How Green Are Your Heroes?
by
Tom Neven
on Apr 22, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Many years ago I worked for Time-Life in Washington, D.C. It was an odd place, full of people of earnest political correctness, well-meaning but clueless that someone could possibly hold ideas different from theirs. It was for the most part an amusing experience for me -- amusing in the sense one is amused when reading Lewis Carroll.
For example, during a United Way appeal for employees, I asked our HR person if the charity still supported the Boy Scouts. My concern was that if they had withdrawn support over the Scouts' refusal to accept homosexual scoutmasters, I would not have contributed. Completely misunderstanding my point of view and assuming I thought like everyone else in the building, the HR lady answered with an exasperated, "Unfortunately, yes."
Later, the employee newsletter featured a story about a longtime editor's retirement, mentioning that he had made the "ultimate sacrifice" (their words, not mine) by fleeing to Canada to avoid the draft in the 1960s. Again, they simply assumed everyone within the Time-Life universe would think this was something heroic -- until they got a very agitated letter from me, that is. I got a lot of Whoa! looks from my fellow employees after that.
Now, the denizens of Time-Life land have committed a similar error, and they're again clueless that anyone could take offense. The cover of a "special environment issue" of Time magazine -- the Time staffers on Sixth Avenue do indeed live in a "special" environment -- have exceeded the bounds of silliness and entered rarefied territory: fatuousness combined with historical ignorance.
First, to equate alleged global warming with a true existential struggle against an implacable enemy -- look up the "Rape of Nanking" -- is fatuous times inane squared.
Second, I'm old enough to remember when all the news magazines, Time among them, were running scare stories about the impending ice age. It's hard to take them seriously this time around.
Finally, to take a classic photo and rejigger it for some petty political cause is contemptible. (Imagine the uproar if someone took the classic image of Dr. Martin Luther King on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and manipulated it for unrelated political purposes.)
I encourage everyone to read the book Flags of Our Fathers. (Don't bother with the movie, which doesn't begin to capture the complexity of this story and invented some scenes out of thin air.) Learn about the real struggles of those six men and the heroic effort to raise that flag on Mount Suribachi. Comparing that valor to today's dubious political correctness is enough to set one's teeth on edge. And I'm not the only one. This is only the second time in the history of the magazine that Time has changed the red border on the cover. The first time was a black border after 9/11. And now this. What's wrong with this picture?
By the way, there is a persistent (and false) rumor that the Iwo Jima flag-raising was staged. Nothing could be further from the truth.
1. Josh had the following to say on Apr 22 at 7:25 PM:
Of course, if we try to see it from the other person's point of view (novel idea, I know) then its quite easy to see how you could think global warming is a big enough deal to change the color of the magazine front, use historic iconography, etc to get the point across. If you truly believe that global warming is such a dire situation then you should go to such lengths to make your case. If the people at the magazine were people of integrity at all I wouldn't expect anything less.
2. sv had the following to say on Apr 22 at 9:20 PM:
I agree that Time's photo choice was not best. I can see why it causes offense.
However, you seem to be upset by more than just the photo. You seem to be upset by Time's passion towards global warming. That, I don't understand. Why does caring about the environment have to be a political issue? Should Christians not care about the environment? Sure, "environmentalism/going green" is an issue championed by the "Left." And there is a lot of push from the "Left" to make it into a political issue. Yet just because one may not agree with their politics regarding the issue does not mean one should dismiss the issue as unimportant or fatuous. Regardless of what you believe about global warming, it is a fact that the Earth's "health" is not optimum. And as Christians, we should care. (I hope it's not necessary to explain why we should care...)
By the way, I would encourage you to be more careful regarding links you post on your blogs. Unless you state otherwise, it may be assumed that you condone the values in these links. The following is a statement found in the article of your "only one" link:
“It’s an absolute disgrace,” Mates said. “Whoever did it is going to hell. That’s a mortal sin. God forbid he runs into a Marine that was an Iwo Jima survivor.”
While this article that you refered us to seems to condone the values of this statement, I prayerfully hope that you don't.
3. John Tulp had the following to say on Apr 23 at 1:02 AM:
There is always only the truth. If I have a cause that is so important that I view it as necessary to add to, take away from or differ from the truth, then I have lied.
While we are called to be a good steward of the world the Lord made, common sense always serves us well.
Anyone trying to get elected loves to latch onto the issue du jour, but very few care to put much effort into truth.
I love the example of the tiny little "green" cars that are so "wonderful" for the environment. Well, let's think a moment. We certainly have the capability to make a car that will function at least 20 years. Those little "green" cars are underdesigned and cheaply made and hit the scrap heap in at best 10 years. How many resources are used, people driving back and forth the work, etc., in the manufacture of a car ? Has someone really done the math ? No.
