Have An Abortion For The Environments Sake!

Many of you who know me know that I watched “An Inconvenient Truth,” read the summary to the U.N. report on human factors on Climate Change and it pretty well freaked me out more than any movie I had seen come out of Hollywood for the last, well, for my entire life. I am sure this is because “An Inconvenient Truth” was meant to freak us out into action. Because of that reason alone, assuming a good cause at the back end, I was willing to endure a little alarmism created to call us to action. As long as the majority of facts are right, then I will give the claims the benefit of the doubt. Right? Who wants to damage the planet for lazy selfish reasons, right? How in the world does anyone benefit from saving the planet, except for the obvious benefit of, well, saving our planet, right!?

Since that time I watched a few documentaries on climate change from the antagonists perspective, challenging not the concept of global climate change, but the science about human factors versus other factors. There were a few videos out of the U.K. on the origins of human “CO2” contributions arguments. I watched a few national geographic videos and read NASA studies.

Why would I do this!? (You might ask) If all of our best scientists are declaring the threat (are they all? Who's on that list? Are they the best? Who isn't on that list?), why waste time reading up on it especially from an antagonist’s perspective rather than just doing stuff to help? In a word, marketing! A short while back I wrote about the concept of “greenwashing,” which in quick summary is the act of a company (or politician or government) “marketing” various ideas about how environmentally responsible their goals / products / taxes are and will positively affect this need to save our planet. The problem, it seems to me, is that “going green” is expensive, but more importantly all efforts to “go green” aren’t close to equal. Some efforts are completely effective and helpful and responsible while some are nothing short of snake oil being sold to an attentive public!

What I find is that non-alarmist global warming science reading has helped me to see and understand global warming better (not completely, only better), but at the same time helps me differentiate between the science of global climate change and the mythical fog that has descended on the topic of human causes of global warming. This is important if we as individuals are going to do the responsible thing and be good stewards of our planet.

Back to marketing. I mention marketing because of the first paragraph above. If I am going to be fair then I want to know if and where the benefits of fighting human causes of global warming rest. If a car company claims that they are environmentally more responsible than their competition because they make their seat cushions out of soy-based foams, I have to examine the enviro-benefit of driving a car that was manufactured in an eco-responsible manner versus are car with a smaller carbon footprint over the life of the car. It is less about “costing me more right now” and rather “costing all of us and the planet more in the long run.” But this isn’t easy to determine by reading a short three page article in Better Homes and Gardens Magazine (are they still around?) It takes a real investment. “Going green” isn’t about ideologically joining the “green club” but rather doing our part where it matters: less what we say (greenwash) and more about what we do (go green). Some might argue that being a proponent is at least an investment in the right direction. I completely disagree. It is literally no investment, to do nothing but just talk about it.

Recently I noticed a book at a local Border’s Bookstore and so I picked it up. The title was “Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmist Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed.” Again, this is an antagonistic book that helps to divide that line between real climate science and the foggy myth that creates unscientific momentum around human causes of global warming (for whatever reason.) I bought the book and am patiently reading through it. Responsibly enough, it contains analysis and appropriate references scattered throughout that validate its various points. It is a short history of the handling of the topic and anyone who wants to be educated on this topic would find this book to be a great reference for drawing a line between what is worth paying attention to and what is just alarmist.

This is the part where many bloggers would write stuff about propaganda of leftist media, but I don’t think the author (or I) believes that the media is so well organized or ideologically in tuned to a single well managed conspiracy. No. Rather I think that journalists and politicians are generally not well educated on environmental science and skim one report on a topic, highlighted by someone else for them, and then they perpetuate some new under-analyzed misunderstood perspective that gets even more distorted down the foodchain. This, coupled with watchdog groups (outlined in the book) that keep the climate change momentum spinning at full velocity by regularly contesting reports and statements that don’t seem alarmist enough (great examples in the book) keeps the public generally misinformed about not only the facts, but misinformed as to what we can truly do to help.

I think we generally want to help. My guess would be that if we were to ask a perfect stranger on the street, “If you could be given 5 proven things to do that would make a good contribution to doing your part to be a responsible steward of the planet, would you do it?” my guess is that most individuals would say “Sure.” Here lies the problem. The government seems to be the new clearinghouse on this information and what they are promoting is incredibly close to a greenwash. Let’s take an example that is very close to my heart. The global greenwashing of abortion.

First read this transcript from a TV news talkshow:
http://tinyurl.com/5cme9d

This is the author of the book I am reading. He shares that the world via the United Nations is already deciding how to hand out carbon credits. (The basic idea here has to do with “cap and trade”, meaning that countries will agree to put a cap on country-based carbon emissions and then if they exceed that cap as a country, then they can buy the right to “pollute” by purchasing carbon credits from a country that is doing so well that they have a surplus of positive carbon credits.) In this discussion the book author explains that China is likely being offered additional carbon credits because they are willing to “cap” their population (via abortion) and as a result would then have a smaller carbon footprint as a country because they are killing all of these future-people who would likely increase the carbon footprint. China argued for this, and European members of the Kyoto agreement along with the U.N. all agreed that China should get carbon credits because they are killing future polluters. So, in summary, population control is now a significant activity in reducing human factors for climate change enough that the U.N. is ready to cut virtual checks if countries endorse this sort of population control. What? So abortion is eco-responsible? Please! This is getting ridiculous and absurd. Did I mention that the U.N. is already implementing carbon taxes on a global scale and that America is already in debt to the U.N. in the billions of dollars at this point (remember that we get no say in how that money is spent… will it benefit the environment really?)

