When a Coin in the Coffer Rings, The Carbon Dioxide From Your Tailpipe Springs?
Today I just want to put something out for discussion. Much has been said and counter-said about the recent Live Earth events held around the globe in order to promote awareness and action about the issue of global warming. Many rock stars, including Bob Dylan and the Arctic Monkeys have expressed indignation over the hypocrisy of rock stars who jet around the world in jets and buses preaching at the general public about taking care of the environment.
In an effort to curb just such criticism, the organizers of the world-wide events have purchased carbon credits in order to offset their “carbon footprints“. For those unfamiliar with this concept, it is based on the idea that through normal everyday activity, we all leave behind a “carbon footprint,” which is nothing more than a measure carbon dioxide left behind. In an order to reduce these levels, the Kyoto Protocol, which entered into force in 2005 established a system of quotas on the levels of greenhouse gases countries can produce. Carbon credits are tradable permits which may be bought and sold. So, if you find yourself producing more greenhouse gases than allowed, you may buy credits from someone who finds themselves under their quota.
In the comments of this past Friday’s Town Crier post, our good friend Brent Jeffrey Thomas offered the following insight:
these carbon offset credits somehow remind me of those pre-Council of Trent indulgences, which Martin Luther was so rightly perturbed about; financial acts for the purchase and sale of salvation. (As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs). In the case of carbon offset credits, it seems that no repentence is required, and, if one has the wealth, it seems that one might purchase freedom from temporal morality, and freedom from a lifestyle of careful stewardship.
I’ve been thinking quite a bit about BJT’s point and I’m particularly interested in your thoughts as they relate to the concert organizers and rock stars buying carbon credits in order to preach to us about taking care of the environment. Wouldn’t it have been a more powerful statement to somehow say that each event could be certified “environmentally safe,” or “green” if there were such certification? But the truth is that this simply can’t be done.
The very notion of having large scale rock concerts to promote environmental friendliness seems a bit absurd at best. The idea of then buying carbon credits, seems to smack, as Brent as reminded us, of nothing more than indulgences so that the organizers can feel justified in mounting their podiums, judgmental speeches in hand.
What are your thoughts?
July 10th, 2007 at 7:02 am
Brent,
I appreciate you guys pointing out this hypocrisy. I believe the organizers and rock stars are primarily concerned with a platform for their polictical agendas more than making the events “green.”
July 10th, 2007 at 7:25 am
I think you’re hitting the nail on the head.
Now, if every star had BIKED to the event with nothing but an acoustic guitar on their back and they had played completely unplugged, THAT would have been a freakin’ statement.
Can you imagine? a U2 bike tour? The Black-Eyed Peas hiking somewhere. How’s that for a gigantic statement?
July 10th, 2007 at 7:30 am
Here’s the thing that gets me: what good is it to have a ‘green’ product that wasn’t manufactured that way? So what if you have a reel mower or a bunch of florescent light bulbs? The reel mower was probably made the same way the gas mower was in some smog belching factory in China.
Anyway, this sort of thing gets all over me.
Josh
“…the word of God is not bound.”
–2 Timothy 2:9
July 10th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
ahhh…thanks for clearing that up…wasn’t sure what the carbon footprint was for a while…didn’t really read up on it…i know that the local health store here, Whole Foods uses the carbon footprint credit idea…interesting stuff…
rhett
July 10th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Buying credits like that is not really as far-out as it might seem at first. Assuming that the credits are on the up-and-up and actually do result in reduced greenhouse emissions by “using” these emission credits that would otherwise be on the market for some other emitter to use, the overall greenhouse gas emissions are reduced and the angry earth-god is rightfully appeased. The difference between this and the indulgences is that carbon emissions credits are (in principle) limited in quantity and do in fact have a correspondence to reality.
I cannot speak to the truth of the aforementioned assumption, however, so it may not work out as neatly as the theory says it might.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Paul, thank you so much for pointing out the other side. I guess one of the big questions I have is whether the quota system can be and is enforced and by whom? Especially when a country such as China shows no regard at all towards complying.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Hm. That’s kind of funny — odd funny - about the lightbulbs and mowers. I haven’t gone all out about the Green thing, but I have been trying to make small changes where I can, using re-usable canvas shopping bags instead of plastic, conserving water… fluorescent lightbulbs… I never thought about the whole smog-spitting factory thing. See? That’s where the insight of others comes in handy.
I think the whole giant concert for global warming thing is kind of like printing flyers about recycling on unrecycled paper. But then, I’d never heard about credits and footprints until now so I’m not sure about all that.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
It’s really amazing how these rock stars and liberal politicians don’t seem to want to actually change their consumption, yet they want everyone else to. It’s the very definition of hypocrisy. How dare they call this our biggest moral crisis of our time, yet find ridiculous ways to rationalize their behavior?
