Talk:Anti-environmentalism

Untitled

Wikipedia-Ambassador-Program-Logo.png This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Mount Allison University supported by Canada Education Program and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarmariemack (talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Why is the criticism section longer than the main subject article? I smell bias. 4.243.215.234 (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Because that part of the article is extremely biased. It is nowhere NEAR NPOV. --Seldumonde (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Critics are a dime a dozen, so why don't you get working on fixing it instead of being useless. It's not as if this is not a real concept, you could find more references for it instead of dropping by to mearly snipe. Isn't it ironic that people who are brave and do necessary things get their ankes bitten by their lessers. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally against most current popular pro-environmentalist political activism, but I think we ought to simply delete the page, and ought to make pages about "environmental political contraversy" or something like that. --Nerd42 (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. 68.51.41.46 (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagreed. Anti-eviromentalism article is perfectly right. Just because it's small, maybe a stub, doesn't means it should be deleted. Dunno where to research to expand it (everything I search is here lol). An article about the controversy and other about enviromentalism lacks the article on anti-enviromentalists and it's POV, making it biased. 189.123.164.11 (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

simply deleting the page is irresponsible. Anti-environmentalism, as defined ("backlash against environmentalism") is a thing that does exist and needs to be recognized by an encyclopedia. The quality of this article is going to depend on the cohesiveness of the movement, which is not nearly as coordinated as environmentalism itself. There are books and articles written on the topic. Legal decisions have often set off some uproar over environmentalist positions. Here's a good example. [[1]] --Edwardstirling (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Oh and here's the backlash: [[2]] --Edwardstirling (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have written a book about why change is normal on planet earth (On the Destiny of Species) and, thus, why environmentalism is often based on ethics rather than objective natural history. It is free as a pdf and full of sources, but when I tried to list it previously as a relevant link it was dismissed by a higher power as useless promotional spam. After years of research, it was extremely rewarding to have someone dismiss it as garbage (without reading it I suspect) simply because my name is unfamiliar, but I still believe that anybody looking for a different point of view would benefit from reading it and I would like to know what I have to do to get it listed here. The only thing I am trying to promote is skepticism about what is, for all objective purposes, an ethical belief system. It has little to do with the dynamic and competitive reality of life on Earth and everything to do with seeing nature through a thick veil of christian ethics and I am really struggling to work out why the wikipedia guards would refuse to list an objective counter-argument that's free and provides a wealth of extra information, especially when you consider the size of the page at present. Indeed, I would like to add a lot to more the page, but there seems little point while such prejudiced restrictions ("never heard of him so it's clearly nonsensensical promotional spam") are being applied from above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwatkinson (talk • contribs) 11:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, let me put it another way, in the ten months since my free pdf ebook (that specifically concerns the subject of this page) was dismissed as totally irrelevant spam, very little has been added. In fact, the major changes have been deletions, including, quite unbelievably, the deletion of Charles Darwin’s thoughts about the tendency of humans to cry apocalypse when a species is lost. How on earth is that irrelevant? How on earth can this be dismissed as irrelevant information on a page that’s specifically dedicated to the tendency of humans to cry apocalypse? I have no idea, but it has. This page needs more information so could I please ask all those who seem intent on censoring it to let it open up a bit. I realise that anti-environmentalism isn’t a popular philosophy, but it is a philosophy and the full argument should be summarised on Wikipedia, with relevant links for those who want to explore the difference between managing nature (conservation) and observing nature (natural history) further.--mwatkinson (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have decided to add the book to the reading list. If leading environmentalist Jonathon Porritt CBE think it's "highly entertaining" and good enough to "happily recommend to a few of my colleagues in the Green Movement" then I am willing to risk the wrath of the wikipedia guard dogs and relist it. Please let me repeat my assertions about the relevance of this book, because it is a comprehensive case against the environmental movement that seeks to explain humanity's impact in terms of observational natural history, rather than sympathetic pseudo-religious ethics, and I think it should be listed here, especially given that it is a free resource from which I make no money whatsoever.--mwatkinson (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place for original research, if you could get your book published by a reliable source then maybe there'd be some merit in it but as it is this entire page is poorly sourced, and describes what is more a matter of a few people's opinions rather than whatever "movement" does exist. It's also verging toward nothing more than self-publicity. 122.19.143.240 (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Intro needs re-working, imo

The introduction/lead section at the moment:

Anti-environmentalism is a backlash against the environmental movement. Anti-environmentalists believe that the Earth is not as fragile as environmentalists maintain, citing its 5 billion year existence. Some also believe that environmentalism is born of humankind's exaggerated sense of importance, that environmentalism is an extremist viewpoint due accordant scrutiny and/or that some environmentalist factions use pseudo-science and scare tactics in an attempt to force their philosophical/religious values and political agenda on others. In the words of the IUCN for example: "Fear can be a great motivator, and it is one that environmentalists have long cherished".