I've worked with supposedly highly educated and certainly highly paid technical folks at dozens of companies over 20 years, and, trust me, the vast marjority of us have not got the foggiest idea of where to get a clue when it comes to figuring out answers to technical problems.
A person trained in logic could go through a publication like Time magazine in thorough detail and point out literally hundreds, if not thousands of logical fallacies in every issue.
The worst of this is when history is distorted, and it is a history of people who died for their countrymen to have the boundless opportunities they enjoy today.
I sometimes wonder what it would be like to be in a battle where one gives ones life, and I thank God for all the sacrifices that were made so I so far have not had to. The best treatment Hollywood has ever given this thought, in my humble view, has been the scene where the medic dies in Saving Private Ryan, a movie that will make most take more than a moment to reflect.
What really amazes me is how the environment is such a new idea for the media and many public figures. My very conservative and business-minded father had an organic garden back in the 1970's when it was considered uncool, long before the hippie movement entered rehab and learned how to "market" themselves.
Let's pray that we all find the strength, courage and wisdom to always tell the truth, and perhaps try to give our illustrious politicians' and celebrities' words sufficient analysis before we jump on their politically correct bandwagon.
4. S had the following to say on Apr 23 at 3:54 AM:
Magazines exist to sell copies. Attention grabbing covers sell copies. As for what is on it, I could really care less. I have many more things to be worried about.
I don't care if the earth is warming or cooling. I think we should be good stewards of what God gave us. So, when possible, I'm going to "reduce, reuse and recycle."
5. Jonathan Wise had the following to say on Apr 23 at 7:45 AM:
Can someone explain to me what the Christian aversion is to being good stewards of this home God gave us?
We talk about Global Warming like its some kind of political issue. Its not. Its not about right versus left. Its not about politics. Its about being responsible with what we were given charge over.
That the secular world is finding their own reasons to be good stewards only shows how grossly out of touch we as Christians are with the world we live in. Guess what? Reducing pollutants, innovating new fuel sources, and encouraging re-use... all of those things are great uses of our minds and our homes. Its those who argue differently, without any reasoning or Biblical backing, who are making a political statement -- and a thoughtless one at that.
6. Tom Neven had the following to say on Apr 23 at 9:28 AM:
Jonathan (#5)
Where to I even intimate that Christians should not be good stewards? I never raise the subject. In fact, my family has been recycling since long before it became fashionable.
What I do object to is media scare tactics based on uncertain science. When I was in high school in the early '70s, I had to read the book The Population Bomb, which predicted that by the mid-'80s we'd see mass starvation on a global scale. A lot of people panicked over that book.
I linked to but one of the many magazine articles in the mid-70's warning about the impending ice age. Forgive me, then, if my natural skepticism kicks in with the latest warnings of impending global doom. Already much of Al Gore's "science" has been debunked. And I read just the other day that global temperatures have remained constant since 1998. I'm willing to be convinced that global warming is happening, but I haven't seen enough to convince me yet.
I also object to the fatuous comparison of uncertain science to, say, Japanese soldiers tossing babies into the air and catching them on bayonets -- for sport. Or of forcing thousands of Korean and Chinese women into prostitution. Or of mass murder of prisoners of war. And that was only in the Pacific theater. Set aside for the moment the tens of millions killed as a result of Hitler's actions in Europe.
I'm sorry, but global warming does not begin to approach the seriousness of those times, and anyone who thinks it does does not know his history and is not thinking clearly.
7. Louise had the following to say on Apr 23 at 9:34 AM:
I agree with comment 4.
The goal in issuing a magazine is to sell as many copies are possible, thereby maximizing profits!
An eye-catching cover will definitely assist in that goal, and I'm sure TIME did not intend to offend anyone.
8. Ted Slater had the following to say on Apr 23 at 9:35 AM:
sv asks, "Should Christians not care about the environment?"
Jonathan Wise asks, "Can someone explain to me what the Christian aversion is to being good stewards of this home God gave us?"
Whew. So we prove our "wise stewardship" by joining the ignorant environmentalist fearmongers in denouncing humanity and big business for supposedly destroying the earth?
Meanwhile, those of us who are level headed about environmental change, who humbly watch our consumption and marvel at how solar activity affects temperatures on all the planets in our solar system, are dismissed as "not caring about the environment."
Let me ask you two: How much has the earth supposedly warmed up over the past 100 years? And how much has it warmed up over the past 10 years? And what are the "pollutants" included in "greenhouse gases"? Please answer these questions with as much specificity as you're able.
Yes, "Global Warming" is about politics. It's about certain people wanting to exercise control over others, about certain people wanting to profit from others' hysteria, it's about those who worship the earth more than they worship its Creator, it's about inspiring fear and anxiety rather than faith, it's about wanting others to forfeit so that certain people can go on over-consuming (the sizeable Al Gore is a great example of someone who consumes vastly more than the rest of us, yet tries to guilt us into going without), and so on.
