> The real motives of environmentalists is to erode capitalism? Respectfully: that's nuts.

Is that really controversial? Reducing consumption and crippling new economic developments like mining/pipelines/logging/large construction projects etc has always been a huge part of environmentalist movement.

Even here in Canada whose economy depends heavily on oil, lumber, and mines...One of the biggest responses to US aggression is to try to reverse that as opposed to years our of GDP growth declining in favour of climate activism and interference by native groups stopping any new projects.

You can't even build a road in BC without activists stopping it.

idk about the US but it's hard to find any industry not impacted by it here.

Is it really controversial to say that most environmentalists want to protect ecosystems, not destroy capitalism? No, it's not controversial, it's just wrong. Must protecting ecosystems mean a hatred for capitalism? No.

You’re taking effects (slower pipelines, fewer logging permits) and making those effects the activists’ "true" goal. In reality, many of the people campaigning for stronger environmental safeguards are business-friendly too, such as 1000s of economists (and many Nobel laureates) have backed a carbon tax because it uses market forces to cut emissions.

Calling for long-term accounting of environmental costs isn’t anti-capitalist.

That's not a motive, it's a consequence. There's a difference.

Is environmental destruction a motive of capitalism? Of course not, and it would be crazy to say that. So why say the opposite about environmentalists?