We should know better without the "moral imperative" - Updated again


Don't jump on the global warming bandwagon without recognizing what it demands.

Once again, "why does your enlightenment demand that I sacrifice?"

I know from experience that Paganism and my brand of politics don't mix well in the minds of other American Pagans. That's a big reason why I have both a political blog and a Pagan blog.

Starhawk had a piece in Newsweek's On Faith blog collection called Climate change, the moral imperative of our age. That phrase "moral imperative" should be lighting up all sorts or danger signals in your mind. Especially if you are not allowed to dissent or even question why.

That "moral imperative" argument is something that the um, more enthusiastic members of the Big Three have been using against alternative faiths for centuries. It's incredibly dangerous, especially when backed by the coercive power of government.

What's moral for one group isn't necessarily moral to another. "Moral" decisions about medication kept my maternal grandmother in extreme pain for twenty-five years. "Moral" decisions mean that Catholic charities are usually tax deductible but Pagan charities aren't without three times the paperwork. "Moral" decisions mean that same sex marriages, poly marriages, and group marriages aren't given the same legal status as the "normal" ones.

I don't think that there's sufficient evidence to show that human carbon is changing the climate. The science is amazingly shakey. I think that it's a political move. Even Starhawk reveals her bias in her article when she suggests biofuels as a replacement for gasoline. Biofuels produce just as much carbon (and often more) than gasoline and diesel, they require massive amounts of plant matter that has to be raised, harvested, and refined (adding to the "carbon footprint") before it can be used. In the U.S., ethanol subsidies are very thinly disguised subsidies for corn farmers. Ethanol can't be stored or transported as easily as gasoline, and ethanol spills are a bigger threat to the environment.

Speaking of the environment, that is one thing I take very personally about the anthropomorphic anthropogenic global warming crowd. Every other environmental issue has been forced to take second or third tier to global warming. We're not even allowed to discuss those problems until global warming has been solved. There is a tremendous problem with the water table dropping in the Western U.S. and we're supposed to put that aside for a while.

You see, I can measure air pollution. I can measure soil pollution. I can measure water pollution. I can even measure noise pollution or light pollution. But I can't measure "excess" carbon. How do I differentiate carbon dioxide that came from L.A. traffic from the carbon dioxide that came from the fifty or sixty volcanic eruptions that happen annually? How do I distinguish the methane from domestic cattle from dolphin farts and wood rot deep in the rain-forest? How can I say that THIS carbon is good while THAT carbon is bad? The amount of environmental carbon stays pretty much the same, just the form changes.

That brings up two other issues. Why is the only solution government restriction of liberty? Why can't we plant more trees or encourage people to keep gardens?

Finally, why should we assume that the planet is incapable of controlling it's own climate and it's own carbon? We of all people should know better.

_____
Update - Regular reader BTHO pointed out on 24Feb2010 that the correct term is anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic.

Posted: Tue - December 22, 2009 at 02:57 PM
 ◊ 
 ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Technopagan Yearnings
© 2005 - 2010   All Rights Reserved