For those of us who've done a lot of research in this area, hearing the tired, ignorant lies of "you hate the planet and you're a foolish steward of this planet" grows wearisome. To be frank.
That said, I appreciate your passion, misguided and uninformed as it is.
9. Carrie (the original) had the following to say on Apr 23 at 9:41 AM:
Jonathan Wise (#5):
Being good stewards is a biblical idea. Global warming, however, is most certainly a political issue. If you think you can seperate global warming from politics in 2008, I would encourage to visit a therapist in order to get a grip on reality.
Al Gore has said "Personal responsibility isn't enough. Governments must get involved."
Pardon me, but what?! Of course poor stewardship is a personal responsibility issue.
Some people are making this into a political issue because, sadly, the government is their only hope of salvation.
10. obewan had the following to say on Apr 23 at 11:04 AM:
John Tulp #3 Said:
“I love the example of the tiny little "green" cars that are so "wonderful" for the environment. Well, let's think a moment. We certainly have the capability to make a car that will function at least 20 years. Those little "green" cars are underdesigned (sic) and cheaply made and hit the scrap heap in at best 10 years.”
You for sure have not talked to any Honda owners. My family has had at least 3 that have gone close to 300k miles (and which were STILL in very good condition) and lasted way beyond 10 years with the original engine and transmission with no major service. In fact, my Toyota served me for 17 years and had close to 200K miles with the original engine and brakes. The compression was at new condition factory spec the whole time, and it even had the original brakes. It did not burn oil – ever. I gave it away as a collector’s car to a charity car auction since it was a 2-seat sports model. All these vehicles got well over 30mpg.
I just finished with one of the alternatives you are suggesting. It got only 22 mpg. It had close to $5k in repairs in less than 7 years and was dead and on its third transmission at less than 60K miles. You sir have obviously never read Consumers Reports. In my book, when it comes to cars, GREEN IS GREEN!!! I plan to keep my present Civic for at least 20 years.
11. Susan had the following to say on Apr 23 at 11:05 AM:
Wow, Ted! I can hear the passion in your voice several states away :)
I agree with you 100% and am incredibly sick of people equating not believing in the manmade global warming "frenzy" with not caring at all about the environment.
People who accuse us of such should read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming"....it will disgust you and open your eyes to what is really going on and how businesses AND government are manipulating information (and our emotions!) while using our tax dollars to do nothing for the environment...rather, they are merely trying to make more money and gain more power - possibly even making things worse for our environment in the long run.
12. Laura Grace had the following to say on Apr 23 at 11:38 AM:
Wow, Ted! That's probably the most backhanded "compliment" I've seen paid on this blog. I have a question: is "big business" (which you seem to be defending in a round-about way) any more virtuous than "big government" (which conservatives seem to loathe)? Both are run by sinners, aren't they? Both have destructive elements compounded by the struggle for power, both are restrained by God's hand, both offer a solution to humanity's problems, right? So why not put the blame on businesses whose only regulating principle is the almighty dollar?
I don't know about global warming. What I DO know is that I have a solemn, God-given responsibility to work with God's people to usher in God's Kingdom on THIS earth, in THIS life. Things will never be perfect until Christ returns; that should keep us humble. But the plan of God is not just about individual, personal salvation -- it's to redeem His whole creation, to perfect it for His glory. That compelling vision of the future ought to keep us active in bringing the Gospel to bear on this material, tangible, physical world.
13. Sarah22 had the following to say on Apr 23 at 12:22 PM:
I think the whole "go green" movement is in some ways creating more waste then it is "saving the planet".
I walked into Target the other day and saw "re-usable bags" but they weren't just the kind you see your grocery store selling, they were all shapes and sizes, some of them were the size of make-up cases women carry in their purses...what in the world do you need that for? It was obviously just a ploy to sell something green & "environment friendly" but that really had no merit behind it...
Global Warming is on par with the Evolution in my opinion...it's a bunch of crap. It’s sad because people are obsessed with it because they think this world is going to be around forever and we need to preserve it for that reason, but the fact is that as Christians we know the world is wrought in sin and will pass away some day, sooner or later. For that reason I don't think we should be completely reckless with the planet and go out of our way to be wasteful because God is coming back, but I'm also not going to waste my time and money on products to "save the planet" when there are lost souls that need to be reached. I’d like to see some statistics on how much money is being made off of the “Go Green” ideal each year.
I also feel the same way about many organic products, and think the same deceit is going on in that industry. I’m all for organic fruits and veggies but as far as “organic cookies” and the like, well, that’s just ridiculous and a waste of money in my opinion, just like most of the “green” products...people are blinded into believing that if it’s got “organic” or “green” on it then it must be wonderful or better...
