Is an “Anti”-Green Movement beginning to evolve?

Question

With the rise of global warming fears and need for sustainable alternatives, everyone seems to be jumping on the Going Green bandwagon. I am starting my undergrad study related to the Environment and love what I’m learning because I believe improving our surroundings will inevitably improve our lives. It’s a simple logical conclusion I came to without ever soaking up any of the knowledge they’re projecting about the Environmental crisis in books, movies (Inconvenient truth anyone, lol), etc. You can hardly call me the passionate green activist, but I believe the Environment is extremely important (even if I don’t yet go to great lengths to preserve it or voice my views). But as soon as I tell certain people what I’m studying and hoping to do a career in, they are immediately skeptical. I’ve met friends, professors, etc. that believe the concept of “global warming” is a complete myth, and is mainly used by affluent personalities to stir up controversy. Others think it’s just an image, with several celebrities using it as a device to increase popularity. So it’s hard for me not to feel that there ARE a number of people that refuse to believe in conservation, sustainability etc. and are rejecting it merely because they feel it is a mainstream trend. However, there is no way anyone can convince me that protecting the Earth can in any way be a bad thing. What does everyone else think? Are you skeptical about all this fascination with everything Green?

Answer 1

Carbon credits was the last straw for me!!!! This proves that the whole thing was made up to get more revenue for governments. Al Gore is a liar and is making huge amounts of money by spreading this c**p about climate change. I wish my "carbon footprint" were as large as Texas. There is entirely too much money changing hands in the wake of this "catastrophy" for it to be real!!!!

Answer 2

I believe in conseravtion, thus I follow all rules and regulations when i hunt, and tag all my kills.  I figure a lot of you wont like this, but meh, at least i eat what i kill.

Answer 3

Here in yahoo answers are all the signs of a strong anti Environmental movement,no doubt on behalf of the elements who want to exploit it rather than conserve  it.

A lot of money is committed to many industries related to bio resources and changes with this means loss of profits.

And perhaps joined by those who abhor change of any kind or for lethargic reasons.

To be on the side of the Environment or Nature ,in America is becoming more and more UN POPULAR.

just check how the mentalities of the represented leaderships have shifted  ,

from pro Nature,lets conserve we are in trouble,

to

we done nothing wrong and got no problems.

Americans do not want to know about these things

http://byderule.multiply.com/journal/ite...

Depopulating the world and Globalization

are the main items on the Agenda

Famine is  orchestrated

http://byderule.multiply.com/journal/ite...

Answer 4

I think the term global warming never should have been invented. People do not like pollution...it's harmful to our health as well as the environment and makes the earth not look so pretty. Why not just start a movement against pollution? I don't know that I believe in global warming, and quite honestly, all of the hype being shoved down my throat by the media about it kinda makes me want to be 'anti-green' as you say it. Because really, it's become the cool thing to do to preach about global warming, and it's just kind of obnoxious now, and we're not even getting anywhere with it because instead of informing the population of the dangers involved in poisoning the planet, we're having cute pictures of the planet earth that say 'this is why i'm hot' and what not shoved in our faces. People go on and on about global warming but don't really make any efforts to alleviate it..if it exists. I'm all for keeping our air safe to breathe and the world I live in unpolluted. If an anti-polution movement were to take place instead of all this go green...global warming stuff, who can really argue with that?

Answer 5

No, I'm not, being green is a way of life for most people now and hopefully it will stay that way. Oh and people who "don't believe" in global warming are just morons.

Answer 6

The anti-green movement has been around for quite a while.  That's why 'tree-hugger' is considered an insult, after all.  They're even trying to turn 'environmentalist' into a bad word.

It mainly stems from the fact that addressing global warming means we're going to need to make serious changes in how we do things.  We're highly addicted to oil, and many people are resistant to ending that addiction.  Moreover, the oil companies have a lot of money to spread misinformation and make it easy for people to remain in denial about this problem.

See the link below for further details.

Answer 7

Who gives a **** about the stupid planet. We got bigger problems to deal with. Environmentalism is nothing more than sugar-coated communism.

Answer 8

Of course we should take care of the planet, but hyping end of the world scenarios, such as man made global warming to get people to accept higher taxes and more government control over their lives is not acceptable. For example we have plenthy of oil in our own country, could develop nuclear power and clean coal technologies and we are prevented from doing so by the environmental wackos. Instead we burn food in our gas tanks and drive up the price of food. We are suffering real hardships due to the myth of manmade global warming.

