A green friend of mine shaved my eyebrows off once when I fell asleep at a party (which I do out of tradition), so she definitely isn’t a Trot, according to your (pretty sound) logic!

Good analysis Dave.

Professor Ian Pilmer, the Australian geologist and climate change sceptic, could not find a publisher for his book Heaven and Earth

He couldn’t find a publisher? So, what’s this then? I’m suspecting that if he had initial trouble finding a publisher, it might be to do with the widespread shredding of his arguments by numerous eminent climate scientists.

Oh, and…

If you squint, lots of things look disarmingly similar. In fact, inability to distinguish between red and green is one of the diagnostic criteria for colour blindness.

Lovely smackdown, Dave, That comeback made me smile.

Personally, I don’t agree with every position that the Green Party advocates (No, we don’t need more complementary therapies in the NHS; they’re mostly just a load of old woo. And no, we can’t ban animal testing from medical research: it’s unpleasant but necessary in order to save human lives) but overall I find them well-meaning and tolerant individuals who (rightly) think that climate change is the biggest threat facing us since the dawn of civilization.

Pilmer has also been debunked loads of times.

It’s funny watching all these climate change denialists create massive conspiracies against them. As if they don’t get enough lobby money already. Everyone’s out to get these poor sods! Even if their arguments don’t stack up. Apparently it’s a conspiracy just because they don’t get published. Perhaps I’ll try that one day.

Steady on, Antonia, or people will begin to suspect you of conjuring up straw men here. It is a bit of a jump from George Monbiot’s arguments in favour of limitations on the number of flights that people take to the proposition that children are the work of Satan, isn’t it? Don’t you think you are exaggerating here? I mean, just slightly?

I don’t know enough about internal green thinking to comment on whether it’s a generally accepted position or not, but to call it a straw man seems a bit foolish given that one of the most well known green intellecuals has explicitly mentioned it; see http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article5627634.ece, for example.

Plimer’s book has in fact been published.

On the debunking, he has offered to fly over to the UK to debate Moonbat face to face.

I do hope Moonbat has the courage to accept – I would love to watch that.

Sunny – hope our bet is still on?

It seems pretty clear that Green policies would reduce our standard of living if employed – not a vote winner.

This idea that environmentalism is on a par with Communism , and that there is no such thing as global warming is all coming from the American Right wing. (Heavily backed by corporate America.) Nothing must be allowed to interfere with the Third Reich. (Sorry , I mean free market capitalism.)

So the fact that this appears in a Murdoch rag is no surprise.
“Professor Ian Pilmer, the Australian geologist and climate change sceptic, could not find a publisher for his book Heaven and Earth” There is no shortage of Right wing sugar daddies who will publish this stuff, and a giant wing nut welfare circuit on which to promote it. Fox news being a perfect example.

Mind you , it does show the extremes the hard right will go to to defend capitalism at all costs. Not even the destruction of the planet is enough to make them moderate their views.

Having said that I don’t take Zac Goldsmith or Prince Charles seriously as advocates for the environment. They are just wealthy NIMBYS. It will be fascinating to watch how many polluting, anti environment bills Goldsmith will vote for when he becomes an MP.

‘If you squint, red and green look disarmingly similar.’

That’s either an optical illusion caused by the desensitisation of the green cones in the retina or congenital deuteranopia.

Or possibly the result of prolonged drug abuse.

If you take Viagra, things often look blue.

I’m told.

Not sure about squinting at red and green; aren’t the greens closer on the evolutionary tree to fascists rather than communists?

Hasn’t stopped me voting Green – there is a huge gulf between Nick Griffin and Patrick Harvey – but if you start getting historical it’s the far right rather than the far left where you find green affinities (elective or otherwise).

Stare at a white spot and you get a black after image, therefore black is white. Hey, this kind of politics is easy! Number 2 is red, number 5 is green (if you have synesthesia).

Greens aren’t Stalinist: they wouldn’t have let Lysenko muck about, for one thing.

They are often illiberal though – but that doesn’t make them communist any more than it makes them fascist.

Is there a version of Godwin’s Law which extends to invoking Stalin?

‘But the means to these ends seem similarly insurmountable. Both routes demand an immediate suspension of human nature.’

It is, of course, human nature to fly at supersonic speeds – which is why we evolved jet engines.

Congratulations to Dave for his perseverance in reviewing Senior’s piece. Senior’s argument took a long time to appear to be going somewhere, and then it didn’t.

There are still some pretty good arguments why the UK Green Party isn’t liberal and doesn’t serve the developing world.

Scientists have observed global warming; a majority blame human behaviour (use of carbon based fuels) and a minority reckon it is the normal way of the world or mismeasurement . Given that we don’t know which reason applies, there is a consensus for the former. It is a precautionary principal that requires us to change our behaviour when consuming energy.

