Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Links Faith to Environmentalism (Carbon credit indulgences)
Breitbart ^ | October 15, 2007

Posted on 10/15/2007 3:09:44 PM PDT by Shermy

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama said Sunday that his religious beliefs influence his plans for how to protect the environment. Speaking before religious leaders and others at what he called an "interfaith forum on climate change," the Illinois senator said God has entrusted humans with the responsibility of caring for the earth, and "we are not acting as good stewards of God's earth when our bottom line puts the size of our profits before the future of our planet."

"It is our responsibility to ensure that this planet remains clean and safe and livable for our children and for all of God's children," he told about 200 people gathered at the downtown public library. "But in recent years, science has made it undeniably clear that our generation is not living up to this responsibility. Global warming is not a someday problem, it is now."

Last week, Obama released a plan to combat global warming that calls for an 80 percent reduction in U.S. carbon emissions by 2050.

Obama said he would force industries and power companies to clean up their operations. He would institute a "cap and trade" approach that would require polluters to buy allowances, essentially putting a price on pollution and creating an incentive to cut emissions.

He said $150 billion from the sale of allowances could help drive the development of environmentally friendly technologies, including the next generation of biofuels, expansion of a delivery infrastructure and fuel-efficient vehicles.

"We've heard promises about energy independence from every single president since Richard Nixon, but we are actually more dependent on oil today than ever before," he said.

Obama said many of his rivals have talked about the issue but "have taken a pass on it in years in Washington."

He said he would ask the biggest carbon-emitting nations join the U.S. in creating a global energy forum to develop climate protocols. He would also share clean energy technologies with all nations.

Obama also challenged individuals to do their part to help the environment, and he called for making government, businesses and homes 50 percent more energy efficient by 2030. He said he wants all federal government buildings carbon neutral by 2025.

Among other White House hopefuls, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has said she is intrigued by a carbon auction system but has stopped short of endorsing it. Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut has proposed taxing polluters for their carbon emissions. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who has pledged to have a carbon neutral campaign, also proposes a "cap and trade" system that aims to reach the 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.

On Sunday, Edwards and Sen. John McCain picked up environmental endorsements from Friends of the Earth Action and Republicans for Environmental Protection, respectively.

Meeting the threat of global climate change will take hard work and faith, Obama said.

"Not a blind faith, not a faith of mere words, not a faith that ignores science, but an active searching faith," said Obama, a member of the United Church of Christ. "It's a faith that does not look at the hardship and pain and suffering in the world and use it all as an excuse for inaction or cynicism, but one that accepts the fact that although we are not going to solve every problem here on earth, we can make a difference."

Despite the event's environmental focus, Obama also addressed the Iraq War and a House proposal for a tax to cover war spending. He said he agrees there's no such thing as a free lunch and that tax cuts and war spending can't coexist for ever.

"The only reason we haven't been feeling the pinch is because China and South Korea and Mexico have lent us money," Obama said. "I believe in the basic principle that you pay for what you've initiated. I would say that the idea of a war tax is probably a little late. I would have liked to have seen that suggestion before we spent $600 billion."


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: carboncult; crichton; gaia; gaiaandstate; greenreligion; obamacarboncredits; paganfundamentalism; paganism; religiousleft

1 posted on 10/15/2007 3:09:46 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Shermy
The only good thing to come from this emergence of environmentalism as religion will be the crucifixion of Al Gore.

Gonna need a big ass tree though.

2 posted on 10/15/2007 3:13:01 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl; xcamel; NormsRevenge

“”We’ve heard promises about energy independence from every single president since Richard Nixon, but we are actually more dependent on oil today than ever before,” he said.””

So Obama will impose on us the worst non-solution...

I liked the religious angle, given how many compare the scheme to doling out indulgences. Maybe he is a Medieval Roman Chuch follower?


3 posted on 10/15/2007 3:14:23 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

Always fun to reference:

By Michael Crichton

San Francisco
September 15, 2003

I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we’re told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.

As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about environmentalism. And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including the consequences to other people, and the consequences to the environment. I believe it is important to act in ways that are sympathetic to the environment, and I believe this will always be a need, carrying into the future. I believe the world has genuine problems and I believe it can and should be improved. But I also think that deciding what constitutes responsible action is immensely difficult, and the consequences of our actions are often difficult to know in advance. I think our past record of environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best intended efforts often go awry. But I think we do not recognize our past failures, and face them squarely. And I think I know why.

I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can’t be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people-—the best people, the most enlightened people-—do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday-—these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don’t want to talk anybody out of them, as I don’t want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don’t want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can’t talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die. Let’s examine some of those beliefs.

There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden?

And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the Eden-like environment? Well, they never did. On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process. And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious? Hardly: the early peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare. Generations of hatred, tribal hatreds, constant battles. The warlike tribes of this continent are famous: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs, Toltec, Incas. Some of them practiced infanticide, and human sacrifice. And those tribes that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated, or learned to build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.