I think this needs to be better sourced and re-written so that it reads more about what anti-environmentalism is, rather than what environmentalim seems like from the other side. Also, the second half appears to be overly POV (ie, not neutral) and possibly OR especially with regard to the fear-mongering.PrBeacon (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Environment and Society Class Project: My Potential Contributions

Would it be appropriate to add an anti-environmentalist quote section? Here are some quotes I have found and could list thus far: “Environmental acts are mindless proposals that would sacrifice the people of the US on the altar of nature” – Leonard Theberge “Our goal is to destroy and eradicate environmental movement” - Arnold “The environmental community has only itself to blame for the rise of Wise Use sentiments” – Philip Brick “Strangle the environmental movement. It’s the greatest single threat to American economy. It doesn’t just include a few extremists. It is extremist.” – Heritage Foundation Policy Review 1990 Sarmariemack (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Sarmariemack (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Would it be biased or factual to state that: Generally, chemical manufacturers, oil producers, mining producers, timber companies, real estate developers, nuclear power industries, and electric utilities have anti-environmental motives. ? Sarmariemack (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarmariemack (talk • contribs) 19:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

History of Anti-Environmentalism in North-America

Anti-environmentalism is a movement against the environmentalism movement. This backlashes’ origination can be marked by an infamous speech delivered by Lewis Powell to the US Chamber of Commerce in 1971. Several acts had been passed in years prior to Powell’s speech in favor of environmentalism, such the Wilderness Act 1964, Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 1968, National Environmental Policy Act 1969. Powell directed his audience against the environmental movement and promoted a pro-industry and anti-environmental view. (the sentence below as the begining of a second paragraph) James Watt is the most well-known Anti-environmentalist. He advocated free for all mining, ranching, and drilling. In 1988 a Wide Use Campaign was introduced by republican senator, Mark Hatfield. The Wide Use Campaign supported unrestricted access to timber and other resources. Wise Use activists exploited the population’s fear of job and property security loss. The Campaign placed a barrier between workers and environmentalists. The Wide Use Campaign used bumper stickers, phone-ins and faxes to promote their views. Wise Use and Republicans kicked off anti-environmentalism. The recession that began in 1990 enhanced anti-green and pro-industry views. A group called Alliance for America was created with 125 anti-environment and pro-industry groups. In 1994, the US did not pass a Biodiversity Treaty. Another group that was created in the 90’s was called Earth Day Alternatives. They were also counter-environmentalists. This group labelled environmentalists as “anti-human” and extremists. The Earth Day Alternative group promoted three things. They aimed to privatise resources for exploitation, advocate pollution to be permitted as trade between companies, to discredit environmental science. Heritage was a group that was also created with a laissez-faire approach toward the environment. Anti-environmentalists were motivated by the fact that the ICI created deceptive green advertising. Sarmariemack (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Sarmariemack (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarmariemack (talk • contribs) 19:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC) 

citations

I would like to cite the book "Green Backlash: written by Andrew Rowell for information I plan to add to this article. Sarmariemack (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarmariemack (talk • contribs) 19:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to cute Skeptical Environmentalism: The Limits of Philosophy and Science. By Robert Kirkman Sarmariemack (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Potential Indroduction

Anti-environmentalism is a backlash against the environmental movement. Anti-environmentalism disregards the current “environmental crisis" due to specific scientific and economical reasoning. The Anti-environmentalism movement is oppression to the environmental movement; it focuses on job-creation, wage enhancement and industry. Anti-environmentalists believe that the Earth is not as fragile as environmentalists maintain. Generally, chemical manufacturers, oil producers, mining producers, timber companies, real estate developers, nuclear power industries, and electric utilities have anti-environmental motives. Anti-environmentalists are generally right-winged with conservative views, however there may be exceptions. Anti-environmentalism labels environmentalism as an extreme, false and exaggerated reaction to the human contribution of climate change. Anti-environmentalism often seeks to portray environmentalists as anti-human advancement. Sarmariemack (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Anthropology: Environment and Society Review

Hello, I chose your article to review for the course, and found it very informative. There is good information presented in an un-biased way. I was glad to see you created new sections and expanded on the History of the movement. It may help to have a few more sources of information. I was, for the most part, unable to find any major problems with the article.Notlock (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)