Is The Environment Change Dispute A Replay Of The Reformation?

Is The Environment Change Dispute A Replay Of The Reformation?

By Blair Morris

November 16, 2019

” innerhtml=”

.
.

Protestors march to raise awareness of climate change and ecological issues on the second day of the Glastonbury Festival at Worthy Farm, Somerset, England, Thursday, June 27,2019 (Photo by Grant Pollard/Invision/AP)

.
Grant Pollard/Invision/AP.

.

During the Reformation, there was an intense debate over whether Christians could enter paradise by doing good works, or whether faith alone allowed such a benefit. (See Fatal Discord: Erasmus, Luther and the Fight for the Western Mind by Michael Massing) This reminds me of the current attitude many have towards climate change policy, where some appear to think that faith alone is sufficient to solve the problem.

.

In the early days of the global warming debate, I read an English writer praising his country’s example of recognizing climate change compared to American skepticism, although he did admit the British hadn’t actually taken steps to address the problem. Similarly, the U.S. has reduced greenhouse gas emissions more than most countries in the past few years, but incidentally, mostly due to cheap natural gas, and it remains the climate villain in the eyes of many because the president is a denier.

.

Additionally, a lot of energy, well, effort, goes into demonizing actors or actions that have no practical impact on climate. For example, opposing the construction of oil and gas pipelines does not reduce consumption of oil and gas, and usually increases emissions. Suing the oil or auto industries for blocking climate policies or misleading the public about climate science appeals to many, but with no measurable environmental impact. The same with demanding divestment in fossil fuel company stocks.

.

.

Some of the new proposals to address climate change put me mind of the debate between faith and works, especially when they seem more for demonstration purpose than actually reducing emissions. Numerous governments have suggested phasing out all carbon-based electricity generation or all petroleum-fueled vehicles by a point decades into the future, and these tend to be hailed by activists as representing, if not solutions, then great strides forward. New York state, for example, just proposed phasing out carbon-based electricity by 2050; France wants to ban conventional vehicles by 2040, the U.K. by2050 But as Michael Coren notes, “So far, it’s just words.”

.

Which reminds me of comedian Billy West who, in the persona of a radio personality, bragged to someone about his fund-raising, adding, “…but mostly it’s just pledges.” Governments have been great at setting goals, but implementation has been seriously lacking. The setting of goals seems more an act of faith than a carrying out of works.

.

.

And we have been here before. Many other national and sub-national environmental programs were later abandoned; the 1990s saw California enact mandates for electric vehicle sales—requiring 10%of sales in 2003 be zero emission vehicles—which was adopted by a number of other states, primarily in New England. Ultimately, it was abandoned after wasting billions of dollars. Numerous locales in the U.S. signed on to requirements for oxygenated gasoline, only to back out at the last minute when the cost became apparent.

.

Technology mandates are a mix of demonizing the producers and demonstrations of faith: telling utilities to buy a certain portion of carbon-free electricity is calling on someone else to act, while hiding the cost of the action. Those who believe in works would do better to buy their own renewable power, either producing it directly or from an independent power producer.

.

Automobile efficiency standards arguably fall into this category as well, that is, making it seem as if the manufacturers are to blame for consumers’ desire to purchase large, powerful vehicles. There are very fuel-efficient vehicles for sale in the United States, and they are much cheaper than the sauropods dominating American highways, so addressing manufacturer behavior is not the issue. Mandating vehicle efficiency is rather like demanding that a portion of butchers’ sales be veggie burgers; Beyond Meat has shown that success for veggie burgers comes from satisfying consumers, not lecturing them on environmental ethics.

.

This is where a carbon tax comes in: it is designed to change consumer preferences, reducing carbon emissions in favor of other consumables. It would also motivate producers to meet the demand for products that require less carbon emissions, either in their production or operation. Although the impact would grow over time, it would begin immediately upon implementation, and while it could theoretically be reversed, taxes on consumption tend to be extremely persistent.

“>< div _ ngcontent-c14 ="" innerhtml ="

.

Protestors march to raise awareness of environment modification and ecological concerns on the second day of the Glastonbury Celebration at Worthy Farm, Somerset, England, Thursday, June 27,2019 (Photo by Grant Pollard/Invision/AP)

Grant Pollard/Invision/AP

During the Reformation, there was an intense argument over whether Christians might get in paradise by doing greats, or whether faith alone allowed such an advantage. (See Deadly Discord: Erasmus, Luther and the Battle for the Western Mind by Michael Massing) This advises me of the current attitude lots of have towards environment modification policy, where some appear to believe that faith alone is enough to fix the issue.

In the early days of the global warming argument, I check out an English writer praising his country’s example of recognizing climate modification compared to American hesitation, although he did confess the British hadn’t actually taken actions to attend to the problem. Likewise, the U.S. has lowered greenhouse gas emissions more than most nations in the previous couple of years, however by the way, mostly due to inexpensive natural gas, and it remains the climate villain in the eyes of numerous since the president is a denier.

In addition, a great deal of energy, well, effort, enters into demonizing actors or actions that have no useful effect on climate. For example, opposing the building and construction of oil and gas pipelines does not minimize intake of oil and gas, and typically increases emissions. Suing the oil or automobile markets for obstructing environment policies or misguiding the general public about climate science appeals to numerous, but without any quantifiable ecological effect. The same with requiring divestment in fossil fuel company stocks.

.

A few of the new proposals to attend to climate modification put me mind of the debate in between faith and works, particularly when they appear more for demonstration purpose than in fact lowering emissions. Many federal governments have actually suggested phasing out all carbon-based electrical power generation or all petroleum-fueled lorries by a point years into the future, and these tend to be hailed by activists as representing, if not solutions, then great strides forward. New York state, for example, simply proposed phasing out carbon-based electricity by 2050; France wishes to prohibit traditional cars by 2040, the U.K. by2050 However a s Michael Coren notes, “Up until now, it’s just words.”

Which reminds me of comic Billy West who, in the persona of a radio character, bragged to somebody about his fund-raising, adding, “… but primarily it’s just pledges.” Federal governments have actually been terrific at setting goals, however implementation has actually been seriously doing not have. The setting of goals appears more an act of faith than a carrying out of works.

.

And we have been here before. Lots of other nationwide and sub-national ecological programs were later on abandoned; the 1990 s saw California enact requireds for electric vehicle sales– needing 10%of sales in 2003 be absolutely no emission automobiles– which was embraced by a variety of other states, mostly in New England. Eventually, it was abandoned after wasting billions of dollars. Various places in the U.S. signed on to requirements for oxygenated fuel, just to back out at the last minute when the cost became obvious.

Technology mandates are a mix of demonizing the manufacturers and presentations of faith: telling energies to purchase a particular part of carbon-free electricity is calling on someone else to act, while hiding the cost of the action. Those who believe in works would do much better to buy their own renewable power, either producing it straight or from an independent power producer.

Automobile efficiency requirements arguably fall into this classification also, that is, making it seem as if the makers are to blame for customers’ desire to buy big, powerful vehicles. There are very fuel-efficient cars for sale in the United States, and they are more affordable than the sauropods controling American highways, so addressing manufacturer behavior is not the problem. Mandating automobile performance is rather like demanding that a part of butchers’ sales be veggie burgers; Beyond Meat has shown that success for veggie hamburgers originates from satisfying customers, not lecturing them on ecological principles.

This is where a carbon tax comes in: it is created to change customer preferences, decreasing carbon emissions in favor of other consumables. It would also inspire producers to satisfy the demand for products that require less carbon emissions, either in their production or operation. Although the impact would grow in time, it would start right away upon execution, and while it could theoretically be reversed, taxes on usage tend to be very relentless.

” >

Protestors march to raise awareness of environment modification and environmental problems on the 2nd day of the Glastonbury Festival at Worthy Farm, Somerset, England, Thursday, June 27,2019
(Photo by Grant Pollard/Invision/AP)

Grant Pollard/Invision/AP

.

Throughout the Reformation, there was an intense debate over whether Christians might enter paradise by doing great works, or whether faith alone enabled such a benefit. (See Deadly Discord: Erasmus, Luther and the Fight for the Western Mind by Michael Massing) This reminds me of the present mindset numerous have towards climate modification policy, where some appear to think that faith alone suffices to fix the problem.

In the early days of the worldwide warming argument, I read an English author praising his country’s example of acknowledging climate modification compared to American suspicion, although he did admit the British had not really taken actions to address the problem. Likewise, the U.S. has actually reduced greenhouse gas emissions more than most countries in the previous couple of years, however incidentally, mainly due to low-cost natural gas, and it remains the environment villain in the eyes of lots of because the president is a denier.

In addition, a great deal of energy, well, effort, goes into demonizing stars or actions that have no useful effect on climate. For instance, opposing the construction of oil and gas pipelines does not minimize usage of oil and gas, and usually increases emissions. Taking legal action against the oil or auto industries for obstructing climate policies or misleading the general public about climate science interest lots of, however without any measurable environmental impact. The exact same with requiring divestment in fossil fuel company stocks.

A few of the brand-new proposals to resolve climate modification put me mind of the dispute in between faith and works, specifically when they appear more for demonstration function than really decreasing emissions. Numerous governments have actually suggested phasing out all carbon-based electricity generation or all petroleum-fueled automobiles by a point years into the future, and these tend to be hailed by activists as representing, if not solutions, then fantastic strides forward. New york city state, for example, just proposed phasing out carbon-based electrical energy by 2050; France desires to ban standard vehicles by 2040, the U.K. by2050 However a s Michael Coren notes , “Up until now, it’s simply words.”

Which reminds me of comedian Billy West who, in the personality of a radio personality, bragged to someone about his fund-raising, adding,” … however primarily it’s simply promises.” Governments have been fantastic at setting goals, but implementation has actually been seriously lacking. The setting of objectives appears more an act of faith than a performing of works.

And we have been here prior to. Lots of other national and sub-national environmental programs were later on deserted; the 1990 s saw California enact mandates for electrical vehicle sales– needing 10 %of sales in 2003 be zero emission vehicles– which was adopted by a variety of other states, primarily in New England. Ultimately, it was abandoned after wasting billions of dollars. Various places in the U.S. signed on to requirements for oxygenated gas, only to back out at the last minute when the cost ended up being evident.

Technology mandates are a mix of demonizing the producers and presentations of faith: informing utilities to purchase a particular portion of carbon-free electrical power is getting in touch with another person to act, while hiding the cost of the action. Those who think in works would do better to purchase their own renewable power, either producing it straight or from an independent power manufacturer.

Car effectiveness standards probably fall into this category too, that is, making it appear as if the manufacturers are to blame for consumers’ desire to purchase big, powerful lorries. There are extremely fuel-efficient cars for sale in the United States, and they are much more affordable than the sauropods controling American highways, so addressing producer habits is not the problem. Mandating car performance is rather like demanding that a part of butchers’ sales be veggie burgers; Beyond Meat has shown that success for veggie burgers comes from pleasing customers, not lecturing them on environmental ethics.

This is where a carbon tax is available in: it is created to change customer choices, reducing carbon emissions in favor of other consumables. It would also encourage producers to satisfy the demand for items that require less carbon emissions, either in their production or operation. Although the effect would grow over time, it would start immediately upon execution, and while it might in theory be reversed, taxes on usage tend to be incredibly persistent.

Find Out More .

About Blair Morris