With both Easter and Earth Day coming up, I have been thinking about why so many of my fellow Christian conservatives tend to overlook the connection between their faith and environmental stewardship — particularly as it relates to climate change.
I am sure some of it is rooted in age-old conflicts between science and the church, the prevalence of non-believers in the environmental movement, and a tyrannical interpretation of the word “dominion” in the book of Genesis.
Mainly, however, I think it is due to the influence of individuals and political biases that get in the way of honestly seeking God’s will.
When speaking to other believers about the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by using less oil and coal, a common refrain I hear is, “God wouldn’t have put it there if he didn’t want us to use it.” Besides being a bit presumptuous — one must always be careful when ascribing intent to God — the statement overlooks the fundamental way our earth’s systems are designed.
In the book of Genesis (3:19), God told Adam that his body would return to the ground when he died, saying, “…out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And unto dust you shall return.” What many tend to overlook is that God was describing a fundamental part of the carbon cycle.
The carbon cycle is a miraculous process by which trees and other plants, animals, people, and the ocean remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and transfer it into the ground where the excess is sequestered. This is how nature maintains the proper balance of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere that is required for sustaining life.
The intended resting place for a significant amount of that excess carbon is deep underground in the form of oil and coal.
When we extract oil and coal from the earth and burn it in ever increasing quantities, we throw a monkey wrench into the operation by releasing excess carbon from bygone eras back into the atmosphere.
Does it not then stand to reason that God, after designing the earth’s processes to sequester excess carbon, would prefer that we respect His creation and find better ways to heat our homes and power our cars than using huge amounts of oil and coal?
Climate skeptics — particularly those on talk radio — like to peddle the notion that the earth was created on such a grand and complex scale, it is impossible for mankind to mess it up. In other words, we can do anything we want without serious consequence.
Does that sound like something God would say?
Actually, it sounds a lot more like something the snake in the Garden of Eden would say.
Is there any aspect of our spiritual or physical life where our actions are without consequence? Everything we do has consequences — and the earth’s life-sustaining ecology was not designed to be immune from our actions and choices.
Too much accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere disrupts the climate and causes the earth to overheat. This build-up also forces the oceans to absorb extra carbon, which makes the waters more acidic and less hospitable to marine life.
As we observe Easter and Earth Day this year, we would do well to consider the words of conservative author and poet T.S. Eliot.
He pointed out that, “Religion, as distinguished from modern paganism, implies a life in conformity with nature,” and then he wisely concluded:
”A wrong attitude towards nature implies, somewhere, a wrong attitude towards God.”
50 responses so far
1 Chekote // Apr 8, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Ever since Frum scored and advertisement from “REP”, it has been “global warming” each and every day. Me thinks, Mr. Frum needs to be a little less transparent.
“Climate skeptics particularly those on talk radio like to peddle the notion that the earth was created on such a grand and complex scale, it is impossible for mankind to mess it up.”
Here we go again. Attack talk radio. The only refuge we have from the incessant onslaught of the MSM. Despite all the attacks, the “global warming”, “climate change” crowd still have not scientifically proven that warming temperatures are caused by man. Producing a couple of charts showing warmer termperatures coinciding with the Industrial Revolution proves corelation, not causality.
“Too much accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere disrupts the climate and causes the earth to overheat.”
Plant more trees. I rather do that than to tax and regulate.
2 mlindroo // Apr 9, 2009 at 12:58 am
Chekote & co. are living in a state of denial that undermines the scientific credibility of conservatives in general. It’s the same dynamic regarding “creation science” vs. evolution: you will hardly find any credible expert on the subject backing the conservative view, but the GOP base does not care.
—
The real tragedy here is that you are missing a golden opportunity. There is no real disagreement about the basic empirical facts of man-made global warming, *but* the advocates still do not have a credible remedy to the problem. So there is a great need for out-of-the-box thinking which may require innovative/market based solutions, capitalist ingenuity etc.. We have already seen this before: in the 1970s the Club of Rome issued various dire predictions regarding overpopulation, famine & lack of resources by the year 2000. What eventually happened was that industry managed to alleviate the problems by devising more efficient agriculture, cleaner and more efficient industrial processes etc.. Let’s all hope something similar happens in 2010-2100.
MARCU$
3 Churl // Apr 9, 2009 at 2:39 am
mlindroo,
1. “State of denial” is name calling, not logic.
2. Equating AGW skepticism with “creation science” is arguing from analogy, and a completely false analogy at that.
3. The Club of Rome was wrong for the same reasons that long term climate forecasting is suspect: both are simplified models of hugely complicated and ill-understood phenomena.
4. Industry and capitalism did not change its behavior because of “The Limits to Growth” or “The Population Bomb”, or “Famine 1975″ – the hairshirted doomsayers behind these publications were simply dead wrong and their prognostications had absolutely nothing to do with reality. And I suspect the same of those panicked over global warming.
4 barker13 // Apr 9, 2009 at 6:21 am
Yep… yet ANOTHER “global warming” thread.
(*SIGH*)
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
Jeezus, Frum… even if I agreed with you and your “co-religionists” (meaning members of the Church of Global Warming) this constant barrage of propaganda and frankly nagging would be getting on my nerves.
BILL
5 sinz54 // Apr 9, 2009 at 6:36 am
Dodging the issue is no longer a viable option. A cap-and-trade bill is being written by the House energy committee at this moment, and is expected to go to the full House by Memorial Day: http://tinyurl.com/cgelm4
So what should the position of House Republicans be? They can either:
a) propose modifications to the Dem bill;
b) propose an alternative bill of their own;
c) Just say “NO–it’s an Al Gore hoax!”
I favor (b)–a carbon tax. I will be embarrassed for the conservative movement if they keep wallowing in (c).
6 Churl // Apr 9, 2009 at 6:44 am
sinz54, how about adding d) “No. This tax is based on questionable scientific and economic grounds and will be another intolerable drag on a sinking economy.”
7 sinz54 // Apr 9, 2009 at 6:52 am
Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that the conservative opposition to global warming legislation comes from religion. I have scanned the statements made by GOP politicians and by conservative blogs, and religion is never the main argument.
Rather, I think that the conservative opposition reflects the culture war divide in this country, and the deep suspicion that Red State conservatives have of Blue State liberals, environmentalists, and especially Al Gore, who have been the most visible proponents of fighting anthropogenic global warming. Al Gore is, of course, a reminder of the disastrous 2000 election and the ghastly recount process in Florida.
I believe conservatives would have a whole different attitude toward the issue today, if a visible spokesperson for fighting anthropogenic global warming had been Newt Gingrich all these years, rather than Al Gore. (Gingrich believes, as do I, that anthropogenic global warming is a scientifically valid phenomenon.)
8 sinz54 // Apr 9, 2009 at 6:54 am
Churl: Given the overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW, I would be embarrassed if conservatives continued to cherry-pick the fraction of 1% of skeptics, just because those skeptics are telling them what they want to hear. I cannot disregard what the overwhelming majority of the world’s climatologists are saying about this issue.
9 Churl // Apr 9, 2009 at 8:15 am
sinz54: please spare me the fatuous argument that I would believe in AGW if Newt Gingrich whooped for it and Al Gore did not. And what is this “fraction of 1%” of which you speak? 1% of what, and how did you determine the ratio? It is typical of AGW proponents to toss out numbers with no discernable justification. I am skeptical because 1) There have been very large changes in climate over geological and recorded history that could not have been caused by humans, so why is the present different? 2) The data and methodology on which the proponents of AGW base their projections are statistically and computationally suspect. Check out climateaudit.org and surfacestations.org for intelligent and practical critiques of the data gathering and massaging that support the AGW hypothesis. And, if you think that climate models can predict world climate in 50 years, see how well the same type of models do on forecasts 1 month or so ahead
10 djenkins // Apr 9, 2009 at 8:53 am
sinz54: I am not arguing that religion is the source of opposition. In the article I write:
“Mainly, however, I think it is due to the influence of individuals and political biases that get in the way of honestly seeking Gods will.”
No doubt that Al Gore is one source of the political bias that polarizes the climate issue. The cause would have been better served if Gore had pursued this with a high-profile conservative/Republican partner, but he was apparently unwilling to share the spotlight.
All the more reason to not let Gore own this issue. It is worth noting that even though Gore has the label “ozone man,” it was actually Ronald Reagan’s leadership in ratifying the Montreal Protocol that actually addressed the ozone depletion issue.
11 djenkins // Apr 9, 2009 at 9:11 am
sinz54: I am not arguing that religion is the source of opposition. In the article I write:
“Mainly, however, I think it is due to the influence of individuals and political biases that get in the way of honestly seeking Gods will.”
No doubt that Al Gore is one source of the political bias that polarizes the climate issue. The cause would have been better served if Gore had pursued this with a high-profile conservative/Republican partner, but he was apparently unwilling to share the spotlight.
All the more reason to not let Gore own this issue. It is worth noting that even though Gore has the label “ozone man,” it was actually Ronald Reagan’s leadership in ratifying the Montreal Protocol that actually addressed the ozone depletion issue.
12 sinz54 // Apr 9, 2009 at 9:29 am
Djenkins: You had said that your fellow believers tell you that God wouldnt have put it [fossil fuels] there if he didnt want us to use it. I suggest that your friends are not representative of the conservative movement as a whole.
Most of the comments on that issue that I see on the conservative blogs are not in that vein. Rather, they reflect their fear that a way of life based around Ford F-150 trucks and guns and the great outdoors may be ending under oppressive Federal regulation.
13 barker13 // Apr 9, 2009 at 9:42 am
Re: Sinz54; 6:36 AM
Just say no. EXPLAIN why we’re saying no.
Here’s the deal: The reason why I – and so many other knowledgeable posters – are what you term global warming “skeptics” is that while obviously we’re CONSTANTLY exposed to the “Gore” side of the argument, we’ve also been exposed to the “anti-Gore” side of the debate.
Obviously the reason we’ve come down on the “anti-Gore” side is because this is the most reasonable, believable, sensible, and persuasive side of the debate.
What we need to do is NOT “split the difference” between “right” and “wrong,” but rather, we need to expose as many of our fellow citizens to reality as is possible and chances are… unless our friends, family, and acquaintances are simply dumb… we’ll slowly but surely be able to convince then that humanity is NOT on the road to self-destruction on account of global warming and that most of the Left’s ideas on how to combat climate change are wrongheaded and detrimental to American freedom and prosperity.
Re: Sinz54; 6:52 AM
Sinz. Over the course of several threads focused on “global warming,” I and others have presented not just our views as individuals, but thrown in your face the names and unrealized predictions of doom over the decades of the side that you seem so intent upon placing on a pedestal of “these are the scientists and these are their views.”
Do you operate from an intellectual vacuum lacking knowledge of “the other side?”
I’m serious. I’m not busting your chops. You claim that you had a 20-year career as an engineer (short career… no?) and therefore you believe in the scientific method. Well, so do I. I’m sure others who share my views do too. So again, my question… are you open to “the other side” of the debate? Is your position one more of “faith” than one reached from years of actually following the debates and counterarguments of the skeptical SCIENTISTS…???
Re: Sinz54; 6:54 AM
But that’s just it, Sinz… I don’t see this overwhelming scientific consensus you do.
Let me ask you a question. If there’s such an overwhelming consensus on GLOBAL WARMING… then how come over the past couple years your side has switched from “WARMING” to “climate change?”
Seriously. If it’s “warming” then it’s “warming.” Of course “warming” is “change,” but then so again would “cooling” be “change.” So again… if the “warming” aspect of “global warming” is so clear and undeniable… why take “warming” out of the rallying cry…??? Hmm…???
BILL
14 Chekote // Apr 9, 2009 at 9:44 am
Yeah, right. I am in a world of denial. The world is going to end tomorrow. Sheesh. The Global Warming crowd is just as loony the “black helicopters” crowd. Here is a new theory from a scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies suggesting that Clean Air regulations led to higher earth temperatures.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/09/arctic_aerosols_goddard_institute/
Again, another chart showing the increase in Clear Air Regulations coinciding with polar temperatures. Should we repeal the Clean Air Act?
15 dendup // Apr 9, 2009 at 12:15 pm
“God’s Climate Plan” is the title here. Not much discussion on the God part. Here’s a link to a Catholic site. The language of other Christian sites on the subject are pretty similiar.
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/globalclimate.shtml
16 djenkins // Apr 9, 2009 at 12:31 pm
People tend to gravitate towards information, valid or not, that supports their own point of view. They do not trust information that is contrary to their own opinion, and fail to scrutinize that which supports it.
This same dynamic happens with interpreting the Bible. People cherry pick the portions they want to believe and ignore other parts based on their own point of view.
The question I like to ask those who disparage concern about climate change is this:
What piece or pieces of evidence would it take for you to change your mind?
If someone cannot readily come up with a sincere answer, then their biases have overwhelmed their ability to be objective.
17 barker13 // Apr 9, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Re: Djenkins; wrote 3 minutes ago –
Dave. First and foremost, speaking for me, myself, and I, all three of “us” thank you for actually taking part in the thread as opposed to the far more common “hit and run” tactics of far too many other contributors.
As to your question…
“The question I like to ask those who disparage concern about climate change is this: What piece or pieces of evidence would it take for you to change your mind?”
