Yesterday's post had me so disconcerted and upset that I felt I had to continue on for one more day. There are several, specific claims made by the Cornwall Alliance, the group behind the "Green Dragon" series that I felt were worthy of being singled out for rebuttal, though the entire production seems to be based upon false information and premises.
Here's another, slightly modified, promotion for the series:
The first idea is that environmentalism is a world view. Well, yes it is. Let's be clear about that, certainly, but it is a world view premised upon caring for the earth and all the inhabitants of it; fighting climate change, pollution, deforestation, overfishing and so forth. Environmentalism is about looking around our planet, seeing the problems rather than pretending that they do not exist and taking solid action to fix those problems. And make no mistake, cloaking yourself in the rhetoric of religion and the idea that "God will take care of us" is no substitute for action. Environmentalism recognizes that the natural resources of the earth are finite and will eventually run out without proper stewardship. Calling environmentalism "the green dragon" and ignoring the very real limits does not make them go away. Again, I'm not sure how the environmental world view is supposed to conflict with being a Christian.
The second idea is that environmentalism and population control "march hand in hand." Not exactly. While I think it is true that the earth is nearing or has exceeded the number of humans (over 6.7 billion and counting) it is capable of supporting, population has mostly been ignored by the greens, who focus instead on protecting key species and habitats and lobbying for green energy. If these anti-environmental fanatics, and that's exactly what they are, are offended by any talk of voluntary population limits in light of Genesis (God's command to "be fruitful and multiply" to Noah in Genesis 8:17), and the idea that children are a blessing, so one should have a "quiverful," I would say that certainly the human race, piled high atop each other and living in nearly every corner of the earth, should consider it's mission to be fulfilled in the multiplying department! In an era where we are fast approaching the limits of the earth's resources, it would be prudent of the human race to begin to limit its numbers.
This brings me to the last point, the idea that environmentalists place the natural world over people, that they are hurting the poor. This is especially offensive and pernicious. We as environmentalists are realizing that human prosperity, properly handled, is essential to long term environmental solutions. Educating women and lifting people out of poverty, one family at a time, is key to solving many of our problems. Why is that? Educated women who don't have to worry about starving to death have fewer children! In the long term, this will defuse the "population bomb" by stabilizing and decreasing the population.
Oh, that's right, I suppose these good "Christians" at the Cornwall Alliance are opposed to educating women, or truly ending poverty. They would rather hand out some soup and mouth meaningless platitudes about how Christ loved the poor, if they even do that. How about aiding the poor by lifting them up out of poverty instead?
One more thing, while I'm at it. There is something wrong about making a dichotomy between growing the economy AND saving the environment, as though you can't do both. Opponents of any environmental protection throw this up to scare Americans that if they dare to recycle or support green energy, we'll all be unemployed. Nonsense! Right now, one of the best ways of retooling our economy and propelling it forward would be through green technology and environmental protection. After all, you can't export green fuels like wind and solar; the jobs created will stay here unlike most of our manufacturing capacity.
I would love to know who funds the Cornwall Alliance, but I've been unable to find anything concrete. I wouldn't be surprised if it is the same people like Exxon Mobile who have a proven track record of funding the opposition.
Here's another, slightly modified, promotion for the series:
The first idea is that environmentalism is a world view. Well, yes it is. Let's be clear about that, certainly, but it is a world view premised upon caring for the earth and all the inhabitants of it; fighting climate change, pollution, deforestation, overfishing and so forth. Environmentalism is about looking around our planet, seeing the problems rather than pretending that they do not exist and taking solid action to fix those problems. And make no mistake, cloaking yourself in the rhetoric of religion and the idea that "God will take care of us" is no substitute for action. Environmentalism recognizes that the natural resources of the earth are finite and will eventually run out without proper stewardship. Calling environmentalism "the green dragon" and ignoring the very real limits does not make them go away. Again, I'm not sure how the environmental world view is supposed to conflict with being a Christian.
The second idea is that environmentalism and population control "march hand in hand." Not exactly. While I think it is true that the earth is nearing or has exceeded the number of humans (over 6.7 billion and counting) it is capable of supporting, population has mostly been ignored by the greens, who focus instead on protecting key species and habitats and lobbying for green energy. If these anti-environmental fanatics, and that's exactly what they are, are offended by any talk of voluntary population limits in light of Genesis (God's command to "be fruitful and multiply" to Noah in Genesis 8:17), and the idea that children are a blessing, so one should have a "quiverful," I would say that certainly the human race, piled high atop each other and living in nearly every corner of the earth, should consider it's mission to be fulfilled in the multiplying department! In an era where we are fast approaching the limits of the earth's resources, it would be prudent of the human race to begin to limit its numbers.
This brings me to the last point, the idea that environmentalists place the natural world over people, that they are hurting the poor. This is especially offensive and pernicious. We as environmentalists are realizing that human prosperity, properly handled, is essential to long term environmental solutions. Educating women and lifting people out of poverty, one family at a time, is key to solving many of our problems. Why is that? Educated women who don't have to worry about starving to death have fewer children! In the long term, this will defuse the "population bomb" by stabilizing and decreasing the population.
Oh, that's right, I suppose these good "Christians" at the Cornwall Alliance are opposed to educating women, or truly ending poverty. They would rather hand out some soup and mouth meaningless platitudes about how Christ loved the poor, if they even do that. How about aiding the poor by lifting them up out of poverty instead?
One more thing, while I'm at it. There is something wrong about making a dichotomy between growing the economy AND saving the environment, as though you can't do both. Opponents of any environmental protection throw this up to scare Americans that if they dare to recycle or support green energy, we'll all be unemployed. Nonsense! Right now, one of the best ways of retooling our economy and propelling it forward would be through green technology and environmental protection. After all, you can't export green fuels like wind and solar; the jobs created will stay here unlike most of our manufacturing capacity.
I would love to know who funds the Cornwall Alliance, but I've been unable to find anything concrete. I wouldn't be surprised if it is the same people like Exxon Mobile who have a proven track record of funding the opposition.
Right on, Brady. The willful ignorance of these people is amazing. No doubt they love their computers, cell-phones, energy-efficient motorcars, speedy air travel (excepting on the ground) and all the other technological trappings of the modern era, while denying the scientific achievements that underlay all of them...for the same scientific methodologies of chemistry (i.e., "Better things for better living through chemistry", a la DuPont) support ecology and evolution. It is willful ignorance, born of a pernicious medieval superstition.
ReplyDelete