> Not sure how you can care about protecting the environment while explicitly ignoring investigation into what’s harming the environment?
Can you point to where I advocated for this? I was just pointing out that the groups that have chosen to attempt to monopolise environmental issues for themselves might deserve scrutiny. Remove these groups with ulterior motives - who in any case have proven themselves not particularly effective - and we might get closer to a more grown up debate. Isn't it funny how they choose to hammer rich, liberal democracies that are doing the most for climate change, whilst conveniently avoiding protest in countries where they might get beaten up/thrown in jail?
> Unless you believe human activity is not driving climate change, then of course environmentalism is linked to anti-globalization sentiment.
Well there's another contradiction for you then: anti-globalization/pro migration.
> Isn't it funny how they choose to hammer rich, liberal democracies that are doing the most for climate change, whilst conveniently avoiding protest in countries where they might get beaten up/thrown in jail?
Rich countries emit the most carbon per capita and are responsible for the lion's share of past emissions. So the first part of that sentence is rank BS.
Activists are obviously gonna activize in their own countries, most of which happen to be rich, liberal democracies. In case you care, even poor democracies have their domestic climate and environmental movements. Non-democracies usually don't have open political movements of any sort.
There are no points to be scored here. I'm just explaining, since you asked, that what you call "ulterior motives" are what environmentalists believe to be root problems.
Unfortunately, once you identify that human activity is harming the environmental, everything thereafter becomes politicized. Even science becomes subservient to the negotiation. We humans will continue to squabble whilst the world burns.
Can you point to where I advocated for this? I was just pointing out that the groups that have chosen to attempt to monopolise environmental issues for themselves might deserve scrutiny. Remove these groups with ulterior motives - who in any case have proven themselves not particularly effective - and we might get closer to a more grown up debate. Isn't it funny how they choose to hammer rich, liberal democracies that are doing the most for climate change, whilst conveniently avoiding protest in countries where they might get beaten up/thrown in jail?
> Unless you believe human activity is not driving climate change, then of course environmentalism is linked to anti-globalization sentiment.
Well there's another contradiction for you then: anti-globalization/pro migration.