How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself. The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction.

There was even an academic movement, during the latter 20th century, that claimed that cannibalism was a white man’s invention to demonize the indigenous peoples. (Only academics could fight such a battle.) It was some thirty years before professors finally agreed that yes, cannibalism does inbdeed occur among human beings. Meanwhile, all during this time New Guinea highlanders in the 20th century continued to eat the brains of their enemies until they were finally made to understand that they risked kuru, a fatal neurological disease, when they did so.

More recently still the gentle Tasaday of the Philippines turned out to be a publicity stunt, a nonexistent tribe. And African pygmies have one of the highest murder rates on the planet.

In short, the romantic view of the natural world as a blissful Eden is only held by people who have no actual experience of nature. People who live in nature are not romantic about it at all. They may hold spiritual beliefs about the world around them, they may have a sense of the unity of nature or the aliveness of all things, but they still kill the animals and uproot the plants in order to eat, to live. If they don’t, they will die.

And if you, even now, put yourself in nature even for a matter of days, you will quickly be disabused of all your romantic fantasies. Take a trek through the jungles of Borneo, and in short order you will have festering sores on your skin, you’ll have bugs all over your body, biting in your hair, crawling up your nose and into your ears, you’ll have infections and sickness and if you’re not with somebody who knows what they’re doing, you’ll quickly starve to death. But chances are that even in the jungles of Borneo you won’t experience nature so directly, because you will have covered your entire body with DEET and you will be doing everything you can to keep those bugs off you.

The truth is, almost nobody wants to experience real nature. What people want is to spend a week or two in a cabin in the woods, with screens on the windows. They want a simplified life for a while, without all their stuff. Or a nice river rafting trip for a few days, with somebody else doing the cooking. Nobody wants to go back to nature in any real way, and nobody does. It’s all talk-and as the years go on, and the world population grows increasingly urban, it’s uninformed talk. Farmers know what they’re talking about. City people don’t. It’s all fantasy.

One way to measure the prevalence of fantasy is to note the number of people who die because they haven’t the least knowledge of how nature really is. They stand beside wild animals, like buffalo, for a picture and get trampled to death; they climb a mountain in dicey weather without proper gear, and freeze to death. They drown in the surf on holiday because they can’t conceive the real power of what we blithely call “the force of nature.” They have seen the ocean. But they haven’t been in it.

The television generation expects nature to act the way they want it to be. They think all life experiences can be tivo-ed. The notion that the natural world obeys its own rules and doesn’t give a damn about your expectations comes as a massive shock. Well-to-do, educated people in an urban environment experience the ability to fashion their daily lives as they wish. They buy clothes that suit their taste, and decorate their apartments as they wish. Within limits, they can contrive a daily urban world that pleases them.

But the natural world is not so malleable. On the contrary, it will demand that you adapt to it-and if you don’t, you die. It is a harsh, powerful, and unforgiving world, that most urban westerners have never experienced.

Many years ago I was trekking in the Karakorum mountains of northern Pakistan, when my group came to a river that we had to cross. It was a glacial river, freezing cold, and it was running very fast, but it wasn’t deep-—maybe three feet at most. My guide set out ropes for people to hold as they crossed the river, and everybody proceeded, one at a time, with extreme care. I asked the guide what was the big deal about crossing a three-foot river. He said, well, supposing you fell and suffered a compound fracture. We were now four days trek from the last big town, where there was a radio. Even if the guide went back double time to get help, it’d still be at least three days before he could return with a helicopter. If a helicopter were available at all. And in three days, I’d probably be dead from my injuries. So that was why everybody was crossing carefully. Because out in nature a little slip could be deadly.

But let’s return to religion. If Eden is a fantasy that never existed, and mankind wasn’t ever noble and kind and loving, if we didn’t fall from grace, then what about the rest of the religious tenets? What about salvation, sustainability, and judgment day? What about the coming environmental doom from fossil fuels and global warming, if we all don’t get down on our knees and conserve every day?

Well, it’s interesting. You may have noticed that something has been left off the doomsday list, lately. Although the preachers of environmentalism have been yelling about population for fifty years, over the last decade world population seems to be taking an unexpected turn. Fertility rates are falling almost everywhere. As a result, over the course of my lifetime the thoughtful predictions for total world population have gone from a high of 20 billion, to 15 billion, to 11 billion (which was the UN estimate around 1990) to now 9 billion, and soon, perhaps less. There are some who think that world population will peak in 2050 and then start to decline. There are some who predict we will have fewer people in 2100 than we do today. Is this a reason to rejoice, to say halleluiah? Certainly not. Without a pause, we now hear about the coming crisis of world economy from a shrinking population. We hear about the impending crisis of an aging population. Nobody anywhere will say that the core fears expressed for most of my life have turned out not to be true. As we have moved into the future, these doomsday visions vanished, like a mirage in the desert. They were never there-—though they still appear, in the future. As mirages do.

Okay, so, the preachers made a mistake. They got one prediction wrong; they’re human. So what. Unfortunately, it’s not just one prediction. It’s a whole slew of them. We are running out of oil. We are running out of all natural resources. Paul Ehrlich: 60 million Americans will die of starvation in the 1980s. Forty thousand species become extinct every year. Half of all species on the planet will be extinct by 2000. And on and on and on.

With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious. But not if it’s a religion. Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn’t quit when the world doesn’t end on the day he expects. He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets. One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts.

So I can tell you some facts. I know you haven’t read any of what I am about to tell you in the newspaper, because newspapers literally don’t report them. I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn’t carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn’t give a damn.

I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.

I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigeous science journals, such as Science and Nature. But such references probably won’t impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependant on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief.

Most of us have had some experience interacting with religious fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems with fundamentalists is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view. In our modern complex world, fundamentalism is dangerous because of its rigidity and its imperviousness to other ideas.

I want to argue that it is now time for us to make a major shift in our thinking about the environment, similar to the shift that occurred around the first Earth Day in 1970, when this awareness was first heightened. But this time around, we need to get environmentalism out of the sphere of religion. We need to stop the mythic fantasies, and we need to stop the doomsday predictions. We need to start doing hard science instead.

There are two reasons why I think we all need to get rid of the religion of environmentalism.

First, we need an environmental movement, and such a movement is not very effective if it is conducted as a religion. We know from history that religions tend to kill people, and environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s. It’s not a good record. Environmentalism needs to be absolutely based in objective and verifiable science, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be flexible. And it needs to be apolitical. To mix environmental concerns with the frantic fantasies that people have about one political party or another is to miss the cold truth-—that there is very little difference between the parties, except a difference in pandering rhetoric. The effort to promote effective legislation for the environment is not helped by thinking that the Democrats will save us and the Republicans won’t. Political history is more complicated than that. Never forget which president started the EPA: Richard Nixon. And never forget which president sold federal oil leases, allowing oil drilling in Santa Barbara: Lyndon Johnson. So get politics out of your thinking about the environment.

The second reason to abandon environmental religion is more pressing. Religions think they know it all, but the unhappy truth of the environment is that we are dealing with incredibly complex, evolving systems, and we usually are not certain how best to proceed. Those who are certain are demonstrating their personality type, or their belief system, not the state of their knowledge. Our record in the past, for example managing national parks, is humiliating. Our fifty-year effort at forest-fire suppression is a well-intentioned disaster from which our forests will never recover. We need to be humble, deeply humble, in the face of what we are trying to accomplish. We need to be trying various methods of accomplishing things. We need to be open-minded about assessing results of our efforts, and we need to be flexible about balancing needs. Religions are good at none of these things.

How will we manage to get environmentalism out of the clutches of religion, and back to a scientific discipline? There’s a simple answer: we must institute far more stringent requirements for what constitutes knowledge in the environmental realm. I am thoroughly sick of politicized so-called facts that simply aren’t true. It isn’t that these “facts” are exaggerations of an underlying truth. Nor is it that certain organizations are spinning their case to present it in the strongest way. Not at all-—what more and more groups are doing is putting out is lies, pure and simple. Falsehoods that they know to be false.

This trend began with the DDT campaign, and it persists to this day. At this moment, the EPA is hopelessly politicized. In the wake of Carol Browner, it is probably better to shut it down and start over. What we need is a new organization much closer to the FDA. We need an organization that will be ruthless about acquiring verifiable results, that will fund identical research projects to more than one group, and that will make everybody in this field get honest fast.

Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don’t know any better. That’s not a good future for the human race. That’s our past. So it’s time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.

Thank you very much.


4 posted on 10/15/2007 3:18:06 PM PDT by Delacon (When in doubt, ask a liberal and then do the opposite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
The only good thing to come from this emergence of environmentalism as religion will be the crucifixion of Al Gore.

I wanna be one of the dudes that get to SCOURGE him first.

5 posted on 10/15/2007 3:18:32 PM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in small groups or in whole armies, we don't care how we do it, but we're gonna getcha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dead

“Among other White House hopefuls, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has said she is intrigued by a carbon auction system but has stopped short of endorsing it”

That’s not what her website says. Anyway she’s smart, she’s relatively quiet about it. Obama is too stupid to understand the scam he’s proposing.


6 posted on 10/15/2007 3:23:05 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

Yeah though I walk thru the valley of the shadow of ozone, I fear no evil cuz I vote democrat.............


7 posted on 10/15/2007 3:23:13 PM PDT by umgud (Axis of Propaganda; lib academia, lib media, lib entertainment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

One of the most infuriating things about contemporary politics.

