Earth On My Mind
Sunday is Earth Day and environmental issues are at the forefront of policy discussions more than ever. The pundits are weighing in.
The New Republic doesn’t buy the argument that the U.S. shouldn’t cap emissions because China and India aren’t following suit. As a fully industrialized nation the U.S. has a responsibility to act, no matter who joins us.
The New York Times praises new efforts to bring international security into the global warming discussion. People don’t always listen to warnings of environmental woe, but they pay attention when “security” comes up.
The LA Times says that for all of the environmental problems that face us, global warming is the worst. If you want to save the whales you must save the earth first.
Wayne Winegarden argues that we can’t ignore the costs of carbon regulation. But what about the costs of global warming?
Peter Opa is trying to understand why many on the Christian right aren’t joining the fight against environmental degradation. The reason he thinks they aren’t joining their more liberal brethren? Political power and money.
2 Comments:
- wornoutwoman said...
-
I think most people feel that the earth is fine today, but I think they owe it to their children and their future grandchildren to take care of the earth. What we do today effects our loved ones years down the road, and it angers me that more people don't at least try! Thank you for posting this!
- April 21, 2007 5:34 PM
- Matt said...
-
As an ex-neo-con myself I'd like to respond to Opa. (I'm a string of prefixes!) I spent a lot of time and brain energy railing against neo-cons and insisting that everything they do is ultimately driven by money or political power. While I still believe that to an extent, I think Opa is missing an essential part of the conservative Christian right. That is, that they are in fact conservative. Let's take a step back and remember that conservatives, by definition will resist anything that is new or calls for change. My favorite example is from history: when they first introduced pianos into churches many objected, calling them brothel instruments. They believed that the pipe organ was the only moral option. I believe the environmental issue is similar at least at the grassroots, voter level. It takes a couple decades for neo-cons (or any kind of cons) to embrace a new issue. Environmentalism may have been around for a while, but as a serious issue that both political sides are talking about, it's in its infancy. While it may years, I hope to see neo-cons fighting for the environment just as hard as they fight against abortion or same-sex marriage. Even further, as a liberal, I have secret fledgling hope that environmental conservation could be the wedge that separates conservative Christians from big business and the political right. Dare I hope that God will become politically neutral?
- April 22, 2007 10:25 AM







