Talk:Anti-environmentalism/Archive 1

Intro needs re-working, imo
The introduction/lead section at the moment: "Anti-environmentalism is a backlash against the environmental movement. Anti-environmentalists believe that the Earth is not as fragile as environmentalists maintain, citing its 5 billion year existence. Some also believe that environmentalism is born of humankind's exaggerated sense of importance, that environmentalism is an extremist viewpoint due accordant scrutiny and/or that some environmentalist factions use pseudo-science and scare tactics in an attempt to force their philosophical/religious values and political agenda on others. In the words of the IUCN for example: 'Fear can be a great motivator, and it is one that environmentalists have long cherished'."I think this needs to be better sourced and re-written so that it reads more about what anti-environmentalism is, rather than what environmentalim seems like from the other side. Also, the second half appears to be overly POV (ie, not neutral) and possibly OR especially with regard to the fear-mongering.PrBeacon (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Untitled
Wikipedia-Ambassador-Program-Logo.png 	This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Mount Allison University supported by Canada Education Program and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarmariemack (talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Environment and Society Class Project: My Potential Contributions
Would it be appropriate to add an anti-environmentalist quote section? Here are some quotes I have found and could list thus far: “Environmental acts are mindless proposals that would sacrifice the people of the US on the altar of nature” – Leonard Theberge “Our goal is to destroy and eradicate environmental movement” - Arnold “The environmental community has only itself to blame for the rise of Wise Use sentiments” – Philip Brick “Strangle the environmental movement. It’s the greatest single threat to American economy. It doesn’t just include a few extremists. It is extremist.” – Heritage Foundation Policy Review 1990 Sarmariemack (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Sarmariemack (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Would it be biased or factual to state that: Generally, chemical manufacturers, oil producers, mining producers, timber companies, real estate developers, nuclear power industries, and electric utilities have anti-environmental motives. ? Sarmariemack (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarmariemack (talk • contribs) 19:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

History of Anti-Environmentalism in North-America
Anti-environmentalism is a movement against the environmentalism movement. This backlashes’ origination can be marked by an infamous speech delivered by Lewis Powell to the US Chamber of Commerce in 1971. Several acts had been passed in years prior to Powell’s speech in favor of environmentalism, such the Wilderness Act 1964, Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 1968, National Environmental Policy Act 1969. Powell directed his audience against the environmental movement and promoted a pro-industry and anti-environmental view. (the sentence below as the begining of a second paragraph) James Watt is the most well-known Anti-environmentalist. He advocated free for all mining, ranching, and drilling. In 1988 a Wide Use Campaign was introduced by republican senator, Mark Hatfield. The Wide Use Campaign supported unrestricted access to timber and other resources. Wise Use activists exploited the population’s fear of job and property security loss. The Campaign placed a barrier between workers and environmentalists. The Wide Use Campaign used bumper stickers, phone-ins and faxes to promote their views. Wise Use and Republicans kicked off anti-environmentalism. The recession that began in 1990 enhanced anti-green and pro-industry views. A group called Alliance for America was created with 125 anti-environment and pro-industry groups. In 1994, the US did not pass a Biodiversity Treaty. Another group that was created in the 90’s was called Earth Day Alternatives. They were also counter-environmentalists. This group labelled environmentalists as “anti-human” and extremists. The Earth Day Alternative group promoted three things. They aimed to privatise resources for exploitation, advocate pollution to be permitted as trade between companies, to discredit environmental science. Heritage was a group that was also created with a laissez-faire approach toward the environment. Anti-environmentalists were motivated by the fact that the ICI created deceptive green advertising. Sarmariemack (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Sarmariemack (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarmariemack (talk • contribs) 19:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Potential Indroduction
Anti-environmentalism is a backlash against the environmental movement. Anti-environmentalism disregards the current “environmental crisis" due to specific scientific and economical reasoning. The Anti-environmentalism movement is oppression to the environmental movement; it focuses on job-creation, wage enhancement and industry. Anti-environmentalists believe that the Earth is not as fragile as environmentalists maintain. Generally, chemical manufacturers, oil producers, mining producers, timber companies, real estate developers, nuclear power industries, and electric utilities have anti-environmental motives. Anti-environmentalists are generally right-winged with conservative views, however there may be exceptions. Anti-environmentalism labels environmentalism as an extreme, false and exaggerated reaction to the human contribution of climate change. Anti-environmentalism often seeks to portray environmentalists as anti-human advancement. Sarmariemack (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Quotes
Who is being quoted? Are they notable? Additional information from the original source(s) would be helpful. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Bias
"James Watt was initially the most well-known anti-environmentalist.[1] He advocated free-for-all mining, ranching, and drilling."

