[The E]

Well, the only really concrete, long-term goals they have is to switch over to completely renewable energy production by 2040, and getting emissions down by 40 % by 2020.

Which are both so conveniently long-term as to not be achievable, you will note.

[Luis Dias]

Well, the only really concrete, long-term goals they have is to switch over to completely renewable energy production by 2040, and getting emissions down by 40 % by 2020.

Which are both so conveniently long-term as to not be achievable, you will note.

So the only reason they aren't lunatics is because they are hipocritical politicians?

"Oh yeah, I have this ridiculous surrealistic vision of the future, but I don't really mean it 'coz deep down we all know it's bollocks, so I'll just place my visions far out in the future in the prospect that you'll realise that I'm not being serious at all if you are worried that I'm a lunatic, WINK WINK, and if by any chance you are an environmentalist that ridiculously believes that this is what should be done, then I'm obviously your guy, WIN WIN"

[The E]

Ummm.

You do know how politicians work, don't you? While I do suspect that they actually do want to bring about all this green stuff, the reality is that goals that lie that far ahead in the future rarely, if ever, pan out.

Also note that, as things stand at the moment, they are very definitely one of the smaller partys at the federal level; they are nowhere near the popularity necessary to be more than a junior partner for a government coalition.
And on top of that, whenever they are part of a coalition, they will always settle for more realistic, achievable goals. Realpolitik wins every single time.

[Luis Dias]

Of course I know how "politicians" work. I was just saying that if the "defense" of a criticism is that "they don't really mean it" is a rather poor one.

Also, check out this post:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/06/germanys-burned-bridge.html

And this curious graph seems to be out of synch with your suggestion that the green party isn't that important:

[The E]

Yes, I know those graphs exist.

However, I would rather wait for the elections in Niedersachsen and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in September before pronouncing any trends for the next federal-level elections coming up in 2013.

[MP-Ryan]

You also fail to realise the history of environmentalism. It does not come from peaceful hippies, although there is a deep relationship with that group. It rises with british empirialism and other less democratic idealisms, with the idea that all the life species are "interconnected" in what was called an "ecossystem", in a "holistic" way, in which nature performed in an equilibrium, a stable state, that should not be messed up with.

I have never, ever heard of the political ideology or philosophy of environmentalism having been derived in British Imperialism.  I'd love to see a historical source on this...

...notwithstanding the fact that environmentalism isn't a single ideology, either.

[Mustang19]

Are you talking about the Shakespearean concept of the natural order or some **** maybe?

Anyway I think Batutta's much self-promoted RDI/election theory is going to be proven wrong in Germany. The country has had good growth over the last few years but now the electorate wants the Greens to jump in and **** it up. Qualifications to the theory seem to be in order.

[Luis Dias]

You also fail to realise the history of environmentalism. It does not come from peaceful hippies, although there is a deep relationship with that group. It rises with british empirialism and other less democratic idealisms, with the idea that all the life species are "interconnected" in what was called an "ecossystem", in a "holistic" way, in which nature performed in an equilibrium, a stable state, that should not be messed up with.

I have never, ever heard of the political ideology or philosophy of environmentalism having been derived in British Imperialism.  I'd love to see a historical source on this...

...notwithstanding the fact that environmentalism isn't a single ideology, either.

The history is always more complex than simple stories, but I did not lie. Environmentalism's roots have a turning point in the twenties, with botanist Arthur Tansley's idea that nature worked like an interlinked inter-dependent system that he coined as "ecossystem" that had a natural "desire" to self-regulate towards a well defined equilibrium. Afterwards, Field Marshal Smuts, master of the empire's South Africa, was also a philosopher who took Tansley's idea and developed it into Holism, a philosophy that spoke about how parts of the system formed "wholes" which were to be in their place in order to form a greater "whole", a system that was in itself a reflecting picture of the empire itself. Everything and everyone should stick to their own place at the order of things in nature, so to not to provoke "disturbances in the force", so to speak. Tansley hated it, but many others loved it.

So you are right in saying that there is more than one ideology. However, I am mostly concerned about this one, which is not only completely obsolete in scientific knowledge about nature, but it is permeating (polluting!) the whole ecological debate throughout the world.

[MP-Ryan]

Ah.  It was derived by individuals who lived in the British Empire, then.  Big difference from what you said earlier.

Environmentalism is a diverse ideology.  You're talking about a narrow aspect of it; you can't pigeonhole all environmental movements into that ideological position, but if that's the particular position you want to talk about, feel free.

[StarSlayer]

Ah.  It was derived by individuals who lived in the British Empire, then.  Big difference from what you said earlier.

Environmentalism is a diverse ideology.  You're talking about a narrow aspect of it; you can't pigeonhole all environmental movements into that ideological position, but if that's the particular position you want to talk about, feel free.

Now where did I here this before....

hmmmm, sometime recently if I recall, damn if it isn't on the tip of my tongue.  In fact I think it involved all the same parties if I am not mistaken...

[MP-Ryan]

Ah.  It was derived by individuals who lived in the British Empire, then.  Big difference from what you said earlier.

Environmentalism is a diverse ideology.  You're talking about a narrow aspect of it; you can't pigeonhole all environmental movements into that ideological position, but if that's the particular position you want to talk about, feel free.

