Monthly Archives: November 2015

Politics : Entry 4 : My Opinion : Environment

I will now write on my opinion on the environment.

Environment

Summery

I will summarise on what I have written on the Left Wing approach on this subject. The history of this is, the environment issues only really became relevant to the Left after the 1970s. Before the 1970s you had Karl Marx and William Morris who had concerns about the environment. Whereas Mao Zedong rejected environmentalist issues since he believed that, based on the laws of historical materialism, all of nature must be put into the service of revolution. After 1970s, however social movements and some unions campaigned over environmental issues. Some segments of the socialist and marxist left consciously merged environmentalism and anti-capitalism into an eco-socialist ideology

In the 21st Century, questions about the environment have become increasingly politicized, with the Left generally accepting the findings of environmental scientists about global warming, and many on the Right disputing or rejecting those findings. The left is however divided over how to effectively and equitably reduce carbon emissions; the centre-left often advocates a reliance on market measures such as emissions trading or a carbon tax, while those further to the left tend to support direct government regulation and intervention either alongside or instead of market mechanisms

I will now summarise on what I have written on the Right Wing approach on this subject. There is a prevalent group in the right wing regarding the environment, especially in the US and this is called Anti-environmentalism. Present day anti-environmentalists view environmentalism as “an attack on middle-class capitalism” The policies seems to be the eradication of environmental regulation, the traditional denial of global warming and keeping things as they are. Some on the right wing do however accept global warming.

Introduction

So to continue, the two biggest arguments in this field would be global warming since climate change itself is generally accepted on both sides, and regulation in the environmental industry. Firstly, I will talk about global warming and the history of how each political side approached this issue, then give my conclusion if I accept the premise of global warming, and then do the same for regulation in the environmental industry.

Global Warming

Firstly, I will define and describe global warming for the benefit who don’t have a clear idea on what it is. Global warming is a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth’s atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide and other pollutants. The greenhouse effect is the trapping of the sun’s warmth in a planet’s lower atmosphere, due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet’s surface. Or in other words, the greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet’s atmosphere warms the planet’s surface to a temperature above what it would be in the absence of its atmosphere. If a planet’s atmosphere contains active greenhouse gases the atmosphere radiates energy in all directions. Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, warming it.

The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859. The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. However, the term “greenhouse” wasn’t used to describe the effect by any of these scientists; the term was first used in this way by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901. In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.” Bell went on to also advocate the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.

The “greenhouse effect” of the atmosphere is named by analogy to greenhouses which get warmer in sunlight. The explanation given in most sources for the warmer temperature in an actual greenhouse is that solar radiation in the visible, long-wavelength ultraviolet, and short-wavelength infrared range of the spectrum passes through the glass roof and walls and is absorbed by the floor, earth, and contents, which become warmer and re-emit the energy as longer-wavelength infrared radiation. Glass and other materials used for greenhouse walls do not transmit infrared radiation, so the infrared cannot escape. Infrared is an invisible radiant energy. Infrared radiation was discovered in 1800 by astronomer Sir William Herschel. In the Solar System, there also greenhouse effects on Mars, Venus, and Titan. The effects found on Venus is particularly large, due to its atmosphere, which consists mainly of dense carbon dioxide.

In America, US President Richard Nixon was instrumental in founding the United States Environmental Protection Agency and tried to install a third pillar of NATO dealing with environmental challenges such as acid rain and greenhouse effect. During the 1980s, the Reagan administration described environmental protection as an economic burden. In a 2008 Gallup poll of the American public, 76% of Democrats and only 41% of Republicans said that they believed global warming was already happening. The gap between the opinions of the political elites, such as members of Congress, tends to be even more polarized. In Europe, opinion is not strongly divided among left and right parties. Although European political parties on the left, and Green parties, strongly support measures to address climate change, conservative European political parties maintain similar sentiments, most notably in Western and Northern Europe. For example, Margaret Thatcher, had been a strong supporter of an active climate protection policy and was instrumental in founding the British Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter. And gave speeches to the UN general assembly on this issue. After her career Thatcher however was less of a climate activists as she doubted climate action a “marvellous excuse for supranational socialism,” and called Al Gore an “apocalyptic hyperbole”. France’s centre-right President Chirac pushed key environmental and climate change policies in France in 2005–2007. Conservative German administrations in the past two decades have supported European Union climate change initiatives, concern about Forest dieback and acid rain regulation were initiated under Helmut Kohl’s conservative minister of the interior Friedrich Zimmermann.