Additionally, the UK government should have changed its development policies, but it didn’t. We (UK/EU) aren’t going to achieve very much to reduce global emissions in the next twenty years (indeed, the first world is very good at shifting the problem onto developing countries) and sea levels are rising. How many international development projects address current and future land loss, and how many hypothecate CO2 reduction? If sea level rises are a natural phenomenon, developed countries should help affected countries anyway.

Are citizens of developing nations permitted to improve their lifestyle if it increases CO2 emissions? Is it fair to deny a fridge to an Indian citizen? If Green politics was honest, it would admit that western lifestyle would have to go on hold for the two goals (CO2 reduction and global equality) to be achieved. For how many millennia?

It seems pretty clear that Green policies would reduce our standard of living if employed – not a vote winner.

Given the alternative is the destruction of our planet – I doubt it very much. It’s just a matter of how badly it affects people.

The diktat “from each according to his ability, to each according to his means”

Ugh!

“From each according to his ability to each according to his work” Socialism.

“From each according to his ability and skills it is therefore that to each according to his needs, and those needs of the betterment and enhancement of society” Communism.

In other words she is a twat!

Not one for normally disagreeing with ‘our’ Sal – I want Capitalism to carry on as it is! The end product is going to be worth it.

Sadly while some criticism of the Greens is misguided (accusations of totalitarianism) the bulk of the party are, to be frank, not the kind of people you want anywhere near the levers of power if you believe those levers should be operated by people capable of rational decision making.
There are some Greens who are sensible and have a proper scientific outlook but they are wasted in a fringe party stacked with morons from the lowest level activist to the highest echelons of leadership. They should join a mainstream party and influence it from within. The Green party is a lost cause.

Quite unfounded accusations – we are perhaps too democratic for our own good which can lead to slow reactions to day to day politics. Jean Lambert to be fair has one of the best records of any MEP.
Alternative Medicine is largely bullshit – I say that as a Green Party member, but its hardly the most important part of Green Party policy and we can change it – mainstream parties in the UK are a corporate sponsored waste of space – wilst the Greens are imperfect they are the only party on the centre left (Idon’t count Labour or Lib Dems as Centre left, far too enamoured with the market)

“Verbal icepicks” says it all. Ms Senior appears to believe that there is no difference between these and actual icepicks; I suspect Trotsky would beg to differ.

Green politics is closer to Fascism in terms of ideology and cultural repertoire than Stalinism or Communism, though there’s always been a divide between fundis – Heideggerean deep ecology folks, who are countermodern, and realos – liberals trying to tame the excesses of modernity.

It’s the first ideological position I’m more worried about. Someone who subscribes to that position isn’t so interested in evidence or a standard of living, but a wish to go back to a notion of static purity about the relationship between humans and nature.

Finally, the UK Greens do have a significant socialist faction, who sit somewhere between the realos and fundis.
My response has always been is that global society cannot afford to wait for socialism to be established, and we have to do the dirty work of arriving at international agreements. Contraction and Convergence has always struck me as “politics by Excel spreadsheet,” rather than a serious attempt to solve cooperative action issues.

Dave,

many thanks for the interesting post.

Though I’m a Green voter and member of the Green Party, I think that eco-fascism is indeed a threat we should guard against. But, unlike Antonia Senior, I do not see eco-fascism as an inevitable consequence of ecological thinking any more than Stalinism is an inevitable consequence of socialim. Throughout the political spectrum there are forces for and against democratic accountability, peace and equality. Scratch any political party and you will find people to whom power is more important than peace.

Fascistic forces within the Green party are thankfully few though there are some high-profile green movement supporters who seem rather too close to right-wing mysticism for my liking.

The Social Ecology movement, what used to be called the Green Shift Paradigm, or simply Green Shift, has been highly critical of right-wing forces within the green movement for decades. Understanding the difference between the huge range of green technologies, practices and policies on offer from the green movement helps enoumously in sifting the science-based, rational and democratic greens from those more intent upon running green organisations as if they are secret societies. The markers are usually mysticism and racism.

The modern Green Party has very strong policies supporting Science and Equality & Human Rights and any Green Party member aware of irrational science or fascists ideologies creeping into local or national green agenda should use those policies to ensure eco-fascist tendencies are properly marginalised.

I know of no UK political party completely free of fascistic influence or free of people looking for political short-cuts. It is essential for all of us, regardless of party political persuasion, to oppose such tendencies; but to assume that the green movement is actually a fascistic movement is to completely misunderstand (perhaps puposefully) the tasks that lie ahead and the possible solutions to climate change, loss of biodiversity and the unsustainable nature of economies based on exponential growth and debt.

Best wishes

Nick Nakorn

Will Rhodes “Not one for normally disagreeing with ‘our’ Sal – I want Capitalism to carry on as it is! The end product is going to be worth it.”

