Theology of Environmentalism

[Paul Whitaker]

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com
Al Gore's remission of sin
By Tony Blankley
Published March 7, 2007
Advertisement

Some neuro-scientists see evidence that man is genetically hard-wired to be disposed to religious conviction. If this is so, it might explain why among even the French — the most secular culture on Earth — only 25 percent claim to be atheists and a full 60 percent believe in a spiritual component to life. It might also explain why the environmental movement tends to veer toward a religious, rather than a scientific, sensibility.

This oft-observed aspect to environmentalism in general, and global warmingism in particular, has been shrewdly analyzed in a new book, "The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction," by former University College London Professor David Orrell. Among other things, Dr. Orrell focuses on the similarity between global-warming advocates' powerful predictive urge and the inherent prophetic nature of the religious instinct.

While I suspect that most global-warming alarmists would be offended if they were called pagan neo-animists, in fact, some leading religious scholars have written cogently on the point. For example, Graham Harvey, professor of religious studies at King Alfred's College, England, has written two approving books on the topic: "Contemporary Paganism: Listening People, Speaking Earth," (New York University Press) and "Animism: Respecting the Living World" (Columbia University Press).

As Mr. Graham writes: "This new use of the term animism applies to the religious worldviews and lifeways of communities and cultures for which it is important to inculcate and enhance appropriate ways to live respectfully within the wider community of [non-human animate and inanimate] persons."

Moreover, there has been a conscious awareness that religious fervor would be needed to energize the environmental movement. As Joseph Brean points out in his recent National Post review of Dr. Orrell's book:

"Forty years ago, shortly after Rachel Carson launched modern environmentalism... a Princeton history professor named Lynn White wrote a seminal essay called the Historical Roots of our Ecological Crises: 'By destroying pagan animism, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects. Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not.' It was a prescient claim. In a 2003 speech... Michael Crichton... closed the circle, calling modern environmentalism 'the religion of choice for urban atheists... a perfect 21st century re-mapping of traditional JudeoChristian beliefs and myths."

Now, there is nothing wrong, and a lot right, with the human instinct to try to understand man within a larger transcendental context. The arrogant and monstrously dilated individual human ego is the direct cause of much of mankind's suffering throughout our benighted existence.

And while I have my own religious thoughts, I will not disdain any man's search for the transcendent. But a religion should be understood by both its adherents and others for what it is a religion. The trouble with global-warming believers is that probably most of them delude themselves into thinking they are practicing science not religion.

And yet, the signs of religiousness are readily to be seen. Al Gore and his Hollywood coterie have almost comically manifested one aspect of their new religion in the last few weeks the sense of sin and the search for remission of such sin.

At the Academy Awards last month, their spokesman proudly announced that this year's show was "the first green Oscars." These vast consumers of energy in their 30,000-square-foot houses, their Gulfstream jets and even in their high-energy consumption film-production process claimed green remission of sin by virtue of driving the last hundred yards to the Kodak Theatre in Priuses, and by buying carbon credits.

Likewise, when Al Gore was revealed to be using high quantities of energy to heat and cool his large home, he claimed it was OK because he had purchased carbon offset credits. Substantively, these offsets are of dubious environmental value (see Daily Telegraph article: "Is Carbon Offsetting a Con"; BBC's "UK to Tackle Bogus Carbon Schemes" and Wall Street Journal's "The Political and Business Self-interest Behind Carbon Limits").

But as, what the Catholic Church calls "indulgentia a culpa et a poena" (release from guilt and from punishment), paying carbon offset fees makes perfect religious sense.

The Christian sinner pays the church for "a remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the powers of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive" (Catholic Encyclopedia).

In the animistic church any using or changing of the physical world (such as burning carbon) is a sin against the sacred, holistic, living world (the Gaia hypothesis). But as everyone uses energy (just as every Christian sins), the neo-animist church, too, must provide for a remission of sin (and also, a handy source of profit for the carbon-offset company owners such as Al Gore who, according to news reports, pays his indulgences to Generation Investment Management, of which he is the chairman.)

In the neo-animist church of global warming, as in all religions, the truth is acquired by faith — not science. And as in all religions, the faithful should be on guard for charlatans.




Copyright © 2007 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
Return to the article
Get Copyright Clearance Want to use this article? Click here for options!
Copyright The Washington Times valeoip beacon

[John Kennedy]

My chief concern about the tenor of this post is that it could serve to provide further justification for those who want to remain blissfully unaware of some of the very real environment problems facing us. I guess this really got to me this morning as I was driving along and noticed the 500+ ft. brown band along the base of the mountains. (yeah, this is southern California where we can see what we're breathing).