Not relevant.

"Wise Use activists exploited the population’s fear of job and property security loss. The campaign placed a barrier between workers and environmentalists"

Weasel words.

"They aimed to privatise resources for exploitation, advocate pollution to be permitted as trade between companies, to discredit environmental science. Heritage was a group that was also created with a laissez-faire approach toward the environment.[1]"

How can pollution be considered "trade?" The second sentence is a straw-man.

"Anti-environmentalists were motivated by the fact that the ICI created deceptive green advertising.[1][3]"

Not in sources.

"“Our goal is to destroy and eradicate environmental movement” – Arnold"

Who is "Arnold?"

""Strangle the environmental movement. It’s the greatest single threat to American economy. It doesn’t just include a few extremists. It is extremist” – Heritage Foundation Policy Review 1990

Not sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMBTC (talk • contribs) 00:24, 20 April 2013‎


 * These are too many disparate points to deal with in one discussion thread. It would have been better if the tags had been added to the article where the alleged problems occur, rather than at the top of the article. Starting with just the quote attributed to 'Arnold', the citation is given in the article right after the quote and can be verified here. The cited book is quoting Ron Arnold when he was executive director of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, being interviewed by the Toronto Star in 1991. Unless there is a new source that discredits the author of this book for having made up these quotes, I see no real problem here. If a few more items from this list prove to be equally groundless, I suggest we remove the tags, and wait for more substantial points to be raised. --Nigelj (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the 'Arnold' quote, which I have discussed above, I have replaced the top-of-article banners with inline tags, to help with systematically addressing the issues raised by here. --Nigelj (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Rolling coal
Add something to Wikipedia about this practice? SEE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/06/rolling-coal-photos-video_n_5561477.html 203.56.94.11 (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Environmentalism and Society
One of the main factors that anti-environmentalism is still an ongoing issue because of American policy and its influence on society. Societies view is being influenced by American policy. American Policy is a highly influential source for the people of the United States. Most republicans are anti-environmentalist. Only 13 % of the 31 republicans in the congress believe are against anti-environmentalism. Society view can be changed based on the information they receive whether it be true or not. A use of this can be seen in the effects on news on the people of the United States. New outlets that favor republicans tend to report more on republican’s views and are most likely to challenge the existence of climate change. Their motives are to promote anti-environmentalism and other issues. The democratic party also has new stations that favor their party theses news sources will show how climate change is real and why one must become pro-environmentalist. The elites of each parties also have a huge influence on the people’s views on the issues regarding the environment. People look towards them to receive information about the ongoing issues of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saulcardoza (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Saulcardoza (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Article Lacks Specific Theme, Title is Misleading, 100% focused on the United States
The article doesn't really answer the question of what an "anti-environmentalist" is. No doubt such people may exist in particularly ignorant circles, but this article uses extremely poor examples of "anti-environmentalism". Referring to cases of conflicting interests where environmentalists and industrialists disagreed on legislature explicitly as "anti-environmentalism" is weak logic. The allegation that "anti-environmentalism" is "right-wing" is also rather absurd and confined to a few small US elections over the past decade at best; One could just as lazily argue that the left-wing is anti-environmentalism via encouraging overpopulation with reckless/unsustainable foreign aid or that environmentalism is classically far-right because the Nazis pioneered modern federal endangered species acts. I'm not even taking a particular side here: I'm just saying, shouldn't an encyclopedic article use a more global and historical approach? This reads like a pamphlet I got in the mail asking me to vote for proposition X. Why am I complaining rather than fixing it? Because I suggest the entire thing be merged into a more general environmentalism page until someone can come up with a coherent definition of "anti-environmentalist". Right now what we've got is a page that essentially says "it's someone who isn't necessarily an environmentalist" followed by lots of POV/partisan/US-centric digression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.242.49.60 (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it should be merged, at least for the time being. Also should be rewritten from a more neutral point of view and better sourced. Dennisoosterwaal (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments
Me and another user have changed some of the organization of the article and added new sections, information and sources. I removed the effects of climate change sections as it did not adhere to the main topic. This was done for a project in my international political science course. Abbyecole (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the entire "Effects of Climate change" section should be removed completley. Though it is related to the topic, its not part of the direct topic. The effects of climate change is not something completley relevant to the anti-environmental movement, as it most of the time opposes it. Maybe instead link the other article "Effects of climate change" for readers to find that information. Abbyecole (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is the last section filled with loaded words like "elites", etc. etc. The use in this context seems very biased and sounds like a conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.14.179.2 (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Why is the criticism section longer than the main subject article? I smell bias. 4.243.215.234 (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Because that part of the article is extremely biased. It is nowhere NEAR NPOV. --Seldumonde (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Critics are a dime a dozen, so why don't you get working on fixing it instead of being useless. It's not as if this is not a real concept, you could find more references for it instead of dropping by to mearly snipe. Isn't it ironic that people who are brave and do necessary things get their ankes bitten by their lessers. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally against most current popular pro-environmentalist political activism, but I think we ought to simply delete the page, and ought to make pages about "environmental political contraversy" or something like that. --Nerd42 (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. 68.51.41.46 (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagreed. Anti-eviromentalism article is perfectly right. Just because it's small, maybe a stub, doesn't means it should be deleted. Dunno where to research to expand it (everything I search is here lol). An article about the controversy and other about enviromentalism lacks the article on anti-enviromentalists and it's POV, making it biased. 189.123.164.11 (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

