A call for Green Reformation

Al Gore on global warming (read it through, it's not what you think):

There are areas of uncertainty about the greenhouse effect and the dire nature of the ecological crisis we face, which are seized upon as excuses for inaction. This is a psychological problem common to all humanity. If strong responses are needed and yet there is some residual uncertainty about whether you are going to have to make those responses, the natural psychological tendency is to magnify the uncertainty and say, "Well, maybe we won't really have to face up to it."

But the fact that we face an ecological crisis without any precedent in historic times is no longer a matter of any dispute worthy of recognition. And those who, for the purpose of maintaining balance in debate, take the contrarian view that there is significant uncertainty about whether it's real are hurting our ability to respond.

Sounds just like Al Gore the Eco Rock Star, doesn't it? The guy who has become super-rich and super-famous making documentaries and showing his famous PowerPoint presentation all over the world? The guy who, if he could only get in the White House, would redeem America from its evil eco-ways?

Except it's not, or at least not quite. That was the Al Gore of 1988 -- 19 years ago -- and that Al Gore, four years later, did get to the White House and served as Vice-President of the United States for eight years. That was the Al Gore who was the second-highest officeholder in the land in a Democratic administration that came to power with a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate. It was the perfect opportunity to do what he claimed needed doing, no?

And so it was that four years after his demand for radical action (and, as always, a demand that those who disagree be silenced), Al Gore got his chance. So eight years later when Mr. Gore and Mr. Clinton left office, why hadn't they gotten done all the things they said were so critical to do (and that they now rail at Mr. Bush for not doing)?

---

Sorry, I get a bit wrapped up in all this. I do think that what we do to our environment is important, and that it's vital that we radically reduce our use of petroleum (for compelling geopolitical reasons, if nothing else). In high school in the early '70s I was the first kid I knew to have an Earth Day sticker (probably would be a collector's item if I'd kept it), loved everything Edward Abbey wrote, and in the '80s read everything Tom Brown wrote and even trekked to the Pine Barrens to attend the Tom Brown School. I was (and am) proud to be on the side of conservation, living in harmony with nature, minimizing damage to the planet.

Today, in middle age, I still cherish the wild places, love the empty desert so much that I moved to brutally-hot Arizona, still believe strongly in humankind's obligation to be the steward of the Earth. None of that has changed.

But in recent years I've also become completely intolerant of the game of political posturing that has become the modern-day "environmental movement." My parting of the ways started with Greenpeace and its playing-to-the-cameras bully tactics, broke wide with the Green Party movement (a shiny green wrapper over moldy old Marxism), and has become open opposition with the rise of Green Chic, the modern pop-culture fad where "green is the new black" and exhibitionist environmentalism has taken on all the trappings (and worst traits of) a self-serving and viciously intolerant neo-religious cult.

Strong words, yes?

And to back those words I bring forward my first exhibit: the Toyota Prius, a harmless little machine that, by any objective measure is a lousy car -- slow, ugly, and handles like a pig -- but has become a Green cult item, not because it's eco-friendly (lots of other hybrids exist and are much better cars), but precisely because its unique ugly shape stands out and proclaims: "Look at me! I'm Greener than Thou!" It's a crap car made famous not for its friendliness to the environment (its fuel economy is far less than claimed, and no one talks about its huge toxic battery packs), but as a form of Green Plumage you can wear in public.

Exhibit Two: The booming industry of those mythical "carbon offsets" that all the Eco-Glitterati buy so they can continue to pollute like bandits but proclaim a clear conscience. So it is that (our handy example) Mr. Gore lives in a huge 20-room mansion, burns jet-fuel hydrocarbons faster than an oil-well fire, runs around in large, expensive cars -- all things that he preaches as evil and irresponsible, though he himself does them. But because he spends a few hours of his yearly income on magical "carbon offsets," it's all OK and he can continue to do all the things he rages against in others.

The whole "carbon offsets" concept is searingly reminiscent of the "indulgences" that the corrupt Catholic Church of the Middle Ages sold to the wealthy as a way for them to continue to engage in sin by paying off their guilt in advance. It was a cynically hypocritical practice then, and it's no different when practiced by politicians and movie stars today.

The plain obvious truth is that if you dare to preach to others, you need to set the example yourself. Walk the talk: You say people should live in modest houses? Then live in one yourself (and only one -- not two or five or ten). You preach that people should use mass transit? Then quit flying in private jets. (The rest of us get by without them, and modern airline security is more than adequate even for a celebrity, no?) You rail against big gas-guzzlers? Then get rid of your limousines and your monster military Hummers (ahem, Mr. Schwarzenegger).

I suppose the measure of how serious we are about finding rational solutions to environmental problems is how quickly we outgrow the shallow, self-centered Chic Environmentalism of the last few years. If this is how the "green movement" continues, we're doomed. We'll drown in holier-than-thou posturing, preening, and politicking, and nothing seriously useful will ever get done.

But if we can regain a modicum of humility, a rational tolerance of other views (including the many serious, thoughtful global-warming skeptics who are currently being tarred as "deniers"), and renounce our addiction to cult-like conviction, then maybe there's hope -- hope that we can close the huge chasm that opened from our arrogance and will only be closed when we regain our humility, hope that we'll learn that when dealing with opposing views we should respect, not revile. Only then will we have a chance to start harnessing the greatest untapped power in the world -- the power of all those we've angered, ostracized, and alienated, but who would eventually meet us in the middle if only we'd quit insulting them.

That would amount to a modern Reformation of a "green movement" gone astray. It was outrage against the corrupt Medieval Church that led to the Reformation and put an end to cynical, hypocritical practices such as "indulgences." And in a similar way I think we need a modern Reformation of the environmental movement to pull it back from its own self-centered, hypocritical ways and its own latter-day "indulgences." But until it does, I think we should withhold our green tithes (the lifeblood of Big Green Chic is Big Green Money) and keep pounding that nail into the door.