Things Are Heating Up in Bali

The title of the article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: "More than 10,000 jet into Bali for global warming conference."

Chris Goodall, author of the book How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, estimates that 100,000 tons of CO2 and pollutants will be generated by the 12-day conference, "close to what the African country of Chad churns out in a year."

Ah, but those whose very jobs rely on global warming alarmism do have a heart. They've planted some trees:

"Host Indonesia, which has one of the fastest rates of deforestation in the world, averaging 300 football fields an hour, said it had planted 79 million trees across the archipelago nation in the past few weeks."

I don't know what's more ironic -- that those who've made global warming alarmism their career have such a large "carbon footprint" themselves, or that the trees they planted are being cleared at a rate of 300 football fields PER HOUR.

Yes, we Christians are called to steward the planet, to care for its resources, to appreciate it, to not be wasteful, to do what we can to ensure that the environment facilitates happy living for others. It dishonors God for us to disrespect His creation. But there's just something wrong with guilting others into cutting their energy and resource use while you yourself are generating extravagant amounts of the very pollution you profit from demonizing.

I'm done. I'm off to the cafeteria for a burger.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. kman said the following at 2:07 PM on Dec 5:

Ted-

Thanks for helping the environment. Eating that burger helped to eliminate a cow- which are contributors to global warming - methane you know. :)

2. Sara said the following at 2:11 PM on Dec 5:

Of course you're right. Now try something other than a straw man argument.

3. Ted Slater said the following at 2:38 PM on Dec 5:

Sara -- the phrase I think you're looking for is "easy target." ;-)

4. Melissa said the following at 2:56 PM on Dec 5:

You could call it an attack against the person and say that it doesn't discredit their argument. However, their lifestyles make them look like hypocrites and makes you wonder if what they are saying is really that important, since it doesn't even affect their own lives.

Yeah, easy target is right on...

5. Jethro said the following at 3:07 PM on Dec 5:

Ted,

Please tell me, how is this any more hypocritical than a Christian who talks about charity but drives a Mercedes?

And Ted, can you think of way that world leaders can get together in one place and discuss an issue like climate change without generating CO2?

6. Becca said the following at 3:53 PM on Dec 5:

I worry over global warming a lot, and I'm of the opinion that Ted's dismissal of it as a serious issue is a lot of hogwash.

However, he may have a point here.

Why aren't these leaders having these conversations on the internet? The technology certainly exists - here we are, after all. (And for that matter, I walked past a girl talking to a video image of some distant face on her laptop screen in the student union the other day...)

(Here is a case where the divisive tone that pops up here on the Line can become very frustrating, too. We should all be united along the lines of opposition to hypocrisy and support for good stewardship - not divided by fingerpointing from side to side and endless argument...)

7. Sara said the following at 3:54 PM on Dec 5:

Well, I hope you're right. I'd say easy targets are any leisurely, random critique, like me commenting on how dumb some flyer that same in the mail is instead of doing the harder job of doing a good critique of an article I'm reading for class, whereas straw man arguments make a stronger claim of actually having proved something about and against the target (which they haven't actually addressed in its most convincing form).

As a side note, and ironically, considering the trivial nitpicky-ness of what I've written, *and* as someone who's super-sensitive to these things because I wish I was humble and gentle and never one to feel the urge to, I don't know, point out spelling errors or say clever things or whatever (you know, people like Jenny Schroedel who writes articles here, or Robert Coles, if you read him), I have to say you've been coming across as a lot more gracious and happy and un-farmer tom-ish in your posts lately, which is good to see. (Not to insult that other poster too much..)

8. Ted Slater said the following at 3:56 PM on Dec 5:

Jethro -- fair questions.

A Mercedes-driving Christian who advocates charitable giving is not trying to pass legislation that requires me to be charitable. I can just ignore them.

Those who are advocating that governments create and enforce global warming-related legislation and agreements in fact *will* be impacting my lifestyle, limiting my ability to make my own choices about how I, for example, use the money I earn.

How can 10,000 world leaders share their ideas about climate change? How about the way you and I are exchanging ideas about climate change? Of course, we're missing out on the Bali beaches and nightlife sitting here in front of our computers....

9. John said the following at 4:20 PM on Dec 5:

CO2 does not cause global warming, it increases AFTER the temperature rises!

It has not been determined, however, if ignorance increases before global warming alarmism or after or both!

10. tom said the following at 4:25 PM on Dec 5:

how is this any more hypocritical than a Christian who talks about charity but drives a Mercedes?

Because you in fact know nothing about the Mercedes driver. He could possibly be giving 50% of his income to charity and still have enough left over to drive a Mercedes. Unless you know his personal circumstances, you shouldn't judge him a hypocrite.

Also, the command to care for the poor does not demand we live in poverty ourselves.

