Arguments over energy tend to get technical, quickly: EROI, dollars per kilowatt, reserve estimates, capital costs, carbon lifecycles, ad infinitum.
Take a step back.
The argument against cutting fossil-fuel use is that it will cost too much. The economy couldn't take it. It's too hard.
It brings to mind something I read in Jeff Goodell's Big Coal -- a quote from an interview with author Ian Frazier, about Lincoln and slavery:
The arguments against slavery were always bumping up against this: "But it's an institution that's been around forever! What would happen if we got rid of it? How would you pay the people who lost their slaves, their valuable property? How would we harvest? It's not practical. What would we do?"
Lincoln's great moment was saying, "I don't care if it's destructive. Slavery is wrong."
You start with, "Is it right or wrong?" Then you act on that judgment. You don't say, "I'm not going to say it's wrong because it would be too impractical to undo."
Enriching despotic regimes, ravaging our landscapes, sickening the most vulnerable among us, and destabilizing our atmosphere are wrong.
So we should stop.
Period.
Comments View as Flat
Jason D Scorse Posted 6:26 am
25 Jul 2006
No, we shouldn't....
there is no moral case against burning some amount of fossil fuels- there is PERHAPS a moral case to burning excess amounts that lead to widespread destruction- big difference
but....
there are much more morally egregious forms of behavior than driving a car or turning on the lights:
- torturing animals for food is #1- yes, probably 99% of animals raised for food are tortured repeatedly throughout their lives for that hamburger or chicken cutlet
- almost all commercial fishing is leading to massive destruction of the oceans
J.S.Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:42 am
25 Jul 2006
Heaven Help Us
I can live and die in peace with the first three wrongs. The Earth will heal.
But, "destabilizing our atmosphere" is fatal, a thousand times worse than all other wrongs.
Don't carpool alone.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 8:08 am
25 Jul 2006
Head tax
If fossil fuel burning is just wrong, consumption tax on it is morally indistinguishable from a bribe to the authorities to overlook it; only a little different from paying a set, presumably large, fee for the right to kill one neighbour.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
Boron: internal combustion, nuclear cachet
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 10:39 am
25 Jul 2006
Constitutional based laws not moral
From a historically basis we have gotten in trouble when we seek to implement laws based on moral issues. It seems best if we act upon constitional grounds, a document that was to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity which we amended to include more than simply white males.
I believe that what we did regarding slavery was in accordance with a growing view of the constitutional application of liberty.
Perhaps we need an environmental amendment to the constitution.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:41 pm
25 Jul 2006
Beware of morality and politics
It is very tempting to describe actions I don't like as just "wrong", and say "stop it". This works sometimes with kids, but not so well with adults. (And is not what works best with kids, but I could be wrong about this one!)
Morality is tough in this world. Calling things "wrong" allows us to call the people who do them "bad", and that allows us to do all sorts of "bad" things to them (they are bad anyway, so what we do to them doesn't matter). A case can be made for this, but it does seem dangerous to me.
I prefer concentrating on positive change and solutions if possible, and leaving the notion of sin to the spiritual sphere of life.
patrick
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:57 am
26 Jul 2006
Patrick- this is a rare time...
that I agree with you 100%- this morality crusade we are seeing developed is really scary....
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:10 am
26 Jul 2006
Goodell...
... said to me in our interview that greens tend to shy away from the moral dimensions of environmental issues, to an almost paranoid degree. I thought he was exaggerating. I guess not.
American history is replete with popular movements based on moral sentiment. Every great American leader has appealed to the country's sense of right and wrong. It is only in the last few decades that progressivism has abandoned moral language as "scary" and repressive and ... gasp ... judgmental. As a result, they've ceded the entire moral arena -- not to mention a large swath of voters, who care very much about right and wrong -- to the nags and scolds on the right. It's unwise, unstrategic, and completely unnecessary.
Our energy policy produces unnecessary suffering, both in the present and for future generations. That's wrong, and we shouldn't be uptight about saying so.
www.grist.org
Green is the new
blackred white and bluegreen.Permalink
sunflower Posted 2:46 am
26 Jul 2006
Global warming is a global moral issue.
If not right or wrong, then what? Why so many statements and so few questions?
Is environmentalism a religion holding inquisitions on phraseology? I pray not.
Elitist exclusivity will not save us or our environment. Almost everybody else makes decisions based on what is right and wrong. I know I do.
Cassandra told me this morning she would become Episcopalian because of their moral statements concerning global warming. I am encouraged by these developments of moral maturity.
Don't carpool alone.
