The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that environmental groups are too often alarmists. They have an awful track record, so they've lost credibility with the public. Some do great work, but others can be the left's equivalents of the neocons: brimming with moral clarity and ideological zeal, but empty of nuance. (Industry has also hyped risks with wildly exaggerated warnings that environmental protections will entail a terrible economic cost.)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/opinion/...ticle_popular_2

 

The answer is to stop whining and just start monkey wrenching where appropriate. Just 10 minutes of relocating survey stakes can throw a construction project into turmoil.

It doesn't help when the current administration could care less about the environment.

 

I agree that there are too many radical environmental groups these days, like PETA and Greenpeace. They need to use less drastic methods of getting the public's attention, instead of annoying us.

PETA and Greenpeace are wimps. :plain "public attention", the kind they draw, is worthless anyway.

 

You stop things by making them too expensive to continue with.

The ELF is the one group that probably screws it up for everyone else.

ELF are pathetic posing losers - just ultra-destructive, not very sophisticated, amateur pyros with no idea of the correct time and place to act for maximum effect, minimum risk.

 

A small bit of clandestinely planted pre-construction toxic waste type stuff will accomplish far more than their stunts. A smart operator uses torch jobs for beautification projects like eliminating garish and offensive billboards.

here's a good article for you people to read:

 

http://grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/doe-reprint/

 

 

The article is titled "The Death of Environmentalism"

Its hard to get the public to "engage" on any issues that only have weak although widespread (in some form or another) support and where the downside of neglect is generations away.

 

Its Newtonian - objects at rest tend to stay at rest, objects in motion tend to stay in motion.

its all in how you frame an arguement.

 

 

if the environmentalists framed their arguements in an economic view, they would succeed 9 times out of 10 in pushing their agenda.

 

 

they dont.

 

 

 

not rocket science.

 

 

i forget if the example from ohio is in that article or another.

its all in how you frame an arguement...in an economic view

 

Yep, (apparent)mouth foamers get little attention from the public.

 

Tell someone how they can save a buck and they'll start to listen.