this Marxism thing.

really, what are u saying.

where is the evidence that the UK and Sweden and others are marxist in their desire to address environmental concerns.

boris Johnson remains as much a liberal democrat as anyone in this country. He would piss himself laughing if he knew he was part of a Marxist agenda.

and sky news in the UK is a hundred times better than sky news in Australia which i view as an intellectual embarassment when it comes to the environment

Chris,

Marx is starting to pop up in environmental sociology. Some of what he had to say was critical of the relationship between capitalism and the environment. I'll have the dust off my copy of Das Kapital and have a look some time.

PS Not many on The Forum have a clue about Marxism. Throw in Weber and Durkheim and you've lost them completely!

i think the use of Marxism towards global warming is implying that elites seek to impose control in the name of the supposed collective well-being.

TBH Mr Opinion, I am hardly an expert on political theory. In fact I loath attempts to define how the world operates or should operate in accordance to some kind of political theory. My theoretical framework that drives any optimism I have is limited to liberal democracy, albeit facing unprecedented threats today.

BTW, my criticism of Sky News channel here is limited to after 6PM as I find their coverage even more biased than the ABC.

It's hardly a secret.

Interesting you mention Sweden Chris. Stockholm declaration, ah those heady days following the 60's hippy movement and it's desire to change the world. "Imagine"

State control of the means of production doesn't work out. No matter how pure the intention to do good is.
Intended or not it's where this environmentalism thing's going.
More of the same isn't going to solve the problems it's already creating.

Just pointing out the obvious that people won't stand for it when they start feeling the inevitable loss, destruction and deprivation these earth first agendas will wreak. As we're already witnessing.
The author ends eluding to 'adoption' of an economic theory that looks and sounds all too familiar.
He's not the first to suggest such.

There's no positive outcome with this path. There'll be no utopian nirvana afterwards where all the proponents of the new way are revered as saviors.

Their whole bs story rests on poeple being gullible.

They say there's global concensus against using fossil fuels.
I'm calling bs.

Lets see you convince single mums they have to car pool to get their kids to school or catch a bus to go shopping and well see how many of them actually support your crap, rather than nod their heads like idiots because its sounds good or is 'trendy'.
Your whole argument rests primarily on university students protests and opinions, (and the idiots who teach them - like the acting 5th column of the communist party) not the real thoughts of everyday people.

You say there's concensus about reducing fossil fuel use.
Try implementing fuel rations and watch your claimed bs scenario fall apart in a matter of hours.
Go on do it.

Lets test your theory that people REALLY want a reduction in fossil fuel use.

My i30 uses 5.3 litres per 100k's and can tow a dual axle trailer.
I live on a farm which has 1200 litre tank of diesel out the back, so I've effectively got my own private bowser.

So do it, turn the pumps off and well see what bloody happens.

I say your whole premise is based on bs, and a socially engineered narrative powered by disempowering the majority and empowering all combined minorites.

AC, good to see there are still some people left who are smart, aware and intelligent enough to know BS whenever it rears it,s ugly head.
I am buoyed and encouraged by the uprising of people realising they have been mis-lead and our coming forward and speaking out.
So much so that the alarmists are having to back down or reconsider their stance on all this.