The Ecology Movement Has Become a Religion

For example, a devout Catholic may stone a woman who had an abortion to death whilst a less pious Catholic may content himself with merely verbally abusing her. Similarly, an Iranian girl who moves to Tel Aviv and gets a job as a stripper in a pub called the Pig and Whistle may have a fatwa served upon her by the Ayatollah back in the Islamic Republic but might face less severe condemnation from moderate Muslims living in the West. However, all Muslims would agree that her conduct was contrary to the teachings of the Koran. There is no such doctrine that applies to environmentalism. I am an environmentalist – have been since I was a lad – but I strongly disagree with other environmentalists over certain issues. One topical (at least for me) example is the almost complete lack of inland waterways in Britain where one can enjoy one's speedboat at full throttle. On Sunday, I was stopped by the river police and charged with speeding, which I immediately admitted. However, I pointed out that I opened her up only in stretches of water where the banks were protected from the wake by a thick margin of reeds and since birds do not nest there during the winter, no damage could be caused. I further made it clear that I slowed down to walking pace every time I passed a group of swans but they still fined me ï¿½1000 ($1500). Apparently I had flashed passed some nature lovers on birdwatching the riverbank and they had called the police and told them that they had the legal right to enjoy the countryside in peace and tranquillity and that the police should come and get me for disturbing them. Fair enough, perhaps, but don't I also have the right to enjoy the countryside at the helm of a classic mahogany and chrome-trimmed, V8-powered Boesch ski-boat doing 40 on the plane? Why should their "rights" be superior to mine? Sorry, but I just had to get that off my chest, but the point is, environmentalists have fundamental disagreements with each other, whereas followers of any given religion do not, generally speaking, disagree on the basic tenants of their faiths. B) A person who self-identifies themselves as religious would confirm that they were either Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan or whatever, even if they were not regular visitors to the respective places of worship. Personally speaking, as an environmentalist, I support the action being taken to prevent deforestation in the tropics yet also support the quest to exploit offshore oil reserves (electric boats may be environmentally-friendly but they are also are very slow and extremely boring! ) On the other hand, how many Buddhist bullfighters are there, and how many Christians do you know that have sacrificed a virgin in the belief that she would one day become this wife in Valhalla? C) It is true that science advances and theories are modified or rejected as time moves on. However, there are some theories that are so obviously correct, such as the earth not being flat, that man wasn't created by some sort of spirit in the sky 6,000 years ago and that releasing CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to climate change. Therefore, dissenters to these theories deserve to be held up to wholesale public criticism. Okay, now let's revisit the points my opponent raised once more. 1, 2) This just further proves my point. There is a gang of fascist boot-boys that drink in a country pub I sometimes go to whose favourite hobby is attacking hunt saboteurs with iron bars and baseball bats, who, nonetheless, as none-smokers, welcomed the recent ban on smoking in public places. Remember, Hitler didn't smoke but it doesn't follow that Friends of the Earth should print posters saying "Hitler had the right idea - send all smokers to the gas chambers now". People that are anti-smoking come from all political backgrounds, they are not necessarily environmentalists. 3) I've heard of carbon footprints but not water footprints. This must be on the fringes of of environmentalism if it applied to people who are not in a drought zone. I mean, the water is drawn from reservoirs or rivers and comes, ultimately, from rainfall. If we didn't treat it, consume it, then treat it again before discharging it, it would just flow straight into the sea. The fact is though, that pumping the water from its source, into treatment plants and water towers and then through to sewerage farms is highly energy intensive. 4.1) My point was that Lindzen reaches the conclusions that the people that sponsor his research want him to reach. In other words, the oil companies have said "find away to prove scientifically that environmentalists are wrong about global warming and we'll pay you handsomely. If not, we'll find another scientist who is willing to sacrifice his principles on the altar of the mighty dollar". 4.2) By funding "research" that rubbishes the consensus of mainstream scientific opinion, the oil companies have something to gain. Oil reserves are finite and drilling for new reserves needs public and political support. Unless that is forthcoming, the fat cats at Exxon, Mobil, Texaco and BP will be swapping their Lear jets for bicycles. 5) It doesn't matter if the fuel is imported or produced domestically from the point of view of the environment, although I can see that, from an economic point of view, it would be better to obtain the oil from within the US. 6) Some bottles do find their way to landfill sites but in certain European countries over 90% are recycled into everything from window panes to road aggregate. All it takes is the political will and a little effort on the part of the consumer. . http://www.britglass.org.uk... 7) Just to make it clear, there is no need for any back up systems if the electricity is fed into a national grid. So while a solar array in California will not be producing electricity at night, a wind farm in Illinois will be and a nuclear power plant in Arizona will be and so on. The point is that you build sufficient generators to ensure that if one source is not online, another source will take up the slack. And anyway, nobody said building wind turbines or nuclear power stations was cheaper than oil, gas or coal-fired stations. They aren't, but they are greener, which is the whole point. 8) San Jose should introduce a congestion charge (such as exists in London) for motorists that drive on inner-city roads in order to encourage them to use public transport instead. 9) True, according to the Newton's laws of physics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, just converted. However, I have never heard of anyone using a light (other than a halogen lamp) to heat a space. In the winter you might have to turn the heating up slightly to compensate for the lost heat but in the summer the aircon will have to work harder to cool the room while a light is left on. In the final analysis, the energy we are talking about is tiny if measured in isolation, but when extrapolated over hundreds of millions of homes worldwide the saving is significant. 10) If you have described the circumstances of the "potential disruption to little fishies' private lives versus saving the lives of thousands of humans" case accurately then I agree, as a committed environmentalist, that this represents madness. True, religion is a bit mad, but it doesn't follow that everything a bit must be religious! Thank you.