14. Kit the tree hugger had the following to say on Apr 23 at 1:47 PM:
I am not asking this to be ignorant, but I am curious:
What is it about global warming that more conservative Christians are afraid of? What is with the underlying fear that it might be happening? Notwithstanding any political beliefs, what is the problem? It makes perfect sense--what you put into the earth has to come out somehow.
Any answers, from a non "let's call democrats socialists and communists" point of view, would be very appreciated on my part.
15. JB had the following to say on Apr 23 at 3:14 PM:
Ted,
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, if you plot global temperature over the 100 years between 1906 and 2005, you find a temperature increase of .74 degrees C (CI: .56-.92). If you plot global temperature over the past 50 years, there is an increase of .13 degrees C (.10-.16) per decade. The most significant greenhouse gases were found to include carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide though others were implicated as having a warming effect including other nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and halocarbons. Interestingly, the effect of solar radiance changes was found to be towards warming, but the magnitude of the effect was about 1/20th that due to carbon dioxide. You can read a summary of the report here: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf.
With respect, I think global warming denial is also about politics. In particular, it's about wealthy corporations and individuals trying to minimize the negative effects their economic activities are having on the planet so that they can continue to make gobs of money. It's also about these people's ideological allies trying to cover for them in the vain hope of a political quid pro quo. Of course, I could just be ignorant and misguided.
16. BDB had the following to say on Apr 23 at 3:28 PM:
Kit (#14) wrote:
>>Notwithstanding any political beliefs, what is the problem? <<
The main problem is in the "solutions" offered. The Kyoto treaty, for example, wanted to reduce "carbon" emmissions of developed nations without limiting developing nations. That would mean damaging economic activity in America and Europe through a "carbon tax" on gasoline and electricity, for example. This would wipe out a lot of jobs, like all taxes do. Global Warming is used as a proxy by many on the Left to advance policy solutions that are bad for America.
Which is what makes one presidential candidate's solution so intriging to me: he wants to reduce greenhouse gases by increasing use of nuclear power. This forces the issue: if you really think global warming is the problem, then following France to rely more on nuclear power is a great way to reduce emissions without damaging the economy through higher electricity prices. On the other hand, if the real policy goal is to confiscate money from people who have it, then they will reject this option and just demand taxes on industries and economic activity they don't like...
17. S had the following to say on Apr 23 at 3:36 PM:
Sarah22- I'm curious about your comment regarding organic cookies. This is purely from a personal standpoint, because I work in the food industry. Anything we make that is organic has to be certified by an organic agency (for lack of a better term). We have to have paperwork on all of the ingredients, as well as have the processing line certified. Are consumers aware of this, or does the industry need to do more communication on that issue? (thanks for being my market research!)
18. Ted Slater had the following to say on Apr 23 at 3:43 PM:
Kit, you ask, "What is it about global warming that more conservative Christians are afraid of? What is with the underlying fear that it might be happening?"
I'm not "afraid" of GW alarmists. But I am concerned about their agenda, and agenda revealed earlier this week by Bolivia's President Evo Morales, who delivered the keynote address at the United Nations forum on Indigenous People. Here's what he said:
"[I]f we want to save our planet earth, to save life, to save mankind, we have a duty to put an end to the capitalist system." Did you read that, Kit? This isn't a typical wacko saying this, it's the leader of a country, someone who's using GW alarmism to attack the free enterprise system.
He went on to call for an end to "unbridled industrial development, extraction of natural resources, excessive consumption of goods and accumulation of waste." He wants us to return to the stone age, apparently, to use our hands rather than toilet paper, to walk five miles to work rather than drive, and so on. Meanwhile, of course, he's got jets and cars and nice toilet paper. He wants us to forego, in order that he might somehow benefit.
He concluded by demanding trillions of dollars from the West be given to countries including, conveniently, Bolivia, "to repair the earth." Of course, the money will go to the same place as Mugabe's money: a secret Swiss bank account.
This is the agenda of GW alarmists: destroy the free enterprise system, institute a more socialist/marxist form of government, exert control over everyone's consumption, and divert taxes from the middle class into the pockets of the elite. At least according to the President of Bolivia.
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to present this factual information. Will you believe it, or just what you see in newspapers and the nightly news?
19. Jethro had the following to say on Apr 23 at 3:49 PM:
I will commit myself to a mental asylum if I have to sit through another argument on global warming on the Line. It's all a big hoax Ted, we know that by now.
Re the cover, I actually think it is a really clever image. The picture is not sacred Tom, it's just a picture. Nothing more. If you don't like it, don't buy the magazine.
