The simplest reason for a person on either side to buy into it is simply that they believe the authoritative statements made by media and scientists. That is, after all, why they make those statements – to persuade people.

Unfortunately, the common conflation of “Capitalists” with “corrupt and greedy businessmen” (or even just “businessmen”) that has been pushed by the left is irritating to many of us on the capitalist right. Using this as an example isn’t going to persuade many actual right-wingers of your case, although it may persuade some on the left.

Nor does connecting the Greens to the Conservatives, given that one of the common criticisms of the Conservatives is their strong move to the left over the past decade, (much as New Labour was a move to the right). The attempt to capture the middle ground has led to a shifting and blurring of boundaries and labels, and they’re no longer as persuasive as they once were.

It would be fair to argue that there may be those on the “traditional right”, interpreted as upholders of traditional values and respect for the hierarchy of “Establishment” authority and wealth, who either believe in catastrophic AGW or who push the claim for political reasons despite not believing it. You could also argue for people on the “Right” more recently defined as supporters of the free market and civil liberties – “Capitalists” – who are advocating for free market solutions, the development of new technology, geo-engineering, adaptation, and so on as answers to what they genuinely see as a problem. I see no inherent contradiction between Capitalism and environmentalism (with a small ‘e’).

What jars is the presentation of what capitalists would normally class as “rent seekers”, proposing anti-market solutions based on government regulation, as being “Capitalists” and a good counter example to Environmentalism being the new Left. (And it’s the philosophical Left they’re talking about when they say that, not its practice.) Unfortunately, your example only tends to confirm and reinforce my prejudices. Those are definitely not capitalists, and it’s not clear whether or not they’re even on the traditional Right, (although I agree they don’t appear to be obviously Left-wing in the traditional sense either).

I applaud your aim, I simply disagree about your example.

We’d go along with that – though it is putting it a bit strongly. It’s more a case of disorientation, and an inability to reflect critically on the perspective offered by the elite. That certainly stems from ignorance.

Stevo: “Capitalism is an economic philosophy”.

Capitalism is both the philosophy and the practice. Our point was intended to show that even (venture) capitalists have lost confidence in (philsophical) capitalism’s ability to make the world a better place. This sits in contrast to the criticism (from the Right) that environmentalism is the new form of the Left. But the Left too has lost faith in its own economic philosophy, and so looks to legitimise itself in environmental terms.

That’s not to say that all (philosophical) capitalists share Simmons’ disorientation. The environmental issue clearly doesn’t divide on Left/Right lines. In fact, the Green Party in the UK, although appearing to be sympathetic to many Left ideas, was in fact established by conservatives, who wanted to challenge the Left/Right axis, beleiving that the preoccupations of both with industrialisation would lead to the demise of the human race.

Capitalism is an economic philosophy. It so happens that many big companies got where they are because they were run by Capitalists, but this is hardly the definition.

The Soviet Union did billions in business deals – they were a world superpower – but they didn’t believe in the economic theory. Life is not so simple.

If you don’t allow psychology as an analytical tool, how about literary criticism? You say:
“The disaster B-movie has mutated, grown limbs, escaped its fantasy celluloid landscape, and found a new home in the imaginations of the people whose expertise we might have thought would protect them – and us – from such silliness.”
Right on. But the disaster B-movie is the bastard child (mutated?) of an honorable literary tradition, the dystopia. From Lucian’s True History to Shakespeare’s Tempest (“oh what brave new world is this”) to Huxley and beyond, artists have warned us what might happen if social theories are taken to their logical conclusion.
An example from mainstream science fiction: Larry Niven’s “Bordered in Black” is a short story which describes a world with just two species: a seaborn algae, and a humanoid species whose billion members spend their lives killing each other in a desperate struggle to reach the water’s edge. It’s a powerful story, which would earn a place in an anthology of environmental literature warning against the dangers of monoculture. But if Segal had made a film of it, the world would be full of idiots trying to force us to preserve every worm-ridden variety of traditional apple (oh, it is).
See what I mean? We are ruled by ignoramuses who get their ideas from B-movies and not from a wider culture. How many of today’s cabinet have read 1984 or Brave New World or Civilisation and its Discontents, or know about McCarthyism? I’m trying to explain to myself why the world’s leaders are falling for an intellectually void philosophy. You don’t like psychology as an answer, how about the sheer pig-ignorance of our ruling élite?

But the fact is we’re all to blame. We took the “face value” easy route on so many of these things. We showed a willingness to accept the party lines, pay for the supply and demand manipulations, accept blame for things we’re not responsible for, all while becoming increasingly malleable, politically correct, little lemmings. We have become mindless shells, trained to accept the lies of those clearly intending to take advantage of us. Doesn’t it bother you that these three gentlemen have no reservations about putting their schemes right out there, in all their despicible glory, without an ounce of fear that we’ll all do anything but accept it? This is bad bad bad bad bad. They are laying out their plans for world domination, and the best most of us do is post blurbs voicing our disappointment. Folks, Judgement Day will happen here on Earth, and likely sooner than you think (if you even think). You need to get off the damn i-phones, close the IM window and start really thinking about what side you want to be on (and if they want YOU). As of last week the government OWNS YOUR HOME. They own the power grid and toss back and forth excuses why they will not expand it, then get rich investing in the huge increases in demand that they created. Meanwhile you borrow yourself into debt just to provide for your basic needs. But profiting at your expense still isn’t enough anymore. Rationing, localizing, etc etc! These words refer to YOU in a situation of dependent control that doesn’t look too different in practice than slavery. This is THEIR plan for YOUR future.

Just know that they don’t intend to bring it about by blogging, so I hope you all are planning to do more than that to stop it…

Simmons is an idiot who keeps parroting the end of the world since the eighties. It’s, as you have found out, in his best interest that peak oil panic gets as mainstream as possible.