Environmentalists are hypocrites

[Kincoboh]

I see this argument come up countless times. A story about a prominent environmentalist, and people come out condemning them as being hypocritical because they use oil either for fuel or use plastics. I think it's silly to expect environmentalists to be naked forest dwellers in the wilderness, because it is possible to try to change a system within it. While we shouldn't overlook egregious polluters who say they are pro-environment, it still doesn't invalidate what they say.

What do you think NS? Can you be an environmentalist but still use fossil-fuel based products?

[Manisdog]

I personally don't like the enviromentalists and there views on business are frankly pathetic but they do have a point

[The Fascist American Empire]

I see this argument come up countless times. A story about a prominent environmentalist, and people come out condemning them as being hypocritical because they use oil either for fuel or use plastics. I think it's silly to expect environmentalists to be naked forest dwellers in the wilderness, because it is possible to try to change a system within it. While we shouldn't overlook egregious polluters who say they are pro-environment, it still doesn't invalidate what they say.

What do you think NS? Can you be an environmentalist but still use fossil-fuel based products?

Yes. However, being an environmentalist and owning a coal mine/plant and/or an oil rig is hypocritical.

[Imperializt Russia]

I see this argument come up countless times. A story about a prominent environmentalist, and people come out condemning them as being hypocritical because they use oil either for fuel or use plastics. I think it's silly to expect environmentalists to be naked forest dwellers in the wilderness, because it is possible to try to change a system within it. While we shouldn't overlook egregious polluters who say they are pro-environment, it still doesn't invalidate what they say.

What do you think NS? Can you be an environmentalist but still use fossil-fuel based products?

Yes. However, being an environmentalist and owning a coal mine/plant and/or an oil rig is hypocritical.

I don't really see how there can be an answer that isn't this.

NSG might have legitimately posted an /thread post.

[The Fascist American Empire]

Yes. However, being an environmentalist and owning a coal mine/plant and/or an oil rig is hypocritical.

I don't really see how there can be an answer that isn't this.

NSG might have legitimately posted an /thread post.

Why thank you. No autographs please. Well maybe a couple.

[The Grim Reaper]

Yes. However, being an environmentalist and owning a coal mine/plant and/or an oil rig is hypocritical.

I don't really see how there can be an answer that isn't this.

NSG might have legitimately posted an /thread post.

Does this stretch to owning stocks in companies that profit directly from coal mine/plants and oil rigs?

Or financial sector companies that have significant oil/fuel stocks?

[Bombadil]

This is like the critic of Occupy in London who noted that they'd been seen drinking Starbucks, like you can't decry the worst excesses of capitalism AND enjoy a coffee at the same time.

It's not all a zero-sum game.

[Jochistan]

It's nearly impossible to use non-fossil fuel products in the western world right now. But putting a conscious effort into cleaning up crap or saving energy definitely helps, because it's kind of the only thing we can do. It's not the idea that's wrong in any sense, in fact, it's pretty much vital. The problem is how people are communicating it by being overly touchy, and how people are reacting to it by being overly cynical.

[Kincoboh]

Yes. However, being an environmentalist and owning a coal mine/plant and/or an oil rig is hypocritical.

No arguments here. But what about flying to a different county for a conference on protecting ecosystems? Or commuting to work? Or eating meat? All of those practices hurt the environment yet there are many people who do those things and still call themselves environmentalists.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Sometimes in societies less dependent on fossil fuels, people might have to be much further up in the socioeconomic pyramid in order to buy the eco-friendly stuff because we don't quite readily have the "gourmet hipster items" of capitalism in the Global South.

For example, most of Brazil's power production comes from hydroelectricity. Nevertheless, it's an absurd magnate lifestyle to seek alga-derived plastics, and even a solar panel or a wind turbine isn't accessible to, by far, the vast majority of people. Even organic-only food or decent sustainable home-building that wastes less resources both in the construction and the future functionality might be absurd pipedreams to lower and middle middle class folks.

I won't say that much of this is also to blame at bad government policy that takes protectionism to astronomical levels and doesn't fund stuff according to ever-changing standards, though. For example, it's more simple for you to develop pesticides than pest biocontrol here.

[The Grim Reaper]

Yes. However, being an environmentalist and owning a coal mine/plant and/or an oil rig is hypocritical.

No arguments here. But what about flying to a different county for a conference on protecting ecosystems? Or commuting to work? Or eating meat? All of those practices hurt the environment yet there are many people who do those things and still call themselves environmentalists.

There are a fucking lot of vegan or local food environmentalists, and it's physically impossible to go to conferences abroad without either flying or taking a passenger ship - and frankly, I'm not sure if anyone knows they still exist.

Hell, I'm not quite sure they still exist.

Environmentalists should make an effort to take public transport, though, as should everyone else.

