counter create hit Hard Green: Saving The Environment From The Environmentalists A Conservative Manifesto - Download Free eBook
Hot Best Seller

Hard Green: Saving The Environment From The Environmentalists A Conservative Manifesto

Availability: Ready to download

This book sets out the case for Hard Green, a conservative environmental agenda. Modern environmentalism, Peter Huber argues, destroys the environment. Captured as it has been by the Soft Green oligarchy of scientists, regulators, and lawyers, modern environmentalism does not conserve forests, oceans, lakes, and streams - it hastens their destruction. For all its scientifi This book sets out the case for Hard Green, a conservative environmental agenda. Modern environmentalism, Peter Huber argues, destroys the environment. Captured as it has been by the Soft Green oligarchy of scientists, regulators, and lawyers, modern environmentalism does not conserve forests, oceans, lakes, and streams - it hastens their destruction. For all its scientific pretension, Soft Green is not green at all. Its effects are the opposites of green. This book lays out the alternative: a return to Yellowstone and the National Forests, the original environmentalism of Theodore Roosevelt and the conservation movement. Chapter by chapter, Hard Green takes on the big issues of environmental discourse from scarcity and pollution to efficiency and waste disposal. This is the Hard Green manifesto: Rediscover TAR. Reaffirm the conservationist ethic. Expose the Soft Green fallacy. Reverse the Soft Green agenda. Save the environment from the environmentalists.


Compare

This book sets out the case for Hard Green, a conservative environmental agenda. Modern environmentalism, Peter Huber argues, destroys the environment. Captured as it has been by the Soft Green oligarchy of scientists, regulators, and lawyers, modern environmentalism does not conserve forests, oceans, lakes, and streams - it hastens their destruction. For all its scientifi This book sets out the case for Hard Green, a conservative environmental agenda. Modern environmentalism, Peter Huber argues, destroys the environment. Captured as it has been by the Soft Green oligarchy of scientists, regulators, and lawyers, modern environmentalism does not conserve forests, oceans, lakes, and streams - it hastens their destruction. For all its scientific pretension, Soft Green is not green at all. Its effects are the opposites of green. This book lays out the alternative: a return to Yellowstone and the National Forests, the original environmentalism of Theodore Roosevelt and the conservation movement. Chapter by chapter, Hard Green takes on the big issues of environmental discourse from scarcity and pollution to efficiency and waste disposal. This is the Hard Green manifesto: Rediscover TAR. Reaffirm the conservationist ethic. Expose the Soft Green fallacy. Reverse the Soft Green agenda. Save the environment from the environmentalists.

30 review for Hard Green: Saving The Environment From The Environmentalists A Conservative Manifesto

  1. 5 out of 5

    Douglas Wilson

    Peter Huber demonstrates that the green movement is mostly brown. The greatest threat to the environment would be your standard issue environmentalist, what Huber calls soft greens. People who care about the environment, but who want to depend on markets instead of coercion he calls hard greens. This is a great book. There are some evolutionary asides that are a distraction, so ignore those.

  2. 4 out of 5

    Maurean

    I picked this up at the Friends of the Library book sale because it sounded interesting, but didn’t really expect to glean much useful information from its pages (because, even though I consider myself a ‘middle-of-the-road’ kinda gal, I’ve always thought my “green” views to be somewhat ‘left-leaning’.) However, after reading the book, I find some of my viewpoints were, perhaps misguided?? Ill-informed? I don’t know, but there was a lot of valid information provided here by Mr. Huber, that it ha I picked this up at the Friends of the Library book sale because it sounded interesting, but didn’t really expect to glean much useful information from its pages (because, even though I consider myself a ‘middle-of-the-road’ kinda gal, I’ve always thought my “green” views to be somewhat ‘left-leaning’.) However, after reading the book, I find some of my viewpoints were, perhaps misguided?? Ill-informed? I don’t know, but there was a lot of valid information provided here by Mr. Huber, that it has me re-thinking some of my previously tightly-held “soft-green” beliefs. For my own ease of future reference, I am listing SEVERAL notable quotes, here: ~When we pave paradise, it isn’t any trace poison in the asphalt that kills the flowers, it’s the steamroller. (pg. xvii) ~Forcing efficiency upon consumers does nothing to make them more frugal, except insofar as it makes them poorer. And it is not poverty that makes people green. It is wealth. (pg. xxv) ~Life cannot be contained. The choice is not between life with externalities [pollution] and life without. Life is an externalizing state of being. (pg. 23) ~The(se) chemical biocides in nature’s own arsenal of self-defense chalk up “carcinogenic” on every standard test for such things, and we consume several grams of them per day, ten thousand times more than pesticides made by man. (pg. 27) ~Fearing the complex nuke, we burned an extra 40 quadrillion BTU’s of coal instead, and now we fear the complex greenhouse. (pg. 55) ~Efficiency is not green. However attractive or enriching they may be, purity and efficiency don’t directly advance green objectives at all. (pg. 58) ~Efficiency remains a perfectly sensible thing to pursue, in power plants, refrigerators, in agriculture, too. It is as useful to save energy, as it is to save time or Christmas wrapping paper. Which is to say, sometimes its worth the trouble, and sometimes it isn’t. (pg. 74) ~”Nature it seems, fared better on its own,” Scientific American concluded (regarding the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez spill), in places where the clean up was left to the wind and the waves. The litany of demands for gold-plated remediation comes from people more interested in cutting down capitalism than in growing trees. (pg.99) ~The Softs see scarcity everywhere, scarcity of wood pulp, corn, aluminum, and oil…The Hards discern only one scarcity, scarcity of wilderness, of untouched forest, lake, river, shore and ocean…the looming scarcity of wilderness and wildlife at the interface. (pg. 108) ~University of Nebraska Professor Craig S. Marxsen calculates that “appropriately constructed landfills could capture roughly 2 billion tons of carbon annually, right now, and virtually stop global warming cold in its tracks.” (pg. 115) ~North America in fact absorbs about as much carbon dioxide as it emits, because lumber, agriculture and natural reforestation take more carbon out of the air than burning fossil fuels emit into it. The prevailing winds move west to east, and average CO2 levels drop as they do. (pg. 129) ~The strong reason for caution about micro-environmental regulation is that it can get so uselessly expensive, so very fast. The pursuit itself can rapidly come to consume more energy, material, and time, endanger more lives, generate more pollution, and dissipate more value than the things pursued. (pg. 131) ~They [pollutants] have become yet another instrument of the victim culture, in which every individual defines his own environmental poison and demands special protection from it. (pg. 136) ~Few Soft Greens literally sweep before they step, but their over-achieving prescription is much the same…The whole ideology: Don’t produce, don’t reproduce, don’t plow, don’t plant, don’t grow, don’t cut, don’t hunt, don’t fish, don’t travel, don’t discard, don’t build. “Environmental activism” is, in truth, an oxymoron. (pg. 166) ~We should revere life on Earth not because we fear catastrophic failure, but because life is a good that requires no further justification. (pg. 184) ~The divide is not between the reckless and the cautious, still less between those who would act, and those who would stand by an watch. It is between those who are certain they know certain things and those who are certain they don’t. (pg. 189)

