Ecofascism

>>130206775
Fascism already includes Environmentalism.

>>130206908
You say that, but a lot of people on this board believe climate change and pollution aren't issues to worry about. You're right historically, though, but that needs to be communicated a lot better.

>>130206775
Emphasising the environmental and socials aspects of a NatSoc like ideology would be a really smart move.

>>130207213
Because they are bunch of Amerifat lolbertarians and retard who get tricked by oilniggers.

>>130206775
Read Linkola or repent.

>>130206775
There are still people in this board that agent warming accelerationists

>more territory for whites than ever
>take Siberia and Canada as breadbaskets for the white ethnostates
>make your ideology in line with reality
>BTFO (((carbon ceiling)))
>BTFO faggots who just want to usher in the next ice age
>turn Israel into a fucking wasteland
>turn Africa into a fucking wasteland
>just tell migrants to fuck off

Don't be a faggot. Warming is better. However we have to keep out environment clean and beautiful.

File: dai-drought-2060-2069-woceanlabels.jpg (823KB, 1809x875px) Image search: [Google]

823KB, 1809x875px

>>130207603
>Turn everything south of Denmark into a dessert t. snownigger

>>130207603
>with reality
>reality
Wew, Schlomo - almost got me there.

Your plan only works if we already have white ethnostates in place and with today's cuckocracy that's a long shot. Even then it's not an argument against taking care of the evironment.

>>130207565
Can't disagree with that.
>>130207589
I'll check him out.

Nature is trying to kill you, dawg.

File: EcoFascism16.png (498KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 700x700px

>>130208485
Sure. And our response should be taming it, not killing it.

>>130206775
No one can have a Fash/NatSoc worldview without truly contemplating man's role in the world, and cultivating a deep respect for all of nature. Man has to be a good steward to the land, just as he is for his family, and for his nation as a whole.

>>130207213
>climate change
>worry
And do what about it exactly? Try to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and potentially create an even worse situation generations down the line for interfering in a process we still don't fully understand.
I am 100% in favor of reducing pollution of all kinds. We should strive for businesses to be clean, and be run materially efficient as possible, but we cannot arbitrarily shackle business for altruistic purposes when our direct competition refuses to do the same. If we lose we would be leaving the world in the hands of people who lack the altruistic tendencies that we possess. Future people may not ever share in these concerns, and that is a risk we simply cannot take.

There are more pressing immediate term issues regarding pollution that we have to deal with than alarmist climate change anyway.

>>130208707

I think the best long term solution is to create our own artificial environments.

>>130208962
>Try to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere
That's called planting trees, but no primarily just burning less coal and investing in energy sources that make us less dependent on sandniggers like fission, wind, solar and especially fusion. Even without the concern of global warming you should want to get rid of fossil fuels since they poison our air, soil and water. Of course it will take some time, but we still have that time. If Europe truly took the initiative today we could most likely pressure the rest of the world to follow too. The result would be the world's supply of energy shifting from the Middle east and Africa to Europe, North-America and East-Asia. Especially regarding the technologies the whole world then would need as Europe is in the lead in the lead here.

With that said I do respect your general attitude towards nature.

>>130209116
You may get me to agree when the technology for that truly is around.

>>130210095
As a concept I could get behind completely phasing out the use of petroleum products in transportation, energy production, and in the manufacturing of plastic products.
I'm a proponent of decentralized power production. Solar cells on tops of buildings, residential roofs, window panels on skyscrapers, small scale wind turbines of different designs, geothermal power, hydroelectric in rivers and lakes with channel locks. For ecological and security reasons I see the centralized production method as inferior. We could have less outages and lower infrastructure strain if it were distributed.
My house is fully electric, all the appliances. Induction stove top, tankless electric water heater, I don't have a natural gas line hooked up, though I do have a diesel backup generator. Sans generator I see this as a step forward for the developed world because of the implications that it could carry.

Moving forward with changes to power grids across the country we'd still be looking at massive use of oil in things like agriculture, transport, and industry in general.
Its something that may take decades to address, but I believe the financial investment required to undertake the task is a worthwhile endeavor. The same justification that NASA uses for its own funding; its an investment in our future.

File: aa0edfa39203c2d731f385e4e294b57a.jpg (23KB, 236x363px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 236x363px

>>130211548
In that case our argument would be about how quick this should be addressed rather than what needs to be done.

I salute your efforts!

>>130206775
Nat-Soc is inherently eco-friendly you faggot