The over-the-top statements from the hyper-environmentalists are incredibly damaging, not only to truth, but also to legitimate environmental concerns. They simply provides fodder for those who want to go on behaving as though there are NO damaging environmental consequences to our lifestyles.

Those overstatements simply provide a pretext for those economic interests that, for the sake of profit, want to be allowed unchecked freedom to do whatever they wish regardless of environmental consequences.

To attempt to put a religious label on envirnomentalism unfortuantely allows many conservative Christians to simply write off environmental concerns as some sort of secular humanist thing - its almost as though environmental unconcern is integral to to true Christian belief.

You don't have to buy into the theory of global warming to acknowledge that, even if warming trends are totally climatic and thus, beyond human contral, there are some steps that could be taken to mitigate the damaging effects of it.

In short, we have those who, because of their extremism on the subject, could be called 'tree huggers'. And, unfortunately, we have those who, in their cavalier lack of concern for the environment, could be called 'trashers'.


The extreme moves of the 'treehuggers' simply furnish a pretext for the 'trashers' to do more trashing. While I'm not greatly taken with either of them, it should be acknowledged that the former have a much less negative impact on the world in which we live.

[Paul Whitaker]

PETA TO AL GORE: YOU CAN’T BE A MEAT-EATING ENVIRONMENTALIST
Tue Mar 06 2007 17:08:05 ET

The Most ‘Inconvenient Truth’: According to U.N., Animals Raised for Food Generate More Greenhouse Gases Than All Cars and Trucks Combined

Norfolk, Va. — This morning, PETA sent a letter to former vice president Al Gore explaining to him that the best way to fight global warming is to go vegetarian and offering to cook him faux “fried chicken” as an introduction to meat-free meals. In its letter, PETA points out that Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth—which starkly outlines the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming and just won the Academy Award for “Best Documentary”—has failed to address the fact that the meat industry is the largest contributor to greenhouse-gas emissions.

In the letter, PETA points out the following:

· The effect that our meat addiction is having on the climate is truly staggering. In fact, in its recent report “Livestock’s Long Shadow—Environmental Issues and Options,” the United Nations determined that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined.

· Researchers at the University of Chicago have determined that switching to a vegan diet is more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius.

PETA also reminds Gore that his critics love to question whether he practices what he preaches and suggests that by going vegetarian, he could cut down on his contribution to global warming and silence his critics at the same time.

“The single best thing that any of us can do to for our health, for animals, and for the environment is to go vegetarian,” says PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk. “The best and easiest way for Mr. Gore to show his critics that he’s truly committed to fighting global warming is to kick his meat habit immediately.”

[John Kennedy]

This PETA business sounds like it would go over well in my previous neighborhood, Loma Linda, CA. An Adventist center, vegetarianism was practiced by many, leading to several observations:

"It's an uphill job attempting to make a success in the restaurant business in a town where eating is viewed as a necessary evil."

"Aggressively pursuing a healthy lifestyle through 'good' eating habits will help you live longer - or at least it'll seem that way."

[Paul Whitaker]

Some groups in the US have been calling for the export of heavy manufacturing out of this country and into the third world, in an effort to minimize the environment impact socalled “dirty” industry has on domestic air and water. Recent studies, however, indicate that moving industry out of America will not mean a cleaner environment and, in fact, could significantly worsen conditions for everybody.

A Sacramento Bee article on March 30,
2002, reports on a dust cloud that migrated from China to the West Coast of the US. In this dust cloud were found dangerous levels of arsenic and other pollutants produced by Chinese smelters and power plants. Though noticeable in California and the West Coast, this cloud cast a toxic pall over several Chinese provinces, North Korea, and other neighboring Asian countries.

Earthwatch Radio reported a startling increase in mercury contamination in San Francisco Bay and other California waters, traced back to coal-burning factories and power plants in China. “Air pollution from China can travel across the Pacific Ocean in days,” reports Earthwatch.

China’s response to these issues has been to generally deny the problem. While they report improvements in their air and water pollution levels, outside observers note a steady increase in noxious contaminants affecting not only China and her neighbors, but the US as well.

By contrast, American environmental regulation has resulted in one of the cleanest manufacturing environments in the world, and AB&I maintains a strict air and water program to ensure that the foundry remains in full compliance with all regulations, state and federal.

