In message <2171-3743157F-623@postoffice-151.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
James Veverka <headbands@webtv.net> writes
>Robin,
>As much a spawn of the devil as any misguided group that would return us
>to global poverty, the diminishment of human rights, overtaxing, big
>governments, less overall personal safety, and brutishness. That's the
>result of the policies that would be "enshrined". The blind attitude of
>the envirofundies is the same you will find in the pro-life picketers
>around a woman's health clinic. And the antichoice people have some
>other things in common with the e-fundie... Bombing and arson:
>Terrorism. So, yes, they are bad seed, and bad memes too. The sky is
>NOT falling and Jesus is NOT coming again!
My point is, what proportion of environmentalists are "envirofundies", and to what extent do you let the real extremists define the issues.
My last job (I'm now self-employed) was as a researcher in a university environmental science department. My previous job was in an economics department, looking at MARKET instruments for pollution control (tradable permits). I've been a member of both Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth for probably 15 years, and generally in favour of environmentalism and "green living" for longer than that. I voted for the Green party in the recent elections here (an option I'm sure you don't get in the US), and there is now one Green member of the new Scottish parliament. I know the energy spokesman for the Scottish Greens (helped him get on the net), and was close friends at one time with one of their previous parliamentary candidates. In my experience, the picture you paint is a caricature, and says a lot more about your own political theories than it does about real people. I've never met anyone who advocated any form of violence as environmental action. Extremes are always easier to understand, but it's a very serious mistake to view them as typical.
-- Robin Faichney Visit The Conscious Machine at http://www.conscious-machine.com