Seems like my most recent post on freshly out-of-the-closet nontheist elected representative, John Stark, has struck a few nerves. In accusing U.S. Christians of being motivated by fear to do right, I’ve upset some of my readers who, in pleading foul, have asserted that the majority of U.S. environmentalists are, in fact, Christians.

Endorendil commented:

The environmentalist movement is largely Christian, and it better be if it is to be of any importance to the US. Based on the ARIS data, there are about 2 million atheists, agnostics, humanists and secularists in the US, i.e. about 1% of the adult population. It should therefore be obvious that painting religious belief as anti-environmental is very, very counter-productive.

What Endorendil is implying is that the rest of the population is largely Christian. This is true, on the surface. Nearly 75% of U.S. citizens report adherence to one Christian sect or another. However, only 30% of these people actually attend church on a regular basis. Further, while only 1% claim to be atheists, et cetera, fully 20% claim no particular faith at all, which is darned close to agnostic territory.

However, I’m still willing to accept Endorendil’s assertion that the majority of environmentalists are, and have been, Christians. In doing so, things become crystal clear:

Over the past century, Christian environmentalists have done a bang-up job in protecting the environment. With Christians running the show, the United States has become a criminal polluter, leading the world in nearly every type of industrial, domestic and agricultural pollutants. As we all know, U.S. citizens consume more and produce more waste per capita than those of any other nation in history. All in the name of fulfilling God’s decree to “have dominion over the Earth.” American Christians have, by and large, interpreted the passage in Genesis which reads, “. . . fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” to mean, “gangrape that bitch Mother Earth like she’s Tralala from ‘Last Exit to Brooklyn’ and have acted accordingly. After all, the words “subdue” and “dominion” are pretty explicit, no? Nothing says dominate and subdue like good old-fashioned rape. Oh yes, Christian environmentalists are the majority and in control. The evidence is everywhere.

In the minority (likely numbering around the same 1% that Stark and his clan comprise), are the true Christian environmentalists, those who substitute “stewardship” for “dominion” and who urge our elected “Christian” leaders to swiftly enact progressive environmental legislation. Their position, one which I endorse wholeheartedly, one that positions the Christian faith as a potential leader in the environmental battle is nicely summed up in this essay: Christian Environmentalism by Dr. Ray Bohlin Without the rapid expansion of this minority, no significant environmental progress will be made in the United States. Endorendil and I are in complete agreement on this point.

Charles said:

“You should be trying to build bridges instead of insulting people.”
Don’t criticize me for not being a bridge builder. I’m not a carpenter, after all. It’s up to the Christians to recognize that they’ve been screwing up the show for a long time. Some of them need only duck into a wooden box for instant forgiveness. The rest, well, it’s time to start following Bohlin’s lead and joining the real ranks of the environmental warriors.

A small minority (again!) will recognize the daily song. Loved this stuff way back in high school. It’s my stab at self-deprecation.

Take it away, Minor Threat:

First of all, an admission: I haven’t followed Fortney “Pete” Stark, Jr.’s long political career for much more than 48 hours. That is, not since it was announced that Stark has publicly acknowledged that he does not believe in a supreme being. That’s right, Stark is the United States of America’s first congressman and highest-ranking elected official to come out of the closet as a bonafide atheist. That he’s the first and only absolutely flabberglasts me.

Why does his declaration of non-belief make Stark an eco-hero? I’ll tell you why: Because as an atheist and humanist, Stark believes that moral values are relative to human experience. To quote that source that should never be quoted, Wikipedia:

“Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationalism.”

Now, let me ask the perhaps obvious follow-up question: Who do you value as a leader more highly - a person who makes decisions based on rationalism and the desire to do right by his or her fellow humans simply for the sake of doing right OR a person whose decisions are governed by the fear of eternal suffering in a lake of molten lava? Me, I’m going with the guy who does right because it’s the right thing to do, because the other guy is only doing right for personal reward. You follow? Christians, God bless ‘em, do good so that they can get something at the end - admission to a fabulous palace lined with streets of gold. By definition, there’s no such thing as a selfless Christian. Atheists, hell, they’re not keeping score as they go. For them, the only reward is in the here and now.

