Two Wrongs Do Make a Right

Perhaps its trivial, but there was this study, see. In the UK. By scientists. And they published the startling conclusion that reusable diapers, long touted by the Government as a great weapon in the holy war against environmental damage, in fact “have a higher carbon footprint” than disposable diapers, because of the laundering necessary. The Government of Great Britain (also known as “The Opinion of Anyone Except an Intelligent Brit”), according to this article is dutifully covering up these findings, so as to avoid embarrassment I suppose. Perhaps Al Gore has stock in some British cloth diaper manufacturer.

Anyway, its all moot as far as I’m concerned. The whole concept of “carbon footprints” is a sham, and anyone who honestly cares about the health of the creation around us should be ashamed of ever using the phrase with a straight face. And the Lords of Britain, through their predictable butt-covering, have managed to inadvertently thwart stupidity. So there you go. Huzzah.

Scribblative Agincourting

Sadly, Scribblative Agincourting has closed for the nonce. Perhaps just as sadly, puerile conspiracy theories about the motivating factors behind its closure seem to be sprouting up in some places like maggots in a half-full crock-pot left out on the deck for most of the summer (don’t ask).

Nevertheless, Doug Jones and his fellow contributers have compiled in less than a years time some of the most important and influential reading for Christians who give a damn that I have ever seen. If you have ever found yourself babbling about the greater good when asked what you think about the practice of water-boarding, or have ever used the words “market forces” with a straight face, you’d best follow the link and get busy.

You can Bet that “Climate Skepticism” will become a Hate Crime Soon

Apparently, the film “The Great Global Warming Swindle“, a documentary produced in the UK and broadcast on their Channel Four, is causing a bit of a stink.

Seems the folks who produced “Swindle” had the almighty gall to suggest that the increase in atmospheric temperatures observed over the last few decades are not primarily caused by greenhouse gases from fossil fuels, but rather on changes in the sun’s output, and that the Global Warming frenzy is based on politics rather than science.

Of course the cries of “heresy” were legion (though Channel 4 reports a startling number of supportive emails and calls from scientists), and the Inquisitors at Ofcom have handed down their verdict, not surprisingly, against Channel 4.

While a watchdog group nailing a TV station for daring to question the reigning dogmas is hardly even newsworthy anymore, there was one part of the ruling that I found fascinating:

Turns out, they (Channel 4) could not be found guilty of failing to show “due impartiality” on “matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to the current public policy” on the issue of Global Warming because human-caused global warming is no longer a subject of controversy but established fact. From the BBC News article:

The last segment of the programme, dealing with the politics of climate change, broke this obligation, Ofcom judged, and did not reflect a range of views, as required under the code.

But the main portion of the film, on climate science, did not breach these rules.

Ofcom’s logic is that “the link between human activity and global warming… became settled before March 2007″.

This being so, it says, climate science was not “controversial” at the time of broadcast, so Channel 4 did not break regulations by broadcasting something that challenged the link.

Talk about assuming the center.

HT: BBC

Houses aren’t the only ones Losing their Value

The value of Human Life seems to be depreciating as well, according to the EPA. In fact, you just lost nearly a million dollars in value: from 8.04 million to 7.22 million (we use decimal values because this is science stuff, and science stuff is precise. Just trust us.). Remember that monologue about auto manufacturer recalls in Fight Club? This from an article originally appearing in the Washington Post:

To grasp the mind-bending concept of a Blue Book value on life, government officials say it is important to remember that they are not thinking about anyone specific…They might know, for instance, that a new cut in air pollution will save 50 lives a year – though they don’t know who those people might be. Still they want to decide whether saving them is worth the cost, officials say, and it helps to assign a dollar value to each life saved.

This apparently is not the first time the EPA has tried to lower the value of human life. “In 2003, it tried to count senior citizens’ lives as worth less than those of other adults. After a loud outcry from seniors, the agency backed off.” Which is a fun mental image.

From the same article, we have the best research suggestion of the year:

But how do you put a dollar value on a life, even in a generic sense?

It wouldn’t work for researchers to survey Americans at gunpoint and ask how much they would pay not to die.

I disagree. That idea is categorically awesome. I once again want to be a scientist when I grow up.

But hey, don’t knock the EPA too much. According to the article, “their value for life remains one of the highest. Earlier this year, the Department of Transportation raised its value – but even after the increase, it stood at $5.8 million…”. Which explains a lot, really.

HT: truthout.org

In Which Scientists do not Recommend that We Eat Food

“…We should understand and engage with food and our bodies in terms of their nutritional and chemical constituents and requirements – the assumption being that this is all we need to understand.” This reductionist way of thinking about food had been pointed out and criticized before…but it had never before been given a proper name: “nutritionism.”…

The first thing to understand about nutritionism is that it is not the same thing as nutrition…It is not a scientific subject but an ideology…The widely shared but unexamined assumption is that the key to understanding food is indeed the nutrient. Put another way: Foods are essentially the sum of their nutrient parts…

Since nutrients, as compared with foods, are invisible and therefore slightly mysterious, it falls to the scientists…to explain the hidden reality of foods to us. In form this is a quasireligious idea, suggesting the visible world is not the one that really matters, which implies the need for a priesthood. For to enter a world where your dietary salvation depends on unseen nutrients, you need plenty of expert help.