The shared sentiments between the political left and right on climate change further illustrate the divide in perception between the United States and Europe on climate change. As an example, conservative German Prime Ministers Helmut Kohl and Angela Merkel have differed with other parties in Germany only on how to meet emissions reduction targets, not whether or not to establish or fulfil them.

The arguments for global warming is,

  • Sea level is rising in many areas of the world. This is partially attributed to the melting of ice caps and glaciers, but more to the changes in the gases contained within the sea. In the past decade, the global mean sea levels have doubled compared to the 20th century trend of 1.6 mm per year. The global sea levels rose about 6.7 inches in the last century.
  • Global temperature rise during past century and half continues. Tracking global atmospheric temperatures since the 1800s, scientists point to a steady rise with a stronger period in the 70s, lull in the 90s and a return to the rising pattern in the 2000s.
  • The rise in the number of vehicles and industries has resulted in greenhouse gases getting trapped in the atmosphere. The increased heat in the atmosphere have been absorbed by the oceans. There is over 50 years of documented temperature records for the oceans that have recorded a steady rise in its temperature since 1969.
  • The glaciers on several mountain ranges, particularly in Greenland and Antarctica, are decreasing in size due to reduction in gases that help to maintain temperatures, and changes in the regions climate. Studies conducted by NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 36 to 60 cubic miles of ice every year between 2000 and 2006.
  • Acid level in ocean is increasing which is making the oceans of the world more acidic. This is due to emission of more harmful gases in the atmosphere by humans which is getting absorbed by the oceans. This is resulting in an increase of algae blooms and mass fish deaths, as well as a change to the chemical composition of the water.

The arguments against global warming is

  • Scientists who argue against global warming say global warming isn’t real because since the 90s there hasn’t been a significant temperature change. The upswing in the temperature started from 1975, continued till 1997 and the temperature has been flat since then which clearly states that there isn’t any significant change in temperature in last 17 years.
  • There is no consensus about global warming being real among scientists. Advocates also point towards the fact that a recent gathering of 31,000 scientists in the field of environmental science couldn’t reach a consensus on whether or not global warming is real. They believe that they don’t have long term historical climate data or the data they have isn’t clear.
  • Arctic Ice increased in volume 50% in 2012 alone. Core measures of the Arctic Ice show that it has increased in volume since 2012, which argues against global warming causing ice caps to melt. Few people have even predicted that global warming would cause whole Arctic ice to melt which contradicts their version.
  • The climate model calculations used to predict the effect of global warming have been proven to be flawed which means that the long term predictions that they have been making are meaningless. Some scientists even argue that any increase in global temperatures could be a natural climate shift.
  • Advocates who promote arguments against global warming being real, point towards all the dates having come and gone where predictions were made about effects that never happened. For example Al Gore predicted that all Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. But, on contrary Arctic ice is up by 50% since 2012.

My opinion is that the main part of the problem lies in the two groups using different definitions of how global warming appears in the climate. This is one of the reasons that those advocating that global warming is real now use the term “climate change,” since it is more reflective of the real issue. The other problem lies in proof, and in studies that try to prove whether or not global warming is real. Contrary to public belief, the results of all scientific studies aren’t conclusive.

To be considered proof of a hypothesis, the studies have to be able to be replicated by others and produce the same results. With the global warming studies, analysis of decades of weather data is often used. The first problem is that weather data from 100 years ago wasn’t kept to modern standards of evidence. The second problem is that analysis is interpretation; you can really put any spin on it. This is why some of the arguments for and against whether global warming is real can use the same data and come to different conclusions.