Now where did I here this before....

hmmmm, sometime recently if I recall, damn if it isn't on the tip of my tongue.  In fact I think it involved all the same parties if I am not mistaken...

Are we sensing a pattern here? 

[Kosh]

Not sure if this is the real deal, and it talks about the UK and not Germany but........

[ssmit132]

Wat. They must really not want to use nuclear if they're willing to have sporadic electricity...

[Luis Dias]

Ah.  It was derived by individuals who lived in the British Empire, then.  Big difference from what you said earlier.

Marshall Smuts was not a mere "individual". He was one of the most important persons in the empire.

Also, I said it originated in "empirialism", which it did. Smuts was not an "individual" that "happened" to have a philosophy. His philosophy was imperialistic itself, and his ecology a perfect mirror image and a natural justification for the British empire.

I can't see any difference from what I said earlier, so I don't have a clue of what the hell you are talking about.

Environmentalism is a diverse ideology.  You're talking about a narrow aspect of it; you can't pigeonhole all environmental movements into that ideological position, but if that's the particular position you want to talk about, feel free.

The notion that human condition is a direct rendering of natural conditions is a key aspect and core to the environmental movement. This is what bases the ridiculous notions that the deaths in the floods in Pakistan, the tsunamis in asia, Katrina, etc., are a direct consequence of we daring to "touch" sacred Gaia, instead of figuring out the much more obvious link between the incompetence at defending ourselves against environmental hazards and the number of deaths. They are just unable to make this link, because it is anathema to their ideologies. This idea that human progress should be for us to disconnect ourselves from nature ever more is something that is completely at odds with most environmental ideologies.

It's also the most correct and proven idea, btw.

[Nuke]

Not sure if this is the real deal, and it talks about the UK and not Germany but........

YOU MUST CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS!

Well, the only really concrete, long-term goals they have is to switch over to completely renewable energy production by 2040, and getting emissions down by 40 % by 2020.

Which are both so conveniently long-term as to not be achievable, you will note.

So the only reason they aren't lunatics is because they are hipocritical politicians?

"Oh yeah, I have this ridiculous surrealistic vision of the future, but I don't really mean it 'coz deep down we all know it's bollocks, so I'll just place my visions far out in the future in the prospect that you'll realise that I'm not being serious at all if you are worried that I'm a lunatic, WINK WINK, and if by any chance you are an environmentalist that ridiculously believes that this is what should be done, then I'm obviously your guy, WIN WIN"

a politician has little power to make sure plans put fourth during a term will continue to go forward after their term is completed. like obama's healthcare plan whos implementation sits conveniently out of the scope of his first term. i doubt its an indication that the politician doesnt actually want the thing they propose to actually be done. no they want it and then want to be absolved of all responsibility in the event that the plan backfires or ends up wasting taxpayer money. they can always blame the successive politician. or worse than that scenario, have the following politician reverse what you did, so that any money spent on it is wasted. sometimes i think modern democracy needs some kind of long term planning body, with longer than usual terms, responsible for very long term planning with terms that fit accordingly.

[MP-Ryan]

Luis, there is a huge difference in meaning of the terms Imperalism and words with the empir- root in the English language.  I get the impression you're intending to use the former.  After having a quick perusal of the history of Jan Smuts and holism, I can see where you're drawing the link between the two, although it would be better said that holism was developed in a way that was compatible with Imperalist views.  So fair enough, I've learned something there.

BUT...

As for the views you're attributing to environmentalism, not all people who consider themselves environmentalists share those views.    Terms evolve, collective ideas diverge.  Again, you're referring to a narrow (and fairly radical) segment of modern environmentalism.  I don't think it's for you to tell people if they can consider themselves environmentalists or not.  Holism may be part and parcel of some environmentalist views, but just because someone doesn't agree with holism wouldn't disqualify them as an environmentalist.  IceFire is a good example of this.

[Luis Dias]

Fair enough Ryan, I was probably making a straw man. But you didn't respond to my last two paragraphs. Wouldn't you consider them to be at least plausible?

[Flipside]

Not sure if this is the real deal, and it talks about the UK and not Germany but........

He's taking a concern and trying to turn it into stated fact to be honest. The clue is later on in the article, where he talks about the Government taking their power away, in more ways than one. The UK are already moving towards building some new Nuclear reactors in the UK, and whilst we should never take things like Power or Water lightly, scaremongers like this guy don't help.

[MP-Ryan]

Fair enough Ryan, I was probably making a straw man. But you didn't respond to my last two paragraphs. Wouldn't you consider them to be at least plausible?

My second paragraph was in response to the second half of your post.  Not denying that those views exist - they just aren't a part of all environmentalism.

[Kosh]

He's taking a concern and trying to turn it into stated fact to be honest. The clue is later on in the article, where he talks about the Government taking their power away, in more ways than one. The UK are already moving towards building some new Nuclear reactors in the UK, and whilst we should never take things like Power or Water lightly, scaremongers like this guy don't help.

The concern seems to me that the slow rollout of nuclear reactors and an obscene focus on "renewables" combined with rising demand will mean politically engineered (by environmentalists, intentional or not) power shortages in the future. This concern is very real especially with the fear mongering against nuclear and wishful thinking about renewables.