> I've noticed more an more "environmental" or "green" type politicans and activists seem to be very anti-progress?
"Anti-progress" is a very loaded term. What one person views as progression, another may view as regression. Just labeling any opposition as "anti-progress" eliminates the nuance of any actual criticisms. For example:
> Carbon sequestration, storage, capture, ideas to drive global cooling - all shot down.
These aren't shut down because environmentalists just hate the inherent idea of technological countermeasures to global warming. Those ideas are fantastic... if they work. Most environmental activists would rather focus on things that we know will help (reducing energy usage, increasing green energy production), instead of gambling on undeveloped and unproven technology.
"Anti-progress" is a very loaded term. What one person views as progression, another may view as regression. Just labeling any opposition as "anti-progress" eliminates the nuance of any actual criticisms. For example:
> Carbon sequestration, storage, capture, ideas to drive global cooling - all shot down.
These aren't shut down because environmentalists just hate the inherent idea of technological countermeasures to global warming. Those ideas are fantastic... if they work. Most environmental activists would rather focus on things that we know will help (reducing energy usage, increasing green energy production), instead of gambling on undeveloped and unproven technology.