So what do I accept? Is global warming real? There has been periods in the past where earth have undergone extreme climate changes in the past due to alternative reasoning given, due to various different factor. Has a change in industrialisation caused Co2 omissions to go up? Or is it just a coincidence of natural causes alongside the industrial period up till now which caused the emissions to go up…For me it would be naïve to think we don’t influence the planet. To say humans don’t increase carbon emission rates which increases radiation is simply wrong. The whole concept of acid rain debunks the statement “humans don’t influence the environment” alone. However do I accept global warming doomsday scenario where we are all going to drown if the ice caps melt? No, since there has been a big period in human history where the arctic melted and there were no ice left on the planet and human has progressed in this period. An example of this would be Greenland. Now it is an icy wasteland but before had no ice, which were then inhabited by the Icelanders and Norwegians which the land was then turned into all ice during the little ice age which happened at the period from 1300 to about 1850. So to clarify I accept the global warming premise but we are not going to all die. (Well we are but of old age or other causes)

Regulation of Environmental Industry

To make this shorter I will just give the arguments for and against regulations for the environmental industry, then my opinion at the end

Firstly, for regulation.

  • The cost models used are often too static and limited. The static model is a tactic used to show that any regulation will incur unacceptably high costs for industry. It assumes that industry, and perhaps more surprisingly, the market, does not adapt to changes. These models ignore established principles, including the fact that the price of a new innovation tends to decline over time and as the market grows
  • Studies have shown that the cumulative burden of regulations on companies is considerably lower than the sum of individual regulations. This is something that is frequently ignored in cost estimates
  • The beneficial effects on industry are often underestimated or ignored. More and more studies point to the benefits that arise from environmental regulation. These include increased innovation and competitiveness
  • Companies that are proactive are often prepared for regulatory changes well ahead of time. They have already done the work, absorbed the costs and would therefore benefit from a levelling of the playing field through stricter regulation. A recent OECD report shows that well-designed environmental regulations do not hinder overall productivity growth and actually boost that of companies with high productivity. Unfortunately, those companies do not see the need to speak up and are rarely heard.
  • Pollution and other kinds of environmental externalities impose costs upon others. A polluter forces others to bear the costs of his activities. Pollution tends to violate people’s property rights, as well as certain rights they have over themselves (such as the rights against having their health compromised against their will).

Against regulation

  • Environmental protection is simply too expensive for a battered economy.
  • Regulation comes with undeniable costs that can affect workers. Factories may close because of the high cost of clean-up, or owners may relocate to countries with weaker regulations.
  • Jobs will be lost which will cause the unemployment figure to go up.
  • This will affect market competition negatively
  • More regulations mean higher cost.

In times when we are told that the economy is shaky, we tend to see environmental concessions as a luxury, something that we can cut out when needed. Forgetting for a second the overarching objectives of environmental regulation which is to avoid damage to our health or the ecosystem, consider this thought: might not a shaky economy be a very good reason to introduce or maintain some environmental regulations? For me it comes down to this, In a pure cost setting the government should not interfere with the environment, but will we then be giving markets free roam to pollute to their hearts content? There will be companies coming into the marketplace to make greener cleaner products and you could argue that consumer demand could boycott business to get them to fail so a business that has cleaner products or practices is the preferred option to buy from in this setting, but in this mixed economy where companies are given subsidies and given contracts by the state which gives them a monopoly on the market which means no matter what the customer does, the business cannot fail then in my opinion, I have no choice but to be for regulations to limit the negative externalities those propped up businesses can do.

Advertisements

Politics : Entry 3 : My Opinion : Economics

I will now write about my opinion on the policies selected and it will be set out as, a summary of the policy in question, then the advantages and disadvantages, doing that for the main arguments and then at the end my opinion. Since this was a lot bigger than I expected I have broken my opinion down to each policy. In this entry it is economics.

My opinion on the policies are as follows

Economics

The policies on the Left are based on a mixed economy, which is the private ownership of the means of production, the dominance of markets for economic coordination, with profit-seeking enterprise and the accumulation of capital remaining the fundamental driving force behind economic activity. But unlike a free-market economy, the government would wield indirect influence over the economy through fiscal and monetary policies designed to counteract economic downturns and capitalism’s tendency toward financial crises and unemployment, along with playing a role in interventions that promote social welfare.

Now this is the norm for most national economies with various degrees of state intervention.