California foundries are among the cleanest in the world, says Kip Wixson, AB&I vice president. We encourage our customers and others to consider the impact Chinese manufacturing is having on the world’s environment, says Wixson, and to factor that impact into their buying decisions

[Paul Whitaker]

Environment

Tuesday, March 06, 2007
infoZine Staff

Pollution from China and India Affecting World's Weather

Environment

Severe pollution from the Far East is almost certainly affecting the weather near you, says a Texas A&M University researcher who has studied the problem and has published a landmark paper on the topic in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Renyi Zhang, professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M and lead author of the paper, says the study is the first of its kind that provides indisputable evidence that man-made pollution is adversely affecting the storm track over the Pacific Ocean, a major weather event in the northern hemisphere during winter. The project was funded by the National Science Foundation and NASA.

Zhang says the culprit is easy to detect: pollution from industrial and power plants in China and India. Both countries have seen huge increases in their economies, which means more large factories and power plants to sustain such growth. All of these emit immense quantities of pollution - much of it soot and sulfate aerosols - into the atmosphere, which is carried by the prevailing winds over the Pacific Ocean and eventually worldwide.

Using satellite imagery and computer models, Zhang says that in roughly the last 20 years or so, the amount of deep convective clouds in this area increased from 20 to 50 percent, suggesting an intensified storm track in the Pacific.

"This pollution directly affects our weather," he explains.

"During the past few decades, there has been a dramatic increase in atmospheric aerosols - mostly sulfate and soot from coal burning - especially in China and India," he explains.

"We compared these deep convective clouds from the 10-year period of 1984-1994 to the period from 1994-2005 and discovered these storms have risen anywhere from 20 to as high as 50 percent."

"It is a direct link from large-scale storm systems to anthropogenic (human-made) pollution."

Zhang says the problem is especially worse during the winter months.

Because of various climate conditions, the northern Pacific Ocean is more susceptible to the aerosol effect in winter. Aerosols can affect the droplets in clouds and can actually change the dynamics of the clouds themselves, Zhang adds.

The Pacific storm track carries these polluted particles to the west coasts of Canada and the United States, across America and eventually, most of the world, Zhang notes.

"The Pacific storm track can impact weather all over the globe," he says.
"The general air flow is from west to east, but there is also some serious concern that the polar regions could be affected by this pollution. That could have potentially catastrophic results."

Soot, in the form of black carbon, can collect on ice packs and attract more heat from the sun, meaning a potential acceleration of melting of the polar ice caps, he believes.

"It possibly means the polar ice caps could melt quicker than we had believed, which of course, results in rising sea level rates," he adds.

The pollution from the storm tracks could also signify wild weather changes, he believes.

"You might have more storms, and these storms might be more severe than usual," he says.

"Or it could lead to the opposite - severe droughts in other areas. The Pacific storm track plays a crucial role in our weather, and there is no doubt at all that human activity is changing the world's weather."

Source: Texas A&M University

[Doug Wise]

Tony Blankley’s article does an imaginative though somewhat misleading job of painting today’s global warmingists as pagans. I would have serious reservations that the author is in anyway concerned with the religious theology of others. I believe the articles aim is to discredit all global warmingists by building them into a theological straw man of false religion. It then proceeds to burn the straw man via Al Gore’s indulgences. While putting those we do not agree with into an unrelated easy to burn box may further our position in a debate, I believe it usually results in adding a lot of heat but very little light to the real problem at hand.

As far as the environment is concerned, we as Christians can not deny our responsibility to be good stewards of the earth and all God has given us. How, whether, when or why we make use of these resources should be open to debate without fear of being labeled a heretic or false prophet. It needs to be noted that on this side of grace most works or deeds, no mater how well-meaning, often have adverse or unintended consequences to some degree. To determine the best course of action or inaction we need to unselfishly weigh the good against the bad through prayer, research, experience, wisdom and reasoning.
I am glad to see the Church is responding to her duty to God’s creation and is veering away from the lie “that trashing God’s earth is OK, because it’s only temporary or because it won’t be me paying the future consequences”. It is my hope that when Christ returns He will find us faithfully being the best shepherds of His creation that we can possibly be.

Love in Christ,
Doug

[Paul Whitaker]

I was disturbed to hear a member of the clergy state that he knew certain items would not be picked up as trash because they were composed of tar, etc which would not be good for the environment. But, he didn't know how to get rid of them so he weekly put a little bit into the garbage bags so the collectors wouldn't detect them. That is not being a steward of our earth!