[Bombadil]

It's nearly impossible to use non-fossil fuel products in the western world right now. But putting a conscious effort into cleaning up crap or saving energy definitely helps, because it's kind of the only thing we can do. It's not the idea that's wrong in any sense, in fact, it's pretty much vital. The problem is how people are communicating it by being overly touchy, and how people are reacting to it by being overly cynical.

Actually, a lot of these memetic responses are specifically designed to further or detract a cause. A pretty well-known example is smoking and freedom, that legislation on smoking is taking away our freedoms - designed to appeal to the sort of people who smoked.. there's plenty of such examples.

Whenever you see the same type of argument around a particular subject, then likely it's been designed by some lobbyist/comms agency on behalf of an industry.

[Vladislavija]

If animal protection people are considered environmentalists I found it quite hyprocritcal when PETA members who have diabetis complain about animal abuse but continue to use pig-derived insulin.

I also find it quite hyprocitical that enviormentalists are against nuclear energy and pro semiconductor solar.

[Imperializt Russia]

This is like the critic of Occupy in London who noted that they'd been seen drinking Starbucks, like you can't decry the worst excesses of capitalism AND enjoy a coffee at the same time.

It's not all a zero-sum game.

Camping in Wall Street or the centre of London railing against the evils of corporatism while taking a selfie on your iPhone sucking down a Starbucks is pretty hypocritical.

There are ethical phone manufacturers and ethical coffee shop chains.
Of course, you could also go to Tescos (oh... wait) and buy some coffee, a flask and whatnot and make your own coffee.

[The Fascist American Empire]

Yes. However, being an environmentalist and owning a coal mine/plant and/or an oil rig is hypocritical.

No arguments here. But what about flying to a different county for a conference on protecting ecosystems? Or commuting to work? Or eating meat? All of those practices hurt the environment yet there are many people who do those things and still call themselves environmentalists.

I... I don't see how eating meat is relevant, but unless you've got the Santa Maria on hand you've got to fly buster. And I would certainly hope you could commute to work. The West runs on gas. The usage of it is all but expected. Purposefully selling it while complaining about the environment is another thing entirely. Oh, and leaving a bajillion tons of trash everywhere after an environmentalist parade/march/rally/whatchamajigger. I mean seriously, you're going to do all of that, you can find a trashcan or put it in your pocket. Much easier, and more eco-freindly.

[Imperializt Russia]

I don't really see how there can be an answer that isn't this.

NSG might have legitimately posted an /thread post.

Does this stretch to owning stocks in companies that profit directly from coal mine/plants and oil rigs?

Or financial sector companies that have significant oil/fuel stocks?

If you want to be ethical, pay close attention to your stocks.
A number of UK charities which hold funds in stocks and shares have recently gotten into "trouble", because it turns out that these stocks and shares packages do include (I can't recall if direct, or indirect, or part of a group that includes) arms manufacturing firms.

[Emerald-Springs]

I enjoy getting coffee at a co-op anarcho-communist/left-communist/libertarian socialist bookshop café on Mondays and Thursdays. Doesn't make me any less of a hidebound reactionary asshole.

[Bikethage]

I see this argument come up countless times. A story about a prominent environmentalist, and people come out condemning them as being hypocritical because they use oil either for fuel or use plastics. I think it's silly to expect environmentalists to be naked forest dwellers in the wilderness, because it is possible to try to change a system within it. While we shouldn't overlook egregious polluters who say they are pro-environment, it still doesn't invalidate what they say.

What do you think NS? Can you be an environmentalist but still use fossil-fuel based products?

Its OK if you're doing your best not to. For example, don't drive a low-efficiency pickup or SUV or motorcycle if a high-efficiency bicycle will do. Vote with your dollars - don't buy excess cr*p manufactured, packaged and distributed inefficiently. Eat locally. Be aware electricity comes from coal in most places, at huge cost in pollution and loss of energy. Don't fly in airplanes, they burn half a person-year's carbon in one transcontinental flight. Insulate your house. Embody some of the changes you're asking others to make and your message will go over a lot better.

That said, it takes fuel to travel more than a couple hundred kilometers, and it's important to be at mass activist marches to make them - well - massive. In my country (Bikethage) we ARE all naked forest dwellers flying through the air on bicycles, which we think is a noble example to set.

[Bombadil]

This is like the critic of Occupy in London who noted that they'd been seen drinking Starbucks, like you can't decry the worst excesses of capitalism AND enjoy a coffee at the same time.

It's not all a zero-sum game.

Camping in Wall Street or the centre of London railing against the evils of corporatism while taking a selfie on your iPhone sucking down a Starbucks is pretty hypocritical.

There are ethical phone manufacturers and ethical coffee shop chains.
Of course, you could also go to Tescos (oh... wait) and buy some coffee, a flask and whatnot and make your own coffee.

If the message is true, it really shouldn't matter as to the messenger - it's like 'oh.. vegetarianism*.. you know who else was a vegetarian.. that's right, Hitler!' as if that means anything at all.

*I'm not saying vegetarianism is an example of a true message but creating comparison.