The advantages of a mixed economy are most businesses and industries can be left to private firms. Private firms tend to be more efficient than government controlled firms because they have a profit incentive to cut costs and be innovative. Mixed economies can enable some government regulation in areas where there is market failure. This can include regulation on the abuse of monopoly power, e.g. prevent mergers, and prevent excessively high prices, taxation and regulation of goods with negative externalities, e.g. pollution, also there is subsidy or state support for goods and services which tend to be under consumed in a free market. This can include public goods, like police and national defence, and merit goods like education and health care. A mixed economy can create greater equality and provide a ‘safety net’ to prevent people living in absolute poverty. At the same time, a mixed economy can enable people to enjoy the financial rewards of hard work and entrepreneurship, and government can pursue policies to provide macro-economic stability, e.g. expansionary fiscal policy in times of a recession.

The disadvantages of this are, it can be difficult to know how much governments should intervene, e.g. discretionary fiscal policy may create alternative problems such as government borrowing. Also mixed economies are criticised by Socialists for allowing too much market forces, leading to inequality and an inefficient allocation of resources. Mixed economies are also criticised by free market economists for allowing too much government intervention. Libertarians argue that governments make very poor managers of the economy, invariably being influenced by political and short-term factors. Another disadvantage that business and state interest align and influences each other giving companies a monopoly in their fields.

Another economic policy on the Left is based on communal ownership and the main objective is not to turn a profit, but to provide every citizen of the nation with the same access to education and health care. This is otherwise known as communism. The focus of communism differs greatly from other economic models.

The advantage of communism is communist economies allow of their citizens to receive the medical attention that they need, typically free of cost. When ordinary citizens are able to get the health care that they need, this is a huge boon to the development of a nation. Another advantage is every member of society is able to work and contribute, you will then see a great dip in the overall unemployment rate of a nation. This leads to a decrease in crime, as no one is forced to commit any sort of illegal offense in order to ensure that their family is fed and their bills are paid. Another advantage would be free education for anyone who wants one, breaking down the class system, which will keep children in education for longer, which would mean a more skilled workforce.

The disadvantage of communism is the state enforces a cap on how much a business can make which restricts the business ability to grow. This is basically authoritarian state intervention at all levels. Making it have a monopoly throughout the country through many sectors of the economy. Not only that, but poverty is rampant, even though the concept of the same wage as everyone else should be a proletariat paradise, elected officials then become greedy and becomes part of the ruling class, this is problematic for a plethora of reasons but the main one is, the ruling class cannot then be questioned by the proletariat and will do anything to stay in power. Another disadvantage would be there is not much personal freedom, Not only is freedom of speech completely taken away, but those who openly criticize the workings of the government are often subject to severe and overly harsh punishments. If the family has any savings they are not allowed to provide any sort of inheritance for their kids. Since the state owns everything. An externality would be a decrease of creative freedom focusing solely on production and agriculture for the long-term growth of the state.

Now we go on the Right and the policies for the right is based on a free market economy. A free market economy is a market economy system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between vendors and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.

The advantages of a free market economy are Efficiency, which is allocative and productive efficiency which will occur in productive industries, Choice. Firms will produce whatever consumers are prepared to buy. And thus because there is no restrictions due to the free enterprise factor on what to buy there will be more quantities made than in a command economy such as communism for example. Innovation, firms will always be looking to produce something new to get ahead of their competitors, even though the government’s role is limited, one of its jobs is to protect property rights. This will include intellectual property rights through patents. Hence, there are incentives in the free market system for firms to be innovative and produce better quality products. Higher economic growth rates, one does not have to be an expert economic historian to see that countries whose economic system has been nearer to the free market model have grown much faster than those with a command economy since the Second World War.

The disadvantages of a free market economy is unequal distribution of income, In a free market with very limited government, there is no welfare state, no free healthcare or free education but the free market economy does have the concept of voluntarism which mean the use of, or reliance on voluntary action to maintain an institution, carry out a policy, or achieve an end. This is used to eradicate tax which free market advocate says is forced upon them. If you start life with very little, and do not even get a good education, then there will be very little protection from destitution. Another disadvantage is Free market economies are likely to produce more pollution, which is bad for the environment

There are other forms of economic models such as the anarchic model of mutual agreements with no hierarchy but this is irrelevant since there is no country that has such a model. And others will not be mentioned since then this entry will be too big to read. But if you think there is a better economic model than the 3 prescribed then let me know and I will do a side by side analysis on what I choose and the model you have recommended.