- Michael Pollan, In Defense of Food, pp. 27-28

In Which We Declare War on the Front Lawn

Condo-living has made this sort of a moot-point for me at this juncture, but architect Fritz Haeg’s Edible Estates concept is such a good one that I must share now, and once we get the coveted place in the ‘burbs, we’ll let you know from experience how it goes.

The general idea is that front lawns are a waste of space and energy, of little aesthetic value, and can even have an isolating, anti-communal effect. They consume resources and time, and yet return no practical or social benefit (unless you count “having the best lawn” bragging rights).

Mr. Haeg has suggested that we get rid of our front lawns and replace them with productive gardens. His first prototype front-garden in Salinas, Kansas now produces everything from strawberries and peaches to Swiss chard and green chilis. And, according to the homeowners, “We probably met more of the people on the block, and had more interaction with them, because of the garden”. And while the owners say they spend about the same amount of time weeding and tending their garden as they did mowing and fertilizing the lawn, that time spent is much more rewarding and communal. After all, its much easier and pleasant to chat with family or passing neighbors as you harvest green beans than it is to holler over the roar of the lawn mower.

The front-garden not only makes useful a formerly useless space, but also changes for the better the life of a family and even to some extent the community at large, creating a nurturing, productive, aesthetically satisfying space that gives people the opportunity to reconnect to the seasonal rhythms of labor and harvest that our good God has given to us.

HT: MV

In Which We Rock Green Apples

This Sunday, 20 April (that’s right, 4/20. witty) is the Green Apple Festival America:

Live Music, Environmental Action, Green Technology Exhibits, and Fun

We’re planning on hitting the celebration on the Mall in D.C. The highlights of the bill are as follows:

The Roots with Doug E. Fresh, Ne-Yo, Talib Kweli, will.i.am, Chrisette Michele
Gov’t Mule
Chevy Chase
Ed Norton
Random Politicians and Activists (lunch time)
Thievery Corporation
Toots and the Maytals
DC Boys Choir
and the Rev. Yearwood, President of the Hip Hop Caucus (that’s right)

Also in New York, Miami, Chicago, Denver, Dallas, L.A., and San Francisco. Seattle got shafted somehow.

In Which We Save God’s Green Earth

Also from Steve Bishop:

Resources for Environmental Stewardship. Check it out.

Powered by ScribeFire.

In which Nietzche Defends the Grass

This article, re-posted by Steve Bishop, has some interesting things to say about Christian involvement in environmental protection. And while most of the background information is pretty solid (and well worth your time to read), the central thesis seemed problematic to me.

Note: Read this BBC article for some background on the Newbury Bypass incident so you know something of the situation that is being used as an example.

A Christian then can engage in civil disobedience, but there are also God-given constraints. It should be: a last resort; non-violent (harming neither people or animals, and property only minimally); an opposition of policies, not people; and done fully realising and accepting the consequences; arising from it.

Disregarding for the moment the rather anemic justification offered for Christian civil disobedience (given the brevity of the article, this can perhaps be forgiven), how do we make the jump from refusing to obey a direct order to sin to actively disrupting a government-sanctioned violation of the dominion mandate? Refusing to kill Hebrew babies for Pharaoh and disrupting construction of a freeway bypass are hardly analogous situations. Tenuous at best. How does one make the jump?

Secondly, the stated “God-given constraints” seemed ever-so-slightly odd: “Last resort” is standard enough, and so is “non-violent”, except for the “property only minimally ” bit. “Only minimally”? Que? Where does one get the right to trash someone else’s stuff because one doesn’t like what they are doing with it? Can I go slash my neighbor’s Hummer tires? That’s relatively “minimal” property damage, and would certainly keep him off the road for a few days. How about sabotaging IRS computers? Hacking a computer doesn’t even damage property, technically. The government is certainly violating all kinds of moral and civil law by unconstitutionally demanding taxes from my income. Can I punish them too while I’ve got my sheriff star and spurs on? If civil disobedience in environmental action is proper, when is it ever not? How does one construct boundaries for a vigilante?

Speaking of which, let’s look at it from the other side: Why only minimally? If this is war against injustice, why can’t one go all the way? A good general knows that you send enough troops and enough firepower in the first time to ensure the job gets done right. Cutting gas-lines (or break-lines, for the activist with a mean streak) will annoy your average back-hoe operator, and probably slow construction down a bit, but if the goal is to stop the process, why not blow the machines to hell? Bomb the suckers. What is the dollar cut-off for proper Christian property damage? And while we’re at it, why not injure or kill the construction workers? Better yet, surgical strike: Assassinate the developer or the politician who instigated the thing. We do not war against abstract corporations, governments, or “policies”, but against people. Always people. Someone wrote that policy. Cut off the head and the body will wither.

