Categories
Environment Politics & government

[1458] Of schism in environmentalism

From the authors of the The Death of Environmentalism:

Shellenberger and Nordhaus have now launched an effort to expand the frame of political environmentalism to encompass core American values. Earlier this year the dynamic duo issued a new book, Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility, in which they attempt to outline a positive vision for the future. Shellenberger and Nordhaus identify an emerging faultline that they argue will divide the environmentalist movement of the 21st century. On one side stand the traditional anti-immigration, anti-globalization, and anti-growth greens. They believe these neo-Malthusians “will seek to establish and enforce the equivalent of an international caste system in which the poor of the developing world are consigned to energy poverty in perpetuity.” Eternal limits to growth for the already impoverished.

One the other hopeful side, according to Nordhaus and Shellenberger, stand “those who believe that there is room enough for all of us to live secure and free lives. It will be pro-growth, progressive, and internationalist.” Nordhaus and Shellenberger see this new positive environmentalism as embracing markets and technological innovation in order to create prosperity and protect the natural world. Central to their positive pro-growth version of environmentalism is the development of cheap low-carbon energy technologies. Not only will such technologies prevent dangerous global warming, but they will also lift billions of people out of poverty by the end of the century. But how to get there? [Techno-Optimistic Environmentalism. Reason Magazine. November 27 2007]

Yup. Red green and blue green.

But emerging? I have always taken it for granted, meaning it is already there, here, now and real.

Categories
Photography

[1457] Of green viper in the wild

Hmmm…

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

Sssssssnake…

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

Sssssss…

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1456] Of non-interventionist, not isolationist

I’m not an isolationism — an isolationist. I want to trade with people, talk with people, travel, but I don’t want… to send our troops overseas using force to tell them how to live. We would object to it here, and they’re going to object to us over there.

— Congressman Ron Paul during the November 28 2007 Republican Presidential Debate, in response to Senator John McCain.

Categories
Society

[1455] Of liberal and racist?

When I criticize those that share my skin color, those that do not share my skin color celebrate me as a liberal.

When I criticize those that do not share my skin color, they denounce me as a racist.

That is most unfair. Nobody is immune from criticism.

I think many people have yet to free themselves from primitive communal thinking.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1454] Of get the state out of marriage institution

Should the state stop meddling in marriage institution?

As Nancy Polikoff, an American University law professor, argues, the marriage license no longer draws reasonable dividing lines regarding which adult obligations and rights merit state protection. A woman married to a man for just nine months gets Social Security survivor’s benefits when he dies. But a woman living for 19 years with a man to whom she isn’t married is left without government support, even if her presence helped him hold down a full-time job and pay Social Security taxes. A newly married wife or husband can take leave from work to care for a spouse, or sue for a partner’s wrongful death. But unmarried couples typically cannot, no matter how long they have pooled their resources and how faithfully they have kept their commitments.

Possession of a marriage license is no longer the chief determinant of which obligations a couple must keep, either to their children or to each other. But it still determines which obligations a couple can keep — who gets hospital visitation rights, family leave, health care and survivor’s benefits. This may serve the purpose of some moralists. But it doesn’t serve the public interest of helping individuals meet their care-giving commitments. [Taking Marriage Private. Coontz, Stephanie. New York Times. November 25 2007]

Though the article is written with the US society in mind, the idea is applicable in Malaysia too. Plus, the act of shooing the state out of marriage institution may be one of many methods to dismantle Malaysian moral police.