The state is imposing a religion 7

Environmentalism does not posit the existence of a superhuman being, though some of its acolytes personify the earth as Gaia – the Greek name for an ancient earth goddess – and worship of the earth is implicit in the cult. But it is a religion, as much arising out of superstition, propounding an orthodoxy and demanding strict adherence to it with threats of penalty for disobedience, as any other religion. And it is being imposed on the United States in defiance of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

These are extracts from an article by Paul Driessen at Townhall:

Climate alarmists are meeting in Doha, Qatar, to hammer out a new international treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol that expires this year. The US Environmental Protection Agency is poised to unleash its first wave of carbon dioxide regulations. And Congress is teaming up with the White House to legislate taxes on hydrocarbon use and CO2 emissions  

This serious triple threat to our energy, economy, jobs, living standards, health and welfare is justified by assertions that the actions will stabilize Earth’s climate and prevent a litany of global warming horrors.

Our planet’s climate has never been stable, and never will be. There is no empirical evidence that carbon dioxide drives climate change, or that greenhouse gases have supplanted the complex and interrelated natural forces that have produced big and little ice ages, floods and droughts, stormy and quiescent periods throughout the ages.

Even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen from 280 parts per million before 1880 to 391 ppm (0.0391%) today, average global temperatures have flat-lined for 16 years; hurricane and tornado frequency and intensity have fallen to new lows; Antarctic sea ice continues to expand, while Arctic ice caps were reduced, not by warming, but by huge storms; and the rate of sea level rise remains steady.

While alarmists insist that Hurricane Sandy was “unprecedented” and proof that “climate change is real,” it is just one of many major storms that have battered New York and eastern Canada over the years.

Moreover, every ton of painful, economy-crippling US carbon dioxide reductions would be offset by 100 tons from India, China and elsewhere, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations would continue to climb.

But these inconvenient truths are irrelevant to climate campaigners, who are using “dangerous manmade climate change” as the best pretext ever devised to control energy use and economies. They simply hypothesize, model and assert that every observed weather and climate phenomenon is due to human CO2 emissions. Warmer or colder, wetter or drier, more ice or less, more storms, fewer storms, occasional big storms – if not now, someday, sooner or later. It’s exactly what climate alarmists predicted.

This is not science. It is political science, rooted in a loathing of hydrocarbons, economic growth and humanity.

It is ideological, religious – the only state-sanctioned, state-supported religion permitted today.

And like the super pontiffs of every other religion, its high priests grow rich by exploiting the superstition of the believers. Fortunes are being made out of the myth of manmade global warming.

Well-connected political cronies take hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars for “green energy” and “global warming prevention” programs, funnel it to soon-to-be-bankrupt companies, keep a few million for themselves, and launder a few hundred thousand back to the politicians who brokered the deals. Obama campaign bundlers … received more than $21,000 of corporate welfare for each dollar they donated to the Obama reelection campaign. Big Green environmentalist groups also garner countless millions in taxpayer lucre.

The consequences for average workers [of Doha, EPA, and the carbon tax] and their families are dire. … The effects [of even one] will be disastrous. If all three are imposed … the impacts will be utterly devastating.

Ignoring these facts, extensive other evidence for natural climate change, and the numerous scientists who reject their manmade climate catastrophe claims, advocates of a new Doha climate treaty, EPA “CO2 endangerment” rules, and “carbon taxes” insist these actions are needed to avoid ecological calamities.

They are adamant in contending that carbon taxes will somehow benefit the economy, create jobs and balance out-of-control spending. One is reminded of Will Rogers insightful quip: “Suppose you were an idiot – and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”

Every one of these actions is intended to increase the cost of the hydrocarbon energy that powers our economy. But raising the cost of transportation fuels, electricity, lighting, heating, air conditioning, and thus of food, materials and equipment will severely impact the bottom line for factories, utilities, offices, farms, shops, airlines, shippers, hospitals, schools …

And even , as the writer points out, government itself.