It seems clear to me that the government is little to no help in solving eco-responsibility issues outside of very local governments (i.e. your personal community government protecting the planet through local legislation that specifically targets unquestionably harmful behavior.) It seems that we will have to educate ourselves and “bailout” the government from their crazy solutions by getting involved locally and federally AND if we are going to save the planet, then we have to do it. Creating a new global-abortion-market-for-eco-credits is just a crazy notion and we have to save ourselves both from our politicians as well as save the planet as a result of this offensive line of thinking.

For those of you who advocate for pro-choice ideals or at least are not completely in agreement with me about the genocide that is abortion, consider the idea that when the U.N. creates this kind of eco-incentive that it isn’t happening in a vacuum. The U.N. Millenium agenda also outlines on-demand abortion as a part of their defense of woman (something Mexico is being harassed about by U.N. because their predominantly Catholic population doesn’t favor promoting on-demand abortion.) Put the two of these ideas together and (here comes a prediction) abortion could become less about “choice” in America and more about eco-responsible population control via abortion (once the U.S. demands the U.N. gives us our carbon credits for the 50,000,000 babies we have killed via abortion since 1973.) Abortion could become the next eco-fundraiser. If we can’t stop polluting, then maybe we can offset our carbon deficit by up-ing our abortion head count? The thought makes me sick!

Back on point. The book is not about abortion. That was just my personal rant. In any case, go buy the book and educate yourself. If you have ideas about how to “go green” in legitimate ways, I recommend writing those ideas here by making some comments or sending me emails. I will take a moment to blog out some of our ideas!

On the topic of: War Isn't Very Pro-Life

Recently someone I know made such a statement. It is a good one to think about. I don't mean that anecdotally. I mean, I hope you really think through this one. And whether you fall into pro-life position or not, or an anti-war position or not, I thought this would be an interesting statement to examine.

First, let’s talk about what sucks about these “labels” here:

Pro-life: The idea here is that “pro-life” means all life is sanctimonious and we should honor it in a vacuum. In reality, anyone who says they believe this is a bit more ideological than they are being realistic. The majority of people I know, eat harvested vegetables, and hamburgers, have been hurt enough in a personal way to wish someone else wasn’t on the planet (that last bit is pretty heavy, but in some cases sadly true.) I think the real definition of pro-life had everything to do with defending defenseless babies. On the flip side I think that statement offended folks on the other side of the fence because I do not know a single pro-choicer who felt they were the implied “pro-death.” So, I will grant anyone the possibility that if they say “pro-life” they mean those terms under some new definition, but I really think the issue was about defending the life of humans who couldn’t defend themselves.

War: Nobody is about to put a great definition to war. Outside of Hollywood and a few historical figures with clinical issues, I don’t think that anyone would say that war happens, for the sake of war and in a vacuum. So let’s put a couple definitions to it for the sake of argument:

“War is about death.”

Based on a definition like that, I don’t know anyone who is pro-war. Based on a definition like that, I can see how “war is not very pro-life.” But I don’t think that the goal of war is to cause death, as if an end in itself. In fact if we follow the rules of war at all in the world, we honor our enemies when we defeat them in a battle by not killing them. So this definition, while it may be true that people do die in war, is too simplistic a definition and more importantly doesn’t make sense as a definition (unless again, we are talking about Hollywood or a few crazy people from history.) What about this definition:

“War is standing terror in the face and saying, not only will we not give one more inch to you, but we will take back what was stolen in defense of the defenseless.”

I think that people can see a definition like this, but because of death, they struggle with it. Is war, is standing our ground and taken lost ground back worth the cost of the loss of so much life? I surely cannot answer that but I could imagine giving my life for a cause! (mind you I said imagine… I have never really come too close but a few times stood across from Russian solders with guns wondering if maybe I was about to?) If I give my life for a cause, then is war in that case OK? If in giving my life in defense of something I also at the same time defend my life, does that suddenly make me a war-monger? I think maybe you can see how answering this question becomes complicated. Apparently, for those living in a vacuum defending against tyranny or even fighting for the right against tyranny, if it ends in death, like the vacuum-sealed definition of pro-life above, death and killing is always a moral wrong and so they join Bruce Springsteen in asking the question, “War, what is it good for?” But I have found that many people, like I said above, will kill for food or defend their families to the death, but after seven degrees of separation from war they start to imagine that these simpler definitions actually make sense. I don't see how they can.

I have heard people say that defending war at a peacetime is like being a vegetarian between meals, meaning that once war is upon you, you won’t care about the value of it any more. You will just want out of it. I believe that to be true (that doesn't mean we should get out, but we surely might want to.) I have heard Hollywood say that once you are in war you forget about politics and are just trying to save yourself and your friends to your left and to your right. I also remember talking to World War II vets who talked about their duty to defend against tyrannical figures like Adolf Hitler. There are always so many reactions: from fear, to friendship, to duty and honor. All of them are valid and make the whole thing complex and multifaceted. I suppose if I were in the service or married to someone who was, I might feel these ideas hit closer to home. But I would honor the career decision of my spouse. rather than say that if her career bring her into participating in war, regardless of defending life and values, she is now not very pro-life (or pro-death as it implies, however you can stomache it.)

So in the end I don’t know that I have convinced you or me that “war is (or isn’t) very pro-life” other than to say that I think that statement is light and un-inspected at best. It is anecdotally quotable at worst as an over-simplification of the complexity and origin of why we might defend helpless babies, pigeonhole pro-choice folks as if they are pro-death, or feel reasonably that anyone is pro-war under the definition that war is killing for the sake of killing. I imagine that the quote is simply being passed along without thinking about these ideas, and so that is why I share them.

Maybe you have thoughts of your own? Feel free to comment. Remember, it’s only a monologue if you refuse to turn it into a dialog!