That's not the attitude people tend to have, though. It's more along the lines of "if you're emitting way more CO2 than I am, reduce your own emissions until you're not before you tell me that I need to reduce mine". (Basically the same point being made in Matthew 7:3-5 except with respect to environmentalism instead of morality.)
This shouldn't be difficult. At least for Christians they're supposed to consider themselves stewards. What good is a steward that's actively destructive towards their charge? Recycling, green (as in more plants and less concrete) development, reducing air and water pollution are all reasonable things from that perspective.
If you talk to many environmentalist they see it very much as a moral argument.
And that's the problem. They may as well have a Bible in their hands and go knocking on doors.
More people can be swayed by explaining that a particular action has a direct benefit and is therefore more effective than the current one than by saying "repent for the end is near" and "you're a backwards hillbilly who is evil for not seeing this my way".
One thing that has always baffled me about American Christians is how apathetic they are towards the environment.
At its core, I guess, the issue is that many are suckered by the right wingers and propaganda from large corporations to vote in their camp, by always bringing up other, more "pressing", moral issues.
I think as long as there are only 2 main viable parties to vote for, many of those folks will still vote along the traditional party lines.
The reason they campaign against that is that they don't want us to continue running around in this stage of sin (technological development), but to return to grace (in this case back to working 18 hour days with a single failed harvest killing us).
Much of the hardcore environmental movement is using it as a substitute for religion, except in an even more insane way.
You're looking for rationality in an irrational position. These "preservationists" are really just environmental Catholics. Underneath the environmental rhetoric, they've internalized a version of original sin and desire to submit themselves to punishment for said sin. To suggest modern solutions and forward progress would be to suggest that the sinners could erase the original sin by sinning more.
To convince them to take action you have to validate their self-imposed guilt with images of reverting to noble savages clapping hands and playing pan-flutes around a fire while the animals sway in time to the music.
There was a time I would have said these people need education, now I'll settle for using their guilt to herd them in the correct direction.
A lot of Christian churches actually support a type of environmentalism under the idea that God gave man stewardship over the earth, which comes with the responsibility to keep it up. It's His creation, after all (under this belief).
> Environmentalism suffers from the same "purity test" mindset as other things these days.
Keep in mind that environmentalists speak with many voices because they are concerned about different aspects of the environment. Keep in mind that there are many charlatans who will gladly sell something as environmentally friendly when it is not or when it is simply a delaying tactic, so some environmentalists view most claims with extreme skepticism. Keep in mind that there are many environmentalists who believe that we should be setting higher targets.
We shouldn't be painting any group with a singular brush.
Well there are environmentalists that practice a modern-day puritanism in that they deny themselves (and would deny others) comforts that they deem ostentatious because they feel that 'doing without' makes them stronger in some way. These people are generally not too helpful for the movement.
I personally am much more motivated by the idea of doing something more efficiently and with less (or zero) waste than I am by the notion of self-sacrifice. I think we should 'protect the environment' only because I find the less wasteful path more aesthetically appealing, and I have faith that man can be more efficient and less wasteful through his own ingenuity, without resorting to self-flagellation.
A lot of the problem with environmental stuff here is that people don't find it a burden because it neatly dovetails with the way they like to live. It's easy to spend time hunting fresh foods and cooking because you love to do it and are a bit of a foodie. It's not hard to consider vegetarianism or no children depending on the person.
Essentially to use a christian term its cheap grace. Its easy for a kind person to be kind; but its hard for them to be stern when it is needed.
This is a silly argument made by environmentalists for decades now, often to promote failed policies; plastic recycling, ethanol subsidies, and most egregious the prevention of progress around nuclear power.
Not only does moralizing often backfire, it has an embedding effect that prevents actual progress.
The problem is that Christians have been telling people not to sin for 2000 years, and people have not stopped sinning..."
reply