Back to the eco-hero bit. I’ll sum this up quickly as I’m late for a hot date with my pillow and blanket. Compelled as they are to do good for rational, human-centered reasons, atheists tend to come to the conclusion rather quickly that what is good for humanity is continued existence on this planet, as we’ve nowhere else to go. In short, atheists are natural naturalists. Perfect environmentalists. They don’t waste time parsing words, quibbling over “dominion” vs. “stewardship” issues. Stark, by finally making it okay for atheists to run for public office (maybe it won’t be easy, but Stark is the new Jackie Robinson - and the parallel is a hell of a lot stronger than one would think), has paved the way for rationalism to do battle on a more even footing with the religious doctrine that permeates U.S. government - and, woah Nellie, but this is a very, very good thing for the environment.

Song O’ the Day time. Yes, it’s a REALLY OBVIOUS choice, but how can I not drag out R.E.M. for this one?

Tap the play button already!

Here are some folks who are trying to spread the word via a new documentary, though without Al Gore’s name recognition. Check out the ESCAPE FROM SUBURBIA SITE for more information and to support what they’re trying to do. Heck, if you’re going to go apeshit over Gore’s film, you really should pay attention to the “little people” as well. They just may have more to say than you’d think. From the site’s home page:

“Suburbia, and all it promises, has become the American Dream. With brutal honesty and a touch of irony, The END of SUBURBIA explored the American Way of Life and its prospects as the planet enters the age of Peak Oil.

In ESCAPE From SUBURBIA director Greg Greene once again takes us “through the looking glass” on a journey of discovery – a sobering yet vital and ultimately positive exploration of what the second half of the Oil Age has in store for us.

Through personal stories and interviews we examine how declining world oil production has already begun to affect modern life in North America. Expert scientific opinion is balanced with “on the street” portraits from an emerging global movement of citizen’s groups who are confronting the challenges of Peak Oil in extraordinary ways.

The clock is ticking. ESCAPE From SUBURBIA asks the tough questions: Are we approaching Peak Oil now? What are the controversies surrounding our future energy options? Why are a growing number of specialists and citizens skeptical of these options? What are ordinary people across North America doing in their own communities to prepare for Peak Oil? And what will YOU do as energy prices skyrocket and the Oil Age draws to a close?”

Click play below the blank screen above to check the trailer.

As for the musical selection, I’m going with the obvious choice, David Bowie’s “Buddha of Suburbia”:

I finally caved in and picked up a TerraPass for my uber-unsexy thoroughly emasculating 2005 Volvo V50 wagon (rated the third most eco-friendly wagon, btw, a fact that only makes me feel only nominally better about driving a gas vehicle). I was on the fence for months about the pros and cons of carbon offset schemes (the carbon offset folks probably hate the term ’scheme’ because it is typically tinged with negative associations, but it’s really the only appropriate word with which to end that last sentence). A typical ‘PRO’ argument can be found HERE. A well-thought ‘CON’ article can be read HERE.

Dan Becker, director of Sierra Club’s global warming program sums up the dilemma: “On the one hand, there is the potential benefit of educating people through offsets. On the other hand, if people view offsets like papal indulgences that allow you to continue to pollute, then it’s probably not a good idea.” Ultimately, I’m convinced that despite Gore’s best efforts to tell 1/3 of the story, and judging from Pelosi and Boxer’s anemic proposed climate change legislation, more education is very much needed.

TerraPass does a fantastic job of providing customers with opportunities to provoke discussions regarding carbon offsets. Besides offsetting your driving habits (your fee is based on your auto model + miles driven per year), you receive:

() A TerraPass decal and registration card (the latter is meant to impress the Highway Patrol and any passenger who may be snooping in your glove box — does anyone actually use this space for gloves? I love gloves)

() A TerraPass logo sticker (the TP logo needs an overhaul but they say it looks great on tinted windows)

() A TerraPass bumper sticker (”Clean Up After Your Car”)

() The goofy cartoon featured above

Used in combination, one can be super-sanctimonious about one’s offsets (good for places like Berkeley and Marin County, bad for the rest of the world) but used sparingly (I just use the decal and, yes, I realize I’m overindulging in parenthesis in this post) a sticker promoting TerraPass is a nice way to remind fellow drivers that there are painless ways to promote sustainable energy solutions.

