What is the difference between pragmatic environmentalism and ideological environmentalism?

Question

Is this subject closely related to man made global warming?

Answer 1

Pragmatic environmentalism is the kind that most of us favor; for example, being thrifty with resources, lowering air and water pollution, and conserving wildlife.

On the other hand, ideological environmentalism is a political ideology that embodies a sweeping agenda aimed at radically transforming how we live and work, and not exactly for the better.

The problem with ideological environmentalism, as with all other political ideologies, is that key predictions made by environmentalist ideologues about the future state of the Earth and humanity are simply not coming true. This is, indeed, a hidden crisis growing in the very heart of ideological environmentalism. Three of the canonical books at the modern founding of ideological environmentalism made sweeping claims about the impending fate of humanity and the Earth. The three books are: Silent Spring, written by Rachel Carson in 1962; The Population Bomb, written by Paul Ehrlich in 1968, a biologist from Stanford University; and The Limits of Growth, a report to the Club of Rome, published in 1972.

Carson predicted that modern synthetic chemicals, especially pesticides, would cause epidemics of cancer and kill off massive quantities of wildlife. Her predictions did not come true.

In the Population Bomb, Ehrlich confidently predicted that “the battle to feed all humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines- hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” His predictions did not come true.

The Limits to Growth incorporated the dogma of imminent depletion of natural resources to concerns about growing population and rising pollution. Its predictions did not come true.

This is very critical because Environmentalism is the first ideology to be deeply rooted in the natural sciences.

Like all ideologies, political environmentalism consists of two parts: a diagnosis and a cure. The ideological environmentalist diagnosis of the problems facing humanity is that modern societies are destroying the Earth and thus imperiling humanity. The cure they recommend is, as I said above, a series of sweeping policies that would radically reshape how the world works. “We must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization”, declared Al Gore in his own manifesto, Earth in the Balance.

The political message at the core of ideological environmentalism was then and is now “Do what I say or the world will come to an end.”

But the fact is that the original, enduring claims that first captured the attention of the public and policy makers have not turned out to be true. Science and economics simply have not backed up the predictions of ideological environmentalism.

Today, what is tottering is ideological environmentalism (which includes the man made global warming hysteria), not modern civilization. As more critics- including epidemiologists, demographers, toxicologists, climatologists, and economists- point ever more insistently at the yawning gap between claims of political environmentalism and scientific and economic reality, green ideologues are becoming ever more frantic to deny the growing contradictions.

LIKE COMMUNISM BEFORE IT, IDEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM WANTS TO CLAIM THE MANTLE OF OBJECTIVE SCIENCE TO JUSTIFY ITS POLITICAL PROGRAMS BECAUSE IN THE POST-ENLIGHTENMENT WORLD, SCIENCE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF WHAT IS OBJECTIVELY TRUE OR NOT. HOWEVER, AS THE COMMUNISTS DISCOVERED, THE FAILURE OF ONE’S IDEOLOGY TO CORRESPOND TO REALITY IS ULTIMATELY FATAL.

Well articulated hard truths may be funny to the morons of the world, but they are devastating to ideologies based on "junk science" and lies, like ideological environmentalism and any other political "ism" out there.

Answer 2

Environmentalism Define

Answer 3

Pragmatic environmentalists are those who really put their words into actions. Whereas ideological environmentalists are always day-dreaming about their ideologies without making them realised into real actions. So, we should be pragmatic environmentalists. I think everyone should be pragmatic environmentalist cos everyone has every responsibility to protect their environment. No one is in the exception list!

Answer 4

The pragmatic environmentalist wants to stop the killing of baby seals because it might upset the balance of nature. The ideological environmentalist wants to stop the killing because baby seals are cute.

Answer 5

Just basing my opinion on my understanding of the words: pragmatic would be actual; ideological would be imaginative, or ideal.

Answer 6

This is the funniest thing I've read in at least a month. So Ralph Nader is kind of like Lenin?

"LIKE COMMUNISM BEFORE IT, IDEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM WANTS TO CLAIM THE MANTLE OF OBJECTIVE SCIENCE TO JUSTIFY ITS POLITICAL PROGRAMS BECAUSE IN THE POST-ENLIGHTENMENT WORLD, SCIENCE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF WHAT IS OBJECTIVELY TRUE OR NOT. HOWEVER, AS THE COMMUNISTS DISCOVERED, THE FAILURE OF ONE’S IDEOLOGY TO CORRESPOND TO REALITY IS ULTIMATELY FATAL "