My opinion on this is this, since I am training to be an accountant, this helps me with the mindset of wanting the national economy to be in profit or at least break even. But I also know for the government to run, it needs cash flow. Economics is a very complex field and is simply not a reflection of which economic model does better since it is contingent on a wide array of factors, I can easily put up a few polls saying which country is doing very well and say that is the economic model we should follow but economics is never rigid but always fluid, not to mention I would be committing a bandwagon fallacy by doing this. So one country doing extremely well with a surplus this year might do extremely badly the next year. An example would be Libya who were doing very well economically until they had a civil war, and Macau (China) whose surplus rate was exponential in its increase but ever since the mainland china government cracked down on corruption the rate it has fallen dramatically.[1]

So eventually I will have to look at the positions and policies and come to a conclusion.

So starting with the mixed economy, since I am living in one, I have to say personally it’s not been bad. I have used the welfare state and the free education and free healthcare. With the fact I am working class my perspective will favour this economic model along with the freedom having some sort of free market would bring, I can see myself in this system for a long time and even being an advocate for this system. However, I like to pride myself on being objective and looking at the facts and changing my conclusions on the evidence. And the evidence is this

Free healthcare and free education paid by the state for its citizens is actually not free. It is an expenditure on the state and because of the unavoidable bureaucratic nature of the state, this drives up cost and in a country trying to make austerity, educational placement will be cut down and the educational places will have to merge to break even or to make a small profit. Not to mention the cost of funding this could have been spent on other things to make the state profitable. Free education up to university level would mean more skills workers in the country and if there is a financial boom in the country it is fantastic, but most of the time economies are not in a financial boom and thus this surplus of excess skilled workers would mean employers can offer lower wages to them because they know they can get another worker fairly easily if you refuse. Communism would make this free regardless under nationalised schools and hospitals and the free market economy would privatise schools and hospitals incurring a cost for those who want to use the service. But this does not mean that in a free market economy poor people will not be able to study or to have healthcare. Since that will be a market in itself and businesses will want to cater to that.

So what do I think? The economy should not incur a deficit and should have a surplus, this manages the debt levels, because debt itself is not a bad thing, this would discount the communist model since if the state is paying for everything including housing I struggle to see how they would manage to get in enough income. So it comes down to free market economy vs a mixed economy and that is actually a hard decision.

Do humans have a fundamental right to have free healthcare and free education? I would argue no, although I am against charging for those who are in an accident and are in risk of dying and also charging for pregnancies, since in my opinion why should you be in financial ruin over an accident or when trying to have a child? I cannot see the advantage of making cosmetic changes free and that should be chargeable. Pills and medication can go under a free market economy as long as the state does not decide who to give the contract to and the consumer decides what and where they want to buy making the business having to cater to the individual. Which would make the pharmaceutical businesses having to compete with each other and lower the prices to meet the consumer valuation.

The other big cost to the state is the welfare state and that is difficult to answer but I will attempt it. Should the state pay you for having kids? No, a child should be the responsibility of the parent and not the state. Should the state pay for you being disabled? No but acts of charity under free market voluntarism will be there to assist those who have problems. Should people who have no job be paid to look to work? Well it comes down to tax.

Taxes are generally regressive and does not help poor people who are working. In my opinion you have a degree of responsibility if you are making a lot of money to help your community. Although what that would look like is not for me to say since I am not a politician. So should people who have no job be given money? It depends on where the money is coming from looking at it from an economic standpoint. Although I do understand the argument of giving as many people money to fund a consumer based economy it should not be at the expense of the state.

So economically at least judging by what I have written, I would be pro free market economy with some concessions.

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-31/macau-gdp-falls-to-2011-levels-as-casino-slump-threatens-surplus

Politics : Entry 2 ; The Right

So this is my second entry and it is on the right. My next entry will be my personal opinion and where I stand on the policies selected.