20. Nicole had the following to say on Apr 23 at 3:55 PM:
Global warming is entirely a political idea. It's based on bad science and money. The founder of the Weather Channel is suing Al Gore for pulling the biggest hoax the world has ever seen.
I will be among the first to say that I think the environment is something we should protect. We are here to be good stewards of the earth. Recycling is a good thing. Some things these people want to do are not.
When it hurts increases in technology that may save lives, that's a bad thing.
When it comes to taking away types of inhalers from asthmatics (which will go into effect next year -- and even pharmaceutical companies who stand to make a lot of money on the change, say that the inhalers that are being banned work quicker -- but of course aren't necessary) that's a bad thing.
I don't claim to be a theologian or a scientist, I am merely an economist. When I read my Bible, though, there is NO evidence that the world will not continue to be sustainable to human life until the Second Coming. Yes, I think the world, since Adam and Eve sinned, is in a downward spiral but I don't think anything we as humans do will change when the end comes. Or honestly affect how many famines, etc we have on earth before that. These things are in God's hands. I trust him on that. I don't think making grand plans will change anything. Perhaps global climate change - if it exists - will cause famines, but first you would have to prove that any changes humans make will actually change this phenomenon. Second, when I was reading in Matthew this week it said that famines are a sign of the end times. Perhaps part of God's plan for humans is global climate change -- for them to see how insignificant they are in an ability to change anything in this world so huge as the climate. Perhaps, it will lead people closer to him.
Either way, I don't think humans are effecting this. We should reduce, reuse, and recycle, to keep the place prettier, to take care of, to clean it up, to have continued goods around for future generations. That has nothing to do with global warming.
Unfortunately the Time is simply a secular magazine. They did it to make money. I think the picture is offensive, but I'm not surprised. I stopped reading the Times a few years ago.
21. Ted Slater had the following to say on Apr 23 at 4:08 PM:
Laura Grace asks, "is 'big business' ... any more virtuous than 'big government' ...?"
Yes, it is. Big government takes away my money and liberties at the point of a gun. Big business tries to take away my money and liberties, but can only do so via advertising, not through threat of bodily harm.
I'm grateful for Big Oil and Big Pharmaceutical and Big Box Stores. They provide a lot of services and goods that smaller organizations are unable to provide.
I'm also grateful for rich people, one of whom provided the funds to start Boundless 10 years ago.
22. Sarah22 had the following to say on Apr 23 at 4:40 PM:
S:
I guess it's more that I feel like people shouldn't be wasting their money on organic cookies...cookies aren't really good for you to begin with, why not avoid them completely on a regular basis and a few times a year eat an Oreo if you’re really craving it? I think it just makes people (i.e. Mothers) feel bad if they can't afford organic cookies to feed their family.
I do also doubt some of the products that are packaged as organic, often companies mislead consumers about their products and I feel like so many big companies are trying to market to the general super-market shopper with organic products that I just wonder how organic they really are...I guess if I went into a small organic market I might feel differently about the quality of the products...I guess to overall answer your question, no, I didn't know they had to be specifically certified but what are the qualifications to become certified? I Hope this helped answer your question :)
23. Tom Neven had the following to say on Apr 23 at 5:04 PM:
Jethro (#18)
Would you feel the same about the photo of Martin Luther King I linked to if someone PhotoShopped a "Vote Republican" sign into it and put it on the front of a magazine? (And I'm not baiting you: I'm genuinely curious.)
But the "desecrating" of an iconic image is the least of my concerns. It's the equating of a political cause based on dubious science with a real life-and-death struggle such as WWII.
Finally, and I repeat myself, but this is the third catastrophic environmental scare-craze I've heard in 30 years. So far they're batting .000. I'm inclined to remain skeptical of their predictive prowess.
24. Al had the following to say on Apr 23 at 5:16 PM:
Ted, while I also deplore big government for its waste, inefficiency, and bureaucracy, Romans 13 (incidentally quoted in another post) commands us to pay our taxes, dues, tributes, and honors to our government. This was written in context of a government who's emperor claimed divinity and whose worship formed at least part of the justification for paying those taxes, which went on to fund some deplorable things in addition to things for the public good.
If we start viewing taxes in general as extortion at the end of a gun, I think we start to lose the spirit of (alert) submission to authority for our own good. That's probably not what you meant, and perhaps you only mean taxes in a big government, but if so, with strong federal authority and by way of the IRS, we'd still be paying taxes (however less) at the end of a gun even when our government is at its leanest, simply because the government can enforce payment or penalty if we don't comply. I would also wager that nearly all taxes in human history have been enforced through physical force, whether as a last measure or as a constant threat-- precisely the sorts of taxes that both Jesus and Paul condone paying.