simply deleting the page is irresponsible. Anti-environmentalism, as defined ("backlash against environmentalism") is a thing that does exist and needs to be recognized by an encyclopedia. The quality of this article is going to depend on the cohesiveness of the movement, which is not nearly as coordinated as environmentalism itself. There are books and articles written on the topic. Legal decisions have often set off some uproar over environmentalist positions. Here's a good example. [] --Edwardstirling (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Oh and here's the backlash: [] --Edwardstirling (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for original research, if you could get your book published by a reliable source then maybe there'd be some merit in it but as it is this entire page is poorly sourced, and describes what is more a matter of a few people's opinions rather than whatever "movement" does exist. It's also verging toward nothing more than self-publicity. 122.19.143.240 (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

great article, photos or graphs would be gratefully appreciated Pepephend (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This article contains opinions that are 1) presented as facts; and 2) absolutely incorrect. The most obvious is this: Climate change is an undisputed fact; however, the role that humans play in climate change, if any, is not settled science. Because one does not agree that Anthropogenic Global Warming exists, or is a phenomenon of any importance, does NOT make one an anti-environmentalist. Example: many non-dogmatic environmentalists believe that money, time and effort being used to combat "Global Warming" would be better used to address ACTUAL environmental issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.227.191 (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, add?
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and Ralph Drollinger for Cabinet of Donald Trump:


 * Andrew Naughtie, Coronavirus: Trump cabinet’s pastor blames gay people for ‘wrath of God’; Ralph Drollinger has a history of doom-laden remarks about LGBT+ people March 26, 2020 Independent.co.uk
 * Brooke Sopelsa, Trump Cabinet's Bible teacher says gays cause 'God's wrath' in COVID-19 blog post; Environmentalists and people with “depraved minds” are also igniting "God's wrath," according to Rev. Ralph Drollinger. March 25, 2020 nbcnews.com

See Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.

Trump’s cabinet pastor blamed the outbreak on those who have “a proclivity toward lesbianism and homosexuality.” Ralph Drollinger wrote that the U.S. is “experiencing the consequential wrath of God” because the “forsaken,” which includes environmentalists and members of the LGBTQIA+ community, have “given over” to their “degrading passions.”  Betsy DeVos, Mike Pompeo, Ben Carson, and Rick Perry all regularly attend Drollinger’s bible study sessions, with Perry describing him as a “brilliant, knowledgeable bible instructor.”