Right wing

The right-wing started off as a classification during the French revolution. Which came into being thanks to the Estates General. This was a legislative and consultative assembly of the different classes of French subjects (citizens). This was not an independent body but rather an advisory board for the king. From 1789, it was generally separated between the nobility class which were to the right side of the room and the deputies of the citizens to the left side of the room. There is also a third side which consisted of the catholic clergy but that is not relevant to this classification.

They wanted to preserve the institution of the old regime which was called the Ancien Regime which was based on administrative centralisation of powers which can be wielded by the king of France, which is basically an absolute monarchy. The original right supported hierarchy, tradition and clericalism (clericalism is the application of the formal leadership of the ordained clergy of issues outside the religious institutions that they represent.) They became prominent in France after the restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 and were often called the ultra-loyalists. These classifications did not become of use in the English-speaking world for their own policies until the early 20th century.

From the 1830s to 1880s, there was a shift in the western world of the social class structure and the economy, moving away from nobility and aristocracy and towards capitalism.

In the United States “right-wing” has quite a different history and meaning. For the most part the American right-wing is an integral part of the conservative movement in the U.S. The right has been a major factor and often dominant in American politics since 1980.

The Right has gone through five distinct historical stages: firstly, the reactionary right, which sought a return to aristocracy and established religion; secondly, the moderate right, who sought limited government and distrusted intellectuals; thirdly, the radical right, who favoured a romantic and aggressive nationalism; fourthly, the extreme right, who proposed anti-immigration policies and implicit racism; and lastly, the neo-liberal right, who sought to combine a belief in a market economy and economic deregulation with the traditional Right-wing beliefs in patriotism, elitism, and law and order.

Policies

Economics

In France, after the French Revolution, the Right fought against the rising power of those who had grown rich through commerce, and sought to preserve the rights of the hereditary nobility. They were uncomfortable with capitalism, with the Enlightenment, with individualism, and with industrialism and fought to retain traditional social hierarchies and institutions. In Europe’s history, there have been strong collectivist right-wing movements, such as in the social Catholic Right that has exhibited hostility to all forms of liberalism, including economic liberalism, and has historically advocated for class harmony involving a hierarchical society where workers are protected while hierarchy of classes remained.

In the 19th century, the Right had shifted to support the newly rich in some European countries, and instead of favouring the nobility over industrialists, favoured capitalists over the working class. Other right-wing entities on the Continent, such as Carlism (which is a traditionalist and legitimist political movement in Spain seeking the establishment of a separate line of the Bourbon dynasty (no, not the biscuit) on the Spanish throne.) in Spain and nationalist movements in France, Germany, and Russia, remained hostile to capitalism and industrialism. There are, however, still a few right-wing movements today, notably the French Nouvelle Droite (New Right), the Italian CasaPound (named after an American poet), and American paleoconservatives, that are often in opposition to capitalist ethics and the effects they have on society as a whole, which they see as infringing upon or causing the decay of social traditions or hierarchies that they see as essential for social order.

In modern times, “right-wing” is sometimes used to describe laissez-faire capitalism. In Europe, capitalists formed alliances with the Right during their conflicts with workers after 1848. In France, the Right’s support of capitalism can be traced to the late 19th century. The so-called neoliberal Right, popularized by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, combines support for free markets, privatisation, and deregulation with traditional right-wing support for social conformity. Right-wing libertarianism supports a decentralized economy based on economic freedom, and holds property rights, free markets and free trade to be the most important kinds of freedom.

Conservative authoritarians and those on the far right have supported fascism (who advocates a self-sufficient mixed economy (autarky) based on protectionist and interventionist economic policies) and corporatism (economic tripartism involving negotiations between business, labour, and state interest groups to establish economic policy. This is sometimes also referred to as neo-corporatism and is associated with social democracy)

Environment

There is a prevalent group in the right-wing regarding the environment, especially in the US and this is called Anti-environmentalism. Present day anti-environmentalists view environmentalism as “an attack on middle-class capitalism”

Larry Bell, an anti-environmental speaker claimed that the point of environmentalism is to destroy capitalism. By 2011, less than half of the American population believed that the burning of fossil fuels would affect the environment. In 2011, 80% of American Republicans did not agree with the science explaining the current “environmental crisis”.

