The Church of Green

[Dexter]

I'm not going to make any secret of the fact that I think climate change is a crock of shit, but that's not what this post is about. I may touch on that in a different thread, or even this one if someone really feels the need to debate it here, but this post is more about the cult that's formed around the green movement in response to the looming spectre of climate change.

There are 5 major characteristics of a religion. My goal here is to establish how the so-called "green movement" has evolved into a full-blown religion by adopting all 5 of these characteristics. They are:

(1) belief in a deity or in a power beyond the individual
(2) a doctrine (accepted teaching) of salvation
(3) a code of conduct
(4) the use of sacred stories
(5) religious rituals (acts and ceremonies)

So, shall we?

(1) belief in a deity or in a power beyond the individual
This is the easiest to establish. The power, of course, is climate change. Belief in this power requires faith. You not only have to believe that mankind is actually capable of destroying an environment that existed 4 billion years before we ever showed up, you also have to believe that it is, in fact, happening. That, furthermore, requires faith in the individuals or groups presenting the information supporting it. There's a LOT to swallow here. It parallels religion even further in that the belief in this power is presented as "established fact" and any argument to the contrary is harshly demonized by adherents to the religion.

(2)a doctrine (accepted teaching) of salvation
Also known as "dogma", this is the real meat and potatoes of any religion. In the Church of Green, the dogma is eco-guilt. Eco-guilt is the manifestation of the belief that we, the human race, are nasty, ugly, selfish creatures that systematically destroy our environment without regard for consequence. Similar to "original sin", this belief maintains that we are all born into this selfishness and must spend our lives atoning.

(3) a code of conduct
"Living Green". There's a laundry list of rules here... far more than I could fit in this post. Just for fun, though, lets come up with a Ten Commandments of The Church of Green, shall we?

1. Thou Shalt Recycle Thy Waste, Regardless of Personal Expense.
2. Thou Shalt Purchase Organic and Recycled Products, Regardless of Personal Expense.
3. Thou Shalt Be Mindful of Thy Carbon Footprint.
4. Thou Shalt Purchase Carbon Offsets, Regardless of the Fact That Thou Art Being Scammed.
5. Thou Shalt Drive a Hybrid
6. Thou Shalt Vote Democrat.
7. Thou Shalt Support Legislation Regulating Corporate Emissions, Regardless of Potentially Devastating Loss of Employment in a Bad Economy
8. Thou Shalt Oppose Fossil Fuel Energy Sources in Favor of Renewable Sources Such as Wind and Solar, Regardless of Impracticality
9. Thou Shalt Limit Thy Travel to Protect Thy Environment.
10. Thou Shalt Reduce Thy Contribution to Climate Change.

A little tongue in cheek? Sure. But they're all true, and like any religion some are easy to follow and others are widely disregarded... especially those last two. Luckily, just like the "indulgences" offered by the Catholic Church in the 15th century, "Carbon Offsets" are available to alleviate the guilt of violating the tenants of the church. These offsets include paying someone to plant carbon-munching trees, or investing in alternative energy sources. Interestingly, and unfortunately, there is no established scientific means of determining one's carbon footprint (this doesn't stop anyone from trying, and claiming to be authoritative on the subject), nor is there any real oversight in the carbon offset industry.

Oh, and btw, Al Gore? Ya know, the Pope of the Church of Green? Yeah, that guy. He has one of the largest carbon footprints on the planet ($30,000 utility bill, anyone?) and he buys carbon offsets. Conveniently, he even OWNS the company he buys them from. That's right. Al Gore buys carbon offsets from... himself. Ain't that grand?

(4)the use of sacred stories

Speaking of Al Gore, he wrote the Bible of the Church of Green. It's called An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It. The movie even won an Oscar!