Whenever a Republican references Christian values to support a policy position, it’s a sign of the evil fundie Dominionist conspiracy, the coming religious dictatorship, they want to destroy the Constitution, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

When a Democrat references Christian values to support a policy position....nothing.


8 posted on 10/15/2007 3:26:27 PM PDT by denydenydeny (Expel the priest and you don't inaugurate the age of reason, you get the witch doctor--Paul Johnson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy; OKSooner; honolulugal; Killing Time; Beowulf; Mr. Peabody; RW_Whacko; gruffwolf; ...

FReepmail me to get on or off


Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH

Ping me if you find one I've missed.


FYI
9 posted on 10/15/2007 3:27:28 PM PDT by xcamel (FDT/2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

Delacon, look into my eyes...don't you ever again post
something that long again when a link would have done
the job...ow, my eyes!

10 posted on 10/15/2007 3:30:11 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

If the environmentalist movement is about religion, then get it OUT of the schools and end all government subsidies.


11 posted on 10/15/2007 3:37:28 PM PDT by weegee (NO THIRD TERM. America does not need another unconstitutional Clinton co-presidency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Yikes!
That picture alone should loss Hillary the election.
Scarey!
12 posted on 10/15/2007 3:39:27 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: weegee
Exactly, it should not be taught in schools if it is a religion... however muslim would be okay..... Last week, Obama released a plan to combat global warming that calls for an 80 percent reduction in U.S. carbon emissions by 2050 I thought al gore said we would all be vapor in ten years if we did not adhere to his global roasting...themes
13 posted on 10/15/2007 3:43:12 PM PDT by JoanneSD (Illegals represented without taxation.. Citizens taxed without representation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

It is a sad commentary on the state of American citizens that so many actually consider this enviro-commie jackass as a viable presidential candidate.


14 posted on 10/15/2007 3:45:53 PM PDT by MichiganConservative (<tag censored> Free Republic George Bush admiration orthodoxy enforced!!!! Viva Presidente Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Must...fight... the mesmerizing eyes... the beautiful and understanding face... the womanly seductive allure....choke, gasp, gak, gak. Sorry I couldnt keep it up. Which, I am sure, Bill has said more than once.
15 posted on 10/15/2007 3:46:22 PM PDT by Delacon (When in doubt, ask a liberal and then do the opposite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

If your car uses 10 pounds of carbon to go 35 miles, to decrease the amount of carbon by 80% would require that your car go 165 miles on the same 10 pounds.


16 posted on 10/15/2007 3:51:44 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Last week, Obama released a plan to combat global warming that calls for an 80 percent reduction in U.S. carbon emissions by 2050.

So in mere 42 years he thinks we can produce 20 % of the amount of carbon emissions we produce today ? Right!!!

He clearly is a idiot or a liar, probably both

17 posted on 10/15/2007 3:54:42 PM PDT by Popman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

And the Rev. Jesse Jackson will ask for mo’ carbon credits. Al Sharpton said he would cash in his.


18 posted on 10/15/2007 4:00:19 PM PDT by Sword_Svalbardt (Sword Svalbardt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
The only good thing to come from this emergence of environmentalism as religion will be the crucifixion of Al Gore.

Bwaha...bwahhaha...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!

19 posted on 10/15/2007 4:11:28 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (are you looking at me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: Shermy

“Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama said Sunday that his religious beliefs influence his plans for how to protect the environment.”

OK, let me get this straight. Obama and the democrats say SUV’s are unChristian, but killing babies is not a sin.

I hope he really sees the light before he stands before God. Twisting the Word of God to promote mere politics is insulting to everyone who holds faith dear.

Its no wonder the Christian Left is so pathetic. I debated them on Christian boards, they know NOTHING of the Bible, but the verses (talking points) they have twisted out of context to their own ends. These Lefty Christians exist solely to push the votes of the gullible to Hillary.
-—these fools have GOT to be paid.


21 posted on 10/15/2007 4:14:02 PM PDT by Cyclops08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

If the greens get their way and hamstring the global economy with the carbon reduction scheme millions of poor people will die in the third world. Advanced economies may get a cold, but the poor will get pneumonia. How christian is that?


22 posted on 10/15/2007 4:21:20 PM PDT by darth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

bump to read later...


23 posted on 10/15/2007 4:26:52 PM PDT by UlmoLordOfWaters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists.

This is right on the money.

Why should I be forced by a state, the US government, or the UN to bow down and financially support this religion?

According to the left, the Constitution give us freedom "from" religion as well as freedom of religion. I know they have that incorrect, but since it seems to be ingrained in our society, let's use it to shed this eco-religion that is attempting to enslave us.

24 posted on 10/15/2007 5:51:43 PM PDT by SteamShovel (Global Warming, the New Patriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson