I May Be an Environmentalist, but I'm Not a Bloody Greenie

Hey environmentalists, I hear you man, I really do. Like, the environment is a really good thing and nature is really pretty and we shouldn't chop all the trees down and stuff. You're right. But before I consider becoming a full blown tree-hugging Bob Brown-loving hippy, you're going to have to fix up some major problems with your philosophy. You know how you say 'man is a part of nature', right? That's cool, but then you go on about the difference between the man-made world and the natural world. Get over it. Trees are nature and architecture is nature and cars and roads are nature, too.
Oh, and ditch all that propaganda about how we need to 'save the world'. The world ain't gonna be blown up, man. Over its time, it's survived ice-ages, heat-ages, repeated hits by comets, the destruction of its ozone layer, and much, much more besides - and life on planet Earth has survived too, and thrived. We're not ever going to save the planet. We're just going to make things a bit more comfortable for ourselves.
Oh, and then there's all that other stuff you guys go on about...

The Greenhouse Effect So I hear a lot of scientist dudes talk about climate change and how it might be affected by the activities of homo sapien. So I hear a lot of politicians and greenies talk about how 'human-induced climate change' will cause 'more floods, more hurricanes, more droughts - more of everything.' So what? Just because you say it's going to happen doesn't mean it will happen. I don't see why I'm supposed to believe all of you concerned people when you make contradictions like saying there's going to be more floods and more droughts. Like, come on, dude!

Floods= More Water

Droughts = Less Water

Which is it going to be?
And anyway, we hear a lot about how bad the world is going to be because of human induced climate change. But suppose we stopped human induced climate change? Do we ever hear predictions about how bad the world is going to be then? Hey, it could be worse - look at the world as it is now. In the previous twelve months, we've had several killer earthquakes, a gigantic bloody tsunami which killed thousands of people, and a couple of tornadoes as well. Whose to say that the world without human induced climate change won't be far, far worse than the world with human induced climate change? Get a proper argument, my friend.

Energy You're right. We can't keep on burning coal and oil forever and a day. We're going to run out sometime. And when we do, we'll be in deep doo-doo, unless we do something about it now. So why are you greenies so hung up on the idea of wind power and solar power? Look at some of the other alternatives:

Nuclear Power - Efficient and safe. Three quarters of the scare stories you hear about nuclear energy and nuclear waste aren't true, and most of the rest are vastly exaggerated. Fact is, we know enough about nuclear energy now to do it, and to do it safely. Stop being so freaking timid about the whole thing, and start looking at it as an alternative energy source.

Dam Power - Hey, this sounds like a freakishly clean and efficient energy source, why don't we give this one a go?

Geothermal Power - Yet another alternative which could work well. But no one mentions it.

Biodiesel Power - I dunno whether this causes any of those Carbon Dioxide gases, but let's give this one a go too.

Wave Power - Wooah, dude, another energy source that no one ever talks about - but it could work and it could work well.

For the life of me, I don't know why you guys are so stuck up on Wind Power and Solar Power, which are possibly the most expensive to manufacture, and the most inefficient in terms of output. See, the whole thing is, the modern world in all its thriving, overpopulated glory was made possible by efficient energy resources which generated enough power and profit to allow us to live in such comfort. You say we need to look at alternatives, I say - you're right, so why don't we start?

Genetically Modified Foods What's wrong with this stuff, anyway? What gives you dudes such a hang-up about it? Here's a new technology, that - given time - could develop new crops which use less natural resources (like water) and yield far greater harvests. This is good stuff! And I don't see why you're so worried about them damaging our biodiversity. Dude, wake up! They're new crops, they're adding to our biodiversity.
I don't see what the hang up is. Aren't greenies supposed to be liberal and progressive and stuff? So wake up, be liberal and progressive and accept this liberal and progressive new technology!

Overpopulation So Bob Brown says we should have less people in Australia. But he also says we should have vastly increased immigration. Um, major contradiction alert, my friend! Which is it gonna be - more people, or less? I say more people. Commissar Brown says, um, wooah, dude, that's just too heavy for this time in the morning...

Oh, and one other thing, dudes. The economy. You guys have a wee-bitty-problem with this. Trees are nice, but money doesn't grow on them. Grass is pretty, but it doesn't feed the economy. The thing that feeds the economy is money, and we need a strong economy to have a healthy society. Think about all the things that rely on this (afore-mentioned) strong economy: health, out-of-work pensions, back-to-work-pensions, rehabilitation, the arts, food, electricity... the list goes on and on. So stop thinking you can just chuck taxes at the latest environmentalist fad (wind power, solar power, bla bla bla) and give the money back to taxpayers. They usually know the best way to spend their own money.

More: See Evil Pundit