"Right and Left" labels may appear meaningless especially for intellectuals in the particular field who may not be political in intent or even have a political conscious. But does apolitical consciousness entail apolitical use and end result by third parties? I am concerned about some trends in the ecology movement, especially that it has become a vehicle for improving the image of corporations and furthering their interests to the detriment of genuine 'sustainable development' - a cliche that corporations and governments also use to present an eco-friendly image to the public. I am also convinced that at its core this has always been a bourgeois creation and as I have stated the cyber-eco-bourgeoisie is what the future hold in the evolution of social discontinuity.
Fourth, I am concerned that some scholars and others present ecology as a spiritual quest that transcends religious expression. The idea that mainstream religions are also becoming 'green' is as nauseating to me as banks offering 'green loans' and multinationals like Monsanto and ADM claiming to support the environment. Equally nauseating is 'postmodern animism'; in my view a concept stolen from Hinduism and applied by the 'greens' to make themselves feel less guilty about their endless appetite for material consumption that is at least partly responsible for ruining the environment. Let me stress that I have nothing against corporations reforestation programs, nothing against 'green volunteers' picking up trash in public parks, etc. But the issue is much broader. Human beings have a will that they exercise to determine their own evolution, but it is the institutional mainstream that holds the key and is catalytic in the evolutionary process.
Finally, the green movement as an integral part of the institutional mainstream (private and public sectors) is right-wing because it is a 'Trojan Horse'; that is, used as a vehicle to further the bourgeois state and corporate interests, and it is left if it based has a genuine 'sustainable development' goal with the welfare of people as a target and not corporations trying to privatize everything from water to public lands. 'Sustainable development' however, is an overly used term that has become almost meaningless because corporations and governments use it as they wish to define it, thus making me suspicious that there is some validity to my 'Trojan Horse' theory.