Craig C. Clarke made one of the all-time great comments about delayers and deniers over at Media Matters:
1. If you are concerned about global warming but haven’t reduced your energy usage to zero, you
are a hypocrite.
2. Therefore it’s obvious that the only way to not be a hypocrite is to not care about global warming.
3. Since you care about gobal warming and I don’t, it then naturally follows that I am more
moral than you.
4. The more vociferously I show my disdain for global warming concerns, the more I flaunt my
consumption, the more moral I become.
Goodness, it’s a wonderful world. Unrestrained capitalism, deregulation, global warming denial,
“the earth is here for us to use up until the rapture…”
Isn’t it such a wonderful coincidence that obviously the best, most moral course in all matters is to act totally out of Randian self-interest, with no empathy; like a glutton or a sociopath ... and I just so happen to be a selfish prick?
On ‘climategate’
What to make of the new climate poll
Comments
View as Flat
Bart Anderson Posted 4:51 am
23 Jan 2009
It sends a very powerful message when people actually live up to their ideals. Why is it so bizarre to expect people to avoid flying? Or to start thinking about ways to celebrate that don't reek so strongly of energy hogdom?
Maybe there are less energy intensive alternatives to events that require people to travel long distances. Maybe we ought to concentrate on LOCAL affairs.
Environmentalists are asking many people to change their ways. If they are not willing to take the first steps, who will be?
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:57 am
23 Jan 2009
Burning your house down is flaunting your consumption too. Why don't you give that a try? It has the same effect on you as your espoused policies do on thousands of people in the Pacific Northwest that will lose their houses to fires forced by Global Warming.
Drink down a nice tall glass of H2SO4 while you're at it. It's just a common chemical present in lakes and rivers all over the Northeast thanks to coal burning. You don't seem to think it hurts the fish. A carbonic acid chaser would do you good as well since the CO2 in the oceans is acidifying the water. Science says these substances might be harmful to you but you don't buy that namby-pamby science stuff do you?
What you object? Could it be that you aren't actually ignorant but paid shills for polluters? Surely that is the more likely case.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
jestbill Posted 8:47 am
23 Jan 2009
The "ideals" in this case have to do with spreading the word, not with avoiding energy consumption. It's important to remember the subject of the discussion. If it takes glitz to spread the word, then use glitz: it's a matter of leverage, not of specific actions.
But then, who are these "environmentalists" who "are not willing to take the first steps?" There's quite a difference between "first steps" and zero consumption--your brush is too broad.
I haven't owned a vehicle for nearly 40 years. Are you still waiting for me to take a first step?
Where have all the horses gone?
Permalink
hapa Posted 11:15 am
23 Jan 2009
run through the list of crimes that the movie critic talked about and every one of them has a near-term policy response ready and waiting.
it WOULD be pretty easy for sundance -- one of the world's biggest media confabs -- to pass the hat to the industry and raise capital for a true push past offsets into zero-ness for the event -- consistent with redford's own environmental activism -- and it would be a good chance to highlight the work of neighboring RMI.
but i think when you look at a big event like this -- an institution -- i don't think it's quite the same as what you would expect from an individual; for instance, my home does NOT run on renewable energy but no one in their right mind would describe my advocacy of clean power as "greenwashing" -- because it's advocacy -- not public relations.
i'm not a public figure, it's not about "my image," it's about "our future."
still -- at every level you have to ask, "what have you really accomplished" -- but once you get up to that institutional level the motives really start being important.
(al gore's rep is an open target, rightly so. he's loaded and he's heavily invested in clean tech. what he has is both a very productive commitment to a greener future and a conflict of interest. although he's also "doing good and doing right" so where's the conflict. he thinks it's the future. he's investing in the future. SHOCK.)
the main crime of the NYT writer was in not interviewing someone from the festival about their greening plans. that oversight, because the writer is not a real reporter, with a real news editor watching over.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 2:26 pm
23 Jan 2009
That seems to be the case here. NY Times points out some hypocrisy, and the daggers comes out.
Wrong reaction.
Why not say, "Mmmm, maybe they are right. If we're getting flak from the NY Times, we will continue to be criticized in the future by lots of people.
"Let's look to see what can be done. What are other groups doing? We can't be perfect, but we certainly can improve our own performance."
What would this accomplish?
It would model thoughtful, non-defensive behavior. We are all going to need to accept criticisms of our behavior, whether we are environmental film directors or the managers of coal companies.
It would give recognition to people who are thinking about greener ways of life.
Those who attend Sundance are rich and/or creative. If they aren't prepared to be innovative, who will be?
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Russ Posted 9:34 pm
23 Jan 2009
But what is needed is the elimination of high-impact luxury consumption.
And therefore a basic moral, character criterion for anyone who claims to care about climate change or energy and environmental issues and values in general is that he purge such luxury consumption from his own lifestyle.
Otherwise, he has more in common with a "family-values" republican who cheats on his wife than with a principled activist.
What's even the point of claiming a principle if it's not actually living the principle which invigorates you as a human being?
(Certainly, as a matter of flexible tactics, you do what you have to do. In a war one should not unilaterally disarm in any way.
If it takes glitz to spread the word, then use glitz: it's a matter of leverage, not of specific actions.
This is true, although "if" is a question-begging word.)
Hypocrites, on the other hand, are just mere creatures seeking some wretched temporal gratification - money, whatever.
I fear, alas, that many among the environmental PTB revile this truth (in the past I've been attacked for expressing it).
Permalink
hapa Posted 9:53 pm
23 Jan 2009
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:08 pm
23 Jan 2009
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:40 am
24 Jan 2009
They insist that status quo energy economy policies, like invasion, occupation, and nation building to obtain oil is good for the nation. And that GHG climate change is a liberal hoax designed to undermine our culture.
In fact oil wars, gas guzzling, and energy policy that benefits the multi-national corporate bottomine at the expense of our economy and climate, is handing our american revolution right back into the hands of entities that began with feudal institutions like the British East India Tea Company.
How is that for hypocrisy? It kind of makes an eco-activist riding in limos and jets, who advocates green energy indpendence, a real patriot by comparison.
We all depend upon the present combustion powered technology our culture has embraced, but some of us want to change that. And revive the american revolution. Meanwhile the limboobs want to cancel the constitution and live under the corporatist thumb. Which hypocrisy hurts more?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Angelsnecropolis Posted 10:21 am
24 Jan 2009
- Edmund Burke
My father is a supervisor for a coal-power plant and is, obviously, an AGW denier. He calls me a hypocrite because I don't live in a mud house. I tell him I'm doing everything I can within my financial means and by helping others and my community do the same.
However, I fear that if we are able to save the climate then the deniers and polluters will just say, "Ha! Told you nothing would happen." And then nothing changes and we still have an impending crisis. Basically a delaying of the inevitable. I almost think humanity needs a good beat down to put it in its place. Of course it's not fair to the poor or the rest of the natural eco-system. I'm not very optimistic that humanity will learn in time. I think humanity will screw this up. Humans don't take the necessary precautions to prevent disasters until AFTER they occur (aka Katrina). But this time AFTER will be too late.
Permalink
katakanadian Posted 4:08 am
25 Jan 2009
Permalink