Sorry Lyle. I’m going to need citation, here.

Duly chastened as to the plane travel. But I took Cathay Pacific, and they had free liquor and new movies for the entire flight, so at least it was a guilty pleasure.

Ahem. To answer your first question: Stephane Dion. Your second: James Lovelock. Your third: Nicholas Stern (and George Monbiot, and Tim Flannery). Your fourth: … erm… Jon, I would get off this dying horse soon if I were you. There’s no future in Goreian (sp?) weather-control fantasies. You should get to work on real problems instead. LIKE YR FILTHY TRANSCONTINENTAL JET FOOTPRINT.

This is the kind of unfortunate framing I was suggesting had been normalized when I wrote “Ideological partisans who favor doing nothing to build our societies on a more sustainable foundation (out of irrational fear that such responsible action would constitute communist-style state interference) have done an excellent job in framing the entire environmental conservation movement…”

Seanjohn, please enlighten us as to which environmental scientist or national or international leader has recommended taxing “everything” or moving “society back 100 years”? Which one suggested that the world would end in 10 years? Who are the “gullible idiots” you refer to who believe in such things? No green-minded private citizen, bureaucrat or politician has ever made such claims.

The point of this post was that the onus should really be on those who advocate doing little or nothing to make our societies more sustainable to show why this is the best course. Straw men are not arguments for inaction.

Re: Richard’s comment, “If the green movement could have gone after smog and other pollution types that are not a subject of debate, while encouraging new forms of energy, I would have fully supported them.”

Well, yeah. The green movement does go after all types of pollution and encourages new forms of energy. As I tried to make clear in this article, climate change is just part of the green message, not the whole one. Some environmentalists have been using “An Inconvenient Truth” as a convenient crutch, but those who oppose Al Gore’s message seem to be focusing disingenuously on this line of debate to the exclusion of all else.

Should we change our ways? Of course. Should we convert to enviro-friendly fuels? Should we transform into a culture that has little or no impact on the environment? No question. Should we tax everything, and kick our society back 100 years because the world ending in 10 years? Absolutely not!!!! The world in not ending you gullible idiots!!!!!

The green movement should have stuck to what is known and widely agreed upon. Pollution in the air, in our rivers and oceans – in a responsible manner. Wide spread support would have been realised and progress would have been made. Instead we make our food supply into fuel products which has no real impact on the real problems at hand while creating new ones.

Perhaps after Copenhagen falls on its face the environmental movement can work towards something that is actually meaningful and needed.