Change our minds about WHAT…???
No… seriously… what is it you think we’re “disparaging…???”
As I noted on another thread on the same topic here at NewMajority, we’re all AWARE that the earth’s climate CHANGES.
Dave… billions of years… heating, cooling, heating, cooling… natural disasters, sunspots, human activity…
AHH…. HUMAN ACTIVITY…
See, Dave, this is where the question lies – what effect has humankind – can humankind – have on the global environmental factors such as “warming” or “cooling” in the sense that these factors can be identified as “unnatural.”
Dave… just to see if we’re on the same page regarding what YOU consider the problem to be, allow me to again quote you –
“Too much accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere disrupts the climate and causes the earth to overheat.”
So… you’re saying the earth is overheating…? To be clear, and correct me if I’m misreading you, you believe that “climate change = global warming” in terms of what’s happening now, here on earth, and that this is man’s doing? Do I have that right?
So… what about the last 10 years…??? Is it your position that we’ve had global WARMING or global COOLING over the past 10 years with record setting cold in 2007-2008?
Setting aside computer modeling predictions for the future, sticking to just the past 10 years… is it your position that we’ve been experiencing global warming?
How’bout the so-called “Little Ice Age” of the mid-17th century and beyond… was that manmade?
What of the Medieval Warm Period… manmade?
(You realize I could go on and on… right…???)
Dave. You seem like a nice guy. But as to “objective,” you might wanna hold up on calling that kettle black my friend.
(*CHUCKLE*) (*WINK*)
BILL
18 ktward // Apr 9, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Someone earlier on this thread took you to task on your header, ‘Gods’ Climate Plan’. I agree with the premise that niether you, nor anyone else, corners the market on ‘God’s’ intent. I’m a supporter of Jim Wallis’s ideas, and I called him to task on the very same principle.
Nevertheless, thank you, Mr. Jenkins, for a completely sensible faith perspective on this issue. And a remarkably simple and sensible Biblical-based contradiction to the GW naysayers.
Naturally, since there are a gazillion Christian denominations all with their own ‘interpretation’ of Biblical doctrine, your own interpretation is likely to be–nay, will be–met with considerable opposition. It’s this very state of contradictory affairs within ‘Christianity’ as practiced religion that leaves many of us skeptical as to its ‘divine’ inspiration; perhaps my definition of ‘divine’ differs. Don’t get me wrong, I was raised fundamentalist, I might possibly be able to quote more scripture than yourself.
All that said, as it happens, the international scientific community, with only a few voices of exception, accept human-induced global warming and it’s effects as fact, and needful of intervention.
Yet, I digress: relative to this blog thread, the core is the GW issue as pertains to the Republican platform and policy:
Addressing GW is part and parcel of enviro/energy policy, and the Republicans are way behind the curve on this; behind Dems, and most importantly, behind voters.
Republicans had better get on board with this, or they further marginalize the party. Recent embarrassing example: IL’s own CO2 Climatologist–tongue firmly planted in cheek–John Shimkus. Our own Bachmann-light.
Again, thank you.
19 jdipeso // Apr 9, 2009 at 1:37 pm
In response to barker13:
Yes, warming and cooling in past epochs had natural causes. To then state, however, that today’s warming, ipso facto, must have natural causes is not science but opinion. Carbon isotope analysis indicates that accumulating CO2 in the atmosphere originates from fossil fuels.
The statement that global warming ended in 1998 is based on the old cherry-picking trick of using short-term data to announce a long-term trend. I could just as easily state that a few days of sunny weather in Seattle means that my fellow Seattle-ites will no longer need umbrellas.
The Medieval Warm Period was regional. The current global warming trend is global. That’s why it’s called global. The degree and extent of warming during the Medieval Warm Period are not completely understood because of limited data.
The Little Ice Age was tied to reduced solar activity. Solar variations cannot explain the current bout of global warming.
20 ktward // Apr 9, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Barker13:
You stated:
“If there’s such an overwhelming consensus on GLOBAL WARMING… then how come over the past couple years your side has switched from “WARMING” to ‘climate change?’”
That, perhaps, is one of the silliest arguments I’ve ever heard: you’re suggesting that a progression in terminology, incorrect as your ’side’ characterization is, reliably indicates your argument’s legitimacy. You’d better give that one some more thought.
Perhaps these examples will help inform you on the scientifically-defined relationship between ‘Global Warming’ and ‘Climate Change’, and why denial of how critical this issue is to US voters will continue to marginalize the Republican party:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_climate_change
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_bushs
21 barker13 // Apr 9, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Re: Jdipeso; 1:37 PM
“…that today’s warming, ipso facto, must have natural causes is not science but opinion.”
Jim. When did I ever write that today’s “global warming” must be human caused…???
Jim. Dude. You might wanna reread my posts.
(*CHUCKLE*)
Once again… s-l-o-w-l-y…
1) I’m skeptical that the earth is actually experiencing “global warming.” This isn’t the same as saying it can’t be happening or even that I’m sure it’s not happening. I simply mean I’m skeptical.
2) On this same note I’m skeptical that if we really are experiencing a period of global warming that will last for decades and produce anything approaching extreme climate change that a) it’s manmade global warming; b) there’s much we as Americans can do about it absent dictatorial control of both the nation and the world by… er… someone whose views are much closer to Al Gore’s than mine.
(*WINK*) (*SMILE*)
3) I’m skeptical that global warming – if that’s what the earth is set to experience for whatever reasons during the coming decades – will necessarily be a net negative as far as humanity is concerned.
We clear, Jimbo?
“Carbon isotope analysis indicates that accumulating CO2 in the atmosphere originates from fossil fuels.”
“Indicates,” huh? Interesting choice of words. Would you substitute “proves” for “indicates?” Just curious.
I’m claim no scientific expertise, but if you answer that yes, “proves” is what you meant, I’ll do some research and we can discuss this in more depth.
(*SHRUG*)
“The statement that global warming ended in 1998 is based on the old cherry-picking trick of using short-term data to announce a long-term trend.”
No. The data is what the data is. Do you dispute the accuracy of the 10 year data that we’re both referring to?
Perhaps the past 10 years have been a blip; perhaps a trend. Time will tell. You should keep an open mind, Jim.
(*WINK*)
“The Medieval Warm Period was regional.”
So? Whether regional or global the reality is that as with the Little Ice Age, rapid climate change occurred and unless you know something I don’t this climate change had nothing to do with human activity.
(*SHRUG*)
“The degree and extent of warming during the Medieval Warm Period are not completely understood because of limited data.”
Ahh… and when we have data and use it to create computer modeling/predictions and those predictions don’t pan out… what’s the excuse then?