[The Fascist American Empire]

Camping in Wall Street or the centre of London railing against the evils of corporatism while taking a selfie on your iPhone sucking down a Starbucks is pretty hypocritical.

There are ethical phone manufacturers and ethical coffee shop chains.
Of course, you could also go to Tescos (oh... wait) and buy some coffee, a flask and whatnot and make your own coffee.

If the message is true, it really shouldn't matter as to the messenger - it's like 'oh.. vegetarianism*.. you know who else was a vegetarian.. that's right, Hitler!' as if that means anything at all.

*I'm not saying vegetarianism is an example of a true message but creating comparison.

So was Ben Franklin... Just saying.

[Norstal]

Camping in Wall Street or the centre of London railing against the evils of corporatism while taking a selfie on your iPhone sucking down a Starbucks is pretty hypocritical.

There are ethical phone manufacturers and ethical coffee shop chains.
Of course, you could also go to Tescos (oh... wait) and buy some coffee, a flask and whatnot and make your own coffee.

If the message is true, it really shouldn't matter as to the messenger - it's like 'oh.. vegetarianism*.. you know who else was a vegetarian.. that's right, Hitler!' as if that means anything at all.

*I'm not saying vegetarianism is an example of a true message but creating comparison.

Yes hypocrisy shouldn't be an excuse to not listen to criticism. But humans are generally not good with logic and it's more effective to get your point across by not being hypocrites.

[Bombadil]

If the message is true, it really shouldn't matter as to the messenger - it's like 'oh.. vegetarianism*.. you know who else was a vegetarian.. that's right, Hitler!' as if that means anything at all.

*I'm not saying vegetarianism is an example of a true message but creating comparison.

Yes hypocrisy shouldn't be an excuse to not listen to criticism. But humans are generally not good with logic and it's more effective to get your point across by not being hypocrites.

I think if a particular group is espousing certain principles but generally acting against those principles then one might have cause to doubt the validity of those principles themselves.. ahem.. religion.. but, for me, it's as much an individual responsibility to look at the facts and decide for oneself.

[Imperializt Russia]

Camping in Wall Street or the centre of London railing against the evils of corporatism while taking a selfie on your iPhone sucking down a Starbucks is pretty hypocritical.

There are ethical phone manufacturers and ethical coffee shop chains.
Of course, you could also go to Tescos (oh... wait) and buy some coffee, a flask and whatnot and make your own coffee.

If the message is true, it really shouldn't matter as to the messenger - it's like 'oh.. vegetarianism*.. you know who else was a vegetarian.. that's right, Hitler!' as if that means anything at all.

*I'm not saying vegetarianism is an example of a true message but creating comparison.

You're conflating hypocrisy with the special case of reductio ad absurdum, reductio ad Hitlerum. That Hitler was a vegetarian means that vegetarianism is bad, because Hitler did it.

"Corporatism is bad for the world" *sips Starbucks* "they should be encouraged to distribute their wealth" *another sip* "and pay their required taxes" *another sip* "look, here's how much tax they dodge" *shows you figures from Google on their iPhone*
That's hypocritical. Or a hilarious level of ignorance.

[Bombadil]

If the message is true, it really shouldn't matter as to the messenger - it's like 'oh.. vegetarianism*.. you know who else was a vegetarian.. that's right, Hitler!' as if that means anything at all.

*I'm not saying vegetarianism is an example of a true message but creating comparison.

You're conflating hypocrisy with the special case of reductio ad absurdum, reductio ad Hitlerum. That Hitler was a vegetarian means that vegetarianism is bad, because Hitler did it.

"Corporatism is bad for the world" *sips Starbucks* "they should be encouraged to distribute their wealth" *another sip* "and pay their required taxes" *another sip* "look, here's how much tax they dodge" *shows you figures from Google on their iPhone*
That's hypocritical. Or a hilarious level of ignorance.

Not really, using mass consumer goods is slightly different from structuring an entire system, with large amounts of lobbying money and corruption of politics, to serve a few - as witnessed by vastly increasing disparity of wealth.

[Imperializt Russia]

You're conflating hypocrisy with the special case of reductio ad absurdum, reductio ad Hitlerum. That Hitler was a vegetarian means that vegetarianism is bad, because Hitler did it.

"Corporatism is bad for the world" *sips Starbucks* "they should be encouraged to distribute their wealth" *another sip* "and pay their required taxes" *another sip* "look, here's how much tax they dodge" *shows you figures from Google on their iPhone*
That's hypocritical. Or a hilarious level of ignorance.

Not really, using mass consumer goods is slightly different from structuring an entire system, with large amounts of lobbying money and corruption of politics, to serve a few - as witnessed by vastly increasing disparity of wealth.

I specifically said that one could pursue products from other companies believed to be more ethical.
Starbucks and Apple are not ethical companies.

They are completely a part of the corporatist culture the OWS movement was supposed to protest. It'd be like dressing up as Eichmann at the Mossad Christmas ball.