While I appreciate the frustration of watching our governments, city planners, and seemingly-faceless corporations commit all manner of heinous stupidity in the name of “Progress” (may her name be ever glorified), and would argue that there are any number of things Christians can and ought to do about it, this so-called ‘civil-disobedience’ stinks of the same revolutionary, impatient, self-centered, faithless, historically un-thankful spirit that informs and drives the power-worshiping, pseudo-laissez-fairre, Nietzche-in-a-Wallstreet-suit mentality, which screams “Mine and Devil take the Hindmost!”. Two sides of the same damned coin.

Powered by ScribeFire.

In Which We Drive a Grass-Mobile

This is kind of interesting. I like the idea of so-called “bio-fuels”, and this sounds interesting. However, there are ominous headlines on the “see also” sidebar, which you should also read.

Powered by ScribeFire.

In Which We Ask Another Question

Can someone who actually has been involved with raising livestock answer this:

Is it necessary for a dairy cow to have given birth recently (and then have the calf taken away) in order for her to produce milk? Or will she produce milk no matter what (or is there a third option of which I am unaware)?

Related to this, must a chicken breed with a rooster to produce eggs, or will she produce and lay unfertilized eggs?

To lay my cards on the table, I’m wondering what sort of manipulation (if any) of the normal order of reproduction for these animals is necessary for us to enjoy the culinary benefits. (Just information, please: No angry diatribes. I just saw Rage Against the Machine in concert recently and I’m all full up with vague, unfocused self-righteousness at the moment).

In Which We have no Rights (But We do have Duties)

In our post-enlightenment world, we can address no topic without coming to the subject of someone or something’s “rights”. All political and social questions come down to this. Women’s rights, Animal rights, consumer rights, the right to bear arms, the rights of a mother, the rights of a baby, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (whatever that is). We define ourselves and delineate the boundaries of our actions and the actions of others in terms of what is owed to us and what may not be done to us.

But this is a bass-ackwards way to look at the world. Defining a worldview in terms of “rights” truncates our lives. It is an anemic and miserly way to approach relationships. Rights look at the minimum required and the maximum owed, and so require an infinitely quantifiable description of whatever aspect of life is being addressed. This is not just inadvisable, or even sinfully selfish: In the end it is nonsense.

Instead of grasping at our “rights”, we should rather define our lives and determine our agenda in terms of “duties“. Duties create positive and outward-looking relationships, which tend to be qualitatively measured.

Practically, this difference of outlook would make an enormous difference in our approach to every issue that confronts us:

How ought we to treat animals?
It is not a question of our rights vs. the rights of other creatures. What are our duties toward our fellow creatures? What are our responsibilities? The dominion mandate is not about what we are allowed to take, but rather how we are required to give, to sacrifice, to nurture and care for the Lord’s other creatures.

How ought we to care for the environment?
Again, it is not a question of what we are allowed to take. As Christians, we understand that it is man’s duty to nurture and care for the world that we have been given. We are to be about redeeming the world: A good king is a king who sacrifices for his subjects. What exactly that looks like down on the ground is another question, but framing the debate in terms of duties changes everything, for conservatives and liberals alike.

How ought we to look at the issue of abortion?
For conservatives, this may seem like a simple question (Murder is wrong. Duh.). But that does not answer the ‘women’s rights’ advocate’s very legitimate objections about considering the mother. What would happen if this debate were no longer about who’s rights are being violated, but about duties and obligations? For that matter, custody, alimony, and child-support hearings might look a little different in that context as well.

How ought we to look at economics?
Hard-core conservatives talk about unfettered capitalism like it is some kind of god (which to many, it is). Big box stores and all of the things that get liberal panties in a twist (and I suspect that this is the principle appeal of such things) is just the natural function of the market. Small business owners get edged out, communities fractured, paradise duly paved, but that’s the way it goes, and I have the right to a free-market. Liberals conversely appeal to the rights of the small business man, the rights of the poor, and some generic socialism-lite principles. I’ll talk more about capitalism, charity, and Christianity soon and in as much depth as my education allows, but it will take us a long way in this discussion if we look at it not in terms of what is owed to us, or what has been earned, but rather what our duties are to others. This changes the whole debate, from both sides.

We have no rights. The greatest commandment is to Love God. And the second is like it, Love your neighbor as yourself. These are duties, obligations. Every discussion of every issue should be framed in terms of how we can fulfill our duties.

In Which Twisted Sister Rocks and Metallica Doesn’t (despite having taken down Napster)

A coleague reminded me of this testimony from Dee Snider at Tipper Gore’s Victorian Congressional Hearings. Husband Al’s imbecility and inability to follow an argument are not surprising: but Dee’s lucidity and just plain old good sense kind of are (I guess I always figured that a guy with that much hair can’t be all there).

And speaking of Al Gore and being lame, it appears that Metallica, despite having a sweet new bass player, are still going to perform at one of Al’s “Live Earth” shows this summer. I mean, c’mon guys, now you’re just dropping the soap on purpose!