Food: the next Green bandwagon?

Time for change

The ecotards are always looking out for the next scare, you know, the one to replace the current one when people wise up to the fact that it was all a crock of s**t. It’s still likely that biodiversity will be the scare du jour in the coming years (see here), with the same universal UN/Green aims of control of the proletariat: regulating people’s lives, taxing them more and generally interfering in their affairs. However, Time magazine has another idea:

These are dark days for the environmental movement. A year after being on the cusp of passing landmark legislation to cap greenhouse gases, greens are coming to accept the fact that the chance of national and international action on climate change has become more remote than ever. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is under attack by newly empowered Republicans in Congress who argue that the very idea of environmental protection is unaffordable for our debt-ridden country. Accustomed to remaining optimistic in the face of long odds, the environmental movement all at once faces a challenge just to stay relevant in a hostile political climate. In 2004, authors Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus faced a harsh backlash from the greens when they released a polemic essay called “The Death of Environmentalism,” but now it appears they might have been ahead of their time.

Even as traditional environmentalism struggles, another movement is rising in its place, aligning consumers, producers, the media and even politicians. It’s the food movement, and if it continues to grow it may be able to create just the sort of political and social transformation that environmentalists have failed to achieve in recent years. That would mean not only changing the way Americans eat and the way they farm — away from industrialized, cheap calories and toward more organic, small-scale production, with plenty of fruits and vegetables — but also altering the way we work and relate to one another. To its most ardent adherents, the food movement isn’t just about reform — it’s about revolution. (source)

Notice how it’s never, ever, about actually making things better, it’s about “political and social transformation” or “altering the way we work and relate to one another” or “revolution” – dismantling capitalism, scaling back Western economies and advancing socialist/Marxist ideals. Yet the warmists yell “conspiracy theory” when sceptics allege ulterior motives for environmental campaigns – when they all but admit it themselves! Why is there a publication called Green Left Weekly? Why not Green Right Weekly? Because the environmental movement is so bound up with socialism and Marxism that the two are virtually identical.

Comments

  1. The Loaded Dog says:

    Notice how it’s never, ever, about actually making things better, it’s about “political and social transformation” or “altering the way we work and relate to one another” or “revolution”

    It’s about power and control over others and a wish to regulate every aspect of our lives so it’s in line with what THEY believe is the “ideal” – with NO room for diversity of thought.

    Just imagine the scope for this with food?

    The “true believers” compare themselves to one another gaining “religious status” or sainthood amongst their peers because they strictly follow the ideal and don’t eat meat, or only eat organic or whatever the hell is “appropriate” and religiously “proper” at the time.

    Those who don’t buy the b/s can be peer pressured into toeing the line after being frowned upon from lofty moral heights by the eco-saints.

    Anyone who can’t see this for what it is – a bankrupt pseudo-religion – is a fool.

  2. I have no problem with small scale food production and organic food. I do this myself and enjoy the fruits of my labour (which is pretty ordinary by any realistic measure).

    However, if someone is going to force people to eat organic food, well, they’ll find me objecting loudly.

    Sad really. The environmental movement could have achieved so much more in cleaning up local environments and rehabilitating habitats for local wildlife and people’s enjoyment. But as soon as they drifted from cleaning up and regulating pollution to grand pie-in-the-sky change-the-world dreams, they lost their reason to be and ultimately their grass roots support. Because outside of a piercing-compulsory student group, who really supports environmentalists these days? I don’t see ordinary people chaining themselves to coal mining equipment or rattling tin cups in the street.

    I for one would support a conservative environmentalist party that concentrated on forcing adherence to existing environmental legislation and using evidence-backed approaches to wilderness management. One that put resources into removing exotic pests and working out how to maximise enjoyment of wilderness areas for the long term. One that worked with farmers to maximise health of river systems and land in agricultural areas. That provided real guidelines for people living in bush areas on mitigating bushfire risk while preserving forests. One that swore off computer models and PR stunts and concentrated on results.

  3. SOYLENY GREEN says:

    Well, Simon, the UN did say we’re supposed to eat bugs to save the planet.

    http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2010/08/01/oh-noes-meat-crisis-un-says-time-to-eat-bugs/

    Thank God these Eco-tards are incapable of original thought.

  4. Craig Goodrich says:

    These would be the same greens that are all enthusiastic about the intensive corn farming and food price increases brought about by their lunatic push for “renewable” ethanol…

%d bloggers like this: