Bill McKibben on global warming

[Thats my opinion]

THROTTLING OUR THIRST FOR POISON (11/30)

Bill McKibben is the world’s most significant voice in confronting the crisis generated by global warming. So says TIME magazine, backed up by a solid collection of eminent scientists. Last month McKibben spoke to over two thousand turned-on activists in the prelude to a conference on the subject sponsored by Progressive Christians Uniting and held at the Presbyterian Church in Claremont, California. Several hundred religious activists from around the area met for two days to hear world authorities on the subject, to plan specific actions and to engage in services of worship. McKibben is an active Methodist layman and teaches a Sunday School class at his local Vermont congregation. He also preached Sunday morning at Claremont’s largest protestant church.

James Hansen, a NASA scientist, recently wrote, “If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adopted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggests that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.” In response, McKibben has generated a worldwide movement centered around the “350” focus, believing that the currently verified 410 ppm.. is deadly. The movement’s short-term goal is the reduction of the use of fossil fuels, while forcing the producers to pay for the environmental degradation they generate. These atmospheric insults are simply part of the cost of doing business. There is now all but a unanimous conclusion by the scientific community that the carbon spewed into the air has already raised the earth’s temperature by more than a degree. While warmer air holds more moisture than cooler air, it falls to the ground unevenly. This means floods more severe than have ever been recorded, and droughts that disable entire nations. Vermont and Thailand have been inundated, while Texas and Sub-Saharan Africa are increasingly parched.

One wonders why saving the planet from the inevitable destruction caused by global warming is not at the top of everyone’s agenda. Yet there is a sturdy resistance to taking any of the steps necessary to halt our rush to the precipice. Among the several states, California has generated the greatest concern leading to legislative action. The State has its own version of “cap and trade.” But there is opposition even to the small steps taken. What is the contrary argument? “It’s bad for business.”

The lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal of October 31 makes the negative case. It cites, among other things, that the Western States Petroleum Association calculates these new laws will cost its members—that’s stockholders--$540 million in the first two years. In that period Conoco-Phillips alone will earn 14 billion! While there is obviously a trade-off between climate change policies and economic competitiveness—that translates “profits”—the increasing corporate control of every aspect of American society makes it difficult to deal with what may be the most critical issue facing this planet. Most American politicians are now indebted to corporate money. That means keeping the cash coming trumps the need to reduce atmospheric pollution. One wonders if both corporations, and the politicians in their pockets, would rather have us go off the cliff into environmental oblivion, than to take the simplest steps in controlling global warming.

Of course saving the planet will come at a cost. We will have to develop new sources of energy, which means, in the interim, some jobs will go out of style. We will be paying higher costs for the fuels we now consume. We may need a tax on all carbon generation to cover the costs involved in dealing with the destruction now caused in the air we breathe and the atmosphere which controls our weather. These costs are already build into our economy.

The Wall Street Journal complains that even these simple steps now on California’s books, are futile since the rest of the world is not taking similar measures. So California should do nothing at all. I am hardly compelled by the argument that I should continue to drink poison because everybody else is gulping it down. Paying $6 a gallon for gasoline would be a bitter pill, but that is probably what it would take to throttle our thirst.

[GliderGuider]

1. All good stuff. But why in R/T?

Unless it's an oblique reference to the religion of Eternal Growth, or the Cult of Consumption?

[Thats my opinion]

2. if you read the first sentence

It is about how religion is involved in the issue

[GliderGuider]

3. Ah so that's the link. Well, our use of FF has turned out to be a deal with the Devil for sure...

So are you for or against the religious pursuing environmental activism?

[Thats my opinion]

11. Hi. i don't understand your post. Please explain

The care of the earth is a religious imperative. ---and always has been. For decades the three major foci of the World Council of Churches has been, "Justice Peace, and Integrity of Creation." In progressive churches it is near the top of action concerns.

[skepticscott]

55. "always has been"?

Where in the Old Testament is environmentalism "a religious imperative"? Where was the "religious "imperative" for environmentalism in ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, India or China? What statements of RCC doctrine from the Middle Ages stress the need for environmental activism?

Oh, I get it....for you "always" is no different than "For decades" Sheesh.

[cleanhippie]

4. So what is "religion" doing to combat global warming?

I am unsure of just what religion itself has to do with this.

[kestrel91316]

5. If this piece is McKibben's work you should provide a link. Otherwise

it looks like YOU wrote it. Did you write it, or did he?

[Thats my opinion]

12. This is my weekly media column.

[kestrel91316]

15. Oh, ok. Do you have a web site online where you post also?

[Thats my opinion]

18. My weekly columns run in a number of places

www.sgvexaminer.com (a San Gabriel Valley newspaper)

www.inlandvalleynews.com (an African American newspapers


www.seniorcorrespondent.com

and about 8,000 weekly e-mail lists--to name a few

[kestrel91316]

24. Very cool! Thx.

[cleanhippie]

6. "to plan specific actions and to engage in services of worship" Worship will affect climate change?

How, exactly?

[rug]

8. Only odorless incense will be used.

[cleanhippie]

9. Oh, well in that case...

I can only surmise that you are as perplexed as I am at just how worship can/will affect climate change, as stated in the OP.

[deacon_sephiroth]

7. wrong group? link? Did OWS adopt this as well? N/T

[cleanhippie]

10. I guess that because Bill is a believer and likes to go to church, this is a religious issue.

[Thats my opinion]

13. The entire event which produced the response

was generated by religious groups and held under religious auspices. Try reading the first paragraph.

If you take a look at all the things posted on r/t is there an objection merely because what is posted here is sponsored by religious bodies? Is it only that which seems to put religion in a bad light acceptable on r/t?

[rrneck]

14. All good works. As long as they stay out of politics.

Of course, the most direct and effective reduction would be for religion to reduce it's carbon footprint. Those mega churches suck up a lotta juice.

If care for the earth is a fundamental principal of religion, why does religion behave like just another corporation? When religion cleans up its own house it will have the credibility it needs to effect real social change.

[beam me up scottie]

25. "why does religion behave like just another corporation?"

:applause:

[edhopper]

16. On this forum

I give no quarter to believers. When the debate is God and religion, I see no reason to tolerate these ideas in a rational world.
That said, outside our discussions here I realize, for good or bad, religion and religious institutions are a major force in society. And i can only hope they will align themselves with what is right (from our Democratic/Progressive point of view)
When I Marched on Washington against the Iraq War or went downtown to sit with OWS, I did not ask or care the religious affiliation of the person next to me.

[Thats my opinion]

17. your perspective is well-put.

I never ask anyone's religious or non-religious perspective. If they are with me on the front lines of social policy they are my colleagues.
I find it useless to attack them because of their religious views. When i am attacked by people who socially agree with me, just because I have a religious commitment, I just have to smile politely. The fury gets nobody anywhere we ought to be going;

[cleanhippie]

19. "I never ask anyone's religious or non-religious perspective." But you GIVE yours without asking...

and then complain that people have the nerve to ask you questions about it.


Why?

[laconicsax]

20. Bye. nt

[cleanhippie]

21. He already gave me that response last week...

so much for the thoughtful conversation he wanted.

[laconicsax]

22. I think his weekly column is the kind of thoughtful conversation he wants. n/t

[cleanhippie]

23. Well, considering he is a pastor, he is used to having one-way thoughtful conversations...

When someone asks questions or points out inconsistencies, it is no longer "thoughtful", I guess.

From his blog profile...

About Me

I am one of the founders of the Disciples Justice Action Network (DJAN). However, the views expressed on this blog are entirely my own. I have written eight books on church life. I count myself as a jack-leg theologian. I've been a political columnist and a city politician. But mainly I have been a pastor. I've retired three times and can't seem to get it right. I currently live at Pilgrim Place in California. I am active in the local Democratic party, am a teacher of theology through the Disciples Seminary Foundation, and on the Board of a progressive think tank. I am employed part-time as a coordinator for Progressive Christians Uniting.

http://www.blogger.com/profile/09268712597305157293

Explains a lot, really...

[rug]

26. That's a lot of accomplishment in one life.

And on the right side.

Much more impressive c.v. than Internet Sniper.

[edhopper]

27. If you mean by right side

Progressive causes, I agree.
As far as the last sentence. You have no fucking idea what many of us do in our lives, you have no fucking idea what causes we work for or organizations we support. That we discuss the absurdities of God and religion here does not mean we do not have full, active, progressive lives.
And maybe we do more than sit in a seminary and talk about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[rug]

29. That opinion is based on the evidence presented.

[edhopper]

31. Really

does your God tell you what we do in our real life. Or do you just take it as an article of faith that TMO is more involved that anybody else here, especially us godless cretins.
I see no evidence that you do anything but scan the News for religious stories, but I do not assume that is all you do.

[rug]

32. The evidence is what you type.

And the evidence is the c.v. cleanhippie posted. No need to assume.

You know, if there's a ratty coat laying around there's no need to pick it up and complain that you're wearing a ratty coat. No one called you a godless cretin.

[edhopper]

47. I should have known

irony and sarcasm would be lost on you.

What evidence in what i type tells you I do not work for progressive causes as much or more than TMO.
What evidence do you see that the other "Internet Snipers" as you call us do not do as well.

Of course you never have any evidence in anything you say, just faith that you are right.

[rug]

48. You should introduce yourself to the concept of hyperbole.

[edhopper]

49. You use the word

but I don't think you know what it means.

[rug]

50. I never have any evidence in anything I say

[edhopper]

51. Ah that.

Okay a bit hyperbolic. Though your recent discussion and seeming endorsement about science and ID was sad.

[Thats my opinion]

52. Just quit it, please.

I had nothing to do with that bit of a bio being posted here. It was a snippet from long ago from a blog I posted years back. It got on r/t from someone whose continue stance to me is ridicule. This was just part of his continual smarm, which i don't anymore see until someone calls to my attention that my name was mentioned. I suspect you are doing lots of good things. I never made a comparison, nor did i have any part in the bio. If you want to snarl, leave me out of it.

[edhopper]

54. If you look back at this sub thread

you will see that it started with me praising your involvement.
I think it was just sniping between me and rug. I did not mean to aim any of my jibes at you and apologize if it came across that way.

[cleanhippie]

28. Internet Sniper? Is that what you consider yourself?

Explains a lot, really.

You stay classy, rug. You stay classy.

[rug]

30. No, it's your posting style.

As an example, what might you say on the topic of the death penalty?

Oh yes, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x321312#321369

Sniping. You got it now?

[trotsky]

33. You lecturing anyone else on posting style is laughably pathetic.

Let me use words that should mean something to you: mote, plank.

[rug]

34. And there's a fine example of yours.

[trotsky]

35. You have earned it, buddy.

It's all for you.

[rug]

36. I'm not your buddy, pal.

[trotsky]

43. Likewise. n/t

[cleanhippie]

37. You have GOT to be fucking kidding me!

You, of all the fucking hypocrites on this board (myself included), lecturing ME on Internet sniping?




Now, I have seen it all.



And on my comment to your thread on the pope and the death penalty, my comments was not about the death penalty, but about the fucked up priorities and hypocrisy that the pope exhibits through his leadership of the church. But you know that.

[rug]

38. Keep looking around. They're all over here.

Of course, the main effect is to disrupt any civil discussion on the topics at hand.

[cleanhippie]

39. How is it that you can make comments like that with a straight face?

There is this little tale of a pot and a kettle you that you need to hear...

[rug]

40. Disagreement is not disruption.

OTOH, gratuitous remarks about child rape are.

[cleanhippie]

41. Fortunately, for all of us, you don't get to decide what is disagreement and what is disruption.

As I said, you need to hear this little ditty about a pot and a kettle.

[rug]

42. Hence my original observation.

Keep it up.

[cleanhippie]

44. Hence my original retort.

Stay classy.

[rug]

45. I'm not sure you know what that means.

[cleanhippie]

46. I'm quite sure you do.

And that's what is so disturbing.

[darkstar3]

53. So being a pontificating pastor makes for an impressive C.V.?

I don't think you know the context in which curriculum vitae is generally used...