NOTE: This article appeared in the Los Angeles Times today, and given it is generally left leaning, I’m surprised to see it printed there. I have posted an except and a link to the original below.
The Church of Green
 |
Jonah Goldberg: May 20, 2008
No doubt for millions of Americans this is a distinction without a difference, as the two words are usually used interchangeably. But they’re different things, and the country would be better off if we sharpened the distinctions between both word and concept.
Environmentalism’s most renewable resources are fear, guilt and moral bullying. Its worldview casts man as a sinful creature who, through the pursuit of forbidden knowledge, abandoned our Edenic past. John Muir, who laid the philosophical foundations of modern environmentalism, described humans as “selfish, conceited creatures.” Salvation comes from shedding our sins, rejecting our addictions (to oil, consumerism, etc.) and demonstrating through deeds an all-encompassing love of Mother Earth. Quoth Al Gore: “The climate crisis is not a political issue; it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity.”
I heard Gore on NPR the other day. He was asked what he made of evangelical pastor Joseph Hagee’s absurd comment that Hurricane Katrina was God’s wrath for New Orleans’ sexual depravity. Naturally, Gore chuckled at such backwardness. But then the Nobel laureate went on to blame Katrina on man’s energy sinfulness. It struck me that the two men were not so different. If only canoodling residents of the Big Easy had adhered to “The Greenpeace Guide to Environmentally Friendly Sex.“
Whether it’s adopted the trappings of religion or not, my biggest beef with environmentalism is how comfortably irrational it is. It touts ritual over reality, symbolism over substance, while claiming to be so much more rational and scientific than those silly sky-God worshipers and deranged oil addicts.
Philip B wrote: “The whole AGW bandwagon didn’t get rolling until the UN got in on the act. To challenge AGW is to challenged the authority of the UN, which is the real heresy in the eyes of the true believers.”
Actually Phillip, the UN’s involvement didn’t come until several other events took place. Although the time line is a bit fuzzy, it appears Teller started the AGW agenda with anti fossil fuel campaign in order to promote his not-so-hidden pro-nuclear agenda.
But it wasn’t until Lady Thatcher came along (under Crispin Tickell’s guidance) and used the issue to catapulted herself to the world stage. From there, the UN saw it as a source of power, control, and MONEY, all of which could enhance their goal of world governance.
Then along came the EU who jumped on the “bandwagon” with glee. These wonderful folks saw it as a way to fill the treasuries (MONEY) of its member states, who were (and are) facing massive rebellions and anarchy because of their inability to pay out benefits as their “baby boomers” begin retiring.
The enviros saw it as a way to promote their whacky agendas and in the process, gain MOINEY, power and prestige.
The media saw it as a way to generate controversy and in the process, sell more of their rags. The more rags sold, the greater the ad revenue, the more MONEY in their coffers. Additionally, the media apparently thought they could raise their sagging profile and prestige, but miscalculated and saw their sales slip even further. In the process, they also saw their reputations fall lower than whale poop.
Politicians saw it as a MONEY machine and a source of greater power, using the issue to create a persona of “higher intelligence” for themselves. Unfortunately for them, they now look like greater jackasses than they ever did before. The politicians have also been using the issue to generate campaign contributions from fringe groups and corporations, the latter intent on capitalizing on the pervasive fear mongering sweeping the world. Campaign contributions are a neat way of accepting “pay off” MONEY for pork barrel legislation.
Finally, corporations, such as General Electric, saw it as a great way to fleece the public and enhance their sagging bottom lines with unnecessary and questionable products advertised to mitigate AGW.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Around here (Western Massachusetts), we are being strongly encouraged to use “reusable” bags at the grocery store, preferably ones that the store sells, but also people bring their own with them. I just accept the plastic bags, because I use them at home. So I just have one question.
What do they line their wastebaskets with?
If I didn’t have a cabinet full of plastic shopping bags, I guess I’d have to *purchase* wastebasket liners. Which is worse???
McGrats:
Europe also saw it as a way of “taxing” the USA. which is much more dependent on fossil fuels than them.
The way you described it sounds like the perfect storm. Don’t disagree.
MorahLaura wrote: “..If I didn’t have a cabinet full of plastic shopping bags, I guess I’d have to *purchase* wastebasket liners. Which is worse???”
We use the old plastic bags for picking up after our dogs. If that nonsense hits Illinois (which it probably will), we’ll have to buy plastic bags for that task. So now we’ll still use plastic bags of one sort or another, plus add to the landfills with paper bags.
Way to go, legislators… you pack of idiots!
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
MorahLaura, I have used the plastic grocery bags for wastebasket liners for something in excess of 20 years…for the kitchen basket also.
You’ve drawn me out. This is the first time in all these years I’ve admitted publicly what a cheapskate I am.
Mike from Canmore wrote: “The way you described it sounds like the perfect storm.”
I couldn’t use a better term myself.
By the way, I forgot one other thing: the pseudo scientists use AGW to advance their pathetic careers and gain MONEY (from funding) in the process. And it’s your money and my money they’re plundering with their phoney “science.”
As you probably noted from the above postings, it appears I repeated my post. Actually, the second post is simply far clearer than the first (I had just climed out of bed and wasn’t thinking too clearly).
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Julie,
There’s nothing at all wrong with being selfish and conceited creatures. In fact rational self-interest is the hallmark of humanity and is the force that has created almost all of the comforts and productivity which we enjoy today. And one can be selfish, and at the same time quite benevolent and even valuable to our fellow man, to the environment and to the other life on the planet. Are not environmentalist careers also selfish and conceited pursuits as well?
Humanity should not have a bad name for our rational self-pursuits any more than other animals should have a bad name for their instinctual predatory behavior. It is all simply the nature of being.
We should be good stewards of our resources simply because that provides us a greater benefit and a clean home.
But I absolutely refuse to submit to any guilt for the state of man, nor feel any remorse for simply being and acting human.
McGrats (07:46:54), You’ve hit each nail squarely on the head. None of the groups you mentioned are going to give up on their agendas easily. Simply having contrary evidence will not be good enough to fight the propaganda machines at work.
Joe S said: “McGrats, You’ve hit each nail squarely on the head. None of the groups you mentioned are going to give up on their agendas easily. Simply having contrary evidence will not be good enough to fight the propaganda machines at work.”
You’re right Joe. But that’s where you, I, and all the others concerned with this nonsense come into play. We must continue keeping abreast of things by logging into this and other informative sources on a daily basis. Then take that knowledge and start firing back at the parasites.
I know from the thousands of emails I receive from “The Mysterious Climate Project” members, that at least 23 professors are using the TMCP information in their classrooms; that at least 7 climatologists are reprinting TMCP information and passing it out at lectures, and that we’re well over 100,000 subscribers within the first year.
Each of us has to continue forging ahead in our own way. Your future, my future, and the futures of our children and grandchildren depend on what each of us do in combating the AGW garbage.
And I will say in all sincerity, the WattsUpWithThat.com blog is simply the finest place to gather that information in toto, or as a launching pad with its thousands of links! The information is tops, the contributors incredible, and the feedback enlightening.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
I think the idea of “Liberal Fascism,” Goldberg’s hobbyhorse, is utter gibberish, and I find most of his writing detestable, but I agree with THIS column of his. Gore’s book is basically a religious screed; McKibben’s End of Nature is a howl of pain at being cast out of Eden, and so on.
I’m not sure his distinction of “conservationism” from “environmentalism” is the right one, but I agree that irrationalism is tainting the “movement,” whatever you call it. People can’t deal with risk, uncertainty, details – better to just have a simple answer.
Personally, I feel that the root issues are moral – ethical – ones. That is, we must decide how much we are willing to change our planet, knowing that our descendants will get what we give them. Deforestration, soil contamination, the flooding of valleys, habitat destruction and extinction – these are real changes even if warming turns out to be, heh, heh, a flast in the pan.
Genius. I love a good well reasoned point of view.
McGrath:
And one more thing. And financial corporations such as Enron saw it as an enormous opportunity to get paid to shuffle paper.
Throw this into the plastic bag scene, despite their waste drawbacks _
They are made from petroleum products that would otherwise not be used. You can get millions of them into a single transport container so they have a lower footprint. They aren’t produced in Asian sweatshops as much of the jute etc replacements are.
And finally they are actually a distraction from the real issues – in the sum of things they are not that important, beyond being some kind of symbol.
Lucianne Goldberg of Lucianne.com once replied to someone who linked to one of Jonah’s articles complaining of nepotism that “It ain’t nepotism if it’s your Nep.”
The Nep done good with this one.
Well, an Ice Age will cause more of all of the above than AGW ever could.
Worship of Nature and consciousness about the effect of human activity on the web of life is neither fanatical nor unreasonable, especially when compared with the megalomaniacal monotheopolys that drive most of the world’s population.
What is it that bothers you about the idea that so many are taking an interest in ameliorating the harm technology may be inflicting on the balance of climate?
The real fanatics, in my mind, are those who jump like jackals on any crumb that promotes the unsupportable premise that fossil fuel consumption is not affecting the atmosphere.
The atmosphere is being affected, although there may be a question as to the extent, and the problem is likelier to worsen if the course is not changed. You can quibble with the science, but in the end, I wonder why the green-hating crowd is so defensive and triumphant.
After all, we do all live here. I imagine some of you folks care more about housing association regulations than anything that might put an end to smog and acid rain.
Or are those a hoax, too?
Jeff Alberts:
Well, an Ice Age will cause more of all of the above than AGW ever could.
Perhaps so, but what’s your point? Humanly induced climate change is not high on my worry list.
What is it that bothers you about the idea that so many are taking an interest in ameliorating the harm technology may be inflicting on the balance of climate?
What bothers me about it is that, as a direct result of policies resulting from said interest, severe hardships are being imposed on the world’s poor and the effect on the world’s climate is little to none.
It amounts to human sacrifice en masse.
That is a sacrifice I am not willing to make.
And in the case of biofuels (to add insult to injury) more atmospheric carbon is being released as a result, when one takes into account the land use involved.
I also never fail to be surprised that so few in the environmental movement seem able to perceive that we are going though a critical economic expansion that will ultimately result in a far more affluent and therefore FAR cleaner and environmentally secure world. There appears to be no conception whatever that a richer, and therefore more technologically powerful world will have a much increased ability to solve genuine environmental concerns.
No, I do not think that to “stop the engine of the world”, in Rand’s quaint idiom, is going to solve anything, much less help the environment in any way. Quite the opposite. Every affluent country protects its environment. No undeveloped country does or has ever done so sufficiently.
Flow, that was quite an irrational rant you gave, which had absolutely nothing to do with the article. Did you even read it? There’s a huge difference between being a good steward of the earth and worshipping it, but you, like [many enviros] want to blur that distinction. Environmentalism has become a religion which actually has very little to do with real issues such as pollution and other environmental degradation, and more to do with making its adherents feel good about themselves.
The problem with religion is its unfortunate propensity to human sacrifice.