Talk:Anti-environmentalism

Why is denial of global warming anti-environmentalist? --85.78.199.96 (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it touches on environment-related scientific matters and is used as a pretext to slime environmentalists. Do you know of any global-warming-denying environmentalists? 00:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * These bullshitters. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, it is anti-environmentalism because the people who do it are called anti-environmentalists by some? --85.78.199.96 (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You have a tough case to make if you want to call denial of the biggest environmental problem in human history "not anti-environmentalism." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If somebody honestly believed that global warming was not occurring but was not generally hostile to environmental causes, that person would not be an anti-environmentalist, but I do not think this describes any global warming denier today. 04:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What about the ones listed in the post? Granted, the total number I know of is a couple of guys writing a blog. And you can always claim that they are posing as greens to gain cred. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

denial of the role of CFCs in the degradation of the ozone layer might be the most hilarious thing possible. Interview any good licensed HVAC technician and they'll tell you how much it's drilled that you can't vent refrigerant (pure CFC/HCFC) into the atmosphere because it'll fuck up the ozone layer. You get fined tens of thousands of dollars for doing it because everyone in the industry is completely aware of how destructive it is to the environment.

If one dislikes natural environment, and would prefer it to be eventually replaced by an engineered one, is he a anti-environmentalist? I am not a climate change denier, I recycle, and all that stuff. I just dislike nature and eventually (obviously today we need nature) I would prefer it to be completely altered and controlled. Again, is this anti-environmentalism? I dont see it reflected in this page, probably because only a handful of people hold this view.

"Watermelon" has been de-linked as it only redirected to itself. The link has been replaced with an explanation of the term and a link the red-baiting article. Frostbyte (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Religious justifications
I'm surprised that there's little discussion about religious justifications for anti-environmentalism. For instance while many christians insist that they are charged as caretakers of god's earth, those who stand to profit from environmental destruction often find solace in that famous line from the end of genesis: "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." . . . Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." Australia's current PM seems to subscribe to this line of reasoning, so I was wondering if there is a specific term for the "subdue the earth as god commands" position. Rikashi (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * So, according to your point, the ultimate cause of environmental degradation is not capitalism, but the existence of abrahamic religions so, in order to ¨save" the plante, do we need to convert to neo-paganism?


 * Btw, not surprised at all by the deep influence of anti-environmentalism thoughts in Australia, as almost any animal there wants to kill you Nitrato de Chile (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Nitrato de Chile
 * You might want to check timestamps before replying. 17:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

How Republicans came to embrace anti-environmentalism
Vox explains. Should be cited for the article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Denial of wind power blight deserves a BIG mention, especially considering the scale of it.
The notion that you can spoil millions of acres of scenery and kill wildlife with huge wind turbines, yet remain "green," is absurd on its face and immoral when investigated further. These looming eyesores also don't work nearly as well as claimed (wind is intermittent) and are constructed & maintained with fossil fuels (no such thing as 100% renewables).

These facts are glossed over by neo-environmentalists who'll only say good things about this latest invasion of nature, and even get angry when you question the "beauty" of industrial landscapes which environmentalists used to oppose. Even if wind power could come close to solving the fossil fuel dilemma, the physical desecration would be anti-environmental and pro-urban.

My point is, pick a side and don't be vague about what you're really supporting. See: https://www.google.com/search?q=blight+for+naught


 * No it does not.


 * The majority of this post is about how "ugly" wind turbines are, repeated ad nauseam. The title of the post, and images with the captions talking about how ugly they are. Being subtle is not a strong point, and it gets very tiring to read quickly after the 100th time the author talks about how ugly these things are with "blight", "aesthetic damage", "colossal, noisy, flashing towers, "industrialized scenery", "wreck landscapes", "ruined hilltops", "three-armed bandits", "Rationalized Desecration of Nature", "giant, mechanical weeds", "Armies of ugly wind towers", "unprecedented visual plague", "stabbing", "alien aesthetics", "mutant thistles", "mechanical monsters", "giant spikes", "absurdly large machines", "aesthetically tainted", "spoiled with eyesores", "trammeled scenery", "wind-sword", "they are 'blowing up' scenery in many ways", "offensive on a gut level", "they wreck landscapes", "biggest eyesores", "wind dams", "assault on landscapes", "huge towers", "wind monsters", "bloated, unreliable power source", like, holy hell dude, we get it, you don't like wind turbines. Those don't substitute for actual arguments.


 * They accuse counter arguments as just wind industry propaganda, such as wind energy the facts and says they cite no "objective" polls (what?). "At least that article admits that “mitigation measures are limited,” which is a dry way of stating that you can’t un-see or un-hear huge towers all over the place, so you either cope or move." <- no, they're making assumptions based on something I don't think they really understand. I looked at the source they derided on, wind energy: the facts (this link, and it seems far better written, written by people who appear to understand the subject far better than the blog post, and actually cites sources and explains far better about some problems with wind turbines. It seems very fair to me, why this would be written as an industry mouthpiece, I don't know. Why this is called "arrogance", I don't know, but my guess, from my biases, these people know more than this blog writer and it makes the blog writer think that site is "arrogant".


 * It also posts practically no sources in its links, being mainly links to Google searches, which is extremely lazy. Overall, this is a screed that has no real argument despite its length and wordiness, and I wouldn't use this as a source for anything. If there is a grain of truth to it, fine, but this piece sucks ass. Fallacies in the article are straw man (who is making those arguments?), shill accusations (there's a ton of that), calling opponents "wind farm zealots" a "mob", "smug shill", "Turbine apologists", "wind drones", smearing engineers, and appeal to nature (there's a ton of that). Just look at this paragraph.


 * In case you think this is a rant with no hope <- yes, this is a rant and you failed to convince me because ugly eyesore blight monsters kill and blow up and rape landscapes.


 * If there's an actual argument in there, it's undermined by all these terrible arguments. 01:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

smoking and asbestos
How is denial of health risks associated with smoking and asbestos linked to anti-environmentalism? These are not issues of environmental consequence and should be removed. Kauri0.o (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For some environmentalists, social and environmental health are the same thing Nitrato de Chile (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Nitrato de Chile

Efilism needs its own page
I had to add this obscure sub-group to show an example of a real coherent anti-environmentalist philosophy, rather than just capitalist greediness denying stuff... Nitrato de Chile (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Nitrato de Chile