Permalink
mihan Posted 2:55 am
26 Jul 2006
Judgement day
I agree. One of the things that makes Al Gore's movie so compelling to non-environmentalists (i.e. none of us) is precisely that he does frame global warming as a moral issue.
Turning on the lights or driving a car is not immoral. What's immoral is that we have little choice. A low-wage worker in an expensive city must live far away. If that person has family responsibilities, s/he can't afford to spend hours on slow public transportation: it's immoral that we underfund public transport. A tenant whose electric utility burns coal to generate electricity must light her/his home with coal: it's immoral that we don't aggressively fund energy alternatives. A subsistence fisherman in the developing world has no control over sea levels rising: it's immoral that we don't think of the global consequences of our over-consumption.
These are moral issues, and, as such, they are hard to address because they involve systemic changes; meanwhile, our leaders are too busy "debating" (for example) burning bits of colored nylon.
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:29 am
26 Jul 2006
The Morality of the Market
What I find interesting, as an atheist and member of a Unitarian Universalist church, is that the people who most object to talking about the consequences of using fossil fuels are the ones who relentlessly promote a religion known as economics as the source of all wisdom and guidance for human behavior. Apparently the only morality acceptable as a guide to behavior is the morality of the market.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:14 pm
26 Jul 2006
Morality 101
I understand the temptation to use morality as an underpinning for an environmental campaign. And it is true that historically it has been used (as David says) numerous times in American history. But, many of those uses have failed.
Look at prohibition. Failed.
Anti-drug campaigns. Failed.
Anti-war campaigns. Failed.
Anti-gamblilng campaigns. Failed.
Leaders often use morality as a way of not talking about facts, and
explaining the truth about life.
Morality often includes concepts such as "you will go to hell if you do this" (sin), and punishment (sin).
I am not arguing that the concepts of right and wrong should not exist in society. They do and should.
But in America, if we want to use morality, what is the basis of that morality? Christianity? What if I'm not a Christian? Do I have to become one to be considered a "moral environmentalist"? (Years ago, I was told that I could not be involved in a certain kind of volunteer work because I was not a Christian, and only Christians possessed the needed (or right kind) of morality).
I certainly don't object to talking about the consequences of environmental choices. In fact, I absolutely insist on it! (smile).
But just as I don't label people who eat meat or drive cars as immoral, neither do I want others to be busily dividing the world into the moral and immoral.
It is possible to talk about personal choices without using such terms.
For instance, people ask me if I like fish. I say yes, I do, very much (true), but that I make the sacrifice of not eating fish because of the problems caused by over-fishing. That each time, I can choose to make or not make that sacrifice. That doing so makes me feel good and is for me, and act of love towards my planet/my home.
But I always add, that I don't regard those who do eat fish as immoral, that it is just a choice I have made based on my own personal understandings and needs. That others should make their choices based on THEIR needs and understandings, and that I don't judge them.
See, no talk of morality!
There is another problem with morality. In the West, we don't really have the concept of institutional morality clearly defined. So, that moral choices end up being about individuals, not institutions. A lot of our environmental problems come from instititutional decisions.
Nice to agree Jason!
patrick
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:45 pm
26 Jul 2006
Kindergarten level ethics
"there are much more morally egregious forms of behavior than driving a car or turning on the lights:"
Someone want to explain what is wrong here? Anyone? No?
Oh ok, I'll do it.
Bobbie: Miss Crabtree, Justin tripped me!
Justin: But Miss Crabtree, Tommy hit Bobby with a stick. That's much worse.
Miss Crabtree: Justin, just because what Tommy did was worse doesn't mean what you did was right. Can you understand that?
Justin: Ahhh... well no Miss Crabtree.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
kmp Posted 1:10 am
27 Jul 2006
Ethics
Patrick said:
I have to disagree - "institutional morality" is also known as "ethics." Doctors have codes of ethics, lawyers have codes of ethics... journalists are supposed to have codes of ethics. Nearly every company you work for will have some "Code of Conduct" policy, which is essentially their day-to-day code of ethics for employees.
Morality tends to imply religion but it doesn't really mean a religious morality - it means "concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong" (from hyperdictionary.com). I can see where the good & evil part leads one directly to religion, but I for one do not believe that religious faith of any variety is required in order to believe in evil (or good for that matter).
Ethical, on the other hand, is defined as "conforming to accepted standards of social or professional behavior." It seems we can more easily discuss right & wrong in terms of ethics than we can in terms of morality, although IMO, there is very little difference between the two concepts.
