The church of Green

[Snidely Whiplash]

Jonah Goldberg:

The church of green

A kind of irrational nature worship separates environmentalism from the more fair-minded approach of conservationism.

May 20, 2008

I admit it: I'm no environmentalist. But I like to think I'm something of a conservationist.

No doubt for millions of Americans this is a distinction without a difference, as the two words are usually used interchangeably. But they're different things, and the country would be better off if we sharpened the distinctions between both word and concept.

At its core, environmentalism is a kind of nature worship. It's a holistic ideology, shot through with religious sentiment. "If you look carefully," author Michael Crichton famously observed, "you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths."

Environmentalism's most renewable resources are fear, guilt and moral bullying. Its worldview casts man as a sinful creature who, through the pursuit of forbidden knowledge, abandoned our Edenic past. John Muir, who laid the philosophical foundations of modern environmentalism, described humans as "selfish, conceited creatures." Salvation comes from shedding our sins, rejecting our addictions (to oil, consumerism, etc.) and demonstrating through deeds an all-encompassing love of Mother Earth. Quoth Al Gore: "The climate crisis is not a political issue; it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."

I heard Gore on NPR the other day. He was asked what he made of evangelical pastor Joseph Hagee's absurd comment that Hurricane Katrina was God's wrath for New Orleans' sexual depravity. Naturally, Gore chuckled at such backwardness. But then the Nobel laureate went on to blame Katrina on man's energy sinfulness. It struck me that the two men were not so different. If only canoodling residents of the Big Easy had adhered to "The Greenpeace Guide to Environmentally Friendly Sex."

Environmentalists are keen to insist that their movement is a secular one. But using the word "secular" no more makes you secular than using the word "Christian" automatically means you behave like a Christian. Pioneering green lawyer Joseph Sax, for example, describes environmentalists as "secular prophets, preaching a message of secular salvation." Gore too has often been dubbed a "prophet." It's no surprise that a green-themed California hotel provides Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" right next to the Bible and a Buddhist tome.

Whether it's adopted the trappings of religion or not, my biggest beef with environmentalism is how comfortably irrational it is. It touts ritual over reality, symbolism over substance, while claiming to be so much more rational and scientific than those silly sky-God worshipers and deranged oil addicts.

It often seems that displaying faith in the green cause is more important than advancing the green cause. The U.S. government just put polar bears on the threatened species list because climate change is shrinking the Arctic ice where they live. Never mind that polar bears are in fact thriving -- their numbers have quadrupled in the last 50 years. Never mind that full implementation of the Kyoto protocols on greenhouse gases would save exactly one polar bear, according to Danish social scientist Bjorn Lomborg, author of the 2007 book "Cool It!"

Yet about 300 to 500 polar bears could be saved every year, starting right now, Lomborg says, if there were a ban on hunting them in Canada. What's cheaper, trillions to trim carbon emissions or paying off the Canadians to stop killing polar bears?

Plastic grocery bags are being banned all over the place, even though they require less energy to make or recycle than paper ones. The whole country is being forced to subscribe to a modern version of transubstantiation, whereby corn is miraculously transformed into sinless energy even as it does worse damage than oil.

Conservation, which shares roots and meaning with conservatism, stands athwart this mass hysteria. Yes, conservationism can have a religious element to it as well, but that element stems from the biblical injunction to be a good steward of the Earth, rather than a worshiper of it. But stewardship involves economics, not mysticism.

Economics is the study of choosing between competing goods. Environmentalists view economics as the enemy because cost-benefit analysis is thoroughly unromantic. Lomborg is a heretic because he treats natural-world challenges like economic ones, seeking to spend money where it will maximize good, not just good feelings among environmentalists.

Many self-described environmentalists are in fact conservationists. But the environmental movement wins battles by blurring this distinction, arguing that all lovers of nature must follow their lead. At the same time, many people open to conservationist arguments, like hunters, are turned off by even reasonable efforts because they do not want to give aid and comfort to "wackos."

In the broadest sense, the environmental movement has won. Americans are "green" in that they are willing to spend a lot to keep their country ecologically healthy, which it is.

But now it's time to save the environment from the environmentalists.

jgoldberg@latimescolumnists.com

[RedGlitter]

Back in my twenties I studied wildlife conservation for about three years, thinking I would be entering a field that helped animals and environment. I was mistaken. I learned that it's the environmentalists who aim to preserve and steward, while the conservationists practice manhandling both animals and environment. Sometimes killing off large amounts of one species to protect another, while if they would step back and let nature take its course, with natural predator and prey rather than hunters annihilating everything under the guise of "conservation" everything would be much better off.

Laugh at environmentalists all you will but I'll take them over conservationists any day.

[YZGI]

Jester;870849 wrote: Red Im a different kind of steward than either the conservationist or environmentalist.



I believe we ought to use everything we've been given in as much of a symbiotic relationship as possible between human and creation. Where the two conflict I must choose human over creation and thats pretty much where I draw the line, it has to be done on a case by case basis for me now for many reasons. The main reason being that I do not trust the conservationist, nor the environmentalist to give me accurate information.



I 'own' roughly 500 acres of land between Kansas and California with the bulk of it now in CA. It's my land, and you can bet every animal on it is now under my full and personal protection, no one including the government is going to tell me what I can and cannot do on my land.



What struck me about this article isnt so much that one or the other is good or bad or that I had a preference, but that each of us as humans like it or not do seek spirituality in some form, its innate to us as humans. I could pullout the bible verse for you but I doubt anyone above the religion threads wants to get blasted with a dose of scripture, however when the bible does mention that the poeple of this world begin to worship the creature rather than the Creator its meant as a sin that man has removed himself from God.



I see the people of this world (the western worldanyway) consitantly and openly and purposefully rejecting God in favor of worshipping nature as thier god. Sign of the times, writing on the wall.


Hey Jester, Thats about the way I see things with animals and the initial people (epa,peta etc etc). Whereabouts in Kansas do you own land? I understand if you would rather not say, I'm just asking because that is where I live.

[RedGlitter]

Jester;870849 wrote: Red Im a different kind of steward than either the conservationist or environmentalist.

I believe we ought to use everything we've been given in as much of a symbiotic relationship as possible between human and creation. Where the two conflict I must choose human over creation and thats pretty much where I draw the line, it has to be done on a case by case basis for me now for many reasons. The main reason being that I do not trust the conservationist, nor the environmentalist to give me accurate information.

I 'own' roughly 500 acres of land between Kansas and California with the bulk of it now in CA. It's my land, and you can bet every animal on it is now under my full and personal protection, no one including the government is going to tell me what I can and cannot do on my land.

What struck me about this article isnt so much that one or the other is good or bad or that I had a preference, but that each of us as humans like it or not do seek spirituality in some form, its innate to us as humans. I could pullout the bible verse for you but I doubt anyone above the religion threads wants to get blasted with a dose of scripture, however when the bible does mention that the poeple of this world begin to worship the creature rather than the Creator its meant as a sin that man has removed himself from God.

I see the people of this world (the western worldanyway) consitantly and openly and purposefully rejecting God in favor of worshipping nature as thier god. Sign of the times, writing on the wall.


Respectfully Jester, I would have to say that isn't for me, as my religion is about worshipping God through Nature.

I see nothing wrong with either way, it's apples and oranges as far as I can tell. I had to respond to the article because I have learned that "conservation" usually means "humans control nature for benefit of humans" and I disagree with that because it's been shown that if we leave things alone and butt out, nature will take care of herself.

I envy you having so much land. That must be very, very nice.

[RedGlitter]

That sounds very nice, Jester. I'm sure it will be a beautiful place.

[YZGI]

Jester;870975 wrote: South Eastern Ks, west of the Flint Hills. Gentle rolling hills, edge of the plains. That land is an inheritance, and my home, where I grew up.
Cool, I have a friend that has a cabin just outside of Chautauqua where we hunt and fish. It is about as forested as you could ever imagine and one of the more beautiful pieces of land I have seen. Talk about church of green, just sitting out there in my bronco is about the most spiritual experience I've had.

[Snidely Whiplash]

RedGlitter;870692 wrote: Sometimes killing off large amounts of one species to protect another, while if they would step back and let nature take its course, with natural predator and prey rather than hunters annihilating everything under the guise of "conservation" everything would be much better off.




Sorry to have to correct you, but "hunters" are among the most active segment of the population concerned about nature and the environment, and spend more time and money protecting nature and wild habitat than almost any other... And with the extremely strict hunting laws and and poaching penalties hunters do not go out and "annihilate everything".?

As for letting nature take it's course being the best thing for animal populations, which would you rather be, a deer in a "naturally managed" herd that has reached overpopulation and is destined to have you and 1/3 of your herd slowly starve and freeze to death over an icy winter to keep your population in check, or would you rather have your herd monitored by wildlife professionals and a small number of hunting permits issued each year to keep your herd at a level balanced with the quanity of your food source..???? Mother nature is the most cruel, heartless force on the planet when it comes to managing animal popluations, theres nothing kind, sweet or mothering about nature.....





RedGlitter;870692 wrote: Laugh at environmentalists all you will but I'll take them over conservationists any day.
The environmental movement is responsible for many millions of human deaths world wide, and the numbers are growing every year, thanks to these radical idealists and they're insanity.... http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... post876557