Seriously… Jim… we don’t have a grip on much of the science of climate change. (Sorry if this comes as a shock to you.)
“The Little Ice Age was tied to reduced solar activity. Solar variations cannot explain the current bout of global warming.”
“Tied.” (*SMILE*) OK. Hey… fits in with the situation over the past 10 years, right? So… just to be clear… you’re saying that you believe increased solar activity “causes” global cooling? Am I understanding your position?
Anyway… nice chatting with you.
Re: Ktward; 2:21 PM –
So why the… er… progression… in, er… terminology?
(*SMIRK*)
Seems to me that the best word to describe warming is… er… “warming.” (What do I know, though…)
(*SHRUG*)
WIKIPEDIA…???
(*CHUCKLING*)
Rolling Stone’s “The Secret Campaign of President Bush…?”
(*LAUGHING OUT LOUD*)
(Jim… Kward’s not with you, is he/she?)
BILL
22 ktward // Apr 9, 2009 at 6:56 pm
barker13:
I thought you and I might disagree on everything, but–phew!–there are indeed a few points on which we can find common ground:
You neither claim–nor clearly possess–any scientific expertise.
Check.
You obviously enjoy using your self-described skeptic’s POV to indiscriminately argue against even the informed opinions and collected data of those who do, in fact, possess and publish said scientific expertise. (lots to find- try the google)
Check.
You’ve apparently no critical understanding of what myself nor jdipeso stated, finding it necessary to substitute condescension for what you lack in legitimate argument. (which nicely explains all those chuckles and smiles)
Check.
Good luck with that.
23 djenkins // Apr 9, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Barker13, in your last few posts I think you really helped make my point about bias overwhelming objectivity.
This is not the best forum to go round and round about the science, but I am glad my colleague jdipeso chimed in on that.
It is worth noting that many conservatives who have been previously skeptical of anthropogenic climate change have looked objectively at the scientific evidence and changed their minds. Congressman Inglis (SC-4), who was featured in a recent Frum post, is one. He changed his views after visiting McMurdo Station in Antarctica and seeing climate research firsthand.
A true conservative is willing to follow the facts where they lead.
24 sjohnson104 // Apr 10, 2009 at 7:11 am
This article is an interesting comment on religion and climate change, but misses perhaps a few key issues in recent developments.
As the author highlights in discusses in the comments, much of it likely has to do with the bias of religious leaders rather than applying the moral tenets on the relationship between man, nature, and stewardship espoused throughout the Bible’s Old and New testament.
What is changing and has changed significantly–and what some of the comments have missed–is that the positions, from religious leaders to conservative leaders, are shifting. Younger religious leaders, eg Rick Warren, have come out and spoken about the need to address climate change and global warming. They signed a letter in 2006 or so called the “Evangelical Climate Initiative” much to the anger of James Dobson-Focus on the Family- and other [baby boomer?] older, right wing christian leaders who deny global warming in one way or another.
Furthermore, Newt Gingrich has also discussed the serious risks with global warming and advocates that climate change needs to be to addressed through market-based solutions. Other conservatives have come around on global warming, too, including Mark Sanford, Republican gov., SC.
What is sad from conservative leaders is that they believe cap-and-trade is a tax even when it was applied to acid rain–which was market-based, passed Congress overwhelmingly (~90%), signed by Republican GHW Bush–shows how the market worked. Market competition and innovation allowed for acid rain pollution to be reduced quicker and more cheaply than feared. Companies profited from their innovation.
If not already completely lost, older Republicans are losing younger conservatives on this issue. Frum has commented on this in Newsweek and elsewhere.
25 sinz54 // Apr 10, 2009 at 8:10 am
barker13: You asked a good question. I say that the WRONG thing for me to do, would be for me to render my own scientific judgment on a scientific issue I am not qualified for.
As an engineer, I often had to apply the theories of science to solve real-world problems. But I always made sure to apply the best that mainstream science had to offer–and that meant what is published in peer-reviewed papers and scientific symposia, not stuff that you see on Oprah or Hannity & Colmes.
Ultimately, this comes down to a matter of trust. Not trust in any particular scientific authorities–as you say, they can be wrong. It comes down to trust in the scientific method, that it will lead us to the right answer eventually.
Now the global warming skeptics have had their say. They have presented their case in peer-reviewed journals and in scientific symposia–peer review is part and parcel of the scientific. And those skeptics have been refuted by their peers. Nearly all the peer-reviewed papers on climate change do not contest the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
What these skeptics have done instead, is to ignore their scientific refutation and take their case to the public, as they have apparently done with yourself. Science is not done that way.
When someone takes the public path in lieu of peer-reviewed scientific support, that’s an indication that he’s pushing pseudo-science, not science. And you should not trust it.
Anyone can go to their public library and read the peer-reviewed journals that deal with climate change. You will not find much skepticism of AGW there. You only find that skepticism on blogs and on TV. And those are not reliable scientific sources.
One more thing: Anyone who chooses to ignore all the scientific research on climate change entirely and dismiss the whole thing as an “Al Gore hoax” or “Gorebull warming,” is not someone I want to be associated with in the same political movement or party.
26 Chekote // Apr 10, 2009 at 8:19 am
“Congressman Inglis (SC-4), who was featured in a recent Frum post, is one. He changed his views after visiting McMurdo Station in Antarctica and seeing climate research firsthand.”
Which is visited during the peak of summer when ice melts. If polar warming is at such a high level as to cause the end of the world – as the global alarmists say – why isn’t possible to visit Antactica during winter? That would be more useful and instructive.
I personally find your article counterproductive. Using religion to justify public policy is a non-starter with me and many like me who are sick and tired of the religious overtones of the Republican Party. It is a turnoff and an electoral dead end.
27 barker13 // Apr 10, 2009 at 9:05 am
Re: Ktward; 6:56 PM
(*SMILE*) Good use of the word “phew.” (*WINK*)
Re: Djenkins; 9:26 PM
So I take it you have no answers to either my points nor my questions. (*SHRUG*) OK. It’s your credibility on the line. While obviously this site has its share of cranks, NewMajority is more of a “serious” blog than not. No doubt your tactics are as transparent to others as they are to me.
Re: Sjohnson104; 7:11 AM
Newt, huh? OK.
http://www.bagitagain.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Newt-Gingrich-on-Human-Caused-Global-Warming.html&Itemid=58
That’s your idea of… er… “coming around?”
Heck. Newt and I aren’t so far apart. (*SHRUG*)
As to Sanford…
http://www.charleston.net/news/2009/mar/24/sanford_pursues_energy_stimulus76234/
Is that what you’re pointing to?
Again… I’m not seeing any huge conflict between his position and mine.
