Here's the thing.
This ain't 1650. The countries of the world are interconnected economically in all sorts of ways.
If we accept the argument that economic growth and consumption is bad - and this is effectively the argument, not of every conservationist, but of the leftowarmist - then the result is a reduction of the standard of living for EVERYONE. For us it may mean something we can afford - a smaller TV, carpooling instead of driving your own car, whatever. For people in India it means a car factory shuts down and they're unemployed and homeless. It can literally mean millions of people starving in some countries.
Any global economic downturn means a rise in the amount of starving people in third-world countries - and in fact that's what the recent economic crisis did somewhere.
I have literally met people, people who are educated and who knew this and who told me outright that economic progress and less people starving was bad because 'it was bringing about global warming.'
When a person believes something that causes more people to starve - and some of these people do so knowingly, most merely by implication - then this person is advocating something evil.