Unfortunately, it's full of factual errors and hyperbole. It's one big, pretty, slickly produced scare scam. There's a LOT of criticism out there to cite for you, but I'll just pick the easiest to dig up and ask you to do a little research on your own if you're interested on the subject. If you're really interested, I can even recommend some books on the subject. But here's a little sample of criticism to get you started:

A March 13, 2007 article in The New York Times reported on concerns among some scientists about the tone and the accuracy of the film, noting that they "argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous." Gore's discussion of a rise in sea level of up to 20 feet (6.1 m), while not stating a timeframe, appears in contrast with a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predicts a maximum rise of 23 inches (580 mm) this century, excluding non-linear effects on ice sheets; although that too discusses the possibilities of higher rises if the ice sheets melt. The article also states that "a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium."

(5)religious rituals (acts and ceremonies)
This is anything from the act of sorting recyclables, to watching Planet Green! Yes, there is an entire television channel devoted to The Church of Green. It's a part of the Discovery Channel family of programming and it's channel number 286 on my Directv package. I just looked.

Moreso than any of that, the major religious ritual of the Church of Green has become the act of protest. Let me relay a story from my own hometown of Castlewood, Virginia. A major utility company is building a rather large power production plant here. This is a very small, rural area with a rather large unemployed population, and the jobs this plant offers will be absolutely invaluable. Nearly everyone in the area is absolutely thrilled about its construction. However, a group representing the Church of Green from Northern Virginia (near Washington, DC) caught wind of its construction and has begun fighting it tooth and nail. They've gathered lawyers who are systematically challenging every permit the utility company acquired for the plant's construction, and groups of well-meaning but very misguided college students have periodically chained themselves to the gates of the construction site, preventing construction workers from accessing the site.

There are thousands of examples just like this one, but this just happens to be one happening close to home. As you can see from this rather long but hopefully informative and entertaining post, what began as a few well intentioned, if misinformed, individuals doing what they thought was the right thing has been twisted and corrupted into a full blown religion for the masses. It's my belief that everyone needs to be a part of something bigger than themselves. We all need to believe in something... anything really... to give our lives purpose and meaning. The Church of Green just happens to be an attractive, socially encouraged means of fulfilling this basic human need. It's just such a shame that it's a complete sham.

So... thoughts?

 

[Nitafrong]

Well humorous yes, I will easily grant you that (and I am being honest here, not nastily sarcastic ). It’s much easier to read a long piece like this one when it does stick its tongue into its cheek every so often. Long drawn out angry diatribes often loose their effect in print and come across as whinging

While I agree with your overall point- that there are those who look upon climate change as a religion, and thus foolishly refuse to consider all the arguments put forward. I however believe that the same can be said for the other side too. You illustrated it yourself in your reference to The Inconvenient Truth. Rather than deal with the whole film as a source, you found a criticism of one fact and used that as if to try and discredit the entire film. From what I have read I know you are a more intelligent debater than that, so I must assume you are doing it wilfully.... just like the people who support the theory of climate change do when refusing to look at the arguments of the other side The discredit at all costs approach I call it.

In any case I am not looking to argue the existence of climate change or how strong it is, as it is a very complicated argument and as I am assuming (another assumption here again?) that you have no specialist expert knowledge in this field, we would regress to scanning through the internet to get facts which I would view as pointless.

My main point (I do have one somewhere here) goes against your suggestion that man could not harm a planet that has survived for countless generations before our existence. Surely you see the fallacy in this rationale? Many species have already been wiped out in the past, including hundreds of breeds of great Dino lizards. If you accept this then you accept that it is possible for factors to change the earth’s ecosystem to kill off millions. Considering man's great power, do you see it as impossible for us to wipe ourselves out? I liken the argument to smoking, or drinking. Just because your body has the potential to live for many years doesn't mean you can drastically shorten this through the use of chemicals. Can the same argument not be used for the world, but on a much larger scale?

