Thread: Austrian Politican Speaks candidly

@Croc, are you sure you want to hear my anti-USSR environmental rant? Is there anyone here who doesn't know about these things? It could get pretty long.... and I could get tempted to add some other items to the complaint.

The only thing I can remember complaining about while it was still a relevant/current complaint, was the war in Afghanistan and once or twice, things relating to the Baltic states. There were some standard SocialDemocrat reservations against the USSR - old cliches which no doubt everyone here knows.

At least in other countries, people only found out about the scale of the environmental problems there towards the end of perestroika.

Originally Posted by Hanna

@Croc, are you sure you want to hear my anti-USSR environmental rant? Is there anyone here who doesn't know about these things?

Thank you. So, essentially that means it's not the 'consumption of goods and services' which takes an ecological toll on the planet, but rather the way (=the technology) those goods and services are PROCURED. Some 11 thousand years ago it was believed it's ok to hunt whatever mammoth you find delicious until they went extinct and the global famine had happened. What I said about colouring in blue and living in harmony with the nature in the forest was, of course, a grim joke. Hunting is one of the most ecologically expensive ways to procure food. That outdated technology was substituted by the farming which was a renewable source. There is a well known list of the obsolete 'ecologically dirty' technologies which were modernized: burning wood for heating was substituted with coal and then the natural gas. You should read a good introductory article to get a better picture. In the mid-20th century it was believed it's OK to build a dam on a river and destroy the ecology of the entire region. So, what I'm asking from you is to realize that the mental link between the consumerism and the ecology is artificial and serves a powerful propaganda weapon. The calls for "let's conserve the water, the energy, the heat" are fine as long as they aren't used politically. However, I noticed that the so-called 'Green Parties' have gained the momentum with their electorate made of otherwise politically inert people. If I were a politician, I would join a 'green party'. Why? Because: (1) everybody understands they want something good; (2) the 'green party' would never win a majority in any elections, so no responsibility is assumed; (3) as a minor party, a 'green party' can join to any coalition it wants: with the left, with the right, with whoever, and get a real money and power in exchange. So, a real money/power and no responsibility! When you get to the political career as you said you would, take my advice and join your local 'green party'.