  3. 5 out of 5

    Nancy

    Interesting. Keep an open mind. This book still offers solutions for being “green”.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Jeff

    I was really impressed with this. Amazon claims it's hard to review this book because of the paucity of conservative books on environmental policy. This book makes such a strong argument for conservation and capitalism as the single saviors of the environment, I'm not sure why we'd need any other books. Huber rips computer models for the shams they are, and details how collecting diffuse energy sources through solar, wind and biofuels are the worst forms of alternative energy. He makes convincing I was really impressed with this. Amazon claims it's hard to review this book because of the paucity of conservative books on environmental policy. This book makes such a strong argument for conservation and capitalism as the single saviors of the environment, I'm not sure why we'd need any other books. Huber rips computer models for the shams they are, and details how collecting diffuse energy sources through solar, wind and biofuels are the worst forms of alternative energy. He makes convincing arguments for converting to nuclear energy wherever and whenever possible. Also, his explanation of capitalism and the free market as the best method for allocating scarce resources to protect the environment is spot on. Creating wealth doesn't destroy the environment it protects it. The best and simplest thing to say: Teddy Roosevelt would approve of this book.

  5. 5 out of 5

    James Igoe

    I really wanted to read a contrarian environmental view, either to improve my own environmentalism or just to clarify the issues. Huber's concepts were aimed at the right target, misguided environmental policy - his own idea is using recovered land as the ultimate goal of our policies - but I was gravely disappointed by his lack of supporting data. I really wanted to read a contrarian environmental view, either to improve my own environmentalism or just to clarify the issues. Huber's concepts were aimed at the right target, misguided environmental policy - his own idea is using recovered land as the ultimate goal of our policies - but I was gravely disappointed by his lack of supporting data.

  6. 5 out of 5

    Christopher

    Huber points out clearly why Green isn't actually very green at all, but Capitalism is. He fired off with a weird thought every once in awhile, and his argument is injured by his Darwinism. Still, a good book and considerably more constructive and clever than the usual screed. Huber points out clearly why Green isn't actually very green at all, but Capitalism is. He fired off with a weird thought every once in awhile, and his argument is injured by his Darwinism. Still, a good book and considerably more constructive and clever than the usual screed.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Miriam-Lea

    I think the author forgot that you need to back up at least some of your opinion with fact, especially when applying harsh criticism of "micro-environmentalism" as he calls it. This is unfortunate since his argument for mass land conservation should be taken more seriously. I think the author forgot that you need to back up at least some of your opinion with fact, especially when applying harsh criticism of "micro-environmentalism" as he calls it. This is unfortunate since his argument for mass land conservation should be taken more seriously.

  8. 4 out of 5

    Steve

    An argument for conservation , not environmentalism. Compelling.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Christen

    An interesting subject matter. I didn't have time to finish the book, but I read/skimmed through the parts that particularly interested me. An interesting subject matter. I didn't have time to finish the book, but I read/skimmed through the parts that particularly interested me.

  10. 5 out of 5

    Anita Claverie

  11. 5 out of 5

    Zach

  12. 4 out of 5

    Caitlin

  13. 5 out of 5

    Dan Loeffler

  14. 4 out of 5

    Douglas Ross

  15. 4 out of 5

    Maryam

  16. 5 out of 5

    Matt

  17. 5 out of 5

    Jeff

  18. 4 out of 5

    Terry

  19. 5 out of 5

    Meghan

  20. 5 out of 5

    Joe

  21. 5 out of 5

    Ben Meek

  22. 5 out of 5

    Alan Cunningham

  23. 5 out of 5

    Stephen Duval

  24. 4 out of 5

    George Siehl

  25. 5 out of 5

    Josh

  26. 4 out of 5

    Scott

  27. 4 out of 5

    Mgrocoff

  28. 4 out of 5

    Iangagn

  29. 4 out of 5

    Grant

  30. 4 out of 5

    Michelle Lodwick

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.