Answer 9

There are some migrants into the green tent that at one time was inhabited almost exclusively by scientists and naturalists genuinely concerned about legitimate issues.

In addition to the fad followers you mention (which would include celebrities who wouldn't know a spotted owl if it dropped owl doo in their swimming pools), there are, for want of a better word, socialists, who lost their anti-civilization, anti-industry debate in the domains of economics and sociology and are just looking to change venue rather than admit defeat.  

While they swell your ranks for now, in the long run they harm your cause more than they help.    Green to them is just the new red.   The environment is just a pretext.    They don't really care about the tree that will be saved if you get an injunction against a new development, they just don't want the building or road to be built, period.    They don't care about CO2, they just want us to have to live more subsistence-type lifestyles for its own sake.     They don't want new technologies to enable us to continue to advance in production and consumption - the reason they want us to reduce production and consumption is they think it's bad - not that they don't believe that there are presently good opportunities to figure out cleaner alternative methods to produce and consume.     So they're likely to get in the way of the development of those alternative methods.

What's the difference?    

It's the difference between people who think we should all have to live like the Amish and people who support nuclear power.  

It's the difference between people who want, despite the example of Julius Nyrere's failed forced migrations to ujamaa villages, to force us to live in "sustainable eco cities" where everyone has to live within biking distance to work or take public transportation, and people who want to invest in hybrids, hydrogen cars, better filter systems, etc.....

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 10

Conservation and being ecologically sound evokes many interpretations and beliefs. Many times these are driven by interest groups and politics that are merely trying to push their interests by using the environment as a guise for their agenda. Anyone who doesn't conform to these positions is demonized and labeled with a variety of negative terms designed to destroy their credibility. The "anti" movement you refer to is a backlash to this environmental McCarthyism. Protecting the earth is essential. Doing it with integrity and without ulterior motives requires another kind of pollution control.

Answer 11

There has always been an anti green movement.   Our whole economy is built on consumption.   What would happen to it if we built products that actually lasted for years instead of days?   If we used less power to manufacture them and they used less power once manufactured?   What if tens of thousands of people didn't get sick from the air they breathe and the food and water they consumed?    Millions of people would be out of business from manufacturers to miners to health care personnell.   Its about the $$ weather you like to believe it or not.

Answer 12

anti green is nothing new

example from were I live, Tasmania Australia

Almost 30 years ago a hydro scheme here, to dam the Franklin river was said to be needed for the many jobs and economic benefits it would create, the very new, green movement protested and said it would destroy a rare wilderness, they were greeted with considerable hostility and even violence by locals who were very upset about these jobs being lost, eventually the federal govt overruled the state govt and stopped the dam.

30 years later the state govt hydro system has long ago cut back staff at all its dams and automated most and only emply a small number of people.

The wild Franklin river that would have been destroyed employs thousands of people and earns the state 10 of millions of dollars in tourism.

While there are green radicals they are a minority just as there are a minority of radical development groups.

Answer 13

I think alot of people are skeptical of "green" because it is becoming more and more obvious that for alot of people being "green" is about political ideology and expanding government, not protecting the environment.

As far as businesses go, it's painfully obvious that they feel marketing themselves as green is a good way to make more money, and again, has nothing to do with protecting the environment.

Answer 14

I've found that many people don't believe in Global Warming or Climate Change. When I talk about going Green I don't use either issue for my motivation. I think most people can agree that most of our resources are finite and that the world is become more polluted. So I use that point of agreement to get them to believe they can make a possitive change.

I don't think it is a movement, it is just fear and resistance to change.

I believe for many people Global Warming or Climate Change is too scary of a concept with the solutions to large for an individual to do anything about. With conflicting scientific oppinions they are easily able to find sources to put their minds at ease. Denial is a basic human survival instinct. If it is too overwhelming we are able to dismiss it.

Others may see the problem as too far off and believe science will solve the problem. I've had many people tell me that individual effort is meaning less and only Governments can solve the problem.

Several others believe God will save us. I've been told many times that man can't ruin what God created. To them I quote both Geneisis where we are directed to care for the earth and all it's creatures and Revelations where it is said those who ruin the earth will be banished.

To those that say that Green changes will ruin our economy I suggest they read Cradle to Cradle. Several companies are redesigning how they do things and it ultimately makes there business more profitable.

My view is this: as American we are the most wasteful nation on the planet, we use more than twice the amount of resources, we pollute more, we recycle less and we have more than any other nation. It is each of our personal responsibility to reduce our impact on the earth and it's resources.