Again as I say, I only have a hazy understanding of the full facts of climate change. Using the points I made above though I do believe that it is easily possible for us to cause mass destruction on our planet through pollution, and that we may be currently doing so. So yes I believe in the overall message of the church of green- we must live more sustainably- though I agree with you that buying fully into the church as many have done is foolish. At the end of the day, they are doing it for the benefit of humans and to save lives ostensibly. Directly harming the standard of living of others in order to effect minor change is not a very good way to attempt to achieve this.

So yeah don't buy into the church of green. However don't buy into the church of anti-green either, it tends to be just as virulent

 

[Dexter]

I was really more interested in arguing the green movement as a cult than I was arguing the existance of climate change, though I figured that's probably what this thread would lead to, if in fact it lead to anything at all. Rather it didn't, but debates go where they go and I have no control over that. So, that having been said...

You illustrated it yourself in your reference to The Inconvenient Truth. Rather than deal with the whole film as a source, you found a criticism of one fact and used that as if to try and discredit the entire film.

You're right, that's exactly what I did, for a couple of reasons. One, as I pointed out in the post, is that there's WAAAAY too much criticism for me to spell out here in a single post. That's a whole thread (and a VERY long one, at that) in and of itself. Rather, I was just trying to establish the fact that the criticism exists, and that it exists in a very large scale. If I didn't establish that, that's my own failing.

My main point (I do have one somewhere here) goes against your suggestion that man could not harm a planet that has survived for countless generations before our existence. Surely you see the fallacy in this rationale?

No, I don't see the fallacy in that rationale at all. Not one bit. It's absolutely true. This planet has faced far worse than us, and it's shrugged it off with hardly a scratch. Life finds a way. For a very good example of what I'm talking about here, research The Permian Extinction (link).

Now, that having been said, it most certainly IS possible for mankind to exterminate itself... in a LOT of different ways. Man-made climate change, if it actually existed (which it doesn't, but again, different debate), would only be one way, and not even the most likely way. Hell, we came far closer than most people could ever imagine to thermonuclear annihilation in October of 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis (link). However, human extinction and the complete, utter annihilation of the global ecosystem are VERY VERY different things. "Save the Human Race"? Ok, maybe... in that case, we'll debate the issues. But "Save the Earth"? That requires the ability destroy it first, and we just don't possess it. To think otherwise is to arrogantly ignore 4 billion years of geological and biological history.

 

[Nitafrong]

Ah no, I see agreement between our two view points already So far I have to say I enjoy debating you. Oh well I am sure we will find something else eventually.

I agree with your point that it would be very difficult to actually physically destroy the planet. When life spawned from basically nothing it can always grow again. I didn't know though that, that was a main crux of the argument? Whether the planet was destroyed or simply man seems to me to be a matter of semantics.

So yeah at least you agree with my point that it is possible for us to destroy ourselves (Destroying the planet we will leave to the weapons men- I am sure they will come up with something some day )

My point on the Inconvenient Truth though was simply that in the matter of fairness you should have put something to the effect that there are scientists that support it and those who critique it. (Of course you didn't have to at all. Arguments tend to be weakened by the suggestion that both sides have merrit. So as I say I know why you did that- I just brought it up in my role as Miss fence sitter )

 

[Dexter]

I agree with your point that it would be very difficult to actually physically destroy the planet. When life spawned from basically nothing it can always grow again. I didn't know though that, that was a main crux of the argument? Whether the planet was destroyed or simply man seems to me to be a matter of semantics.

It is semantics, but this is one of those rare cases where semantics matters. It illustrates the arrogance of the whole Green concept. You have to be able to accept the premise that you can actually destroy something before you can accept the goal of preventing its destruction.

As for the difference between destroying mankind vs destroying the entire planet? Still a VERY important distinction. It's an illustration of the PR aspect of the whole green concept. It says something about a movement when "the destruction of mankind" isn't powerful enough for them, and they have to exaggerate even THAT by calling it "the destruction of the planet." Ya know? Think about that.

