Enviromentalism Popular Earlier?

Is there a way for enviromentalism to enter the mainstream in politics earlier than in OTL(seems like in OTL took until the 80s or 90s for it to have any impact on policy with exceptions.) Is there a way for Green parties to emerge before hand? I ask this because of the ramifications it has for US politics, and the possibility of Global Warming being prevented.
 

mowque

Banned
Yes, but one leads to another. The latter it was too early for, far too early.

Not really. Conservation is a way to side step the real issue. There were plenty of preservationists by TR's time. He just chose not to agree with them.
 
You have to try and avoid having environmentalism being subsumed under the umbrella of the social-democratic/left of politics for starters for it to get wider traction.

Basically, avoid what is termed in Australia as 'watermelons'. Green on the outside, red (hard core left wing Marxism, actual hard left Trotsky-ites, not like the term that Obama gets bandied about with).
 
Is there a way for enviromentalism to enter the mainstream in politics earlier than in OTL(seems like in OTL took until the 80s or 90s for it to have any impact on policy with exceptions.) Is there a way for Green parties to emerge before hand? I ask this because of the ramifications it has for US politics, and the possibility of Global Warming being prevented.

You probably need some technological or economic PODs that result in the West getting richer faster. Maybe get rid of the Great Depression? Or have a POD that avoids WWII and preferably results in a central Europe and Eastern Europe/Russia, that aren't controlled by sclerotic tyrannies? Shoot, get rid of WWI and keep things from going kablooie for a decade or two until the ground shifts, and you probably have a much wealthier world. Which in turn probably means a much accelerated environmentalism.
 
You have to try and avoid having environmentalism being subsumed under the umbrella of the social-democratic/left of politics for starters for it to get wider traction.

Basically, avoid what is termed in Australia as 'watermelons'. Green on the outside, red (hard core left wing Marxism, actual hard left Trotsky-ites, not like the term that Obama gets bandied about with).

The problem is that ideologicaly, one could counters the right, the capitalistic right, and ecology at the core, can not work.. specially when you look at deeper green movements.

Ecology points at productivism as one MAJOR issues... Communism and socialism can be, but may not... Capitalism, by default however IS deisgned to BE productivist, and one could point 'renewable, sustainable capitalism', and such, as a form of ideological 'greenwashing' who dodge the REAL issue - capitalism and productivism as a whole.
 
Then again I suppose this depends on the 'degree' of environmentalism. Being 'Green' is not an issue of left or right. It just so happens that the further left you go, the more extreme and radical 'environmentalism' tends to get, in a sense being hijacked by it and incorporated into the traditional left wing agenda.
 
Then again I suppose this depends on the 'degree' of environmentalism. Being 'Green' is not an issue of left or right. It just so happens that the further left you go, the more extreme and radical 'environmentalism' tends to get, in a sense being hijacked by it and incorporated into the traditional left wing agenda.

I think you do not quite understand.. its more like from a deep green view, a form of leftism (OR things like Anarchism) are better than Capitalism, which is ALL about productionism, and tend to not pay much attention to environement honestly.

Philosophicaly and scientificaly, they may be right. Sustainable croissance may by an oximoron, croissance may be dangerous to contunously follow, and there maybe a need to change RADICALY our society into Décroissance and Simple living, by example.
 
Top