X1\ (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Biographies of Living Persons
Is it normal for a biography of a living person, in this case Paul Driessen (lobbyist), to redirect to article on an ideology? It seems to me that this could be a violation of Wikipedia's policy on biographies. It certainly seems dismissive and disrespectful to the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.92.191 (talk • contribs) October 27, 2018 (UTC)
 * I just happened to notice this thread now, about two weeks after I changed the redirect Paul Driessen (lobbyist) to Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow where it belongs. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Severe neutrality problems and inaccuracies—much of the content of this article should be wiped
As has been noted, the tone of most of this article is extremely biased and at times borders on conspiratorial. The very existence of a section titled "Denial machine" is entirely inappropriate, and that section is written like a conspiracist rant. Consider the sentence, "Since 1997 the Koch Brothers have spent over a hundred-million dollars funding alternative theories of meteorology," which is cited exclusively to a Greenpeace op-ed (an inappropriate source to cite without qualification in this context). Or consider the line, "Large corporations do not only funnel money into denial groups, but they also pay off politicians." The terms "funnel money" and "pay off" are entirely inappropriate, and the insinuation that "corporations" are bribing politicians is a significant claim for which the article provides no evidence.

Besides the article's obvious bias and fabulist claims, there are numerous inaccuracies in its text. For one thing, the article claims that "Clinton and Vice President Al Gore signed various executive orders," which cannot be true since the vice president does not sign executive orders. It also makes the claim that "Only 13% of the thirty-one Republicans in Congress are against anti-environmentalism," which is bizarre because there are far more than 31 Republicans in Congress.

In short, this article is poorly written, factually inaccurate, riddled with bias and completely tonally wrong for Wikipedia. In my judgment, it needs to be almost entirely rewritten. Parts of it may be salvageable, but every section has some elements that are seriously objectionable.

I'm not an experienced Wiki editor (just a layperson who stumbled across this) and don't know what Wikipedia's policy is on an article like this on a fairly prominent topic that has been heavily problematic (apparently, judging from the talk page, for almost a decade). No one seems willing to undertake the project to fix it, and I certainly don't have time. But it seems to me that it's better to have no article at all or just a stub than one that could mislead people into thinking it's encyclopedic in nature. My recommendation would be to wipe all the article's objectionable content to leave just a stub that could then be developed by a later writer. However, I understand that there are Wiki policies and procedures about things like this that I do not want to overstep. I am taking the liberty of removing the blatant, clear-cut factual inaccuracies mentioned above (Al Gore signing executive orders and 31 Republicans in Congress), since those definitely should not be in here under any circumstances. I won't touch the rest of the article at this time, but I will suggest that the fact that this article has been a persistent issue for something like 8 years, with no one having fixed it during that time, suggests to me that it would be best to remove the problematic content and flag it as a stub, leaving an essentially clean slate for some later editor to fill. 425FourTwoFive (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't object to any of your recommendations, except for your suggestion that "it's better to have no article at all" on this topic. Arty32 (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, you have replied to a complaint that was posted in 2017, nearly four years ago. I haven't looked at version histories to assess how much it has changed since then. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right, I didn't notice the date of the original comment when I made the reply (I only use and edit Wikipedia causally). The only point of my reply was an objection to the suggestion of deleting the article, that the original post made. Arty32 (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

"Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 11 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jbrockie95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saulcardoza.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 January 2019 and 27 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abbyecole, Emmanhudson99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

There is some minor mistakes but I'll fixed it
Now Okay Rajvansh Upadhyay (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Consensus on modifying globalize tag?
Comparing the |23:39, 1 July 2014, version of this article when the globalize tag was added to now, I'd say it's come a long way, now mentioning at least nine countries. So I was checking up on whether there's consensus that the   tag should stay or be removed. Obviously the list of countries provided is far from exhaustive and I could see an argument for the tag having "United States" replaced with "North America", but at least the other continents (excluding Australia and Antarctica) each make an appearance now. I almost just went ahead and removed the tag, but ended up second-guessing myself. Anderjef (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I didn't even consider the   tag, which I imagine is outdated after five years too. Anderjef (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Describe en environment low you dislike the most
English 59.89.89.164 (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)