How can Al Gore expect us to take him seriously when he “buys” his carbon credits from himself. Lots of these credit sellers have been shown not to actually do anything but give receipts. How are credits actually produced anyhow, except by fishy accounting and rationalization?
I’ve made the case before that the real issue on the table is redistribution of wealth, not the environment. In the proponents’ dream, the richer industrial nations will pay indulgences to maintain their lifestyle while backward 3rd world dictators collect money to suppress industrialization and prosperity for their people. Eventually, the industrialized world must choose to either bankrupt itself or shut down all industry that is not blessed by the green elite. It’s a two-fer!!
I’m waiting for the next shoe to drop, namely that parents of more than one child will be forced to buy child-credits from China and Europe . After all, it would stop overpopulation and American consumption, right? What an incentive! Abort your child, get a debit payment! This is no joke.
Although it’s a bit extreme, I know some folks who are offering carbon debits for sale:
http://carboncreditkillers.com/
Be sure to click on “How We Make a Carbon Debit”.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
All good comments… but please, let’s take a look at ourselves before we take it out on artists that we don’t know personally. Yes, sometimes they’re an easy target, but often all we know about them is what the media shows us. Do we know how many of them may have biked to the event? How many of them are using bio-diesel fueled buses? How many of us biked to work today? Didn’t eat bananas because they weren’t local? Didn’t run the air conditioning? Etc, etc… I’m sure some of you are paying attention, but it’s awfully easy to blame people that we don’t know. Most of the people that I know wouldn’t think of making a sacrifice to conserve anything even though they’re believers–it seem that it just hasn’t occured to them. Maybe they’ll listen to someone saying it in a big, loud way. If everyone chose one way to go ‘green’ (such as buying local food), it would save a lot more than one big rock concert expends, eh?
July 10th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
How about instead of complaining about all these megastars who participate in the same system we do (hypocrite you! hypocrites me/us!), we look at a couple examples of artists who are doing something tangible to address this issue?
Mewithoutyou has been touring a veggie-oil powered bus for something like three years now. When I saw them last year, the bus had just broken down that day…from a busted axle. NOT the engine! I can’t find a specific online reference to it, but it is featured here.
Piebald also runs a grease powered bus. Read all about that here.
July 11th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Ben, these artists don’t hesitate to comment about us, in their generalizations. I think that it is fair to discuss these issues: hypocrisy, how should we live, etc. We learn from the debate. There is much to debate and consider. Many of us who comment are concerned about stewardship, whether or not we accept the entire premise of human-caused global warming, and endeavor, albeit feebly, to improve this aspect of our lives as followers of Christ. I think that we would probably have, and have had, similar discussions about tele-evangelists with private jets (and others) who consume conspicuously, contradicting their preaching; and it is probably at least educational, possibly edifying to ponder such things, and then to act. The Live Earth concerts, but also the numerous reasonable criticisms, I pray, will all eventually inform us toward doing things in a better way.
July 11th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Kyle, mea maxima culpa. “Hypocrite” is practically a synonym for “human”. Glad thing that God extends to us His mercy through the redeeming work of Jesus, though we are so pitifully undeserving. I am most pitifully undeserving.
Having stated this mea culpa, I don’t repent of commenting on these issues. I think that it is reasonable to consider that these Live Earth events could have been done better, and that we can each do our part better.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Kyle, I agree that the charge of hypocrisy is often a cop-out with all the intellectual depth of a tenth grade debate, but that’s not the case here. Remember that not all of us are on board with the theory of human-caused global warming.
To put it in perspective, 99.9% of the public have never heard of the bands you mentioned. However, most of us are quite familiar with rock stars droning on and preaching at us to do something they refuse to personally.
I don’t care if Chris Cornell rides bicycles his whole life, he’s still not going to make up for the pollution he creates on a single tour. I don’t resent efforts to reduce carbon footprints, but these pop musicians have zero credibility when their efforts don’t start at home. Check out the celebrities from Brent’s first post who acknowledged the arrogance of the idea that just because someone in a band he’s some kind of authority on climatology.
Likewise, Senator John Edwards has no basis to lecture anyone about energy use and economic inequality when he maintains a 28,000 square foot house.
Concerning the word-faith televangelists, I’ll say this much for them; for the sake of this conversation their doctrine and actions line up squarely. The whole point of the private jets and gaudy mansion sets is to say, “My conspicuous consumption is the evidence of God’s blessing. If you imitate my actions and faith, you can experience the same thing.”
