11-26-2018, 06:04 AM
geochem: "I too would argue against using the term environmentalist in this context - I'm an environmentalist, and constantly advocate for minimizing the damage humans do to the planet. I think a better term to use is "obstructionist"
- - - -
Your post is well stated, geochem, significantly better than I put it. Answers Tom's and glinda's questions, I think. (I had Nelson Ho and Deborah Ward in mind, but could not recall their names).
There are several types of obstructionists. A NIMBY with no particular environmentalist bent might opportunistically demand environmental reviews to derail a project. Safety concerns and some types of county/state permitting act as obstructing factors for non-environmental reasons.
Various types of obstructionism acting in concert equal very potent obstructionism.
Environmental obstructionists? A cumbersome term. Environmental extremists?
Environmentalists' constraints on projects/development in the U.S. often do not come from overt protest. It mostly comes through policy that they helped enact decades ago, such as the National Environmental Policy Act. Expensive, time consuming environmental reviews are mandated for all sorts of development. I imagine that if another asbestos-containing building on Banyan Drive has to be torn done, environmental policy will--once again--call for a $1 million environmental assessment, even if the site and building conditions are known to be identical to Uncle Billy's.
Trump has been trying to roll back many environmental regs. I imagine even moderate environmentalists favor retaining existing policy. Just to be safe....
Are environmentalists who drive fancy, expensive cars hypocrites?
No, that would be a gross overstatement. But global warming, arguably the top threat to humanity, is heavily related to Earth's 7.5 billion people--forecast to rise to 9.8 billion in 2050--all desiring the same material culture we enjoy in the U.S. Big houses. Fancy cars. Jet skis. Boats. Yearly vacations to Europe. Conspicuous consumption. People who elect to live frugally in tall apartment buildings (much less environmentally demanding than single family homes) and have no car, riding the bus, are doing their part to help the environment.
A persistent environmental obstructionist with a $60 K car, an expensive house and yearly ski vacations to Aspen. I call that bad form.
- - - -
Your post is well stated, geochem, significantly better than I put it. Answers Tom's and glinda's questions, I think. (I had Nelson Ho and Deborah Ward in mind, but could not recall their names).
There are several types of obstructionists. A NIMBY with no particular environmentalist bent might opportunistically demand environmental reviews to derail a project. Safety concerns and some types of county/state permitting act as obstructing factors for non-environmental reasons.
Various types of obstructionism acting in concert equal very potent obstructionism.
Environmental obstructionists? A cumbersome term. Environmental extremists?
Environmentalists' constraints on projects/development in the U.S. often do not come from overt protest. It mostly comes through policy that they helped enact decades ago, such as the National Environmental Policy Act. Expensive, time consuming environmental reviews are mandated for all sorts of development. I imagine that if another asbestos-containing building on Banyan Drive has to be torn done, environmental policy will--once again--call for a $1 million environmental assessment, even if the site and building conditions are known to be identical to Uncle Billy's.
Trump has been trying to roll back many environmental regs. I imagine even moderate environmentalists favor retaining existing policy. Just to be safe....
Are environmentalists who drive fancy, expensive cars hypocrites?
No, that would be a gross overstatement. But global warming, arguably the top threat to humanity, is heavily related to Earth's 7.5 billion people--forecast to rise to 9.8 billion in 2050--all desiring the same material culture we enjoy in the U.S. Big houses. Fancy cars. Jet skis. Boats. Yearly vacations to Europe. Conspicuous consumption. People who elect to live frugally in tall apartment buildings (much less environmentally demanding than single family homes) and have no car, riding the bus, are doing their part to help the environment.
A persistent environmental obstructionist with a $60 K car, an expensive house and yearly ski vacations to Aspen. I call that bad form.