The policies seem to be the eradication of environmental regulation, the traditional denial of global warming and keeping things as they are.

There is not really much to say about the right-wing outside the US though. Except for the promotion of the usage of fracking and the usage of natural resources.

Some on the right-wing do however accept global warming.

Nationalism

In France, nationalism was originally a left-wing and Republican ideology. After the period of rise of revanchism (which is a term used since the 1870s to describe a political manifestation of the will to reverse territorial losses incurred by a country, often following a war or social movement.) during the French third republic (context being the Franco-Prussian war in 1870-1871) and the Dreyfus Affair (It was a political scandal that from its beginning in 1894, which divided France until it was finally resolved in 1906. The affair is often seen as a modern and universal symbol of injustice, and remains one of the most striking examples of a complex miscarriage of justice, where a major role was played by the press and public opinion.) Nationalism became a trait of the right-wing.

Right-wing nationalists sought to define and defend a “true” national identity from elements deemed to be corrupting that identity. Some were supremacists who, in accordance with Social Darwinism, applied the concept of “survival of the fittest” to nations and races. Right-wing nationalism was influenced by romantic nationalism, in which the state derives its political legitimacy from the organic unity of those it governs. This generally includes, the language, race, culture, religion and customs of the “nation”, all of which were “born” within its culture. Linked with right-wing nationalism is cultural conservatism, which supports the preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture, and often sees deviations from cultural norms as an existential threat.

Religion

Government support for an established religion was associated with the original French right-wing. Religious fundamentalists frequently feel that governments should enact laws supporting their religious tenets. The Christian right is a major force in North America. They generally support laws upholding what they consider religious values, such as opposition to abortion, contraception, sex outside marriage, and to same-sex marriage, and reject scientific positions on evolution and other matters where science disagrees with the Bible. Outside the West, other religious and ethnic groups are considered right-wing.

In India, Hindu nationalism is sometimes considered a part of the Right. The Hindu nationalist movement has attracted privileged groups fearing encroachment on their dominant positions, and impoverished groups seeking recognition around a rhetoric of cultural pride, order, and national strength. Many Islamist groups have been called “right-wing” including the Great Union Party in Turkey, and the Combatant Clergy Association in Iran and the Islamic Society of Engineers of Iran giving just a few examples.

The term “family values” has been used as a buzzword by right-wing parties such as the Republican Party in the United States, the Family First Party in Australia, the Conservative party in the United Kingdom and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India to describe support for traditional families, and opposition to the changes the modern world has made in how families live. Right-wing supporters of “family values” may oppose abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, divorce, teenage pregnancy and adultery.

Social stratification

Right-wing politics involves in varying degrees the rejection of some egalitarian objectives of left-wing politics, claiming either that economic inequality is natural and inevitable or that it is beneficial to society. Right-wing ideologies and movements support social order. The original French right-wing was called “the party of order” and held that France needed a strong political leader to keep order. Right libertarians reject collective or state-imposed equality as undermining reward for personal merit, initiative, and enterprise. In their view, it is unjust, limits personal freedom, and leads to social uniformity and mediocrity.

Variety

The meaning of right-wing varies across societies, political systems and ideologies. According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, in liberal democracies, the political Right opposes socialism and social democracy.

Although the right-wing originated with traditional conservatives, monarchists and reactionaries, it has evolved to include neo-conservatives, authoritarians, nationalists, fascists, racial supremacists, Christian democrats, religious fundamentalists, and classical liberals.

Parties of the centre-right generally support liberal democracy, capitalism, the market economy (though they may accept government regulation to control monopolies), private property rights, and a limited welfare state (for example government provision of education and medical care). They support conservatism and economic liberalism, and oppose socialism and communism. The phrase far right, by contrast, is used to describe those who favour an absolutist government, which uses the power of the state to support the dominant ethnic group or religion and often to criminalize other ethnic groups or religions.

The right-wing generally find Postmodernism to be a variation of Relativism and hence immoral and something to fight.