Comments on: Without The Shedding of Wealth There is no Emission of Smoke

By: Andrew_Schwartz

Andrew_Schwartz — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:40:37 +0000

Of course, industry will try to serve their better interests, but their ultimate interest is the consumer and if the consumer fails to purchase, whether out of conviction or a competing solution, that industry will fail. But to say that all dissenters of climate change legislation are industrial shills is as invalid as saying that all proponents are communists and anti-American.
Finally, the facts are not in. The evidence that supports a certain theory has been accepted. As has been seen recently by the hacked emails, this evidence must now be in question—and has been in question for quite some time. To say to someone to accept a proposal simply because someone else has accepted it is absurd and a denial of TRUE liberal principles.

As for the Oil Industry’s alleged fear-mongering, I am sure they would prefer not to have their own industry harmed, but as far as I know, they have never forced any legislation that has required the consumer to purchase their product. Environmentalists, on the other hand, have created legislation that not only forces a consumer to purchase their product—carbon—but also restricts consumers from purchasing other products.

By: Andrew_Schwartz

Andrew_Schwartz — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:40:23 +0000

Your second comment makes the assumption that all dissenters of climate change are cronies of industrial corporations. No one I know who disagrees with theories of leftist environmentalism is in any way associated with corporate or industrial influence on the matter. Rather, they have seen the alarmism that has been used by that movement to limit economic and social freedoms.

While Silent Spring brought an alarm that caused legislation to limit freedom that was in place, Luther's 95 theses attacked the authority that was restricting individual choice and freedom (cf. Thesis #20: Therefore, by "full remission of all penalties "the Pope means not actually "of all," but only of those penalties imposed by himself.) The assumption that industry–in a Capitalist market–has any control of an individual is really to say that the individual has imposed upon himself a dependence on industry. In a capitalist environment I could survive without any modern appliance or service if that were my priority; Communism instead demands that I participate in a certain agenda.

By: Andrew_Schwartz

Andrew_Schwartz — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:40:02 +0000

Thank you for the comments. Pleasantries being said, your assertion that plenary indulgences were a capitalistic force, while an interesting notion, is absolutely absurd. Capitalism does not demand a monopolized dependence on a product; rather, it negates that demand. The Roman Catholic Church had monopolized their product–absolution–and refused to allow any competition.

Using your argument, one could logically assert that Stalin's product–national security–was a capital venture and the market price was loyalty and subservience.

As a matter of fact, it was Luther who truly practiced capitalism in his Protestation. When he shed the bonds of monopolization he created competition for the market of salvation. His brand came at an infinitely lower price–salvation by grace, not by works. Perhaps this is why Protestantism was so successful even in the shadow of an autocratic marketplace.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 04:25:11 +0000

Fast forward; the facts are in and climate change has become accepted just like Protestantism as an alternate explanation for the byproducts of energy. Rather than actually contribute industry has done like it always did and painted environmentalists first as alarmists and kooks, then anti-americans with a secret communist agenda and now they're "globalizers" out to propagandize their views and infect the public. Interesting retort, explain to me just how the oil companies aren't following the same fear-based playbook to attempt to muddle and stall any intelligent debate about climate change? the summit was one area where the energy companies and their mouthpieces were not given equal position because just like the Catholic Church they'd proven their mindset of profits and power over serving the public. And the end result? nothing; why? Same as always, economics and fear of loss of quality of life. Thus if you really examine it, the propaganda of industry has wrongfully tainted the debate with bias, not environmentalism.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 04:18:03 +0000

For one, the longest running institution in America aside from religion is industry. Industry has always resisted the words of anyone concerned with it's unfettered and dogmatic approach to the environment by using fear (communist, anti-american, etc.). This was very similar to the pope's use of fear to quell descent. Industry has always wrapped itself in the flag while making it's opponents the grist of communism. Industry has also threatened with the loss of quality of life for anyone who agrees with it's opponents on principle from actually doing anything to curb it's excesses. Now, just like Luther the complaints were nailed to the door so to speak with "Silent Spring". Industry was always able to make it's previous detractors (like Thoreau, Emerson, Muir) out to be kooks who's concerns were out of the reality of economics. Silent Spring was the first time real science was used to demonstrate rather dramatically the costs of industrial products and byproducts. Thus began the torrent of evidence against chemical manufacturers, cigarette manufacturers and on and on. Thus, actually environmentalism spoke truth to power, not the opposite.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 04:11:55 +0000

Well first off, I'll give you credit. Of the conservative blogs I've read (including pundits) you're the only one I've seen present their arguments more in the old style of conservatism (picking and choosing from history to suit your current argument). Following your logic it would seem you're making an anti-capitalism argument, since planary indulgence was an example of eccliastical capitalism (absolution the product and the indulgences being the "market price" for finding absolution. In the context of your argument then Martin Luther actually represented Marx, anti-institutional, angry at capitalism's shameless and often pointless profiteering and excesses. Marx thought removing the ruling class would make each person individually free and having actual contribution of work determine earnings rather than assumptions and power would make for an equality-based society. In other words, I don't see how you can possibly equate anti-global warming zealots to Luther.