[John Kennedy]

Some groups in the US have been calling for the export of heavy manufacturing out of this country and into the third world, in an effort to minimize the environment impact socalled “dirty” industry has on domestic air and water. Recent studies, however, indicate that moving industry out of America will not mean a cleaner environment and, in fact, could significantly worsen conditions for everybody.

A Sacramento Bee article on March 30,
2002, reports on a dust cloud that migrated from China to the West Coast of the US. In this dust cloud were found dangerous levels of arsenic and other pollutants produced by Chinese smelters and power plants. Though noticeable in California and the West Coast, this cloud cast a toxic pall over several Chinese provinces, North Korea, and other neighboring Asian countries.

Earthwatch Radio reported a startling increase in mercury contamination in San Francisco Bay and other California waters, traced back to coal-burning factories and power plants in China. “Air pollution from China can travel across the Pacific Ocean in days,” reports Earthwatch.

China’s response to these issues has been to generally deny the problem. While they report improvements in their air and water pollution levels, outside observers note a steady increase in noxious contaminants affecting not only China and her neighbors, but the US as well.

By contrast, American environmental regulation has resulted in one of the cleanest manufacturing environments in the world, and AB&I maintains a strict air and water program to ensure that the foundry remains in full compliance with all regulations, state and federal.

California foundries are among the cleanest in the world, says Kip Wixson, AB&I vice president. We encourage our customers and others to consider the impact Chinese manufacturing is having on the world’s environment, says Wixson, and to factor that impact into their buying decisions


I think it's safe to say that for every instance of outsourcing for environmental reasons there are many more for economic reasons. Generally speaking, it's not the environmentalists who are shipping those jobs overseas.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

.... It might also explain why the environmental movement tends to veer toward a religious, rather than a scientific, sensibility.

Brian McClaren's Neo discusses the characteristics of Modernity and in part, says this: "It was the age of secular science. We can hardly conceive of a non-scientific worldview, ...; in fact, you can't hardly say, 'nonscientific' without it sounding like an insult.... "

The article in question is a good example. It accuses environmental alarmists of being more "religious" than "scientific."

For the sake of discussion, suppose the article's author isn't too far off. Suppose that there are those who have heard stories of global warming and have accepted it by faith even though scientific, positive proof beyond reasonable doubt is lacking. Is that necessarily a bad thing?

Believing something without evidence, or even against the evidence, isn't necessarily wrong!

Faith is most often associated with religion but need it really be restricted to that domain? How about when a teacher tells a student, (or a coach a player, etc.), "You can do this, I have faith in you."

Or when a young woman wants to start a business and her husband says, "Go for it, I believe in you."

Or when a team is picked to lose but decides to go out and play to win. If they relied only on scientific evidence the underdog would never play....

These probably aren't very good illustrations but hopefully they at least help. I just think that this article is based on the value judgement that "science" is THEE means of knowing truth and that it is superior to faith which should be restricted to religion.

Personally, I am willing to admit that my worldview isn't based solely on science. Furthermore, I do not fragment my life into separate categories of religious and everything else. My "religion" is firmly integrated into the rest of my life.

Related to the environment.... I believe in God as creator. I believe we are to be good stewards. I believe poor stewardship often results in natural consequences. I believe that the concept of natural disasters because of our abuse fits within the realm of the way God operates. For someone to proclaim, "Behave better or face the consequences," might just prophetic because it is prophetic.

Might someone have written a similar article about Noah when he was going on about a flood?

{Someone may say, "But God wouldn't speak to us through Al Gore. I say God can speak to us through whomever he chooses. Remember Balaam? ;) }

Wilson

[Cindi Hammons]

Prof. Whitaker,

We cannot, however, place most of the blame on China and India, although they are huge poluters. In World Politics by Charles W. Kegley Jr. and Eugene R. Wittkopf, 2001, map 10.2 shows the world's carbon dioxide output. China and India together produce 73.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide emission since 1950. The United States carbon dioxide production? 186.1 billion tons since 1950. Even though developing countries may be bad polluters (I know, ever been to Mexico City?), the U.S. is worse than any of the other countries (followed closely by Europe--127.8 billion tons).

[Paul Whitaker]

Another article

Czech Pres: Environmentalism is a religion
WASHINGTON, March 9 (UPI) -- Environmentalism is a religion that is based more on political ambitions than science, the president of the Czech Republic warned Friday.

