An intriguing new article in the left-leaning magazine, The Nation, makes the case for comparing our current global warming frenzy, and the business of selling "carbon footprint" credits, to the sale of indugences by the Roman Catholic Church during an arguably corrupt period of time in the history of the church. http://www.thenation.com/docprem.mhtml?i=20070514&s=cockburn
2007-05-02 05:31:03 · 7 answers · asked by Apachecat 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Actually, I think it's more like the Bush-sponsored plan for pollution trading/sales in power generation.
Bush expanded "a [Clinton-era] market-driven air quality program that lets companies buy and trade pollution rights in selected states."
It has been quite effective in reducing nitrous oxide and hydrocarbons.
Isn't this pretty much the same idea as carbon offsets -- use the free market to encourage innovation?
I'm quite liberal, but I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and this program has (mostly) worked well.
2007-05-02 05:35:57 · answer #1 · answered by Steve 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
*Is Catholic*
Actually no, not even close. Carbon Credits are akin to what Protestants THINK indulgences are all about. An indulgence doesn't forgive you of your sins. It forgives you of temporal punishment due to a sin that has already been forgiven. An indulgence is not a get out of jail free card and never was.
Carbon Credits are just a way of paying so you can sin some more. Liberals don't understand that the "eco-sinners" (Like Algore and his house) have the money to keep sucking up energy and paying things off through credits. It is the poor that really get put on the rack because they cannot afford the carbon credits. Buying a carbon credit doesn't mean that you are helping the environment because you are not changing a thing about your life. You are just paying money to feel better and somebody else is getting rich off of you.
2007-05-02 18:18:00 · answer #2 · answered by Liet Kynes 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To the degree that you can see environmentalism as a religion, sure, the analogy holds.
In an economic sense, however, carbon trading would be different in that only a certain amount of such polution credits would be available, based on the total emissions allowable. And, as far as I know, indulgences weren't traded in a secondary market...
2007-05-02 05:38:25 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Liked the article. I love guys like your first answer. Quote nothing, spew hate, label, insult, yet speak not one fact. Isn't it those types that scream at anyony who labels him liberal (Socialist), sorry couldn't resist.
Sometimes "It is better to keep your mouth shut and let them think your stupid, than to open your mouth and confirm it".
Oh, and the Washinton Post was great.
2007-05-02 05:42:37 · answer #4 · answered by Ken C 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Whatever happened to global cooling.
2007-05-02 05:37:00 · answer #5 · answered by Nikki 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Yes, exactly. Got any to spare?!
2007-05-02 05:39:15 · answer #6 · answered by Ben 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, and abortion doctors rake them them in and trade them for nice things like fishing gear and vacations.
2007-05-02 05:37:00 · answer #7 · answered by Son of George Bush 2 · 5⤊ 2⤋