Talk:Environmentalism

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

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Move nuclear to disputed issues?

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:

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: http://youtu.be/8Q1VnwcpW7E

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

If conservatives those days were really conservative, they'd be environmentalists, not capitalists. 188.192.233.14 (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?

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology 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)

Just Stop Oil protests

It's weird that you didn't hear about the environmental blunder Just Stop Oil protest, where some protesters splashed soup on Van Gogh paintings just because they couldn't tell difference between fossil oil and oil for painting. It caused so much uproar. I saw some claims that they we're linked to an oil company. ASerb (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

That's going to be "citation needed". (The "confused about which type of oil" and the "linked to an oil company" bits.)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

"Just Stop Oil" is indeed linked to an oil family member, which is not the same as being linked to an oil company. Apparently one of the heirs, a granddaughter of J. Paul Getty (of the now-bankrupt Getty Oil), Aileen Getty, is a major donor to the Climate Emergency Fund which in turn is a big donor to Just Stop Oil, and is generally supportive of other similar hard-left anti-oil activism like Extinction Rebellion. There is a wide variety of personalities (ranging from the founder of Getty Images to a transgender model and activist) in the Getty family, so this isn't a case where all the kids are going to parrot oil propaganda simply because their granddad was an oil tycoon. BobJohnson (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)