Rest of article at:

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/czech_pres_environmentalism_is_a_religion/20070309-060020-3030r/

I do agree that the US of A produces a lot of environmental junk into the air and other places. I just find these articles interesting. This was on Drudge this morning when I opened the site. Comes from United Press International - I found it referenced by Drudge.

[Paul Whitaker]

In searching for current data on world pollution I found this page on this site:

http://www.china-profile.com/data/fig_co2-emissions_2.htm

The site is run by

The China Country Profile Web site is researched, designed, implemented and maintained by

Dr. Gerhard K. Heilig
Neulinggasse 16/19
A-1030 Vienna, Austria
E-Mail: gerhard.heilig@chello.at

another site with graphs, data which I found interesting concerning population on this same site (it's animated):



http://www.china-profile.com/data/ani_ceu_pop.htm

[Paul Whitaker]

I found this today. It seems to speak to what some are talking about. Paul
===================
Evangelicals battle over agenda, environment
Global warming and other causes stray too far from battles on abortion, gay rights and similar 'great moral issues,' some leaders say.
By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer
March 10, 2007

A struggle for control of the evangelical agenda intensified this week, with some leaders declaring that the focus has strayed too far from their signature battles against abortion and gay rights.

Those issues defined the evangelical movement for more than two decades — and cemented ties with the Republican Party. But in a caustic letter, leaders of the religious right warned that these "great moral issues of our time" were being displaced by a "divisive and dangerous" alignment with the left on global warming.

A new generation of pastors has expanded the definition of moral issues to include not only global warming, but an array of causes. Quoting Scripture and invoking Jesus, they're calling for citizenship for illegal immigrants, universal healthcare and caps on carbon emissions.

The best-known champion of such causes, the Rev. Jim Wallis, this week challenged conservative crusader James C. Dobson, the chairman of Focus on the Family, to a debate on evangelical priorities.

"Are the only really 'great moral issues' those concerning abortion, gay marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence?" Wallis asked in his challenge. "How about the reality of 3 billion of God's children living on less than $2 per day? … What about pandemics like HIV/AIDS … [and] disastrous wars like Iraq?"

The remainder of the article can be found here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-evangelicals10mar10,0,5336382.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[Charles W Christian]

Greetings!

For what it's worth, I think Wallis has a point. We say we're pro-life as Evangelicals, and rightly so. But poverty and environmentally based issues cause many times more death to children than even abortion! So, we should at least talk about all these things and not just single out the one(s) that have the most political value (as Dobson and others on the Right have often done.

Furthermore, as you know, Dobson and about 20 other Evangelicals on what I would call the Far Right (I would be somewhere between the Middle Right and Far Right :-) ) called for the dismissal of Dr Richard Cizik from the National Association of Evangelicals... and none of those who signed the letter are even MEMBERS of the NAE! I don't see the hearts of these folks who (unsuccessfully) asked for this, but their actions seem to point to political self-aggrandizement (sp?), and not shared concern with fellow believers for the needs present in this world (our Father's World, as the hymn says). I'm not saying I'm on board with everything Rev. Wallis has ever said, but I think he's right on this one, and sadly, I will be surprised if Dr Dobson has the courage to debate him (or Dr Cizik or anyone else) on these matters. I hope I'm wrong about that. .. ..

Enough political grandstanding and more courageous concern! That's my two cents. . . .

Blessings, and thanks for this intriguing thread.

Charles

[Hans Deventer]

Global warming and other causes stray too far from battles on abortion, gay rights and similar 'great moral issues,' some leaders say.

"Some leaders" apparently never read their Bibles. There is nothing wrong about fighting against abortion, that is a good cause, but God's desire for justice jumps out of almost every page the prophets have written. Seems God is not all that keen on our conferences and worship services, but really dislikes our lack of concern for justice.

21 "I hate, I despise your religious feasts;
I cannot stand your assemblies.
22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
I will have no regard for them.
23 Away with the noise of your songs!
I will not listen to the music of your harps.
24 But let justice roll on like a river,
righteousness like a never-failing stream! (Amos 5)

10 Hear the word of the LORD,
you rulers of Sodom;
listen to the law of our God,
you people of Gomorrah!
11 "The multitude of your sacrifices—
what are they to me?" says the LORD.
"I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
I have no pleasure
in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
12 When you come to appear before me,
who has asked this of you,
this trampling of my courts?
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
I cannot bear your evil assemblies.
14 Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts
my soul hates.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even if you offer many prayers,
I will not listen.
Your hands are full of blood;
16 wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds
out of my sight!
Stop doing wrong,
17 learn to do right!
Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed.
Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow.