The poorest families may get rebates for their increased energy costs … institutions will not. They will be forced to reduce wages and benefits, hire fewer full-time employees, lay people off, outsource operations to countries where energy costs are lower, or even close their doors.

Only government will never close its doors, sad to say.

Taxes paid by companies and employees will dwindle. Instead of paying taxes, newly jobless workers will collect unemployment and welfare – from shrinking government coffers. … [Shrinking because] these anti-hydrocarbon policies also mean the US Treasury will be deprived of hundreds of billions in lease bonuses, royalties, taxes and other revenues that it would realize from the development of our nation’s vast oil, natural gas and coal deposits. Instead, the United States will be forced to pay billions more for imported oil, often from dictatorial, unethical, environmentally reckless countries.

Environmentalism will impoverish all nations.

New hydrocarbon energy restrictions and green energy demands will deprive Third World families and communities of abundant, reliable, affordable energy, obstruct human rights progress, and keep entire nations impoverished. They will kill millions more from lung infections (from burning wood and dung), intestinal diseases (from contaminated water), malaria and other diseases of poverty and eco-imperialism.

“Eco-imperialism” is a word that should become common currency.

There are always people – too many of them – who want to rule the lives of others. They like to find big excuses for imposing their will on the rest of us. Today the most powerful of these types are the environmentalists. They’ve found the biggest excuse ever. A force majeure. If we don’t do as they say, the earth will burn up and  … what? All living things will perish? The new eschatology.

Within a hundred years of Christianity being made the state religion by the Emperor Theodosius in 380, Rome fell (476), and the western Roman Empire came to an end. The Christian ethos was against fighting to preserve civilization. A thousand years of darkness descended on Europe.

Will it take a hundred years for  – let’s coin a word for this new religion – Gaianity to reduce the declining West to poverty and stagnation, ripe for Islam to conquer?

We must not let it happen.

  • liz

    Even if man-made global warming were real, it would still be better (to go on warming the earth with our pollution) than the alternative that they are imposing on us. What would be the good of having no pollution if everyone ends up impovererished, starving and dying of disease?
    Of course they hate humanity, so that’s fine with them. But poor countries pollute worse than prosperous ones, so even their ostensible goal would not be realized.
    But they’d be in control of the trash heap they created.

  • Jack

    I think Environmentalism is a sub-ideology of egalitarianism. I think it is egalitarianism which is the Left’s secular civic religion. Egalitarianism is expressed in all the Left’s major ideologies: feminism, multiculturalism, socialism (welfare-statism in the watered down form), environmentalism, and pacifism. All of them revolve around the destruction of absolute standards and thus the denial that there are better and worse or good and evil. Egalitarianism mandates relativism.

    How this egalitarianism rose to conquer the West is an interesting historical and philosophical question. I think it occurred in the process of secularizing Christianity. My guess is that the main villains are the European philosophers starting largely with Rousseau and Kant.

    An even more interesting question is why are the Conservatives so weak today? Are they infected by Leftist egalitarianism? Or are they affected by age old Christian pacifism and self immolation (which you have discussed so well in your origins of Christianity posts – btw more of those please :-)). Christians weren’t always weak. You see two types of Christianity: Hippie Christianity which stresses the NT and Crusader Christianity which stresses the OT. Today it seems like most Conservatives are weak NT Christians. I’m not saying the OT Christianity is the answer. I’m just trying to figure out why Conservatives are so weak and let the Left walk all over them (just a few days ago Romney shook hands with Obama in the oval office – no self respecting man who understood Obama’s war on liberty would do that).

    • C. Gee

      Well said. I agree with you that egalitarianism is the religion – or cult – of the left. Environmentalism is an excellent leveler. We’re all in the same sinking planet. And climate change means we must regulate industry by rationing carbon dioxide. An end to evil profits. In fact, carbon dioxide has become a symbol for profit poisoning the globe. Rationing carbon dioxide is redistributing wealth. The carbon dioxide index and the Gini index both measure immorality.
      As for why Conservatives are so weak – perhaps it is because they have nothing to counter the morality argument. Government has become Big Charity. If the Conservatives could redefine public compassion as a fraud, and promote indifference to one’s fellow citizens as civil society’s highest achievement, then we might return to rational republican government. That is a tall order, so deeply has hypocrisy become institutionalized. Goodspeak is now the official language.

