How will it be explained?

[Jim]

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

 

Published: March 27, 2005

 

How will future historians explain it? How will they possibly explain why President George W. Bush decided to ignore the energy crisis staring us in the face and chose instead to spend all his electoral capital on a futile effort to undo the New Deal, by partially privatizing Social Security? We are, quite simply, witnessing one of the greatest examples of misplaced priorities in the history of the U.S. presidency.

 

"Ah, Friedman, but you overstate the case." No, I understate it. Look at the opportunities our country is missing - and the risks we are assuming - by having a president and vice president who refuse to lift a finger to put together a "geo-green" strategy that would marry geopolitics, energy policy and environmentalism.

 

By doing nothing to lower U.S. oil consumption, we are financing both sides in the war on terrorism and strengthening the worst governments in the world. That is, we are financing the U.S. military with our tax dollars and we are financing the jihadists - and the Saudi, Sudanese and Iranian mosques and charities that support them - through our gasoline purchases. The oil boom is also entrenching the autocrats in Russia and Venezuela, which is becoming Castro's Cuba with oil. By doing nothing to reduce U.S. oil consumption we are also setting up a global competition with China for energy resources, including right on our doorstep in Canada and Venezuela. Don't kid yourself: China's foreign policy today is very simple - holding on to Taiwan and looking for oil.

 

Finally, by doing nothing to reduce U.S. oil consumption we are only hastening the climate change crisis, and the Bush officials who scoff at the science around this should hang their heads in shame. And it is only going to get worse the longer we do nothing. Wired magazine did an excellent piece in its April issue about hybrid cars, which get 40 to 50 miles to the gallon with very low emissions. One paragraph jumped out at me: "Right now, there are about 800 million cars in active use. By 2050, as cars become ubiquitous in China and India, it'll be 3.25 billion. That increase represents ... an almost unimaginable threat to our environment. Quadruple the cars means quadruple the carbon dioxide emissions - unless cleaner, less gas-hungry vehicles become the norm."

 

All the elements of what I like to call a geo-green strategy are known:

 

We need a gasoline tax that would keep pump prices fixed at $4 a gallon, even if crude oil prices go down. At $4 a gallon (premium gasoline averages about $6 a gallon in Europe), we could change the car-buying habits of a large segment of the U.S. public, which would make it profitable for the car companies to convert more of their fleets to hybrid or ethanol engines, which over time could sharply reduce our oil consumption.

 

We need to start building nuclear power plants again. The new nuclear technology is safer and cleaner than ever. "The risks of climate change by continuing to rely on hydrocarbons are much greater than the risks of nuclear power," said Peter Schwartz, chairman of Global Business Network, a leading energy and strategy consulting firm. "Climate change is real and it poses a civilizational threat that [could] transform the carrying capacity of the entire planet."

 

And we need some kind of carbon tax that would move more industries from coal to wind, hydro and solar power, or other, cleaner fuels. The revenue from these taxes would go to pay down the deficit and the reduction in oil imports would help to strengthen the dollar and defuse competition for energy with China.

 

It's smart geopolitics. It's smart fiscal policy. It is smart climate policy. Most of all - it's smart politics! Even evangelicals are speaking out about our need to protect God's green earth. "The Republican Party is much greener than George Bush or Dick Cheney," remarked Mr. Schwartz. "There is now a near convergence of support on the environmental issue. Look at how popular [Arnold] Schwarzenegger, a green Republican, is becoming because of what he has done on the environment in California."

 

Imagine if George Bush declared that he was getting rid of his limousine for an armor-plated Ford Escape hybrid, adopting a geo-green strategy and building an alliance of neocons, evangelicals and greens to sustain it. His popularity at home - and abroad - would soar. The country is dying to be led on this. Instead, he prefers to squander his personal energy trying to take apart the New Deal and throwing red meat to right-to-life fanatics. What a waste of a presidency. How will future historians explain it?

[ScottP]

When all the believers in Jesus Christ, who have been born again, are taken up to heaven what becomes of the physical Earth will be of no importance. Oil profits benefit GWB's world now. What happens after the Rapture is of no consequence.

 

James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back." Millions of Christian fundamentalists believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed – even hastened – as a sign of the coming apocalypse. Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the rapture?

 

 

[Alex]

the Ford Escape Hybrid still gets worse gas mileage than my 4-cylinder Toyota 4Runner!!

[catbirdseat]

When all the believers in Jesus Christ, who have been born again, are taken up to heaven what becomes of the physical Earth will be of no importance. Oil profits benefit GWB's world now. What happens after the Rapture is of no consequence.

You've hit the nail on the head. Oil profits now for GWB campaign contributors.

[EWolfe]

I choose to think of the situation as an acceleration, thereby giving us a better chance in the future than if a slower deterioration of morality and environmental concern were implimented.

