From the Grist commentary

So what about legislative-focused environmentalism? Well, ridiculous politicking in Washington has turned even the most mundane issues (birth control?) into partisan fodder. This has resulted in only a handful of significant environmental victories in my lifetime, with all the signs pointing toward fewer to come. 

One way to turn off the young generation is to make them cynical enough to believe nothing can ever get done in politics, and in a few cases, it’s working.Still, Lisa sees leaders like Van Jones examples of the movement she wants to associate herself with.  

Leaders of this movement include Van Jones, Majora Carter, Billy Parish, and many others who have made the case that being green isn’t just a way to protect the environment, it’s a way to revitalize our economy, culture, and communities.

So no, I’m not an environmentalist. I’m a rational human being, just like most Americans who live environmental lives. If we’re truly going to create a more sustainable and equitable economic system, we need to look past the divisions and understand that most of us are on the same side, regardless of the labels we place on ourselves, or choose not to.

Among those reasons, she cites Joe Romm (Keith’s devil).One wonders who she is fighting exactly.  Perhaps it’s just labels.  Perhaps I’m not an environmentalist, but a rational human being who lives an environmental life.  Feel better now?

@NewYorkJ: “Perhaps it’s just labels.”

I think that’s largely the case. I don’t think I would label myself an “environmentalist” any more, even though I actually am much more conscientious about my consumption and waste footprints than I have ever been- including a time when I probably would have called myself an environmentalist.

The success of environmentalism has had the effect of it becoming mainstream to the point of invisibility.

Attitudes towards littering, wetlands conservation, governmental regulation of pollutants, etc. have simply become a part of American life in many places.

Even though a large majority of Americans favor the government regulating greenhouse gas pollution, I don’t think most or maybe even many of them would label themselves “environmentalists”. Does it matter whether they do or don’t?

It was covered in palm trees during the MWP

Or so one legend has it. Another claims it was – as you suspect – lying PR spin by some chap called Eric The Red. Doubtless not a good Republican.

Good reminder, TB (#3).  I had already forgotten about Judge’s Goode Family flop.  It failed after being moved to Comedy Central too.  I mostly like his work, but I don’t think there’s a lot of sustained widespread desire to see the mocking of caricatures of those who are trying to do some good.

The theme seems to be cynicism.  In the Grist commentary, while calling for more optimistic framing (green jobs), Lisa cynically seems to not want to be labelled an environmentalist in part because she believes environmentalists are associated with those who think legislative action is possible.  She’s disenfranchised, believing little to nothing has or will ever be done and there’s no point in trying.  It’s along the lines of what deniers and the Breakthrough crowd wants her to think.  Maybe she’s just not looking in the right places.

http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/coal/victories.aspx

My daughter just walked in here while I had screen shot of the South Park episode up with the hybrid car, and she said “..goooood for youuuuu…..”.  You have to see the episode to understand the joke.

This self parody that is American environmentalism is a skeptic’s best friend.  So politically correct that it is incapable of introspection, and largely unable to perform critical analysis of itself  (KK excepted) because of the fear of hurting someone’s feelings.  

Yet they are bipolar and capable of extreme viciousness when speculating on the motivations of the people on the other side of the argument.  

A recent article KK linked to also stated that even young people who were largely sympathetic to the environmental causes, refused to self identify as an environmentalist.  You have to ask yourself, why?  Watching the clip from Portlandia gives a lot of insight into the answer to that question.  I’ve seen a few other episodes of Portlandia, and although a bit uneven, it has some hilarious scenes.

Does any parent really want their child to grow up to be an “environmentalist”?  Not likely.  The word environmentalist has become synonymous with really angry self righteous hypocritical unemployed new wave hippy, spewing venom about the evils of consumerism from their Apple iPhone and Mac laptop.

Would I mind if my daughters become a scientist that investigates and researches environmental issues?  Not at all.  This subtle distinction speaks volumes.  I’m not sure at what point “environmentalists” became humorless unlikable people, but the stereotype has become pervasive in US culture.

Teaching is a noble profession, and teachers enjoy a public that respects and honors them (just not enough to pay them well).  Environmentalists should enjoy the same thing.  It ought to be seen as a noble profession.  What went wrong?

It’s always been the program here.

The Portlandia video clip is a hoot all right and almost as funny as the people upset with KK for writing about it.

Jeff

Contrarians aside, who cares about the Mannean hockey stick these day? Seriously?

Try and debunk these.

Those pesky enviro-activists:

http://www.ted.com/talks/joe_smith_how_to_use_a_paper_towel.html

Shake. Fold.

If that does not make you smile, that’s because you live in Greenlandia.

I love how balanced you’ve been lately Keith. The greenies never notice the posts about climate skeptic blogs throwing RPJr under the bus, the HI billboards, the skeptic echo chamber, etc.

@Matt S, Keith calls him like he sees them. The criticism of climate skeptics didn’t meet the definition of “hit pieces?” They were much more directly-worded in the titles.

If the stereo-type caricature doesn’t describe your viewpoint, then why feel insulted? Don’t take yourself so damn seriously! Lighten up! Get a sense of humor, for goodness sake.

Ugh! Typos!!!
English is my first and only language, believe it or not!
Can I whine about the lack of “preview” option for the combox?…

Recent communications from Greenlandia:

http://www.theecologist.org/green_green_living/health_and_beauty/1354843/tried_and_tested_mineral_makeup.html

http://www.theecologist.org/green_green_living/food_and_drink/1354841/how_togive_your_cocktail_a_greenover.html

http://www.globalcool.org/lifestyle/comp-win-the-ultimate-luxury-towelling-treat

(The Ecologist is the billionaire’s guide to green living. Global Cool – a state-funded enterprise, so average salaries are only about £55k pa – aims a bit lower but sends the same message: green consumerism is where it’s at.)

Why do many environmentalists trust science when it comes to climate change but not when it comes to genetic engineering?

Genetic Engineering, Spewing Lot’s of Anything(If we were spewing pure O2 we would probably raise our fire risk) into the environment and nuclear power all have the characteristic of having the possibility of substantial but difficult to quantify ‘unintended consequences’.

In standard ‘risk psychology’ many of us tend to evaluate ‘unknown’, ‘difficult to quantify’ and ‘low frequency risks’ at substantially higher levels then they rationally deserve.

I.E. Flying is safer then driving but many of us will chose to drive rather then ‘risk it’ by taking the plane.

The risks associated with a nuclear power accident, or a genetically engineered crop going horribly wrong or climate change are difficult to quantify at a numerical level and even more difficult to quantify at an emotional level.

From a ‘fear of the unknown’ standpoint being against nuclear power, genetically engineered crops and believing in CAGW appear to me to be consistent.