If you have more “on point” citations from either man, bring ‘em on – I’ll gladly respond. The thing is, just from a quick googling in response to your “name dropping,” I’m not getting the sense that either Gingrich nor Sanford is closer to… er… Al Gore… than to me on the broad issue of climate change.
Again… if you’ve got anything you feel is gonna knock my socks off or move folks like Chekote and Churl to “repent” their skepticism concerning the extreme claims being made by some regarding global warming… fire away. I’m sure they’re as willing to listen to any specifics as I am.
(*SHRUG*)
As to acid rain… one technical discussion at a time, please! (*GRIN*)
(BTW… I don’t believe I’ve ever identified myself as “pro acid rain.” How’bout the rest of you folks…?)
(*GRIN*)
BILL
28 barker13 // Apr 10, 2009 at 9:40 am
Re: Sinz54; wrote 54 minutes ago
“barker13: You asked a good question.”
(*BOW*) Thank you. And again, Sinz… call me Bill. (*WINK*)
“I say that the WRONG thing for me to do, would be for me to render my own scientific judgment on a scientific issue I am not qualified for.”
Fair enough, but you’re sidestepping the point that it’s not just laymen who share my skepticism as previously outlined, it’s “qualified” scientists also.
Now, Sinz… you may claim to have a majority – even a large majority – of “experts” whose position is closer to Al Gore’s (or yours) than to mine, but even if I were to stipulate this, science is science – when there are disagreements between scientists on the data itself as well as analysis of the data, the “side” with the most adherents isn’t always going to be the “side” which ends up proving their case.
(*SHRUG*)
“As an engineer, I often had to apply the theories of science to solve real-world problems. But I always made sure to apply the best that mainstream science…”
Again. I “get” where you’re coming from, but what you apparently discount is that throughout human history, what was at one point “mainstream science” has often ended up being proven wrong and supplanted by what was once a minority view.
(*SHRUG*)
“Ultimately, this comes down to a matter of trust.”
OK. So we ARE on the same page to a large extent. You “get” where I’m coming from.
“Now the global warming skeptics have had their say.”
No. (*SMILE*) Sinz… this is an ongoing debate. New data is coming in all the time. There’s so much we don’t know; there’s so much we’re learning.
Again… let me ask you… when “the experts” using “the best science available” in the ’70’s were insisting the next ice age could be right around the corner and that at the very least the world would be experiencing global cooling… was that the last word?
See what I’m getting at…
Hell, Sinz… you wanna comment on the so-called “hockey stick” controversy? Jeez, Sinz… even taking human bias out of the equation… this stuff ain’t exactly cut and dry.
“Nearly all the peer-reviewed papers on climate change do not contest the theory of anthropogenic global warming.”
So then you’ll be able to point me to a few of the “very few” peer-reviewed papers on climate change that DO contest the theory of anthropogenic global warming I assume?
Shoot! Save me some legwork!
Sinz… although I’m not sure you realize this, what you just did was lay out exactly the kind of scenario I’d like to see:
You’re right. I’m not a scientist. (Well… I have a POLITICAL science degree… but excepting that play on words…)
What the American public needs is to be exposed to more “scientist vs. scientist” debate on these issues. And heck, even then, the question then becomes at what point is the debate too technical for a laymen to reasonably separate which competing FACTS “win” the debate.
All this being said… (*SHRUG*)
I’m comfortable with everything I’ve written on the subject. Furthermore, other than a few slams, I’m not seeing much SPECIFIC response to “challenges” concerning fact and analysis based upon pointing out past “errors” in prediction by the experts.
BILL
29 barker13 // Apr 10, 2009 at 9:41 am
Re: Chekote; 8:19 AM
(*THUMBS UP*)
BILL
30 dendup // Apr 10, 2009 at 11:32 am
RealClimate settles everything:
http://www.realclimate.org/
1 April 2009
Farewell to our Readers
Filed under: Climate Science group @ 11:22 AM
We would like to apologize to our loyal readers who have provided us so much support since we first went online in December 2004. However, after listening to the compelling arguments of the distinguished speakers who participated in the Heartland Institute’s recent global warming contrarian conference, we have decided that the science is settled in favor of the contrarians. Indeed, even IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri has now admitted that anthropogenic climate change was a massive hoax after all. Accordingly, RealClimate no longer has a reason for existence. The contrarians have made a convincing case that (a) global warming isn’t happening, (b) even if it is, its entirely natural and within the bounds of natural variability, (c) well, even if its not natural, it is modest in nature and not a threat, (d) even if anthropogenic warming should turn out to be pronounced as projected, it will sure be good for us, leading to abundant crops and a healthy environment, and (e) well, it might actually be really bad, but hey, its unstoppable anyway. (Can we get our check now?)
31 sjohnson104 // Apr 10, 2009 at 12:25 pm
baker13:
You are missing the point of the article, the majority of the comments here, and the very own author’s comments made here.
First of all, whether or not global warming exists is not the issue. As the author essentially wrote, this is not the forum–technologically speaking, in matters of expertise, or otherwise. So on this point, you are not adding anything. As the author of this article stated,
djenkins 9:26 PM “Barker13…[you]…make my point about bias overwhelming objectivity.” Whether or not global warming exists is not the issue. Go debate that at junkscience.com, the nytimes, planet gore, or some other site.
Second, your link to Newt is perfect. It perfectly reinforces my point, which you seem to be missing, maybe on account of bias. While he states his difficulty in believing in the certainty of man’s relationship to climate change, he also mentions as conservative, climate change is something we should be taking steps to address. He goes on to say that carbon is a “risk” in other words a problem. Note, as a conservative, he believes that as a conservative in the “traditional sense” we should be avoiding “stupid risks” or protecting the earth in his discussion. Read his recent book, a Contract with Earth. Being a conservative and a steward and the lack of connection between the two in republican/conservative politics is what the author was talking about.
As far as Sanford, your link was poor. I’ve read more current stuff that goes into his beliefs further, but this should help you start if you really wanted to do some research:
http://www.carolinaclimate.org/article_07018_thestate.html
While I’m sure you can drum something related to his skepticism, you will then be missing the point again. The author is drawing a distinction between the obvious contradiction in what it means to be a conservative-in this case a religious conservative-and the general idea of being a steward of God’s creation.
So, ask yourself the question. Is it conservative to protect the environment? Is conservation of our nation’s beauty–eg our national parks–conservative? Is conservation and conservative derived from the same word? What does the author mean when he’s talking about why religious conservatives don’t in general support global warming’s existence? Are younger evangelical conservatives who’ve written the “Evangelical Climate Initiative” less conservative than James Dobson who don’t believe in it? If so, how and why would Dobson’s group differ? Because of bias?
32 sjohnson104 // Apr 10, 2009 at 12:38 pm
baker13:
You are missing the point of the article, the majority of the comments here, and the very own author’s comments made here.