Instead the Live Earth stars are saying to us, “Don’t imitate me. I will use energy extravagantly for luxuries you can only imagine, but you little people need to give up your daily conveniences to save the earth.”
July 11th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Jim, good point about the unfortunate alignment of word-of-faith preaching and ostentatious lifestyle.
We each probably have our places here and there wherein our own beliefs and practices do not align as they should, or unfortunately line up when they should not. Having such things pointed out, and pointed them out, and mutually benefiting from this, is the point of freedom of speech.
The leveling of the charge “hypocrite”, and demands to “quit complaining”, are very nearly conversation enders. I truly dislike being labeled a hypocrite with regard to this subject, when I am one of the few human beings gladly walking about our town on my daily errands (and in so doing, sticking out like a sore thumb in a car crazy town), cooling my non-palatial home with an evaporative cooler, car-pooling when necessary, buying local produce. (Some of these actions are done for reasons including and other than environmental concern, like discipline, austerity, etc.). But, there is much about our day to day lives which could be done with better efficiency, with a better concern for stewardship (regardless of whether global warming is human caused, or not); and thinking about such things, I became less irritated with that almost-conversation-ending charge.
There is too much contradictory science for anyone to be pontificating, with regard to the notion that global warming is specifically human-caused. I and many critics have not entirely or at all accepted this premise. And, as Jim pointed out, the charge of hypocrisy leveled by Kyle, in this specific regard, doesn’t therefore really apply to many critics.
If another Live Earth-type function occurs, it really could be pursued with an obsession toward environmentally friendly, perception changing, technologies and practices, and thus be taken much more seriously. The money and energy invested could result in spin-off technology This is not a charge of hypocrisy, this is constructive criticism.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Apologies! Please note that the charge of hypocrisy is leveled “me/us”. I include myself in this charge. I can’t afford to live the local, stewardful lifestyle I aspire to, but I can do my best to live as simply as possible. And honestly, after talking at length with a couple of Gandhi-inspired Quakers, I am somewhat in doubt that you can truly live in such a way as to leave no footprint. But then, I don’t think that’s the point.
Anyway, what I was trying to do in my first comment was point away from these Live Earth concerts (which strike me as somewhat hilarious anyway) and look at people are putting their money where their mouth is (and making great music while they’re at it!).
Also, global warming aside, if you want some inspiration that our somewhat materialist-driven society isn’t making ends meet on the issue of stewardship, I’d recommend visiting a dump. My mother is no believer in global warming, but after making a visit to a dump, her attitude changed somewhat with regards to environmental stewardship.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Kyle, I think that I responded to you in an overly sensitive manner, and I thank you for your generous apology. Although I am not a believer in human activity being the specific cause of warming, and am still reading analysis on this matter, I think that better stewardship is always a very important matter for Christians to be concerned about, always was and shall be on this earth. It is a matter of striving and praying to become less selfish in every way, trying to be like Jesus. Living as if the kingdom of God is more important than one’s own castle. With regard to consideration for creation, Jesus is always poetic about nature, and says that the Father does not forget about one sparrow (which callous mankind would deem worth pennies).
As an artist I am trying to think of ways to have a more gentle impact on the world. I am beginning to re-use flawed art prints in collages, and do not create prints in large numbers, but only print what is ordered by collectors. These are very, very little things, no doubt. I’m open to other good ideas.
As Kyle said, the idea of leaving no footprint is not realistic. The aborted unborn leave no willful footprint. Most of God’s living creatures do leave literal and other footprints, and we should count ourselves as such and more. I think that many environmentalists, the kind who equate all humanity with horrible viruses, should be opposed, theologically, intellectually, etc. We are fallen creatures, no doubt, but made in the image of God. On a spiritual level, each one of us human beings has left this dramatic impact,a footprint so to speak, a grave consequence: that Jesus the Messiah needed to die for us.
Funny and true Live Earth concert quote, by Madonna: “If you want to save the planet, I want you to start jumping up and down!”
July 12th, 2007 at 11:47 am
The Madonna quote is truly uttered by her, not true that we can save the planet by jumping up and down. I’ve tried that (jumping up and down), and yes, there was an impact, but not one that caused positive change.
July 13th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
[...] 2. When a Coin in the Coffer Rings, The Carbon Dioxide From Your Tailpipe Springs? via Colossians Three Sixteen by Brent on Jul 10, 2007 - Today I just want to put something out for discussion. Much has been said and counter-said about the recent Live Earth events held around the globe in order to promote awareness and action about the issue of global warming… [...]