Environmentalism is based on Marxism which is the new Communism!

First of all, the environmental cost can be accountable without the tax system and the government censorship. As long as citizens have a voice to reflect their opinion, they are able to claim for the compensation when their living environment is threatened to be polluted. Therefore, the cost of capitalists is too high to build these highly pollutant electric plants. The problem of pollution by these electric power plants often occurs in non-capitalist countries such as immature LDCs and state socialist countries where free trade is discouraged. We must remember that, in many countries which follow capitalism, there are many citizens protesting against the renewable power plants because they are pollutant. They do not protest because of their short term profit; they protest for their living environment. Capitalism regards highly of not only about the interests of capitalists but also the citizens' liberty and right such as property right, freedom of choice, and free trade. When you recommend introducing more renewable power plants under the name of environmental protection, this certainly kills the great admirable characteristics and quality of capitalism!

---

We must be warned of the fact that Environmentalism is based on Marxism, and therefore Environmentalism is the new form of Communism. The remarkable characteristics is that Environmentalism applies the Surplus-Value theory to environment instead of proletariat. Both environmentalism and communism regard that the engine of capitalism is exploiting the high supply of these exploitable substances. However, these ideologies based on Marxism involves a critical misunderstanding of market mechanism (Capitalism).

Capitalism (that is what they call as the antithesis of their own theory) regards highly of "Property Right" based on the "Equity". When proletariat are exploited enough, their purchasing power goes down, and then the entire market stagnate so that bourgeoisie make a loss as well. Furthermore, proletariat also reject working under an exploiting wage (Decline in the supply, the real wage goes up).

When environments are exploited enough, it eventually causes either the extinction of them (Decline in the supply, the real cost goes up) or protests from the property owners as long as they are capitalist minded. Capitalism actually improved both commoners' freedom of choice and the environmental protection under the property right and the equity law.

Pre-capitalist world was much more exploiting environments because they could forcibly extract the natural resource without any equitable contract. When we learn history, we know that the amount of forests disappeared was really big in Feudalism which cannot compared with capitalism.

In addition, the irony of socialist states (What communists achieved to establish (Communist states have never accomplished yet and will never)) is that, even though they promised to protect proletariat's living standard under the collective planning, they exploited these proletariat more than capitalism does.

I predict that, because Environmentalism is plotting to install the collective economy to control usage of environment, abolition of individual freedom choice and property right under the equity will definitely cause the unintentional environmental destruction like those seen in the former ex-Communists' socialist states.

The political actions based on any hypocritical motivation controlling economy is dangerous. The best way to protect the environment is to let individual property owners (All of us are entitled to have a property any way under Classical-Liberalsm=Capitalism) have a freedom of choice and property rights, and trade each other under the agreeable and equitable value. The free market mechanism based on the law of gravity naturally adjust the distribution and the resource reserve to the optimum level.


-----
* Note about Renewable energy power plants:

The renewables are not only cost inefficient but also very pollutant. The process to build both wind firm and solar panel excretes a very high pollutant. The worst energy source is the window firm. The silent noise wave from it reaches very far away to cause the mental disease of people living within its noise pollution radius. Solar panel requires very high maintenance cost to keep the panel not damaged. Both of these renewables cannot supply the electric supply at a stable pace. Both Wind Firm and Solar Panel also exploit huge land mass, and destroy not only the scenery but also plants and animal living there. As a total, in terms of both the pollution and the efficient and stable electric supply, thermal electric power plants are still rather relatively environmentally friendly.

* Solar Power:
The problem of solar power is that it dramatically goes down when it passes through the atmospheric layer surrounding the earth. So, when it reaches to the earth the power concentration is very low and never enough to improve the efficiency of absorbing the electric power. Therefore, the huge land mass is still required so that the maintenance cost per mirror and the inspection cost per hour are always very expensive. Also, due to this fact, solar power assisted vehicles will not be evolved more than a small scale usage. If we really want to use the solar power as an alternative electric power supplier, we should consider inventing the microwave power plant, which directly transfer the solar power electricity received by the solar panels launched into the orbit from the outer space to inside the atmosphere. This technology is still not yet put into practice, but taken into the consideration. This method at least does not waste the precious resources, land mass, and maintenance cost and time as much as the solar panels on the ground in the atmosphere. Although receiving from the outer space to transfer to the ground as the microwave still involves a risk of missing the target which the microwave reaches at, its efficiency of supply electric power is tremendously higher than receiving the solar power in inside the atmosphere.

* Wind farm:
The noise I mentioned was not the hear-able noise: I mentioned about the silent/ignored noise pollution. You know that the noise has vibration? This silent vibration causes the health disfunction such as mental disease. Speaking of the pollution produced for their construction, well they might be able to minimise the pollutant materials used for building these wind farms, but we never know how many R&D is required for how long. While they are tackling with minimising all these external costs and keep replacing the already tested models with the newest models, a ton of resources, the replacement costs, and the time consumed on the project can be wasted. Before inventing the newest semi-perfect environmentally friendly wind farms, they may run out all the natural resources, causes so many times of replacements and new constructions which create the air and land pollution, and increase the victim of the silent/ignored noise pollution. The wind firm is the least efficient way of electric supply. Just building 1 square kilometre thermal power plant in a remote area is far more efficient and environmentally friendly than building several square kilometres of a bunch of eyesore wind farms.

All in all, at least, I am against the renewable as the "primary" electric supplier. Well, I don't mind as the auxiliary.