The green movement turns over a new leaf

I can't vouch for the science behind this article, but at least the author takes a dynamist perspective about bettering the environment.

Green-minded activists failed to move the broader public not because they were wrong about the problems, but because the solutions they offered were unappealing to most people. They called for tightening belts and curbing appetites, turning down the thermostat and living lower on the food chain. They rejected technology, business, and prosperity in favor of returning to a simpler way of life. No wonder the movement got so little traction. Asking people in the world's wealthiest, most advanced societies to turn their backs on the very forces that drove such abundance is naive at best.
With climate change hard upon us, a new green movement is taking shape, one that embraces environmentalism's concerns but rejects its worn-out answers. Technology can be a font of endlessly creative solutions. Business can be a vehicle for change. Prosperity can help us build the kind of world we want. Scientific exploration, innovative design, and cultural evolution are the most powerful tools we have. Entrepreneurial zeal and market forces, guided by sustainable policies, can propel the world into a bright green future.
Share this

That's wonderful, but I

That's wonderful, but I strongly suspect that a large number of current environmentalists operate from a _core_ of hatred towards technology, business, and prosperity, rather than the other way around.

If the environmental movement "sells them out" by aligning with big business and free-marketers, they will no doubt find other outlets for this anger.

There surely are people who really care about doing what's best for the environment, but they are in no way the driving force of the environmental movement.

I agree with Joel. How many

I agree with Joel. How many new technologies have Greenpiece and Sierra Club come up with to stop pollution and global warming? If they change their tune, more power to them. Sierra Club is no longer a non-profit anyway so they should go for it.

I also think they should focus on things that rational people can accept. Spending $100 billion a year for 50 years to maybe save 1/2 a degree sounds like a stretch. However, asthma/skin/general health problems for children in high pollution areas has teeth.

I take public transportation because I think pollution is ugly and I can taste it when I breathe it not because I am worried about global warming.

For what it’s worth, I've

For what it’s worth, I've heard that nuclear power is supported by Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog; James Lovelock, atmospheric scientist and father of the Gaia theory; Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace; and Christine Todd Whitman, former head of the US Environmental Protection Agency.

I think you'll find a

I think you'll find a growing split between groups like the Sierra Club for whom there is no good solution ... not even wind mills! And common-sense environmentalist who can be persuaded that nuclear is safe, especially pebble bed nuclear.