The Ecology Movement Has Become a Religion

Combining religion and the environment to create the platform for a debate is certainly a controversial and novel idea and I have a presentiment that the discussion will prove to be an interesting one. Firstly, my opponent offered the following definition for the purposes of this debate: "a religion is a systematic collection of faith-based beliefs without rational foundation used by believers to guide their lives" – a definition which, for the purposes of this debate, I accept. What I do not accept, however, is that a distinct, unified " ecology movement" exists and that people who are concerned with environmental issues are following articles of faith. There are three main tenants to my assertion. A) While environmental organisations exist, they do not necessarily agree with each other on environmental issues. For example, wind farms are supported by some environmental groups and opposed by others. . http://www.greenpeace.org.uk... . http://www.rspb.org.uk... B) People who are concerned about manmade climate change do not have to be members of any formal organisation in order to do their bit for the environment. C) Accepting the consensus of opinion on the man's impact on the environment is not a matter of irrational belief; rather it is a matter of rationally evaluating the scientific evidence. Now, to address each of my opponent's examples in turn: 1,2) Smoking tobacco has a limited impact on the environment and ant-smoking groups are largely concerned with public health issues, not climate change. . http://www.ash.org.uk... 3) To avoid spreading diseases such as cholera, water needs to be treated, which consumes valuable energy, which in turn causes CO2 to be released into the atmosphere. 4) People who choose to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence that manmade pollution is contributing towards global warming are not sinners but they are in a state of denial. Some scientists, including Prof. Richard S. Lindzen, do produce "evidence" that global warming is not taking place, but they are in the minority and their "research" is often funded by oil companies. . http://www.exxonsecrets.org... . http://www.guardian.co.uk... Similarly, some historians, such as David Irving, deny that a holocaust took place in Nazi Germany. . http://www.revisionists.com... I have been to Auschwitz and seen for myself the gas chambers, the crematoria and even the very building where my grandfather-in-law was imprisoned, but what do I know? Irving is highly-qualified and an expert and I'm not so that must mean that all the documentaries I watched, all the books I've read and all the stories I've been told by my wife and grandmother-in-law must all be Zionist propaganda? 5) Global warming, as the term suggests, affects the whole planet, not just the US. Since America shares the same atmosphere with the rest of the world and reducing carbon emissions is in the interests the entire world population, or at least their future decedents' interests, it is vital that we all avoid burning fossil fuels, wherever we live. 6) Recycling really isn't just a ruse to aggravate householders, it is genuinely beneficial to the environment. If a company is charged with recycling household waste but, instead, buries it, tips it into a river, or scatters it over a wildlife reserve or disposes it in any other method than the one they were contacted to do, they are acting illegally and, therefore, risk prosecution. 7) The premise is flawed. True, solar panels don't produce electricity at night and wind farms do not make a contribution in calm weather, but that does not negate the case for renewables, which should be viewed as a suite of resources also including hydro-electric, wave, tidal and nuclear-generated power. 8) I can't think of mass transit system that is less efficient and more costly than people driving cars but perhaps my opponent knows of some rocket-powered subway trains or can point to some buses that have supercharged V16 engines that run on Macallan single malt whisky instead of straight-sixes that run on diesel? 9) Light bulbs, especially modern energy-saving ones, convert most of the electricity into light, not heat, so the fact that the heating would need to be turned up fractionally to compensate for a light being switched off is neither here nor there. 10) Again, my opponent is clutching at straws. No serious environmentalist would rather see thousands of people drown than briefly inconvenience some little fishies! The bottom line is, most people that don't care about the environment, don't care because not caring is both easier and cheaper than caring, and feel that, since it won't be our generation that suffers as a result our poor stewardship of the planet, why should they care anyway? Thank you.