Perhaps...
Speaking as an outsider, though, I find it sometimes unclear whether the more radical "environmentalists" are deliberately stirring trouble to get attention or if they're just being unreasonably evangelical about their beliefs (as some of GP's actions seem to suggest). Not that it ultimately matters that much, as either way, it's plainly obvious that people place too much faith in them.
The thing I most resent about these extreme levels of political polarisation is that it leaves me basically unable to place real trust in the views of either side. Of course, when it comes down to it, a side often has to be taken nonetheless, and so it is the case here. Certainly, people need to at least understand how tough these choices can become (although in this case, I'd probably have sided with the PoCos).
At any rate, I fully agree that it's a delusion to think that "environmentalists" (or governments, for that matter) are "all good" - whatever 'good' is taken to mean (the ideology is a simple one, but translating it to real-world choices is anything but).
Of course, if you were to take the concept of a 'government to regulate the government' to its logical conclusion...where would it end? With any finite number of stages some risk will remain, although having at least a third level might make me (a bit) happier about it. But the fact remains, that the free market is only as effective as its players (so far from perfect, but the best we can do)...
Last edited by LongRunner; 05/08/16 08:29 PM.
