion.

2007-05-06 03:33:43 · answer #4 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 4 3

The latter. They are to new wing of the Communist Party. They found a way to bring in the gov't to claim rights and control your life. The followers of Al Gore don't see that once the Globalist get a foothold the things they are saying about Bush and the Patriot Act will seem like a walk in the park.

2007-05-06 03:28:32 · answer #5 · answered by LIL_TXN 4 · 3 3

I think saving the planet, as the only reason they'd probably find to end capitalism was it's effect on the environment.

2007-05-06 03:26:41 · answer #6 · answered by Mickey Mouse Spears 7 · 1 4

LOL! Yeah, it's just a big conspiracy to end capitalism. And it's a big conspiracy to destroy the USA. And it's a big conspiracy by scientists who are just in it for the money. Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam...

That's good enough logic for losers, but smart people will look at the facts. Human activity affects the atmosphere. (Visit Los Angeles if you don't believe me.) We're pumping out more carbon dioxide than ever. And the temperature is rising. The only smart thing to do in a case like this is to limit our impact on the atmosphere, since it's the only one we have.

Furthermore (if your attention span didn't expire after the first six words) some of the steps we need to take to protect the atmosphere have additional benefits. For example, cutting our burning of petroleum will cut our dependence on the Mideast. So what's your problem?

JMB

2007-05-06 03:40:39 · answer #7 · answered by levyrat 4 · 2 5

Wiping with one sheet of toilet paper, ala Sheryl Crow.

That would put Scott Tissue out of buisness.

Sounds like anti-capitalists to me.

Thanks for the link -ts-

2007-05-06 03:32:28 · answer #8 · answered by scottdman2003 5 · 2 2

Saving humans, not the planet.

2007-05-06 03:27:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

I have grand children. We need to save the planet.

2007-05-06 03:27:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4 4

fedest.com, questions and answers