They may be repackaging, but they have been dealt some serious blows, although I think this article doesn't grasp it. International environmentalism during the time of the Rio conference was primarily coming from rich countries and focusing on developing nations in an effort to keep them from developing. They touted things like eco-tourism of old growth rainforests, instead of industrialization. And of course, global warming, which is made worse by third world aspirations to own their own cars.
What happened in the meantime, is that developing countries said "BS," and developed in their own best interests anyway.
The end result of this new industrialization will also have many positive effects for the enviromnet,as for instance, the 1.3 billion Chinese are leaving the countryside and concentrating themselves in new cities, complete with sewage treatment for the first time, and trash removal. But environmentalists fought this.
Maybe you should explain it to someone who doesn’t pay an electric bill 300% higher than it was a decade ago as my electric company builds wind farms to replace the coal fired plants they’re closing.
Eco-tourism is incredibly elitist of an economic model. “You must not develop these resources to improve your quality of life, keep it pristine so that the visiting elites can enjoy it, and you’ll get enough money to barely survive.”
It’s worse than colonialism, because the locals don’t get the infrastructure or institutions colonization brings. If the eco-tourism fails, the locals have nothing to show for it, and may have lost rights to the natural resources that they previously had.
Oh, so I take it that you are a big fan of the Agenda 21 and UN Sustainable Development? That is certainly what your post indicates.
Take it from this habitat restorationist for nearly 25 years: You have no idea what is "good for the environment." What you are describing is both an urban prison and the destruction of topsoil.
China is an anthropogenic landscape and has been for thousands of years. For that entire time, the soil received the minerals that people consumed in vegetation. To suddenly pull the people off that land is a horrible idea. What will grow there? Who will weed it? Or are they going mechanize farming, feed it natural gas, and deplete that soil? How are they going to separate out the toxic minerals from that sewer cake while leaving the trace elements for growing food? What makes you think sewage treatment plants are such a good idea compared to composting. Do you know what the THM in that treated outfall will do to their fisheries?
I promise you, a third, at least of the farms in the American Midwest would blow away and turn to sand in three years without additional ammonia. My take is that the same will happen to China once they've used up what has been built.
Worse, once the people are gathered into cities they are ripe for extermination at the throw of a switch unless they obey. So I take it you are a big fan of tyranny and population control as well.
So I suggest you dispense with the popular whiz-dumb as regards what is "good" and start thinking about what is good for topsoil over the long run. It is the most precious resource on earth.
People being crammed into multi level boxes will reduce their quality of life and make them easier for the government to control. Environmentalists aren't fighting this. Using U.N. Agenda 21, they are pushing it. Once you take a good look at the environmental movement you will see that it has nothing to do with ecology or the environment. Those who think so are the pawns in the game ...useful idiots.