All that having been said, is it in fact possible for mankind to destroy itself via climate change? Sure, in the same way that it's possible for all the oxygen in the room you're sitting in right now to end up in the far corner as you suffocate to death. In other words, if you really really want me to admit that possibility, I will, but that doesn't mean it's even remotely bloody fucking likely.

In the 200+ years since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, temperatures haven't dramatically changed. The rate of extinctions has not increased. Sea level has not risen. Polar ice caps have not melted. All this doom and gloom has JUST. NOT. HAPPENED. It's not going to happen. It's bullshit. 30 years ago, it wasn't global warming we were worried about. It was global cooling. Mankind, in his hubris, had devastated his environment to the point that we were plunging ourselves into an ice age. Now, 30 years later, are you wearing a parka and going to work on your dog sled? Of course not. Nor will you be swimming to work in 2039.

Also, an interesting point to note. If climate change really DID happen as currently predicted over the next 50 years? It would actually SAVE more lives than it destroyed via reduced deaths to extreme cold in lesser developed countries. Just a fun fact, not really relevant to the debate but I thought you guys might be interested. (Source: Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming by Bjorn Lomborg. Excellent book, btw).

 

[Nitafrong]

Hmmm I see we are already slipping into the argument onto the existence of climate change- (or rather not slipping- its an argument you would very much like to go down it seems ) I shall leave that to someone else on this forum- surely there are others who support the idea and have the relevant facts at hand?

I don't really agree with your analogy of the air in the room- basically you just picked something virtually impossible. I believe climate change has much more potential than that and so I will continue with what I believe is a much more apt metaphor- the smoker. As with the world, your body is a life system. Smoke a little- your body can probably cover it- smoke too much- you will end your life quicker. (Unless you are one of those people smokers always tell me about- there 96 year old granddad who smoked 60 a day and was still nipping girls behinds late into his 80's )

With regard to the extinction of animals the facts you speak of (if I am thinking of the right ones) are more to do with the twisting of data than looking at them correctly. More animals have died out in the last 300 years than they have for hundreds and hundreds of years- however as man is still discovering more and more animals the number of total species is not drastically reducing. In addition I can't really question Bjorn's book as I haven’t read it- but I doubt the validity of his claims. In a lot of the poorer countries of the world there tends to be some degree of population balance- I doubt the shifting of weather patters, crop cycles and mean temperatures would result in population growth. However I can't back any of this up, like you were able to. Just my own unsubstantiated belief.

Finally in an interesting point to your interesting point, if climate change was to occur I personally would have to wear a "parka". (We just tend to say coat/warm coat/fluffy coat ) Apparently if the polar ice caps were to melt it would divert the gulf stream- and we would gain similar temperatures during winter as our counterparts on this latitude in the American continent. It would lead to something like 5 months of winter or something. Brrr

 

[X]

You are not alone Dexter, Shocky and myself among others on here have long stood behind the fact that climate change is as likely to bring an end of days as an army of rabid kangaroos. People seem incapable of understanding that climate change is a normal thing, and has taken place more than once in our planet's history (this isn't even close to the worst warming period our planet has gone through). What angers me even more is that people seem to think that humans are responsible for the things happening right now; the same humans that contribute a grand total of about 1% of carbon emissions to this planet. But, this is besides the point.

I cannot agree with you more about the cult of green Dexter, and I love this thread (if I could rep you, I would). I'm all for environmentally friendly lifestyles and cutting down on pollution, but when it starts to dominate politics and everyday life, it's gone too far. A carbon tax is one of the main things that have led me to this belief; any tax that will effectively tax us for the air we breathe is simply unacceptable and anyone who supports it needs to try and give me a reasonable explanation for why we need to pay taxes for our "carbon footprint" when that footprint makes up less than 1/100th of emissions.