18 "Come now, let us reason together,"
says the LORD.
"Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
you will eat the best from the land;
20 but if you resist and rebel,
you will be devoured by the sword."
For the mouth of the LORD has spoken. (Isaiah 1)

The other day I heard a preacher say that we all know verse 18 and think it has to do with personal sins and going to heaven. No! It has to do with justice and living a life of justice today!

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I found the current issue of Nazarene Compassionate Ministries Magazine, which is available for full download, pertinent to this thread:
http://ncm.org/magazine_center.aspx

(I believe it is also delivered to your local Nazarene church and pastor.)

[Mark Metcalfe]

You don't have to buy into the theory of global warming to acknowledge that, even if warming trends are totally climatic and thus, beyond human contral, there are some steps that could be taken to mitigate the damaging effects of it.


I do not follow this statement, John. If the warming trends are beyond human control, than humans cannot have a mitigating effect on the climate.

I don't want to look at my air, so I think there is something we ought to be doing (besides moving to the country - we can't all do that). But the REASON I do any of this has little to do with my contribution to the planet as it does my contribution to society.

I agree with the base post that global warming is more religion (or politics) than science. Sciences is used as "proofs" about as effectively as some have used Scripture as proof texts for their agendas.

Peace.

Mark

[Mark Metcalfe]

For the sake of discussion, suppose the article's author isn't too far off. Suppose that there are those who have heard stories of global warming and have accepted it by faith even though scientific, positive proof beyond reasonable doubt is lacking. Is that necessarily a bad thing?

On the surface, it doesn't sound like a bad thing. Who would not want to be a good steward of God's Green (blue) earth? But the religious and political underpinnings are the devil in the details. The whole "carbon credit" purchases are a joke; you're either an environmentalist by practice or by proclamation. So it leaves one to wonder if Al and others are so rich that their privilege can bypass what is right to do, where does that leave grunts like you and me? It leaves under heavy restrictions and regulations of the law, run by the privileged who do not practice what they preach. In religious parlance, they are hypocrites and charlatans. In fact, they are trying to make it sound like those of us who do not buy into their message are people who do not care about the environment. I am at risk of being thought of as anti-environment with this note.

I think six billion people can toss a lot into the air, strip a lot from the ground and sea. I think every society should strive to be responsible and not allow vices such as greed undermine the fabric of society.

At the same time, I think the earth is more resilient than fragile, and the 6 billion people have done a lot to hurt the earth over time and it has recovered when given time to heal. So, let's pull back from over-doing it, but let;s not overdo pulling back.

Mark

[Wilson L. Deaton]

I do not follow this statement, John. If the warming trends are beyond human control, than humans cannot have a mitigating effect on the climate.


I'm not John, but I'll jump in...

John is saying (me thinks) that even if we humans are not causing the warming and even if we, therefore can't stop the warming itself, we can still do things about the consequences of warming.

Here is just one example off the top of my head: One effect of warming is Mosquitos climing higher up the elevation and causing Malaria in places that were above the mosquito line. Even if we aren't causing the warming, we can work on mitigating its damaging effect by taking stronger interventions against these mosquitos as we did while building the Panama Canal.

Wilson

[Wilson L. Deaton]

In fact, they are trying to make it sound like those of us who do not buy into their message are people who do not care about the environment. I am at risk of being thought of as anti-environment with this note.

For clarity and for the record, I do not think you or anyone else here is anti-environment. I, in fact, operate on the assumption that everyone (at least here on NazNet) with whom I have discussed this issue, cares about the environment and believes in being good stewards of God's creation. I understand fully and accept that our differences lie solely in interpreting the science and in knowing how to proceed.

I think six billion people can toss a lot into the air, strip a lot from the ground and sea. I think every society should strive to be responsible and not allow vices such as greed undermine the fabric of society.

Agreed.

At the same time, I think the earth is more resilient than fragile, and the 6 billion people have done a lot to hurt the earth over time and it has recovered when given time to heal.

Because every person matters, I cannot be pacified by the idea that the earth will recover and humanity will survive. Of course the earth will recover and of course humanity will survive. I'm concerned about the thousands (more likely millions) that will die and suffer in the next 100 years because we were careless and selfish.

Wilson