 

But I am a lunatic.

 

Bring it!

[AlpineK]

When all the believers in Jesus Christ, who have been born again, are taken up to heaven what becomes of the physical Earth will be of no importance. Oil profits benefit GWB's world now. What happens after the Rapture is of no consequence.

 

I'm not a big bible reader; however in the book Genisis god gives man stewardship over plants and animals. Stewardship is not ownership; stewardship means you can use things as long as you take care of them and leave things in good condition when you leave.

 

I believe this is the line of thinking which makes evangelicals want to support environmental issues.

 

GW has the backing of evangelicals on issues like abortion, but there are lots of them who don't like the anti environmental stance he takes.

[rbw1966]

What language was the bible originally written in? How accurate is that translation?

 

Taking anything in that tome literally is much like doing the same with something written by Stephen King.

[jjd]

Aramaic.

 

-Shalama.

[Peter_Puget]

I think you need to add at least a couple more.

[BreezyD]

Relatively irrelevant to the nature of the post ... but I thought I would chime in anyway.

 

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew. The New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek. There are a few passages througout in Aramaic and Chaldean.

 

YES!! I guess those ridiculously expensive private college bible history classes finally paid off!

 

Brianna

[JayB]

When all the believers in Jesus Christ, who have been born again, are taken up to heaven what becomes of the physical Earth will be of no importance. Oil profits benefit GWB's world now. What happens after the Rapture is of no consequence.

 

James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back." Millions of Christian fundamentalists believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed – even hastened – as a sign of the coming apocalypse. Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the rapture?

 

 

 

 

You might want to look into that quote a bit further, kemosabe.

 

In quoting James Watt, Bill Moyers cited an article in Grist magazine. On Feb. 4, Grist published the following correction:

 

"In fact, Watt did not make such a statement to Congress. The quotation is attributed to Watt in the book 'Setting the Captives Free' by Austin Miles, but Miles does not write that it was made before Congress. Grist regrets this reporting error and is aggressively looking into the accuracy of this quotation."

 

The Star Tribune also regrets the error, and will report any further developments in the Grist inquiry.

 

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5232182.html

 

Bill Moyers Apologizes to James Watt for Apocryphal Quote

 

By Joe Strupp

 

Published: February 09, 2005 updated 2:15 PM ET

 

NEW YORK Bill Moyers has apologized to former U.S. Interior Secretary James Watt for referencing a quote, which has been wrongly attributed to Watt for years, during a speech Moyers gave last December upon receiving an award from Harvard Medical School. The text of the speech has since appeared in several newspapers and on numerous Web sites.

 

"I said I had made a mistake in quoting him without checking with him," Moyers told E&P today. "I should have done my homework."

 

Moyers, a well-known journalist and recently departed host of NOW on PBS, said he phoned Watt yesterday and faxed him a letter stating his regrets. Moyers wrongly referred to Watt during a speech in New York on Dec. 1, after Moyers received an award from Harvard's Center for Health and the Global Environment.

 

During the speech, Moyers said, "Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, 'after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back'."

 

As of this morning, neither The Oakland Tribune or The Miami Herald, which ran versions of the speech, had published a correction of the Watt reference. Calls to editors at those papers were not immediately returned.

 

The Star-Tribune in Minneapolis, which ran the text on Jan. 30, is planning to run a correction tomorrow , according to Editorial Pages Editor Susan Albright. She said Watt contacted the paper Friday to object to the reference.

 

Albright plans to run what she described as a column-lengthed response by Watt to Moyer's speech on Thursday, "He was pretty upset, and we are letting him take a few punches at Moyers," Albright said. The paper also will run a statement from Moyers apologizing for the misquote.

 

The Indianapolis Star, meanwhile, referenced the incorrect Watt comment in a piece that ran Dec. 19, which also noted Moyers' speech. But that story did not quote Moyers as referring to the Watt quote.

 

The Washington Post ran a correction yesterday relating to a front-page Feb. 6 story that also incorrectly attributed the comments to Watt. But that story did not mention Moyers or his speech. "Although that statement has been widely attributed to Watt, there is no historical record that he made it," the Post stated.

 

The text of the speech appeared in the Oakland Tribune on Feb. 6. The Herald ran part of the speech, including the Watt reference, on Dec. 11. After hearing of the reference to him, Watt issued a statement declaring that he never made the comment, which has been attributed to him for many years.

 

Moyers said he chose to apologize after learning of Watt's dismay yesterday. "I called Watt and spoke with him and said I had seen this on the Web," Moyers said. "I believe he appreciated the call." Watt could not be reached for comment today.

 

In a lengthy letter to Watt, Moyers stated his apology, but also defended himself by reminding Watt that he was not the first to wrongly attribute the quote. He then criticized Watt for his policies while in Washington.

