Frank’s Case Book

The Bloomberg media services company recently reported on the Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa, less than 40 miles northeast of San Francisco, a self-described “eco-friendly property,” equipped with low-water-use toilets and showers and paved in recycled stone. If the owners can find a market for their hotel services, then who are any of us to complain. A quick check showed rooms priced as low at $149 a night. While this is high by Midwestern standards, for a hotel near San Francisco, this rate is reasonable.

Bloomberg also reported that this environmentally-conscious hotel had replaced the Gideon Bible, that is traditionally found in hotel rooms, with a copy of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. It is difficult to conjure up a more fitting metaphor for the transition of the environmental movement from a reasonable concern for stewardship of the environment to a religious faith. The “Tree Huger”web site even considered the Bible replacement to be a “nice touch.”

Since the story came out, the hotel claimed that the Bibles haven’t been replaced. According the hotel’s web site, “Contrary to an erroneous news report, Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa is continuing the long tradition, first established in 1899, of placing a Gideon bible in all our hotel guest rooms. In addition, we are placing the book of Buddha’s Teaching for Buddhist travelers.” Now whether the Bibles were always there or hastily brought in to deal with popular criticism is something that is difficult to determine from a distance. We should grant the benefit of the doubt and assume that the hotel managers were not so foolish as to discard Bibles. However, of the name Gaia for the hotel and the message behind Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. that the time for debate about global warming issues is over, are implicit signs of the descent of the extremes of the environmental movement to cult-like status.

Gaia is the Greek goddess of the Earth. In its mildest form, the Gaia Hypothesis is almost trivially true: that life on the Earth can be considered as an interlinked system, complete with self-regulating feedback loops. In its more extreme form, the Gaia Hypothesis views the Earth as a living organism, perhaps even with a consciousness of it own. The personification of the Earth and the environment, implicit in giving the Earth system a name and consciousness, re-enforces the cult like worship of the Earth which views humans an interlopers. From this perspective, every creature, but humans, are a part of nature. Only humans can deliberately upset the natural balance. Only humans can be evil. However, it is the capacity of humans to choose to be either good or evil that makes humans unique and immeasurably more valuable than the remainder of creation. It is this moral capacity that makes us stewards and not subjects of the Earth or Gaia.

The issue of climate change is an important one. We are in the processes of assessing the extent to which human actions affect climate. Some believe that immediate action is necessary. In an effort to compel such action, we are told by Al Gore and others that the debate is over and the scientific consensus favors immediate action to alleviate global warming. Concede for the moment that such a broad scientific consensus exists. This is does not mean that the debate is over. Science is inherently skeptical, always willing to question, and perpetually provisional. When we suspend skepticism or when we discontinue debate we move from the realm of reason to the realm of faith. Ironically, some environmentalists use the credibility and authority to science to suppress the very processes that make science credible and authoritative.

By all means visit the Gaia Hotel in California and enjoy your stay while studying An Inconvenient Truth. But recognize that humans are unique to the world and that this uniqueness is measured by the extent that humans have the capacity to act morally and question authority.

Now that Don Imus has managed to get himself fired from the CBS radio network and a simulcast of his radio show on MSNBC, a post mortem is probably in order. Imus’s mortal sin was to refer to the Rutgers woman’s basketball team as “nappy headed hos,” efficiently combining racial and misogynistic slurs in only three words. No one defends his statement, however, it has brought attention to the use of similar language daily in hip-hop music. If it was so wrong for Imus, why is such language somehow acceptable for hip hop artists?

Hip-hop artist Russell Simmons plausibly argues that context is everything. Imus’s remarks appear deliberately harmful and hateful. The argument by the hip-hop community is that the use of words like “hos” authentically represent some elements of the black experience in America. While it is not possible to determine with certainty the motives of others, from the outside, the pervasiveness of such language in hip-hop music undermines the self esteem of young black woman and coarsens the overall culture.

Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that context is critical in determining the appropriateness of language. Just because the argument about context is used to defend the language of hip-hop music does not mean that context is not important.
Every year groups try to remove Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from high school curricula because of its use of the “n”-word. In contemporary America, the use of this work is almost universally considered deliberately hurtful and mean-spirited. However, Twain’s masterpiece remains indictment of slavery and the use of religion to support the institution.

Words are like guns. They are not inherently harmful. It depends on how and when they are used.

The validity of any argument is independent of the character of the person making the argument and even the rashness with which the argument is delivered. Nonetheless, there is something reassuring about passionately believed arguments delivered with directness and humility and without resort of ad hominen. Thus the rash and hyperbolic remarks of Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are deeply disappointing.

Bjorn Lomborg is a Danish statistician who has questioned the conventional approach to global warming issues. In an interview in the Danish newspaper Jyllandsposten, Dr. Pachauri said, “What is the difference between Lomborg’s view of humanity and Hitler’s? You cannot treat people like cattle. You must respect the diversity of cultures on earth. Lomborg thinks of people like numbers. He thinks it would be cheaper just to evacuate people from the Maldives, rather than trying to prevent world sea levels from rising so that island groups like the Maldives or Tuvalu just disappear into the sea. But where is the respect for people in that? People have a right to live and die in the place where their forefathers have lived and died. If you were to accept Lomborg’s way of thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right thing.”

Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist has argued against unnecessary and unjustified hyperbole with regard to environmental issues. Lomborg does not dispute climate change. Indeed, he has bases his analysis on data and conclusions contained IPCC reports. In recent testimony before Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science and Technology, Lomborg concluded, “Global warming is real and man-made. This point has been made in many places, but perhaps most strongly and convincingly by the IPCC.” Lomborg’s argument disagreement with many on the environmental Left is that IPCC conclusions about global climate change and its effects do not support the notion that expected climate change will have “strong, ominous and immediate consequences.” Moreover, in deciding on the best strategy to deal with global climate change, it is imperative to weigh the costs of alleviating climate change directly against the costs of coping with its effects.

The reference Pachauri made to the Maldives, a group of atolls in the Indian Ocean, is associated with the fact small republic highest point is only 2.5 m above sea level. If sea level rises enough due to global warming 300,000 people who live there will be forced to move. This involves human and economic consequences felt most acutely by the Maldivians.

There also human and economic costs associated with the disruptions associated with reducing carbon emissions. These costs will increase unemployment, decrease wealth (or at least the rate at which it grows) and these costs will most likely affect the poorest among us. Lomborg suggests that these total costs and benefits of reducing climate change must be balanced against coping with the impact of such climate change. All resources are finite, and it is not unreasonable to maximize the benefit of such resources to all. One does not have to be callous with respect to consequences to the Maldivians, to be sensitive to the consequences on others radical and immediate reductions in carbon emission. For this assertion, Lomborg is compared Hitler.

If one reads Lomborg’s works or listens to him speak he does not display the anger of the hateful, but the concern associated with humble inquiry. This lends credibility to his presentation. On his better days, I suspect that Pachauri is not given to the mean-spiritedness he displayed in the interview cited above. Nonetheless, it is immature to will an end without appreciating the means to reach the end. If Pachauri wishes to reduce climate change he must be willing to acknowledge the costs of doings so.

Reducing climate change is not the ultimate good. Human well being and respect for individual human rights are the highest goals governments can lend themselves to. It is not too much use available resources to maximize these goods not necessarily to minimize the impact of humans on the Earth. We called to be stewards on the Earth, but stewards in the service of the Earth’s most value asset, us.

Catholic theology has a well-considered and well-developed sense of sin. Sin can be parsed into serious and deliberate “mortal” sins, that remove one from the state of grace or the more pedestrian “venial” sins. And, of course, there is “original” sin which we inherited through the foolish transgressions of Adam and Eve.

Fortunately, Catholic theology has an equally well-developed concepts of forgiveness and redemption, as well as procedures for obtaining pardon. Confessing to one’s priest and performing appropriate penance can relieve the guilt of sin. The burden of guilt, especially considering the prospect of post-death punishment, becomes tolerable if there is a realistic way of absolving guilt. In order to avoid “Purgatory” or even “Hell” some sort of retribution or “temporal punishment” is required

Since retribution is often performed by acts of good, the notion arose that good works can be deposited into a spiritual bank to offset sins. Present good works might be used to offset future transgressions. Once the idea that good works are fungible gained currency, it was a short step to abuse. Churches and monasteries performed good works. People could offer “alms” in the process of requesting an “indulgence” to escape temporal punishment for sins. This quickly degenerated to the effective sale of indulgences. In effect, the affluent could buy themselves out of the effects of sin.

The process grew so pervasive, that the Reformation began in large measure in response to this and similar abuses. In protest, Martin Luther posted the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences (a.k.a. the 95 Theses) on the door of the Castle Church of Wittenberg in 1517.

It is difficult not to see the analogy between the 16th century sale of indulgences and sale of greenhouse “offsets.” Affluent people who fancy them selves as “green,” the equivalent of holy in the religion of environmentalism, might find it difficult to do the good works necessary for ecological salvation. After all, they need to maintain their large homes and travel habits. Just as 16th century sinners could purchase the good works of monks, the modern day eco-minded affluent can purchase green offsets.

How far can we carry this analogy? In eco-theology, is flying in a private jet a mortal sin, while flying coach only a venial transgression? Does the CO2 present in the atmosphere when we are born considered original sin?

Even worse, many of these offsets do not directly reduce CO2 emissions, but may provide money to variety of organizations who engage in environmental advocacy or do research in energy alternatives. It is becoming an industry of its own, not immune from abuse,

Some environmentalists are now questioning the greenness of these offsets. Adam Ma’anit, co-editor of Left-wing New Internationalist Magazine, has posted his own version of the 95 Theses, complaining about the abuse of these eco-indulgences. ``For about $150 you could make a Hummer a zero-emissions vehicle just by buying offsets, Of course, the reality is you are still driving an insanely inefficient car and belching carbon like you were a finalist at the Texas annual chili eating festival every time you pop down to the local Wal-Mart for some Hot Pockets.” You have to admire Ma’anit’s formulation. He manages to snidely criticize Hummers, Texas chili, Wal-Mart and Hot Pockets in a single coherent sentence. That statement reeks of Leftist elitism.

Now far be it for any Conservative to condemn free and open markets. In may be the case, that direct CO2 markets may provide an efficient means of reducing CO2 emissions. However, we can object to the hypocrisy of the affluent living lavish lifestyles that emit disproportionate amounts of C02 pretending they are environmentally friendly.

One difficulty in reducing CO2 emissions is that the economic consequences may fall most heavily on the poor. It is a difficult trade-off that serious people must weigh. However, when the affluent buy CO2 offsets they are implicitly saying that dealing with messiness of reducing CO2 is beneath them. They have people who do that for them.