First of all, whether or not global warming exists is not the issue. As the author essentially wrote, this is not the forum–technologically speaking, in matters of expertise, or otherwise. So on this point, you are not adding anything. As the author of this article stated,
djenkins 9:26 PM “Barker13…[you]…make my point about bias overwhelming objectivity.” Whether or not global warming exists is not the issue. Go debate that at junkscience.com, the nytimes, planet gore, or some other site.
Second, your link to Newt is perfect. It perfectly reinforces my point, which you seem to be missing, maybe on account of bias. While he states his difficulty in believing in the certainty of man’s relationship to climate change, he also mentions as conservative, climate change is something we should be taking steps to address. He goes on to say that carbon is a “risk” in other words a problem. Note, as a conservative, he believes that as a conservative in the “traditional sense” we should be avoiding “stupid risks” or protecting the earth in his discussion. Read his recent book, a Contract with Earth. Being a conservative and a steward and the lack of connection between the two in republican/conservative politics is what the author was talking about.
As far as Sanford, your link was poor. I’ve read more current stuff that goes into his beliefs further, but this should help you start if you really wanted to do some research:
http://www.carolinaclimate.org/article_07018_thestate.html
While I’m sure you can drum something related to his skepticism, you will then be missing the point again. The author is drawing a distinction between the obvious contradiction in what it means to be a conservative-in this case a religious conservative-and the general idea of being a steward of God’s creation.
So, ask yourself the question. Is it conservative to protect the environment? Is conservation of our nation’s beauty–eg our national parks–conservative? Is conservation and conservative derived from the same word? What does the author mean when he’s talking about why religious conservatives don’t in general support global warming’s existence? Are younger evangelical conservatives who’ve written the “Evangelical Climate Initiative” less conservative than James Dobson who don’t believe in it? If so, how and why would Dobson’s group differ? Because of bias?
33 sinz54 // Apr 10, 2009 at 1:58 pm
sjohnson104 sez: “The author is drawing a distinction between the obvious contradiction in what it means to be a conservative-in this case a religious conservative-and the general idea of being a steward of God’s creation.”
The conservative columnist, Ann Coulter, had what she thought was a ready answer for that:
Ann Coulter: I take the biblical idea. God gave us the earth.
Democratic Strategist Peter Fenn: Oh, OK.
Coulter: We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees.
Fenn: This is a great idea.
Coulter: God says, “Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.”
Fenn: Terrific. We’re Americans, so we should consume as much of the earth’s resources…
Coulter: Yes! Yes.
Fenn: … as fast as we possibly can.
Coulter: As opposed to living like the Indians.
— Hannity and Colmes, June 22, 2001
34 djenkins // Apr 10, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Sjohnson104 was wise to ask the question is it conservative to protect the environment? Perhaps it would be best if we let several other notable conservatives address that point.
Richard Weaver, a noted American conservative scholar whose influential book Ideas Have Consequences helped shape American conservative thought, wrote:
“Nature is not something to be fought, conquered and changed according to any human whims. To some extent, of course, it has to be used. But what man should seek in regard to nature is not a complete domination but a modus vivendi – that is, a manner of living together, a coming to terms with something that was here before our time and will be here after it. The important corollary of this doctrine, it seems to me, is that man is not the lord of creation, with an omnipotent will, but a part of creation, with limitations, who ought to observe a decent humility in the face of the inscrutable.”
Russell Kirk, the American political theorist credited with giving rise to conservatism’s intellectual respectability in post-World War II America, wrote:
“Nothing is more conservative than conservation”
“The resources of nature, like those of spirit, are running out, and all that a conscientious man can aspire to be is a literal conservative, hoarding what remains of culture and of natural wealth against the fierce appetites of modern life.”
“…only the unscrupulous or shortsighted can defend pollution and degradation of the countryside.”
Ronald Reagan, who needs no introduction, said:
“What is a conservative after all but one who conserves, one who is committed to protecting and holding close the things by which we live…And we want to protect and conserve the land on which we live — our countryside, our rivers and mountains, our plains and meadows and forests. This is our patrimony. This is what we leave to our children. And our great moral responsibility is to leave it to them either as we found it or better than we found it.”
Pope John Paul II, addressed the issue of the environment in a way that speaks equally to conservatism and faith:
“Equally worrying is the ecological question which accompanies the problem of consumerism and which is closely connected to it. In his desire to have and to enjoy rather than to be and to grow, man consumes the resources of the earth and his own life in an excessive and disordered way. At the root of the senseless destruction of the natural environment lies an anthropological error, which unfortunately is widespread in our day. Man, who discovers his capacity to transform and in a certain sense create the world through his own work, forgets that this is always based on God’s prior and original gift of the things that are. Man thinks that he can make arbitrary use of the earth, subjecting it without restraint to his will, as though it did not have its own requisites and a prior God-given purpose, which man can indeed develop but must not betray. Instead of carrying out his role as a cooperator with God in the work of creation, man sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of nature, which is more tyrannized than governed by him.”
35 sjohnson104 // Apr 10, 2009 at 2:38 pm
sinz:
Thank you for the comment from Coutler. Could you elaborate? Is that something you believe, support, or entertain? If so, could you discuss how that (the idea of strong consumption) might work? I believe this is particularly relevant given djenkins most recent quotes.
djenkins:
You have cited some very great quotes, perhaps ones I admired as a college student, which helped further the value of conservatism among an [maybe younger] important group.
Entertain this, if conservatism….based off of seemingly strong, maybe irrefutable arguments from preeminent conservative authors–before and after the left’s environmental movement of the 70s–means stewardship of the environment, why has protection of the environment no longer associated with the right? Because of talk radio hosts? Who then and why? Based on Reagan’s quote, and if he were alive today, would Reagan support protecting the environment from global warming? Or would he have bias similar to older religious conservatives?
I think Gingrich’s recent developments in his position is conservative on multiple fronts–conservative to wait approx. 30 years before wanting to do something about global warming, but also conservative to want to do something about it. It is crucial to understandably believe–or know–that environmentalism has its limits vs. our need to consume. Also, the leftist environmentalism is not as good as market-based environmental solutions.
Take the author’s idea further…religious conservatives of a certain generation might never believe in global warming because of particular anti-scientific bias.
36 barker13 // Apr 10, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Re: sjohnson104; 12:25 PM
I get an error every time I try to post my response.
(*SHRUG*)
I’ll email it to the editor and ask him to post it for me.
BILL
37 barker13 // Apr 10, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Nope… still kicking it back.
Let me try segment posts:
Re: Sjohnson104; 12:25 PM
“You are missing the point of the article…”
No. Just ignoring the uninteresting part. (*WINK*)
Hey… you focus on what you find worthy of discussion… I’ll do the same. Deal?
“First of all, whether or not global warming exists is not the issue.”
To me it is. (*SHRUG*)
“As the author essentially wrote, this is not the forum–technologically speaking, in matters of expertise, or otherwise. So on this point, you are not adding anything.”
If that’s your attitude feel free not to engage with me. (*SMILE*) How’s this, SJ… you decide what you write or don’t write… I’ll do the same. No one is forcing you or anyone else to read my posts or anyone else’s posts.
“…your link to Newt is perfect. It perfectly reinforces my point…”
Thank you. While I’m not seeing how Newt reinforces your point, I’m glad that you’ve benefited from my efforts to shine a little light on the man’s actual opinions as espoused directly.
“While [Gingrich] states his difficulty in believing in the certainty of man’s relationship to climate change…”
SJ. Don’t be disingenuous, it goes far beyond that. Gingrich cites solar activity as the main determinant of climate change and believes it’s better to be safe than sorry regarding carbon impact – i.e. that man should limit his carbon footprint in general terms. Regarding the latter he doesn’t go into specifics, doesn’t address the nuts and bolts of cost/benefit calculations… he’s basically saying he’s against pollution. Well, heck… we all are. The devil is in the details.
“[Gingrich} also mentions as conservatives, climate change is something we should be taking steps to address."
Again... "address" is a kind BROAD frigg'n caution - wouldn't you say...??? (*SNORT*) If you want to get specific, like me, Newt favors expanding the use of nuclear power. That's one way both he and I are calling upon the problem to be "addressed" by. (*WINK*)
"[Gingich} goes on to say that carbon is a "risk" in other words a problem."
Yes, SJ, I know what he says... I'm the one who found and posted the video. (*CHUCKLE*)
SJ. Existence is a risk. "Being" is a risk. The point about "risk" is that for the word to have any real meaning, the risk must be quantified and qualified. Driving sober is a RISK. Driving drunk is a greater risk. The former... sane and responsible people do it all the time. The latter... (*SHRUG*) (See my point...???)
"Note, as a conservative, [Gingrich] believes that as conservatives in the “traditional sense” we should be avoiding “stupid risks”…”
Exactly. That’s what I just tried to explain to you up above. What’s your point and where is it you see us as disagreeing…??? Newt is talking about quantifying risk and acting accordingly; so am I. So are you in your own mind. What’s at issue ultimately is the actual nuts and bolts real world definition of “acting accordingly” in a policy sense.
“Read [Gingrich's] recent book, a Contract with Earth. Being a conservative and a steward and the lack of connection between the two in republican/conservative politics is what the author was talking about.”
I haven’t read it yet; it’s on my “to read” list. Have you actually read it? Where SPECIFICALLY are you saying Newt and I diverge?
Oh… btw…
http://newt.org/AContractwiththeEarth/tabid/220/Default.aspx
Check out the 4:02 minute clip. I don’t know what you think Newt’s saying vs. what you believe I’m saying… (*SHRUG*)… because it’s clear the former Speaker and I are basically on the same page if not always in lockstep word by word, paragraph by paragraph.
BILL
38 barker13 // Apr 10, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Ahh! That worked! Now, Part 2:
As for Sanford…
Thanks for the link, SJ, but again… it’s important to provide DIRECT links to what SANFORD actually says – either text, video, or audio – in context of course.
As for the Carolina Climate Network…
Exactly what point do you think it proves? Or, if you’d rather, how do you suppose the press release (e-news?) negates any point I’ve made.
(Oh… btw… speaking of “current,” perhaps you missed the date on the document: January 18, 2007.) (*SHRUG*)
Anyway…
“Is it conservative to protect the environment? Is conservation of our nation’s beauty–eg our national parks–conservative? Is conservation and conservative derived from the same word?”
Umm…
Yes…
Yes…
and Yes.
(*WINK*)
“What does the author mean when he’s talking about why religious conservatives don’t in general support global warming’s existence?”
Well… that’s the part I’m not really interested in. That said, my general take is that the author considers HIS views of what Christianity should be and what Christians should believe superior to any other Christian’s views if that Christian happens to disagree.
(*SHRUG*) (You asked… I answered.)
He seems sure that God is… er… anti-carbon in terms of energy usage and infers that Rush Limbaugh is the Spawn of Satan. (*CHUCKLE*)
QUOTING… “….sounds a lot more like something the snake in the Garden of Eden would say.”
(*SNORT*) (*SMIRK*)
Anyway, SJ… as for the rest, I’ll let Dobson and “younger evangelical conservatives” answer your questions directly if they choose. (*WINK*)
BILL
39 Ryan // Apr 10, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Barker, your comment was incomprehensible. To the author, fantastic post. I’ve always thought that the subject of environmentalism was an area where Christians were letting themselves be influenced more by the theories of men (republican policies) than the principles of God.
40 djenkins // Apr 10, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Sjohnson104: You asked a lot of good questions. I think it may be possible to trace a GOP attitude change on the environment to Rush Limbaugh and his protgs. Rush went national in 1988 and gave voice to a fairly radical form of free-market libertarianism that he professes to be conservative. In fact, his so-called conservatism is largely devoid of the traditional conservatism articulated by the likes of Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk and Richard Weaver.
Rushs rhetoric promotes the notion that man need never restrain his appetites, that the pursuit of wealth is the primary purpose of human existence, that opulence is the highest measure of success, and that an unfettered market will always provide, no matter how insatiable our desires. It is a temptation worthy of the Devil himself.
Most ironically, this hedonistic doctrine bears a striking resemblance to the 1960s left-wing countercultures if-it-feels-good-do-it attitude. Only the vices are different.
Is that conservative? Hardly.
As for the what would Reagan do question, I think the ozone depletion issue gives us a clue. In 1984 researchers concluded that the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in aerosol sprays and refrigeration equipment were depleting the earths protective ozone layer. There were plenty of skeptics who argued that we should do nothing. Reagan considered the evidence and pushed through the Montreal Protocol treaty that began the phase-out of CFCs.
Ryan: thanks for the sentiments; you clearly get the purpose of my post. Those of us who believe that the earth and its systems are Gods own handiwork should be just as compelled, if not more so, to safeguard it than those who think it all happened by chance and that something emerged from nothing.
41 sjohnson104 // Apr 10, 2009 at 11:21 pm
djkenkins: I appreciate your comments and relevant points where you finally address what you never truly answer in your column: who and why espouse ideas/beliefs that are contradictory to climate change? the right? Why? More importantly, you never go into substantial detail as to who this group is and what it represents. This is the failure of your most current column.
Reagan, as a man that people overwhelming support, there is no need to assert the climate compels. You’re quote reinforces that idea. My point is that conservatve leaders need to come up with solutions.
42 sjohnson104 // Apr 10, 2009 at 11:41 pm
I’ll add only fleetingtly…christian’s and abortion are an issue, but less so than the democractic “conservative right
Is it rong to ask about my interview? Id I do something right?”
43 sjohnson104 // Apr 10, 2009 at 11:47 pm
I’ll add only fleetingtly…christian’s and abortion are an issue, but less so than the democractic “conservative right
Is it rong to ask about my interview? Id I do something right?”
44 djenkins // Apr 11, 2009 at 5:08 am
sjohnson104, my column was simply intended to give Christians some food for thought about seeking God’s will as it relates to climate change and our current reliance on fossil fuels.
Going into the whole matter of how the word “conservative” has been highjacked, by whom, and what their philosphy actually is…well…that would have taken a lot more than 600 words.
I will be expanding on the main points of this column in other articles/venues. If you are interested, you may want to check the http://www.rep.org website from time to time.
45 sinz54 // Apr 11, 2009 at 6:42 am
djenkins: I’m not a Christian, but I am a conservative and I am sympathetic to your basic thesis.
I’ve always believed that to be a “conservative” meant more than opposing high taxes or abortion. It meant also LIVING conservatively, eschewing greed and endless conspicuous consumption in favor of virtue: Contributing heavily to your favorite charities, going to church regularly, volunteer work, etc.
However, there is another strand of conservatism that includes nationalism. I think that’s where the disconnect (not a “hijacking” as you claim) comes in, and I will discuss that in my next post.
46 sinz54 // Apr 11, 2009 at 6:54 am
How did conservatism come to be associated with conspicuous consumption?
I believe that it has to do with two other threads in conservatism: Traditionalism and nationalism. And with the parallel changes that took place in modern liberalism.
Conservatives have always looked to tradition and precedent. But the American tradition has always been one of wild freedom and exuberance. It’s not just the “New Left” who said “Do your own thing.”
The myth of an American loner pursuing his own dreams–the pioneers, the Gold Rush, the Wild West, the rags-to-riches enterpreneurs–is deeply ingrained in the American ethos. And modern conservatives from the Red States look back nostalgically to those times. They try to emulate those times with their guns and Ford F-150 trucks, and they fear that modern liberals are going to take that way of life away from them.
The problem with the global warming issue, is that both liberals and conservatives recognize that global warming will fall more heavily on the rest of the world than on the developed U.S. America has the resources to cope with any effects of global warming on its own territory. But elsewhere, entire nations like the Maldives and Bangladesh could be endangered, perhaps rendered uninhabitable. And so, the notion that the U.S. has to significantly restrict its economy so as to save Bangladesh, is a hard sell to conservative nationalists.
But it’s not just conservatism that changed. Conservatism changed in parallel with liberalism.
In Franklin Roosevelt’s day, the Left was associated with forward progress: The Tennessee Valley Authority, the Bronx Whitestone Bridge, Boulder Dam, industrialization. But starting in the late 1950s, as a reaction against the nuclear arms race, the Left became increasingly suspicious of technology and industry. Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring” launched the Left environmental movement, which ultimately became a suspicion of all industrialism as dangerous to the natural world.
So by Jimmy Carter’s time, liberalism became associated with limits to growth and austerity: Put heavy restrictions on personal automobiles to force Americans into sardine-can mass transit conveyances. Turn down your thermostat. Drive 55 mph. Etc. And conservatives just revolted against that.
As I said, there is something to be said for living conservatively. But that idea went out the window after liberals and leftists embraced austerity. Conservatism differentiated itself by embracing exuberance–and conspicuous consumption.
47 Stewardship // Apr 11, 2009 at 7:39 am
sinz54- I enjoy reading your comments…always informed and well thought out. I would like to offer the counterview that the US does not have the resources to cope with the effects of global warming in our own territory. We are footing a $400 million bill right now to relocate one tiny Arctic village…it’s sinking into the ocean as the permafrost melts. There are a dozen more villages lined up behind this one. “Moving Miami” would be a great fiscal horror flick!
Certainly, you are correct, in that the less developed nations of the world are going to feel more pain, sooner, that the US. That’s one reason faith-based organizations have been promoting action on climate change.
48 sjohnson104 // Apr 11, 2009 at 10:49 am
djenkins:
Indeed the whole history of how contemporary conservatism is somewhat antithetical to environmental conservation would take longer than a short post or article, though sinz’s is important to paraphrase that history. I think your article and posts have been terrific for those who have read them. I still believe that Christian leaders and their attitude toward environmental conservation are changing, namely through a younger generation.
I would also argue that the U.S., though wealthier than Bangladesh and can handle climate disruptions better, Stewardship’s point is correct. Is the 400$ million cost of moving an Alaskan village a foreshadowing of problems to come? The insurance industry also highlights some of those potential risks.
This site is important for wrestling with how being a conservative is not too different than wanting smart environmental protection. I do know of REP well, but I’m not a member/volunteer yet. If your site has a history of the change between what it means to be conservative and wanting environmental conservation, please point me more directly. I also hope you-djenkins-continue with more articles here to share with a wider conservative group.
49 ktward // Apr 12, 2009 at 1:04 pm
sjohnson104, Stewardship, sinz54, and of course the author, djenkins:
Thank you indeed for what proved to be a stellar example of intelligent discourse of even, at times, opposing arguments. If only this might be a model to all discourse, both ‘Left’ and ‘Right’.
Incendiary, demonizing and condescending rhetoric–particularly when fact takes a back seat to ideology–fails miserably in filling the void Americans as a whole feel when it comes to solving our country’s problems and addressing its deepening culture divides.
Again, thank you.
50 sinz54 // Apr 13, 2009 at 9:39 am
Stewardship: During the Cold War, the U.S. Government took the problem of postattack recovery from nuclear war seriously. Many studies were done on the subject.
It was believed that the U.S. could recover reasonably well from a “limited” nuclear war. By “limited,” I mean the loss of perhaps ten of our largest American cities, with the loss of most of their populations. All the economic, medical, and social issues were analyzed, and contingency plans drawn up.
So while “moving Miami” would represent a challenge, I remind you that recovery from such a calamity has been part of U.S. homeland defense planning for fifty years. And at least we wouldn’t have to deal with the deaths, injury and emotional shock that loss of Miami (plus other cities) by nuclear war would have ensued.
If Miami got flooded out, we would lose the real estate, but virtually none of the population. They could be relocated to the Appalachian Mountains, perhaps. Our economy would take a hit–but most of the fabric of American society would be intact.
Whereas, the entire nations of Bangladesh and the Maldives might be wiped out. They don’t have safe areas like the Appalachian Mountains to flee to.
You must log in to post a comment.