Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I don't find the rhetoric and the distortion strange.

What I find inexplicable is the irrational festering hatred some people seem to have for the idea of renewables.

As in the Lewis Page piece I linked to recently, this goes beyond rational argument or craven self-interest and veers into semi-psychotic rage at the very notion that renewables could be viable.

I don't understand why renewables or climate science bother anyone to the extent they seem to.

I could speculate they somehow attack a belief in omnipotent personal sovereignty and dominion in a way that nukes and coal don't.

Really, it's impossible to say - although it seem does as if the "rational" arguments aren't even slightly rational at all.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Jun 10th, 2011 at 11:50:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ThatBritGuy:
I don't understand why renewables or climate science bother anyone to the extent they seem to.

LOL

that's like wondering why dracula doesn't like garlic!

ThatBritGuy:

I could speculate they somehow attack a belief in omnipotent personal economic sovereignty and dominion in a way that nukes and coal don't.

fify.

they are its freaking deathknell! people forging their own handcuff-keys? there goes the neighbourhood...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Jun 10th, 2011 at 12:19:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that's a major question. Not that there is never rational self-interest involved - incumbent energy industries, for example, have of course built communications strategies to help them hold on to their slice of the pie. But what intrigues me is to what extent those strategies have been built on the negatives of renewables' positives. OK, it's a known strategy to take the adversary's strong points and turn them upside down. But you can only really choose it if you have evidence that there's a constituency that will run with it.

I think it may be an extension of the "culture wars". The '60s and '70s represent one of those lurches of history where fairly deep changes take place in a short time. Not that there was a revolution in the sense of party and political institutions (the boom generation was a failure at that), but in attitudes to life, to pleasure, to family, to sex, to the natural world, to the planet - that, taken together, are extremely political. After such changes, a fairly long period of uncomfortable maturation takes place, marked by hate-fuelled backlash. I'm thinking, for instance, of Leon Poliakov's analysis of late nineteenth-century European anti-Semitism (that lived on remarkably into the mid twentieth century) as a reaction to the emancipation of the Jews by the French Revolution. Some people's (perceived) added freedom may infuriate others. Anything that smacks today of the dirty fucking hippie can be attacked with vehemence speaking to a reactionary constituency. Sarkozy's communicators appear to think this, to judge by the regularity of his attacks on May '68 and everything that may be considered its consequences.

Looked at from another angle, it's now been forty years that some people at least have been saying that the planet needs to be an integral part of any political platform, and it's still an uphill battle.  

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jun 10th, 2011 at 12:51:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series