I will also argue that the volume of advertising we are subjected to on an almost hourly basis can do its own harm, in potentially worse ways to our soul, values and world view, than mere threat of imprisonment (which doesn't always lead to bodily harm). I know it does my soul a lot less harm to file my tax return and reflect on my giving and spending than it does for me to be constantly blasted with what I'm supposed to need and what I'm supposed to want.
25. Jethro had the following to say on Apr 23 at 6:41 PM:
Ted,
Big business are more virtuous than government eh?
Try telling that to people in Nigeria or perhaps those in Ecuador who are miscarrying and having serious health problems due to the reckless actions of Texaco so they could save a few bucks.
See:
http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/rs/profile.cfm?id=201
and
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE1D81731F930A15753C1A9659C8B63
Miscarriage due to poisoning by an oil company is really akin to a forced abortion Ted. Abortion = murder. Why isn't there more outcry from conservative Christians over actions like this from big oil companies? Is it because the conservative takes precedence over the Christian?
26. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) had the following to say on Apr 23 at 6:58 PM:
Ted:
"This is the agenda of GW alarmists: destroy the free enterprise system, institute a more socialist/marxist form of government, exert control over everyone's consumption, and divert taxes from the middle class into the pockets of the elite. At least according to the President of Bolivia."
Just so I can get this straight:
You're taking the words of the president of a country with a population of about half of New York and applying them to all people who believe that GW is real and dangerous?
Quite frankly, it's insulting. I have studied up on GW and determined that it's real and that I have to do something about it. Not because I want to raise taxes, bring us back to caveman years, put a government agent in every home, etc, but because I care about the world and I care about human beings. And if this world continues to heat, the costs are going to be far, far greater than the ones we pay for trying to help the environment now. So I find it rather ridiculous that you insinuate that I'm just interested in bigger taxes and more government, instead of my love for the environment and its Creator. I have no agenda other than saving this planet.
And yes, I realize you attribute the statements to Bolivia's Prez, but it's clear that you're trying to lump us all together. I hope that the readers here will see through your ploy.
Also, Tom: Top score in irony for posting this on Earth Day.
27. sv had the following to say on Apr 23 at 7:17 PM:
Ted Slater-
Just because I asked the question "Should Christians not care about the environment?" does not mean that I have jumped on the bandwagon of "joining the ignorant environmentalist fearmongers in denouncing humanity and big business for supposedly destroying the earth" as you assume I have. Quite the contrary, I don't agree with most of that politics.
My point is not where one stands politically on the issue as a Christian, my point is the attitude of the heart. Frankly, I tend to agree with how you think on this issue. But I'm a bit embarrassed to admit that. Not because of your stance, but because of your attitude. Examples:
-"ignorant environmentalist fearmongers"
-"Meanwhile, those of us who are level headed about environmental change, who humbly watch our consumption and marvel at how solar activity affects temperatures on all the planets in our solar system"
-"For those of us who've done a lot of research in this area, hearing the tired, ignorant lies of "you hate the planet and you're a foolish steward of this planet" grows wearisome."
You have a very self-righteous, "greater than thou" tone to your arguments. As do many Christians who agree with your stance. Sometimes Christians with your point of view come across as if you don't care about the enviroment because of your attitude/tone. And it makes me emabarrased to associate with your stance.
As you talk to people who don't share your viewpoint, please look at these people through the eyes of Jesus. I think that may help your tone and semantics to change and be more gracious towards those with whom you disagree. Christians should always demonstrate grace in the way we live our lives, even in areas of evironmentalism/sticky politics and towards those whom frustrate us and whom we disagree with. With that said, you are my brother in Christ and part of the body of Christ, so I am going to show you grace for an attitude I find frustrating. And I hope you extend me grace for perhaps "misguided" political-environmental thinkings. Thanks.
28. Nicole had the following to say on Apr 23 at 7:40 PM:
Thanks Ted for comment #20.
I would simply like to add a good summary: Big government forces us to do stuff where big business we voluntary purchase and contribute to.
29. Nicole had the following to say on Apr 23 at 7:43 PM:
Oh, and S #16: I think you do a pretty good job of getting the word out. As someone who has found a lot of health benefits for joint problems from eating organic I'm thankful for the industry and that you make organic cookies and the such. Some of us would be miserable if there wasn't food available without most of the additives in normal food!
30. Laura Grace had the following to say on Apr 23 at 9:40 PM:
At the point of a gun, Ted? This is America -- the government is YOU and YOUR representatives. Good heavens. And we won't even get into the sweatshop issue, or the working poor issue, or the environmental impact issue regarding big business. I simply ask you to focus on the issue of sin, which pervades all human systems, whether governmental or otherwise.