 

"I owe you an apology. I made a mistake in quoting the remarks attributed to you by the online journal Grist without confirming them myself," the letter stated. "Because those or similar quotes had also appeared through the years in many other publications -- in The Washington Post and Time, for example, as well as several books that I consulted in preparing my speech -- I too easily assumed their legitimacy. ... I regret the mistake."

 

But Moyers' letter was not entirely conciliatory. "You and I differ strongly about your record as Secretary of Interior," the letter continued. "I found your policies abysmally at odds with what I understand as a Christian to be our obligation to be stewards of the earth. I found it baffling, when in our conversation of today, you were unaware of how some fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible influence political attitudes toward the environment."

 

Moyers said he never distributed his speech for publication, but said it had been placed on the Harvard Web site, where he believes other Web sites and newspapers picked it up. "I don't know who else used it," Moyers said. "When you make a speech, you are making a public statement, and if a journalist considers that news, so be it."

 

He added that he was not paid for the speech or for any publicaton of it, and would not have sought payment. "If anyone had asked me, I would have given my approval," he said. "It seems to me it is for public use."

 

Moyers said he planned to contact the Star-Tribune, he did not know how else to seek to correct the record since he does not know who else reprinted the text of the speech. "It is difficult in this cyberworld to catch up with an error," Moyers told E&P. "Once something like this begins to circulate, it takes on a life of its own."

 

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000797041

[ScottP]

"My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns.

We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand."

James G. Watt- quoted in the Washington Post May 24th, 1981

[JayB]

So which is it? Hopefully you have been at least as scrupulous in your sourcing as your previous quote. This one, sounds like a misquote of Watt's actual testimony before the House Interior Committee in 1981:

 

"Mr. Weaver [D. Ore.]: Do you want to see on lands under your management, the sustained yield policies continued?

 

Secretary Watt: Absolutely.

 

Mr. Weaver: I am very pleased to hear that. Then I will make one final statement . . . I believe very strongly that we should not, for example, use up all the oil that took nature a billion years to make in one century.

 

We ought to leave a few drops of it for our children, their children. They are going to need it . . . I wonder if you agree, also, in the general statement that we should leave some of our resources -- I am now talking about scenic areas or preservation, but scenic resources for our children? Not just gobble them up all at once?

 

Secretary Watt: Absolutely. That is the delicate balance the Secretary of the Interior must have, to be steward for the natural resources for this generation as well as future generations.

 

I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns, whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations."

 

And Moyer references "similar sounding" comments in his apology - "Because those or similar quotes had also appeared through the years in many other publications -- in The Washington Post and Time, for example, as well as several books that I consulted in preparing my speech -- I too easily assumed their legitimacy. ... I regret the mistake."

- so he presumably checked into the legitimacy of these quotes as well before tendering a public apology for giving them unwarranted credence.

 

But the purpose of your using these quotations seems to be to provide a factual basis upon which to base your belief that tens of millions of Americans literally believe that:

 

A) They can bring about the second coming of Christ by cutting down all of the trees in the within the borders of the United States.

 

B) They have carte blanche to lay waste to the environment because they will be raptured away from their earthly tethers within their lifetimes and could not care less what happens to the earth when they are gone.

 

Or were you trying to make some other point?

 

I have little patience for the irrationality of creationists and/or the Lahaye/Jenkins "Left Behind" series/ "Calgon - rapture me away...." set. But the same irrationality has manifested itself time and time again in the more wild-eyed fringes of the environmental movement, who, like their theological counterparts, insist that the end is near, the only difference being that they are prophesizing imminent ecological armageddon brought about by man's disregard for nature, whereas the Born Agains are predicting the end will come as a result of man's wickedness and disregard for "The Lord." You could more or less swap "the environment" for "The Lord's Word" in each of the other's doomsday tracts and you'd have more or less the same thing. Read through a couple of the defining doomsday tracts of the 70s, Paul Ehrich's "The Population Bomb," and Hal Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth" - the rhetoric is virtually identical and, despite being empirically refuted a thousand times over, both still inspire the true believers.

 

The other morsel of irony in the Left fringe's critique of the Right Fringe's ecological track record is that when you look at actual BTU's per household, there's not much difference. You have electric lights, modern appliances, an automobile - etc - just like they do. Hardly enough of a difference to warrant the self righteous grandstanding and condemnation issuing forth from the Left fringe.

[Norman_Clyde]

Quote:

when you look at actual BTU's per household, there's not much difference. You have electric lights, modern appliances, an automobile - etc - just like they do. Hardly enough of a difference to warrant the self righteous grandstanding and condemnation issuing forth from the Left fringe.