      • liz

        Jack, Jillian, and C.Gee – thanks for bringing all this out – it’s beginning to make more and more sense. Christianity did foster decline because it would not allow thought to progress beyond it’s dogma.
        The way this is all connected and derived is fascinating – please do continue to expound on it!

    • Jack

      Your kindly asking for more encourages me to continue with it. I’ll post another one this month – for Christmas.

      I look forward to it. I have a mixed view of Christianity. On the one hand it is theology built on top of primitive mythology. And yet, when we look at Western Civilization and ask what ii is, Christianity was an important force in shaping the West. The cultures of the German and Celtic tribesmen were an intrinsic aspect of the formation of the West. But the culture the Barbarians adopted and combined with their own was the culture-religion of the Christian-Hebraic-Classical world. The classical civilization in the West had ceased to exist. All that was left of it was contained in the Catholic Church. Then, through the Germanic peoples adopting Catholicism, civilization was in a sense reborn. So Christianity is involved in the formation of what would be the greatest civilization in human history.

      No matter how irrational Christianity is, there must have been something better in it that allowed for the West to grow and thrive. I think as far as religions go, Christianity is an order of magnitude better than Islam. History shows that. Its interesting to imagine what European history would have been had Christianity never arose. Would it have been better or worse? I don’t know. But it seems the problem with the modern West is that as the Christian/Enlightenment mixed philosophy that made America possible came under attack with the rise of the Marxist/Progressive movement (and its foundation in Post Modern philosophy), egalitarianism, collectivism, socialism and nihilism have come to be the ruling order. And it has no real opposition as the Conservatives / Republicans are mushy weaklings.

      Really, I think if we step back and look big picture, as in centuries, what we are witnessing is the failure to replace Christianity with something positive. Nature abhors a vacuum and it will be interesting to see exactly what kind of tyranny we get (if we get one which sadly I think we will) as things start to collapse. But I think it is clear that much of modern Liberalism / Leftism is a rebellion against all things Christian and traditional.

      Which is why I like this blog. You are wrestling with trying to define a rational, value oriented secularism / atheism which does not accept the nihilism of the secular Left. Most Conservatives blame secularism for the rise of the Left but I think that is wrong. I think the Left’s secularism is incidental. I think it is their rejection of objectivity and standards, all standards, which is the essence of the Left. Their egalitarianism flows from there. Its as if the Leftist intellectuals jettisoned objectivity and morality and liberty when they jettisoned god. They threw the baby out with the bath water. And we are suffering as a result.

      In the end, I think Christianity offered some good things (i.e. an individual soul – perhaps instrumental in the individualism of the West especially in the Anglo-sphere) but it placed them on a foundation of quicksand. Christianity, and no religion actually, can not serve as the foundation of a liberty oriented society. It either degenerates into religious tyranny or a skepticism drenched tyranny (i.e. Leftism).

      We really are caught in the currents of history and on one level there is very little we can do.

      • Jillian Becker

        I agree with much of what you say here, Jack, though not all. My views on the effect Christianity has had on the history of the West will emerge in essays still to come.

        We greatly appreciate what you say about this blog.

      • liz

        Yes, Christianity was “involved” in the formation of civilization, but not responsible for it, as they like to claim. I think Christianity, like all religions, was a parasite on the superstitious nature of undeveloped human thought. They hijacked morality and became self-appointed arbiters of it. Thus they claim even now that without the influence of Christianity, morality and society would collapse. And that the decline of civilization is due to the decline of religious faith.
        It can’t be true that civilization depends on the continuance of faith in a delusion. But how do we separate the parasite from what it so thoroughly absorbed into itself that it has become synonymous with morality in peoples minds?