Leading environmental organizations in Britain, with the backing of numerous major corporations, recruited British screenwriter Richard Curtis to produce a video for the "10:10" campaign, which seeks to cut carbon emissions by 10 percent every year for 10 years. The video begins in a classroom, where a mild-mannered teacher tells her middle-school students about the 10:10 effort. She then asks the class if they'd like to sign up. Most do, but two kids abstain. The teacher tells them, "That's absolutely fine, your own choice." Then, she reaches for a device on her desk with a red button on it. She pushes the button, and the kids who refused to sign up for the green crusade are blown up, their blood and viscera spraying across the classroom, staining the school uniforms of their conformist and compliant classmates. The same "joke" plays out several more times in different settings (an office, soccer practice, etc.). Each time someone resists the idea of getting with the program, the response is swift, bloody execution.
The video's defenders argue it's all a big joke, lighten up. For the layman, the obvious response is, "That's not true." Blowing up kids isn't funny. As Jonah Goldberg points (October 8, 2010), that misses the point. This is not a joke for the benefit of conservatives. No, this is a knee-slapper for those already committed to the cause. The subtext is, "Wouldn't it be awesome if we could just get rid of these tiresome, inconvenient people?" That's why they're blown up without anyone trying to change their minds. That's the joke: "Enough with these idiots already."
Apparently, this is what passes for reasonable discourse. Let us kill our opponents. It appears that Islamic militants do not have a corner on the desire to violence to those who disagree with them.
Such tyrannical tactics are not unique to this film or to Britain Environmental extremists. Jonah Golberg offers several examples.
A couple years ago, a British power company joined the green bandwagon by launching a "Climate Cops" program that encouraged children to keep dossiers on their parents and neighbors, recording their "climate crimes."
Frustrated with the perceived environmental threat of economic freedom and the inconvenience of political freedom, many environmentalists yearn for shortcuts.
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wishes we could learn from China's one-party system. In books such as "The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy," environmentalists insist that democracy needs to be replaced with a more authoritarian system.
NASA scientist James Hansen wants to put corporate CEOs on trial for crimes against humanity.
Al Gore compares his opponents to Holocaust deniers and insists that the time for democratic debate is over.
Some environmentalists have almost as little regard for human life as the fictional teacher in the 10:10 video. When Charles Wurster, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, was told that banning DDT would probably result in millions of deaths, he replied, "This is as good a way to get rid of them as any."
Finnish environmental guru Pentti Linkola argues that the earth is a sinking ship, and the greens must head for the lifeboats: "Those who hate life try to pull more people on board and drown everybody. Those who love and respect life use axes to chop off the extra hands hanging on the gunwale."
The point is, words and images mean things. Let us just hope Shakespeare In King Lear, Act 5, Scene 3 was wrong when he said, "Jesters do oft prove prophets."
The video sounds disgusting. Certainly outside the mainstream.
ReplyDeleteAnd just so there is no confusion, the 10:10 British thing is different than the 10/10/10 work party for this Sunday, organized by 350.org (the name having a scientific basis).
Cutting 65% within 10 years (10% annually) is not on the table anywhere, at least in the U.S. The most aggressive plan to cut 80% of 2005 levels by 2050 would mean about 3.5% a year (if we had started in '05), if my math is right. That didn't pass, and whatever might is sure to be watered down. As we've learned from our mutual fund managers, past performance certainly does not guarantee future results, but the accounting clearly shows that Clean Air Act regulations' benefits have far outweighed their costs, and costs are inevitably substantially lower than industry predictions (http://mainstreetalliance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Benefits-of-CAA-literature-review-final-10-04-2010.pdf). It's not completely unrealistic, but one would have to be quite pessimistic to believe the American economy could not be innovative enough to continue to grow throughout this change.
I am not qualified to talk much here about political philosophy - the older folks commenting are wiser and better informed, or at least more confident. But I'd love to talk science and data.
The story at the beginning reminds me of an actual experience I had. When I was in fifth grade it was 1968. I lived in Whiteland, IN. We were coming back from recess out on the playground. The teacher asked the gathered students who was going to vote for Richard Nixon. I didn't know who or what they were talking about. Only two of us didn't raise our hands. She made the two of us go to the end of the line. My first experience in politics.
ReplyDeleteA friend from facebook said:
ReplyDeleteI have just started reading Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough and Michael Braungart. It is an interesting read. Their thesis is that we do not have to let go of industrialization but we do need to be rethinking, from the design stage forward, how to minimize or eliminate the negative environmental impact. I tend to agree with them...so far...that we should treat the environment as the blessing it is, to be worked within, not bludgeoned into submission. At the same time, we must formulate ways within the reformation process to accomodate developing economies for the global poor. These need not be mutually exclusive endeavors but will require difficult and deep thinking.
How we manage the transition to accomodate a both/and scenario between economic growth and ecological responsibility will have fits and starts, failings and incremental advances. The problems are too complex for simpleminded rhetoric or quick solutions.
I believe we are faced with the same kind of extreme dichotomy in environmentalism as we have in governance. The two sides have agendas and are unwilling to acquiesce on any point. Those who can see the advantages of both pursuits and creatively bridge between them will ultimately win the day realizing the process is not likely to happen quickly (which is less than desirable but, given the variant powers at work, must be anticipated or give in to further polarization and defeatism).
I responded to the above:
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I will, always, side with liberty. Enlisting the people through the peaceful means of persuasion is far better than using force as a means to a possibly worthy end. If you read the full article on Moltmann, however, you will see that I disagree with the whole notion of an ecological crisis that demands socialist responses that limit freedom. Frankly, Dave, humanity needs protection from other parts of nature far more than nature needs protection from human behavior.
My friend then responded:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your skepticism about an ecological crisis. There is simply not enough data to support a reasonable cost / benefit analysis. I do think we should be environmentally responsible, i.e., not promoting processes that produce toxic wastes, etc.
To get from point A, where we are now, to an eco-friendly point B must be analyzed carefully and taken in fiscally responsible incremental steps to ensure not having detrimental economic impact on the poor.
I agree with McDonough and Braungart that it is a process that can tap the creativity of the global brain trust that does not necessarily preclude economic expansion. We just have not thought it through enough yet...but it is a coming, and I think, legitimate approach. We need to transcend some of our Western either/or mindset to think both/and as the foundational criteria. How do we accommodate both simultaneously? The we can move forward intelligently.