Damn, I wanted to get into more about this, but unfortunately I have to be off. Great thread Dex.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I do agree with CoG that it can't be good to be putting all those emissions in the air, but it stop right there. I have never been of the idea that the climate is changing at such a rapid pace that we are all going to drown in a sea of glacial melt.

For every place on the Earth that ice is melting, it is getting harder packed somewhere else, for instance Greenland, which has the hardest ice pack it has had in 300,000 years according to some reports. Furthermore, I am of the impression that if a lot of ice melts, and sea levels rise, that the reflective properties of the water covering more of Earth will cool the Earth back down. Climate is cyclical. Plus, the disciples of Gore blame every change of the weather on global warming. It's hotter, it's global warming. Blizzards in April, global warming. Well, which is it?

Al Gore stands to become a billionaire because of climate change theory. That will help pay his $10,000 monthly power bill and for his private trips on chartered jets. Maybe that's why he pushes climate change theory so hard....

I also agree with you in that it is arrogant of us to believe we can change the planet. Life sprung up from nothing, and I am supposed to believe that we can end it all by smoking cigarettes and making plastic? Furthermore, if some of the biomass of the Earth died, wouldn't that allow for more to grow? I mean, when there are less birds, there are more beetles, right?

And finally, when I saw the title "Church of Green" I was sure that it result in X and I sharing a pew and a blunt.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

You are not alone Dexter, Shocky and myself among others on here have long stood behind the fact that climate change is as likely to bring an end of days as an army of rabid kangaroos.

You've obviously never been to Australia. A bill was recently passed to allow them to buy sub-automatic weapons. Marsupials 4 Lyfe homie. But onto the matter at hand. Dexter this is a great thread, and I don't think you're alone on this matter.

In terms of the debate of the "Church Of Green", I too believe that it is not as dire as some might state. It is a natural phenomena that has been overexposed and overhyped to the leviathan proportions of which we can't comprehend. But the extent of this is probably most felt in developing countries. The powerful westernized countries of the world are using the idea that "Carbon Dioxide emissions have to be cut for us to live". The only problem is that most of the western world did it for most of the industrial revolution. Now we are powerbrokering to other countries such as China and India, saying "You can't develop because you cause global warming".
Are we voicing actual concern here? Or are we using a thinly veiled excuse to keep our postion as top dog?

Then theres the idea of a "Carbon Emission Trading Scheme". In Australia, a bill has been proposed to let this go forward, but was defeated wuite definatively. This involves the purchasing off of your carbon emissions, and creating an entire industry out of it. How is this any different from the idea of buying "indulgences" in The Middle Ages? The Roman Catholic Church charged for you to be free of your sins, which is just a ridiculous as you "buying off" or "offsetting" your minute amount of greenhouse gas.
If you really want to be frank about the larger issue at hand, we can look at environmental issues as whole. Mistakes such as banning DDT, a compound which stopped millions of deaths by Malaria and nearly eradicated the disease in the world are pretty close on par with this. And yet, businesses involved in green energy will soar because of it, and people won't mind, because they'll be too scared of errors in facts like those in "An Inconvinient Truth" to want to find out the truth. It sucks.

 

[jokeboy624]

This is a classic example of people taking a good thing and going to far with it. What they fail to realize is that they are pushing people away who are genuinely concerned with helping to fix the problem with their over zealousness. It's all or nothing, there is no middle ground and they require you to give up everything that makes you comfortable so that you may live a guilt-free existence.

I don't want to take this thread down this road, but I have to disagree with some of the ideas stated. While our CO2 emissions may only range from 1-3% of the total emissions, the issue is not with how much is emitted; it is with how much is absorbed by the planet. It has been shown by looking into core ice samples that the Earth has had a range of 180-300 ppm atmospheric CO2 from 647,426 BC, but in 2006 it was 382 ppm.

This coincides with an increase in temperatures, which are the highest ever recorded.
I’m not trying to convince you that humans HAVE affected climate change, but to say there is no way that we haven’t had an effect is slightly naïve.