FWIW I don't practise any religion and in fact have issues with most organized religions (for a concept that is supposed to promote peace, it is such a handy tool with which to foment hate) yet that does not mean that I do not, every day, make decisions about what is right and what is wrong.
I expect, in the end, that there is not so much difference between the religions of the world. To return to DrX's schoolyard analogy, say Justin pushes Bobby off the monkey bars for no reason. Just 'cause. In which religion would that be OK? In which would it be grounds for everlasting hellfire?
In the end, it is all about right and wrong which I expect is more universal than we think.
Kaela
Permalink
L Mo Posted 2:26 am
27 Jul 2006
Morality 201
Patrick's view of morality deserves some comment. It appears to me that Patrick, in the hopes of remaining a tolerant person, is endorsing a view of morality known in philosophical circles as 'emotivism.' Roughly, emotivism is the view that when someone, like Patrick, says "Eating fish is wrong" what that statement really means is "Eating fish...Boo!!" In other words, to say "Eating fish is wrong" is just to express an emotion with respect to fish eating (hence the name of the view, "emotivism").
Patrick sounds like he believes that moral statements are just expressions of emotion, and therefore he wants to avoid them and instead be honest about his beliefs concerning fish eating.
As a general view, emotivism cannot be correct. No one really and honestly believes that the statement "murder is wrong" is merely an expression of the speaker's emotional response to thought of murder, akin to "Oh, murder?...Yuck!" Murder is wrong because it is a violation of the basic principles of justice, such as treating other human beings always as an end in themselves and never merely as a means - a principle that was one of Kant's favorites.
It is hard to see how Patrick's view could serve as a foundation for any form of activism, let alone public policy activism. If the view is that Patrick doesn't eat fish merely because it makes him feel bad, and his feelings are only relevant to him, he has no basis for reasoning with anyone else about eating fish. All he can do is try to manipulate other people in such a way that they will come to feel bad about eating fish, or do nothing.
Patrick does appeal to the consequences of eating fish, but on his emotivist view, those consequences aren't really bad or wrong. They merely make him feel bad, so for him they are relevant but they do not have any force as a reason for not eating fish for anyone else.
All I'm suggesting is that a view like Patrick's makes it impossible to have a rational discussion about moral issues - instead it opens the door to irrational manipulation, exactly the sort of thing Patrick finds objectionable when used by religious people.
Morality, in my opinion, is the collection of those values and principles that can be rationally established and defended without appeal to superstition or mere opinion. In particular cases it can be difficult to determine what morality demands, and sometimes people make mistakes. The explanation for our failures is that we are rationally limited creatures.
Finally, nothing about my view can be used to suggest that I am intolerant, or that I'm required to run around condemning others who eat fish. In the face of evil there are a host of possibly acceptable responses: ignore it, witness it, publicize it, denounce it, mitigate it, prevent it through discussion, prevent it through law, prevent it through force, etc.
To make the claim that burning fossil fuels is immoral does not commit someone to criminalizing it or even denouncing those who do it. It simply establishes (if its true) that certain sorts of reasons can no longer be used to defend it. This was Lincoln's point.
A parting example - I think that adultery is morally wrong. However, I do not think that adultery should be a crime, nor do I think that those who commit adultery should be denounced or ostracized. I would not turn away a friend merely for committing an act of adultery. However, if a friend ask me whether I thought he should commit adultery, I would tell him no, and my reason for giving that advice would not be because I thought adultery was unpleasant or distasteful, but because adultery is wrong - it is a violation of trust.
L Mo
Permalink
ML Posted 3:25 am
27 Jul 2006
Don't fear moral stands
Sunflower, I'm glad that you can "live with" the idea of "sickening the most vulnerable among us".
Unfortunately, the most vulnerable themselves CANNOT "live with it", since they die of emphysema and asthma attacks brought on by the air pollution from fossil fuels (this has been well documented by doctors and scientists).
I agree that, ultimately, the climate crisis is far worse than this because it could end all life on the planet. But, as amazingdrx wrote (can't believe I just wrote that), you don't have to say that one is OK just because the other is worse.
Stop the Fossil Fools! End the Climate Crisis!
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:02 am
27 Jul 2006
Conscientious Objector (right or wrong)
I have traveled around this happy poor world. Cassandra (a doctor) almost died with an asthma attack from an air inversion near Olympia that trapped coal smoke from Centralia. SO2 is toxic to me (a scientist).
I said "I can live and die in peace with the first three wrongs." "In peace" are the operative words. ( I am nonviolent in the extreme. )
I do care about war, love, poverty, money, narcissism, criticism... But I will not dilute my war against global warming with my concerns for other issues. The science of global warming has radicalized me. Nothing else matters to just me as much as stopping global warming.
I am not normally involved in blogs (this is the only one).
As a former journalist I was trained to not get involved in the story. But this story is about you and me. We are part of this and we should be asking questions and making statements.
The silence of global warming is wrong. Silence misses the target (the original Samaritan meaning of the word sin). Stop the silence. Speak your mind. Blog on (the press is listening).
Perhaps I have too much time here in this cool thermal mass house, or maybe I'm just avoiding some dirty hot work in the sun... Blog on and on until nobody is silent.
Don't carpool alone.
Permalink
sheldes Posted 5:42 am
27 Jul 2006
fossil fuel morality
There's a guideline I use in my life to determine between right and wrong: Do the consequences of this action lead me to a place I want to be? The consequences of our waste of fossil fuel and electricity are leading us into dependence on terrorist regimes and a bleak future for our descendents. I assume this is not a place we want to be.
Permalink
chermak Posted 7:11 am
27 Jul 2006
Ethics 101
I'm finishing up my masters degree in philosophy, and I find it very interesting what people think about morality. I am interested in ethics (and especially environmental ethics), but I am certainly no Christian. How can this be? It seems many of the comments above from people who believe that morality should not be a part of environmental activism are assuming that morality depends on religion. Well, I thoroughly disagree. In fact, religion often serves as a copout for critical thinking about moral issues. If I just turn to the Pope for all my moral advice, why should I even bother thinking?
Morality is much broader and more important than wedge issues of abortion and gay marriage. Morality is concerned with how we ought to live, and how members of a society can best live together.
The fact is that all political issues are moral issues. It just baffles me how anyone could think that environmental issues are not moral issues, as I sit here writing my thesis on ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS.
And even though I am firmly against organized religion, environmental issues can and must be framed to appeal to all groups. Christians must be stewards of the land.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:23 pm
27 Jul 2006
The Spread of Morality
Dear L Mo,
That was an interesting post, but not really relative to me (smile), since that is not what I think.
We all have morals, and our morality comes in various shapes and flavors. Stealing is generally regarded as immoral under most circumstances. Eating ice cream is rarely regarded as immoral (in the modern US) or as moral. Many things that we do every day are not framed in terms of morality.
The question of morality and environmental choices involves taking more of the things people do and assigning moral values to them. This is not being lightly suggested. If we merely think that that driving an SUV is a bad idea, and that it should not be done, then all we have to do is explain that. But when we say it is immoral, we suggest that the person who does so is bad.
It is lovely to say we will mark acts as immoral without condemning the people who commit them. But, please!!! When have we ever in history done so?? Our history is that once we begin to label things immoral, violence follows soon thereafter. And our morality comes from Christian religious traditions (for the greater part), so to ignore them and pretend that we are talking about morality seperate from religion, well this is just not so.
Is Al Gore immoral because he rides in an SUV? Is America immoral because it is the leading cause of global warming? What should then be done about immoral America?
There is a difference between tossing around philosophical ideas without there being consequences, and advocating ideas which may very well have real life consequences.
Am I immoral? Are you? Who says so, who is the arbiter and what are the consequences.
Yes, I do prefer to appeal to reason.
patrick
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:50 pm
27 Jul 2006
Guard against evil.
Maximum hope from new education comes from chermak, excellent statement. Spot on. It is social ethics we are seeking.
If a country, say for example the United States, is doing something immoral, that does not make the doer immoral. A person or a country is not good or bad, just some actions are immoral, like the permanent destruction of Earth's stable climate and corrupt leadership.
We made a mistake. We did a bad thing. That does not make us bad people.
Don't carpool alone.
Permalink
L Mo Posted 12:47 am
28 Jul 2006
Morality is here, and it's coming for you.
I could talk about these issues all day, but I'll try to be restrained.
Working backwards from Patrick's post:
We are the arbiters of what is right and wrong, and good and evil. We, humanity, are engaged in a debate concerning morality that has been going on for millennia. While it is true that the origins of this debate lie in various religious traditions, many of the most influential moral ideals are the product of the secular Enlightenment that emphasized the use of reason over faith. The concept of a moral right, to not be used and manipulated by others, not to be exploited for the benefit of others, to be treated as an end in oneself, not be subjected to risk of harm without one's consent, equality and egalitarianism, are all the products of secular, rational arguments that have been developed and refined, and ultimately accepted by (most of) us.