Really, I wish we could take this whole argument down a notch (seasoning it with the Gospel, peace, and grace -- they'll know we are Christ's disciples by our love, after all) and figure out what's at the root of the problem here. Is it that we're so influenced by our perception that liberal politics and environmental issues go hand in hand that we can't unlink the two? Surely we're better at critical thinking than that -- or maybe we all need to read "V. Culture" again.
I CAN indeed both have a serious concern for the environment and be a Christian; in fact, I would say that a Christian who has no concern for the environment is in sin, given the solemnity of our charge as stewards, gardeners, if you will, of God's creation.
My question for a lot of people who seem to be getting riled up about this issue is this: when our Savior returns in glory and we are perfectly exercising our stewardship of the New Heavens and New Earth, when all is at last made right, what sort of decisions do you think we'll be making in regards to the care of the New creation?
The answer to that question should inform our actions NOW in this fallen world.
31. Fred had the following to say on Apr 24 at 5:53 AM:
I couldn't agree more Tom. It is an insult even if a person thinks that global warming could destroy the world.
32. Irene M. had the following to say on Apr 24 at 6:42 AM:
"Big business tries to take away my money and liberties, but can only do so via advertising, not through threat of bodily harm."
Has anyone heard about sweatshops? What about maimed slaughterhouse workers or disabled Walmart employees?
As a country girl, I too am grateful for the inexpensive services provided by many large businesses. However, it is ridiculously naive to believe "Big Business" never threatens bodily harm. Saying that Big Business is more virtuous than Big Government isn't saying a lot for either of them.
33. Leah had the following to say on Apr 24 at 8:57 AM:
I don't think there's anything wrong. Over the top and melodramatic, yeah, but wrong? No. So they changed the colour of the border. You might think global warming doesn't warrant that type of action, but is it wrong for someone to be passionate about it? No. You might think it's over the top to substitute a tree into the iconic photo. I'd agree. But I'd also point out that I don't think Time is drawing a parallel, per se, between global warming and what went on around Mount Suribachi. They are using an iconic photo to make a point- not the event itself. It's also that which makes me think Time is not historically ignorant, as you claim.
I'm not American though. But I can see why their decision would be called contemptible. I don't think it was a good idea, but I don't think it's wrong, either. A bad idea, but not wrong.
34. Zach had the following to say on Apr 24 at 10:53 AM:
There is a difference between thinking Global Warming or any other environmental problem will 'destroy the world' and that it will cause greater inequality and potentially greater suffering and death for those without the resources to combat the effects of environmental change.
Water is a great example of this. Here in America we have the money and technology to ensure that most, if not all, people have a sufficient supply of clean water for drinking and usually for other uses as well. Poor countries, especially those without much access to water, do not have these same luxuries. They either do not have a sufficient supply of water, or they do not have the finances and technology available to clean the water they do have so that it is sanitary. As such, many people get sick and/or die in poor countries due to a lack of potable water.
As Christians, we should be deeply concerned about this and make efforts to ensure that everyone has access to enough potable water to live. Sending missionaries to a country where a significant number of people are dying, while still purposeful, is not as effective as it would be if they were not water deprived and it is not fair to the people in those countries.
35. BDB had the following to say on Apr 24 at 11:10 AM:
Jethro (#24) wrote:
>>Why isn't there more outcry from conservative Christians over actions like this from big oil companies? <<
Because the problems were caused by the government-run oil companies, not big business. Here's the link to the other side of the story.
36. obewan had the following to say on Apr 24 at 11:12 AM:
"Big business tries to take away my money and liberties, but can only do so via advertising, not through threat of bodily harm."
On the issue of bodily harm, big business and the government are both guilty when it comes to Ethanol production. Millions now face starvation due to worldwide grain shortages that are due in large part to production of corn to make ethanol in the US. Just watch the daily news! Do we see the Big Three automakers in any way attempting to reduce sales of large, unnecessary SUV’s? No, instead we see the government increasing the (wasteful and inefficient) production of ethanol to backfill the oil current shortage. At least the global warming ‘alarmists’ have energy CONSERVATION at the top of the agenda. Not all “green” causes are the evil you often portray them as. The oil shortage is a far greater threat to the free enterprise system than global warming “alarmism” ever will be, and it has been the “conservative” republicans who have pushed for increased ethanol production!
37. BDB had the following to say on Apr 24 at 11:43 AM:
obewan (#35) wrote:
>>Do we see the Big Three automakers in any way attempting to reduce sales of large, unnecessary SUV’s?<<
Dude, those things make moms feel "safe." It doesn't need to be rational, that's how they feel. It's not up to the top three U.S. Automakers (GM, Ford and Toyota) to tell people how they should feel about safety of their children.
38. BDB had the following to say on Apr 24 at 11:59 AM:
Zach (#33) wrote:
>>Sending missionaries to a country where a significant number of people are dying, while still purposeful, is not as effective as it would be if they were not water deprived and it is not fair to the people in those countries.<<
You know, there was a time when Mexico was wealthier than the U.S., what there was of it. I was in Mexico this weekend and yes, I used bottled water to brush my teeth. I didn't get sick. Bottled water is available at stores there. But it does make me wonder why the U.S. managed to build a safe water supply 100 years ago and now, with toll roads and electricity everywhere (not to mention Pemex and Tecate retail outlets) Mexico hasn't built a safe water infrastructure. I attribute it to corrupt, single-party centralized government. In the U.S. the federalized system resulted in local communities sinking their own wells and building municipal water infrastructure - and they had local police forces to deal with anyone who messed with that infrastructure.
Then again, Los Angeles built it's water supply by taking it from the farmers in the
39. obewan had the following to say on Apr 24 at 1:14 PM:
"Dude, those things make moms feel "safe." It doesn't need to be rational, that's how they feel. It's not up to the top three U.S. Automakers (GM, Ford and Toyota) to tell people how they should feel about safety of their children."
You obviously have not heard about the rollover death statistics for SUV's. The death rate is actually higher for them than for cars. Just pray you never have a blowout on the interstate. It could be the end of your whole family. Yes, at least the gov't is involved in safety, and SUV's currently have a poor record. Air bags have changed car safety significantly.
40. Lost In Academia had the following to say on Apr 24 at 3:52 PM:
Okay, Y'all finally did it I have to de-lurk to say this:
Jethro @#18 said:
"I will commit myself to a mental asylum if I have to sit through another argument on global warming on the Line...Re the cover...If you don't like it, don't buy the magazine."
So if I understand you, your proposition is, if something bugs Tom he should not tell others it bugs him, he should just not support it.
You then go on to tell every one talking about GW bugs you, and you comment on the thread.
Twice.
Laura Grace @#29
Re: "Critical Thinking"
Aren't you implying that either you support GW claims or you hate the environment? I think as the Boundless crew have stated over, and over, and over, they are pro-environment, just not pro-killing the world economy on some deeply flawed data. I think the point is that Business is better then government at stopping pollution (as the recent UN report on the relative levels of increase in pollution in Europe and the US indicate). The point isn't that we shouldn't clean the environment, just that it should be done in such a manner as to protect the world economy.
And because I'm rarely comfortable posting on this blog, but it deserves to be quoted I will leave you with this from C.S. Lewis which fits nicely re: letting the government take care of everything:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." - CS Lewis
41. Carrie (the original) had the following to say on Apr 25 at 7:22 AM:
I just got off the phone with my step-dad who is agnostic and slighty more liberal than I. As far as global warming goes we agree on the following
(1) A lifestyle change is necessary in order to be more responsible citizens. We can accomplish this by:
(a) Living closer to work
(b) Buying locally grown foods
(2) Carpooling is a really great idea and should be done when it is even remotely possible.
(3) Small changes done by many people can equate to a big change.
(4) Use your own grocery bags.
So, if we can all agree on these things, can we please stop arguing and name calling?
42. BDB had the following to say on Apr 27 at 11:24 PM:
Obewan (#39) wrote:
>>You obviously have not heard about the rollover death statistics for SUV's. <<
Sure I have, that's why a bought a sedan - better handling. From what I've read, 2/3 of all SUV accidents are single-vehicle accidents. I said it was about feelings, not a rational choice. They "feel" better in case something hits them.
I'd rather drive around the problem - and hopefully my Honda will do as well as the BMW in the ads can do...one can hope...
I did witness a pretty bad head-on accident once. A new Volvo vs. a very old CVCC. (About the size of a Prius.) The Volvo won. The guy in the CVCC had what looked to me like about 35 injuries that I could see. After the shock wore off, I went out and bought a lot more first aid supplies to carry around in my car.
The Volvo guy had a cut finger and said to me, "Wow, those airbags depoy fast." He was able to get up out of his car just fine, though as I recall, we had him sit down.
I bought a car with airbags after that. On both sides. Now I have then in front, on the side in a curtain, in the doors...
43. Brynne had the following to say on Apr 28 at 2:03 PM:
I agree that the cover of TIME is over-dramatic and offensive. It hurts to see bravery and patriotism cheapened in that way! There are so many real life-and-death issues in our world, and the fact that global warming is just not one of them is backed by fact after fact. For instance, this winter has a been record-breakingly cold one in the Middle East (http://en.rian.ru/world/20080116/97095392.html).
It is just insulting (to history, intelligence, our armed forces, etc.) to equate the iffy issue of global warming with Mount Suribachi!
44. Bill had the following to say on Apr 29 at 2:58 PM:
The whole "Green" fad is a sham. I support global warming, especially after the winter we've had! Let's raise the earth's temp about 10 degrees!!!!