Since the left has, in Alexander Cockburn's words, become "entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent" comparisons between liberal globalwarmingism and socialism are becoming increasingly apt.
One of those comparisons comes on the question of income inequality and environmental correctness. No radical leftist can tell you just how far the government should go to "fix" this "problem." They won't be satisfied unless there is a mass redistribution which is why attempts to placate them on this account are fruitless. It's the paradox of the moderate. When you accept the premise of the extreme, you are often bound to their results.
The same paradox has come around and bit Rolling Stone magazine in the butt recently as its efforts to become more environmentally correct simply aren't working:
[A]s Rolling Stone and others try to be green, they draw criticism
from environmentalists who think that if this is walking the walk, it
is doing so with a pronounced limp.
Rolling Stone will be
printed on what it calls “carbon neutral paper,” because it is made
through a process that the magazine claims adds no carbon dioxide to
the atmosphere. The paper, which is considerably thinner than what
Rolling Stone uses now, is made by a Canadian mill, Catalyst Paper,
that the magazine says has reduced greenhouse-gas emissions by 82
percent since 2005 and been cited by the World Wildlife Fund for its
Catalyst offsets the small amount of carbon
released in making the paper by planting trees that will not be
harvested for more paper, but rather left standing to help cool the
climate, said Lyn Brown, a vice president at Catalyst.
neither an editor’s note in Rolling Stone nor a press release sent by
the magazine mentions, however, is that the new paper has no recycled
content, which prompted a mixed review by Frank Locantore, director of
the Magazine Paper Project at Co-op America, a nonprofit group that
works with publishers to reduce paper use.
“Are the steps that
Rolling Stone is taking good and important ones?” Mr. Locantore asked.
“Yes. But what I’m afraid they are doing in the process is diverting
attention away from the need to use recycled paper.” He added, “All the
evidence shows that the greatest ecological and social benefits come
from using recycled paper.”
My guess is that the enviroleft won't be satisfied until Rolling Stone stops printing altogether. It's also worth noting that this article comes from the New York Times which would similarly find itself out of business--the reason the paper is capable of understanding the left is going to far on this issue.