 

Anytime I'm tempted to sneer at some fat SUV driver guzzling a Big Gulp and blathering into a cell phone while weaving down I-5, I think of the vast range of human behavior across geography and history, and try to remember that on the world scale of human consumption, I am pretty similar to the SUV driver whose behavior disgusts me.

 

I agree that the "end is near" rhetoric of the environmentalists weakens their argument. For one thing, if you care more about the earth than about people, well... after human beings destroy themselves, the earth will have a better chance getting back to normal, won't it? If you think in terms of geologic time, anyway.

 

There is a Bible verse I read once which I need to find again, because it makes an even better argument for people leaving the earth alone once in a while. After one of the big Old Testament battles that wiped out an entire population, leaving the land empty, the verse says, "And the land enjoyed its sabbath." The idea of Armageddon does not appeal, but the land getting a rest-- I like that concept.

[j_b]

The other morsel of irony in the Left fringe's critique of the Right Fringe's ecological track record is that when you look at actual BTU's per household, there's not much difference. You have electric lights, modern appliances, an automobile - etc - just like they do. Hardly enough of a difference to warrant the self righteous grandstanding and condemnation issuing forth from the Left fringe.

 

what a bunch of doo doo. there is a huge difference in ecological footprint between lifestyles.

[Dru]

To claim it is one thing, to quantify it is another thing.

 

For instance,

 

http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/onetonne/english/

 

Take the One Tonne Challenge... but if you reduce your emissions from, say, 148 tonnes to 147, do you still have an emissions level 147 times that of someone in Indonesia?

[Fairweather]

Slam Dunk, JayB. I suspect that Jim, Scott, Catbird, et al, are presently experiencing an overwhelming desire to change the subject and set this thread adrift.

[Jim]

It's always a great ploy to throw out a fringe opinion and thereby imply guilt by association when no other argument is forthcoming.

 

My point in posting the article is that GW is like a child, little thought other than immediate gradification and no perspective beyond the White House lawn, never mind the horizon. It seems to be a mainstay of his policies.

 

I know, we may never run out of oil before we cook in own gasses, the Chinese will all have cars soon and will challenge us for greates polluters, so what if we global warming occurs - we have the technology to live with it.

 

The irony is that we're willing to kill tens of thousands of innocents in an flimsy excuse for a war, spend billions and put ourselves in debt, but not a peep on conservation measures. Party on!

[Jim]

had to add one item from the USGS energy survey as reported in World Watch:

 

Most surprising is the dramatic surge in energy use in many industrial countries. Compared with just 10 years ago, for example, Americans are driving larger and less efficient cars and buying bigger homes and more appliances. As a result, U.S. oil use has increased over the decade by nearly 2.7 million barrels a day—more oil than is used daily in total in India and Pakistan, which together contain more than four times as many people as the United States does. In total, the average American consumes five times more energy than the average global citizen, 10 times more than the average Chinese, and nearly 20 times more than the average Indian.

[catbirdseat]

To claim that all environmentalists are catastrophists is as absurd as claiming all religious persons believe in imminent armageddon. Whether the ecosystem is teetering on the brink of collapse, or whether it is being degraded in a gradual but relentless fashion, it surely is under assault. Many species have been lost in my lifetime and many more will be lost.

 

When we talk about "ecosystem collapse" there can be multiple meanings. The most extreme meaning I could ascribe to it is that our environment would no longer be able to support any of the humans who live in it. In other words, human extinction. Well, that's pretty absurd, most would agree. But if you change the definition to "no longer able to support all of the humans who live in it", then we have reached that point ready. There are populations in parts of the world who are suffering greatly from environmental degradation.

[AlpineK]

Slam Dunk, JayB. I suspect that Jim, Scott, Catbird, et al, are presently experiencing an overwhelming desire to change the subject and set this thread adrift.

 

I don't think you've been reading carefully Fairweather.

 

Jim's quote says that we need a broad based environmental movement especially including evangelical types. The article or whatever does not mention James Watt. Scott is the one who brought up Watt's, "quote," and by extension said that evangelicals would never support environmental causes. If there's a fight to be had it's between Jim and Scott.

 

Jay just set the record straight on what Watt actually said and pointed out the problems with extreme views on all sides.

[catbirdseat]

The price of oil is going to continue to rise until behavior changes. Adam Smith's invisible hand is going to act upon all the SUV owners. Some will suck it up and pay the higher price of gas, and others will sell off their machines at a poor resale price. Some will drive less, some will park their cars. The oldest SUVs will go to the scrap yard.

[whistlepunk]

Even the high gas prices haven't slowed down the Ugly American. I predict we'll rock till we drop.

[ChrisT]

who's Adam Smith?

[catbirdseat]

Gas prices have gone from $1.50 to $2.15 in the space of a couple years. That's about 40%. You ain't seen nothing yet. Right now it like a pinch. Soon it will feel like a bite.