11. John said the following at 4:32 PM on Dec 5:

Is the "voice" that people read into posts really there or put there by them?

That is one of the limits of this medium. Sometimes its obvious, other times its not.

I'm direct in my posts, which is taken as being terse.

Ted appears to be straight forward, too.

Often posters complain that the "voice" is not "christian".

Quick to judge.

Just recognize that that is an aspect of this medium and try to do your best to STOP READING INTO THINGS.

12. Becca said the following at 5:12 PM on Dec 5:

John,

Are you responding to my parenthetical remark?

I didn't use the word voice, but I used the word tone, which is somewhat similar...

Tone is certainly not limited to aural media, however - it's an essential part of good prose writing. Furthermore, "reading into things" is an essential part of being a good, perceptive reader. It's silly and a bit lazy to blame all perceptions of divisiveness and whatnot on the medium.

Now, I'm not saying that I think we should all stop arguing and hold hands - the Line wouldn't be the Line without lots of earnest squabbling and pointed teasing. But I do think that there are times when the prevailing tone is both mean-spirited and ultimately unproductive. This thread is one of those times.

Firstly, we've had the global warming conversation many times before. We know what the lay of the ideological land is. It's hard not to see this post as just another excuse to pick at each other (especially in light of the posts above me!)

Secondly, what are we accomplishing?
Instead of picking at each other - which we've already had ample time to do in the other threads - why not put together a collaborative, bipartisan letter to send to the various parties responsible for the grotesquity described in the post?

We all complain too much! Where's the action?

13. Holly said the following at 5:28 PM on Dec 5:

Ted: you need a better argument. FOTF's radio news has focused quite a lot on the issue of gambling lately. Gambling advocates could turn around and make the same argument: that you've no right to try to pass legislation limiting their choices in what they do with the money they earn. The same would apply to a vast array of conservative social agenda items.

You're making yourself an easy target. :-)

14. Chris said the following at 6:53 PM on Dec 5:

Ted writes:

But there's just something wrong with guilting others into cutting their energy and resource use while you yourself are generating extravagant amounts of the very pollution you profit from demonizing.

Ted's absolutely right. And it doesn't just stop in Bali. Did you know that many scientists who study global warming actually fly on planes to conferences? They also use electricity, most likely generated from fossil fuels, to power the computers they use to model climate change. They even give off CO2 as they sit in their labs and think about things. It's ridiculous! They should all eliminate all of their carbon emissions before they even think of talking to us.

I only hope this madness stops. The next thing you know, people at conferences to fight hunger will actually be eating food.

I also find it hypocritical that all 10,000 conference attendees are not using the high-speed internet connections and latest and greatest multi-media teleconferencing equipment that everyone in the world has in their homes and offices.

15. Jethro said the following at 1:57 AM on Dec 6:

Holly,

You made exactly the point I was going to. In fact, Ted, to elaborate on Holly's point, legislation restricting gambling should be more repugnant to you because it is based almost entirely on your subjective morality, whereas climate change legislation is based on scientific evidence (however disputed you may consider it to be).

Your response?

16. Bill Petruzzo said the following at 9:45 AM on Dec 6:

I couldn't agree more. I also agree that there's an issue with our treatment with the environment; but it's really hard to take seriously and be able to really consider the facts when all the heroes of the movement are really doing nothing better than the rest of us, sometimes even worse (Al Gore's summer home produces more CO2 than some small cities - all year round).

I just want to understand the facts, and it doesn't seem like anyone's presenting them unbiasedly, and humbly.

17. xeres said the following at 12:06 PM on Dec 6:

Jethro and Holly,

I'm all for helping the environment but it should out of the Love of God and people, NEVER and EVER out of fear of being extincted or self-perservetion. Plus, guilt-tripping people is just plain wrong.

You guys ever agree with Boundless on any subject at all? It is cool that you guys think for yourselves but why you guys reading their blog and webzine articles if you dislike AND disagree 99.9% percent of everything they write? I'm just asking an honest question because you guys seem to believe based on your comments 90 percent of the time that what works and pragmatic takes precedent over what's right and good. It's more important to do what's good and finding out what is good rather than simply what is pragmatic or popular. Plus, I don't believe GW should be the primary motive for why anyone should starting care for the environment. In fact, it is just unfair and incharitable for a person to say those who don't believe that man is the only cause of climate change are stupid, unintelligent and don't care.

18. Charles H. said the following at 1:06 PM on Dec 6:

Xeres, excellent question. I have wondered the same thing. It's basically trolling...

To respond to the gambling question, I think this begs the question of whether non-Christians also oppose gambling. The answer is clearly, in some cases, yes: an expansion of gambling has been linked to various social ills. In my own city, there was a successful grassroots campaign to prevent a casino from opening in a poor area for just this reason. While I believe that the Bible also states we shouldn't gamble, this is far from the only reason why people oppose gambling.