Mentioning emotivism was not merely a philosophical exercise. Ideas have real life effects. Emotivism, subjective ethical relativism (the view that statements like "Eating fish is wrong" express propositions that can be true or false, but the truth of the proposition is relative to the person who speaks it, as in "'Eating fish is wrong' is true for me, but may not be true for you"), cultural ethical relativism (the view that statements like "Eating fish is wrong" express propositions that can be true or false, but whether they are is relative to the culture to which the speaker belongs), and error theory (the view that moral statements can be universally true but that it just so happens that they are always false) all result in the unwelcome consequence that all discussions of moral issues becomes either impossible or a disguised form of manipulation. If discussing moral issues becomes impossible or is really a disguised form of manipulation, then our democracy is undermined; in fact, it becomes an illusion.
Whether Al Gore is acting immorally when driving an SUV depends on the alternatives that are open to him. If Driving an SUV is the only available way for him to have a bullet proof car with enough space for his security detail to be in close proximity, then his driving and SUV is probably acceptable. However, if I were to drive one just because I think it is cool, or I'm a slave to fashion, or I like the sense of power - i.e., for no morally legitimate reason, then I would be acting immorally if I drove one. The reason I am acting immorally is that I am contributing to the current and future suffering of others for no good reason. By way of analogy, consider torturing cats for the fun of it. This is immoral behavior. It does not follow from this claim that inflicting suffering on cats is always wrong. There might be legitimate reasons for doing so...like it needs an injection to prevent illness, or doing so will lead to important medical breakthroughs for cats or humans. But doing so for the fun of it is immoral. So too with driving SUVs.
I think is goes without saying that the energy consumption of the United States is at least morally questionable. Given the US contribution to the world economy, perhaps it could be justified in some way. On the other hand, given to amount of the US economy that is devoted to stupid bullsh*t, its very hard to imagine how my desire for a more powerful car engine so that I can drive more aggressively when I have road rage can justify the contribution of my V-8 SUV to global warming. Don't get me started about 5,000 square foot houses and suburban house developments.
Immoral America needs to realize that it (we) are being selfish, that we are jeopardizing the future of the planet for the sake of stupid immediate selfish conveniences and vanity. Vanity is a vice; selfishness is a vice; inconsiderateness is a vice, consumptiveness is a vice; stupidity is a vice. Almost everyone already recognizes these claims to be true. Describing behavior like driving an SUV is moral terms can make clear to people what they already believe - I ought not to be doing this selfish thing.
What needs to be done about immoral America? It needs to change its ways. We, who are concerned about the future of the planet, need to explain to rest of us that what we are doing is wrong. One way to do this is merely to explain the facts. This appears to be Patrick's strategy. However, this is only effective with those people who are merely mistaken about the facts. Most people know the facts. They know that CO2 is released by their SUV and that CO2 contribute to global warming. Yet they continue to drive their SUV. Tell them that they are being selfish, vane, inconsiderate, shortsighted, etc., and you offer them a different KIND of reason to change their behavior
I deny the claim that violence is likely to follow from honestly calling something immoral, unless the violence comes from the other side. The Civil Rights movement was largely non-violence from the side making the claims concerning immorality. We need not expect the Spanish Inquisition to follow. If it does, then we merely replace one immoral practice with another. All social movements must embody the virtues of courage to face opposition and integrity to resist internal corruption.
I cannot quite make sense of the claim that we can separate claiming that an action is a bad idea and assigning moral value to an action. All actions have a moral value. Actions can be forbidden, wrong, neutral, right, required, supererogatory, etc. Why, one might ask, is driving an SUV a bad idea. If your answer is merely factual, the facts might be interesting to me as I might be a science buff. But why should I care about those facts.
Moral reasons, like the ones mentioned above, suggest that the problem does not lie somewhere far away or in the distant future. It also doesn't make the problem a factual or technical problem. Moral reasons suggest that the problem is me or us.
So, I guess I've talked myself right into the position to which Patrick and others are so opposed.
L Mo
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:44 pm
30 Jul 2006
More on Morality
Here is another take on morality, which I should have posted earlier (I am on the road, and it seems to affect my mind (grin)).
One of the reasons for removing morality from the discussion has to do with how we get people to change. L Mo is suggesting that telling people that what they are doing is immoral will encourage them to change.
I disagree.
When we tell people that something is immoral, their instinctive reaction is to defend themselves. At that point, they close the open listening part of themselves and put up walls and barriers. They are closed to change, and react from a defensive point of view.
People change when they have a reason to do so. Their reason, not mine or yours. Very few people change under attack (being called immoral).
patrick
Permalink