I am not sure if I should take that as a compliment or not.

I am not sure if I should take that as a compliment or not.

All I can say Sally is that many here who attack your views for being too extreme – I don’t.

I can see where you’re coming from and I understand it – yet, we have to allow capitalism run its tidy course.

The general public at large are not, quite, ready for socialism – they have proved that. They do want an alternative but are willing to stick with capitalism because that seems to be ‘just about’ the best way at the moment.

Those in power propagate capitalism because it keeps them in power. But, as always, the change will not come from the seat of power – the change that is needed will come from the grass roots of society – an amalgam of working-class and middle-class will change the political sphere. If Tories and Tory-lite can keep those classes apart and against each other, the change will take longer – but the change will come. Whether under a banner of red, blue, orange or green – it will come.

It isn’t Britain (or anywhere else) that is broken – it is the parliaments around the world that are.

Bloody hell, someone on Liberal Conspiracy who agrees with me on some things.

To paraphrase Basil Faulty …… I should have you stuffed.

I understand what you say about letting ultra , pure , free market doctrine run it’s course, and when left to it’s own devices in the 19th century it was responsible for creating socialism. ( Something for our fake libertarians to keep in mind.)

But then there was a fear that it would just eat itself, now there is a fear that the planet will be uninhabitable after it’s finished. Some of the ultra Right wing free market storm troopers would rather see the end of the world than any other system in place.

One of the major problems you had in the earlier tries with socialism – was down to simple facts on the ground. People weren’t educated enough, there wasn’t any real organisation; as such it was easy for the new bosses to come and take over. “We’ll run this for you – you just go back to the farm and produce”

What is different now is that people are, for the most part, better educated – and a little more cynical at anyone who wants to come in and ‘run the show’.

As for the remainder of the planet, or how long it will last – that is a debate I could get into, even with capitalists, and loon Libertarians.

Without the planet there is no power, no power no capital, no capital, a few survive to start again – and those who survive will be the plebs who can live on mouldy bread, walk for miles and miles with a hungry, screaming child on their backs.

So, that said, capitalists won’t enter in any agreement that means the life of the planet is preserved – it will mean they will get into it when profit can be seen to be made from the saving of it.

Nissan – electric cars. Honda, electric cars, Toyota etc – British capitalist – “Lets mine the moon!!!!! (Although they wouldn’t because it would cost money)”

American and British capitalists have gotten a wee bit lazy – they want profit but don’t want to invest in anything that will actually cost money – hence why they fucked up on the PC – that secrecy bollox is just that – bollox.

When the initial investment shows a profit, it will be all hands on the deck boys, get those leccy cars built with the worker looking at them wondering why they, the BritAm capitalist, is speaking to a Japanese company worker.

Capitalists are latter-day feudal Lords, and we all know what happened to them.

“American and British capitalists have gotten a wee bit lazy – they want profit but don’t want to invest in anything that will actually cost money ”

It is not that they are a wee bit lazy, they are very lazy. Much easier to ring up your banker friends and get them to come up with a load of cash that can be used to take over one of your competitors than actually compete with them.

One of the biggest myths of capitalism is the that the owner class likes hard work, and competition. Pure bullshit. They love monopoly and no competition. But they can’t admit that because they would look like idiots. So they pretend to like competition.

thanks Dave – made me smile

Good points by Nick Nakorn – in the wider Green Movement there are are a few dodgy right wing characters, but they wouldn’t last long in the modern Green Party.

The Green Party is a very broad church, especially for such a small party. I know lot of ex Labour and a few ex Lib Dems, as well as a few former Trots. We have people I’d descibe as radical liberals, others who are more social democratic in outlook and others who are inspired by Marx or anarchist thought.

We have our faults, cranks and the odd character who I’d consider beyond the pale, but they tend to get kicked out or leave. We also have our feuds and on going arguments, but thats just like any other democratic party.

“One of the biggest myths of capitalism is the that the owner class likes hard work, and competition. Pure bullshit. They love monopoly and no competition. But they can’t admit that because they would look like idiots. So they pretend to like competition.”

Sally, not for the first time, you are in full agreement with Milton Friedman: http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v21n2/friedman.html

There are some Greens who are sensible and have a proper scientific outlook but they are wasted in a fringe party stacked with morons from the lowest level activist to the highest echelons of leadership. They should join a mainstream party and influence it from within.

Please suggest a “mainstream party” which is not “stacked with morons from the lowest level activist to the highest echelons of leadership”.

she’s not talking about the green party, for heaven’s sake. go to a climate camp meeting – they’re a bit vicious.

Of course, we Greens are Stalinist, though fortunately the “authorities” are on to us and have defeated our attempt to build our first gulag at the Big Green Gathering…… Might have got that wrong!