Information icon.svg Voting is completed for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election and the results are now posted.
Congratulations to the winners!


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This Environmentalism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Real Vs. Woo section[edit]

Can someone expand this to actually include REAL environmentalism? Otherwise, it looks more like an opinion rather than a compare and contrast, and I think (when it comes to woo and pseudscience) that showing the difference is of utmost importance.The Goonie 1 23:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

+1. Two years later, this article is still shit.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that the whole "real", and "disputed" breakdown is a bad idea.
Few things in this category are so black and white and almost all involve some balancing of priorities in respect of things like: the needs of human populations vs the effect on the environment and whether we are looking short term, long term or very long term.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Nature woo and greenwashing are firmly in the woo category, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually I wasn't talking about the "woo" category - just the "real" and "disputed".--BobSpring is sprung! 06:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Incandescent vs. Fluorescent[edit]

The mercury issue isn't quite as clear cut as presented, as the coal used for the incandescent lights releases, I am told, more mercury than the light contains. Imarcuson (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Move nuclear to disputed issues?[edit]

See James Hansen's interview on nuclear and the 350 ppm pathway for (reservedly) pro-nuke stances from environmentalists, for example. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Expanding Disputed Issues:[edit]

1) 'Whether or not organic food is beneficial to the environment'

Not touching FDA/certification/farm bill, disputes/legal battles over definition of 'organic' or 'natural'/sustainable ag/food.

WILL collect credible sources/ links to research results/articles pertaining to relevant current soil & ag related research & findings; items relating to phosphorous(cycle, 'peak', placed on 'rare' list) and carbon: cycle, sequestration, below-ground stratification of old loess/ high carbon concentration soil discovered in the US midwest speculated 2B evidence of enormous amount of fire at that stratification/time (both pending wild 'fire' and ag-related carbon release implications), comparative conventional farming v 'organic' (or 'regenerative farming') methods (& respective health of plants & nutritional quality of food) research & findings, (bovine) husbandry v veg ag -pertaining to release of methane, mycorrhizal fungi.

Here's a good one -Anybody want to review the credibility of this?:

['Climate Change' and] Humus - the essential ingredient: Graeme Sait at TEDxNoosa:

2) 'Opposition to nuclear energy ... but some environmentalists support'...

Anybody have a problem with:

Add line: "See James Hansen's interview on nuclear and the 350 ppm pathway for (reservedly) pro-nuke stances from environmentalists." [Neb's suggestion; didn't check those links yet]

[Followed by] Update: Some environmentalists' reservedly pro-nuke position may have slid off its cracker since the reactor meltdown at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant caused by seismic walloping on March 11, 2011.--Greeneggs (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

That shows how hypocritical Conservatives really are[edit]

If conservatives those days were really conservative, they'd be environmentalists, not capitalists. (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean, it's possible for them to be both. Human psychology is weird that way. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Where do I put this stance?[edit]

Some cultural critics (or "crirical theorist" if you prefer), instead of focusing on the environmentally-related seems more concern about what they perceive as a deep cultural issue (sometimes going far beyond capitalism); that´s it, according to them, the real cause of our ecological crisis has to be found on western culture as a whole (and the enlightment period in particular) and their promotion of logical positivism and rationality, as well as technological progress itself. For them, we need to get "decolonized" (whatever that means) and restore our "contact with nature" again as (presumably) indigenous people, leaving our "anthropocentric destructive individualist attitudes" for some kind of posthumanism and changing our relationship with the environment with one of "mutual respect and empathy" (you may ask what does it means; for me, sound like "deep ecology"). Directly or indirectly, this has been visible in some academics such as the entire Frankfurt School (especially Herbert Marcuse), Félix Guattari, Theodore Roszak, David Foreman, John Zerzan, Derrick Jensen, Kierre Keith, Chet Bowers (probably the most evident one) and so on... everybody of them dismissing the "Real environmentalism" concerns as "shallow environmentalism"...

What do you think about that? Does this fit on any category on the main page? If you disagree with the things I´ve exposed, do you know any academic who debunks them in a correct way?

Nitrato de Chile (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Nitrato de Chile

...what? Legitimately very confused by this. I can't parse this message at all. armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 22:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Basically this and other "decolonial" stuff: User talk:Nitrato de Chile|talk 18:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Nitrato de Chile

Seems like an entirely different thing than environmentalism. Seems Woo-y enough for its own article, so if you feel confident about writing it, go for it armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 20:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)