All in all, I’m happy with the purchase. I spent very little money to “save” 8000 pounds of C02 (the estimated amount my car and I will be emitting during the next year) and make something of a symbolic statement to anyone who may come close enough to my car to notice the decal (most likely, meter maids who are attracted to my car like honey - really the only women who pay me any attention so I’m not complaining).

In short, there is nothing to lose by offsetting your auto vehicles. It serves as a daily reminder that our vehicles are nasty beasts that we must reign in as much as possible. Given the crush and hassle of our daily lives, it’s easy to forget that even the ‘greenest’ auto are still highly destructive. I feel strongly that hybrid drivers, too, should pick up a TerraPass, to offset the 2950 pounds of C02 10,000 miles of Prius driving emits.

Decide for yourself at www.terrapass.com.

As for today’s song, well, it’s only tangentially related (it has the word ‘clean’ in the title) but I need only the slightest of excuses to post a great track by Aimee Mann:

Let me know your thoughts on TerraPass and related offsetting, uh, mechanisms.

(I have to insert Todd Brilliant for search purposes as many don’t get the single D spelling when searching for this site. There. Did it.)

Thanks to Larry O, ENTERMODAL’s designer/owner for bringing this article from The Independent to my attention. Apparently, the UK’s Energywatch, an independent gas and electricity watchdog surveyed 12 green tariffs in the United Kingdom, and found ten of them to be disappointing.

From the article: “Ogfem (independent investigator) told The Independent it is concerned that customers may be being misled about the actual impact of the so-called “green tariffs” on the generation of renewable energy. Instead of offering additional clean power, the companies have merely been selling green customers the renewables they are forced to buy by law anyway, often at a premium.”

Additionally, “The big energy companies do buy renewable power, but environmental groups, the industry watchdog and the regulator say they are not increasing their the amount they buy as a result of their green tariffs.

In fact they are only “repackaging” the renewable energy supply under the Government’s Renewable Obligations Order introduced in 2002.

Even then they fail to meet these legal quotas, the campaigners complain. The result is that tens of thousands of customers are charged more for green tariffs, yet no extra green energy is produced as a result .”

What’s so wonderful about this is that you can be damned certain the same shenanigans are happening in the United States. Once citizens get wind of these scams, it’s only going to lessen the overall desire by the public to participate in genuine ‘green’ electricity programs. This, of course, really pisses me off! We need to hang these bastards by the thumbs and then slice them ala “Pan’s Labyrinth” to create public scars that will mark them forevermore as traitors to the cause.
Does anyone know what sort of independent reviews/audits are being conducted in the U.S. to forestall similar abuse? There must be something set up, but I haven’t been able to find any information to share. Again, you can find the original article here.

Today’s musical inspiration= “Plastic Energy Man” by Papa M:

Is anyone out there making a mix CD of my song selections yet?

That’s right, according to GreenerCars.com, Volkswagen produces the vehicle that is above ALL OTHERS the worst offender in terms of environmental impact: the diesel VW Touareg. How bad of an offender is the Touareg? Consider that the Hummer doesn’t even place a vehicle on the most offensive list.
Even more damning is the fact that Bentley places two vehicles in the “Top 12 Meanest Vehicles for the Environment” and Lamborghini claims a spot as well. Who owns Bentley and Lamborghini? That’s right - Volkswagen. Meaning that with four entries, VW owns fully 33% of the cars on this list.

So if you tool around in a VW/Audi product, you may consider contacting your dealer to suggest that they spread the word to their VW HQ that you will not consider maintaining your brand loyalty unless they green up their act and cease producing these gross polluters.

Like Apple, VW has built a brand reputation for being an ‘ethical’ company without doing anything to deserve the label. And, like Apple, their products are among the least ecologically responsible. Together, quite a testament to the manipulative powers of ad executives who dupe even the best and brightest into identifying with products that represent the polar opposite of their professed values.

Oh, and in case you’re wondering about how the vehicles are ranked, the methodology is right here.

SONG O’ THE DAY is awarded to Elastica’s hot-rockin’ “Car Song”:

Technorati Tags: volkswagen, apple, climate change, ethanol

You may know from my endorsement of the folks at Graffiti Research Lab and my friend, Steve Lambert’s Anti-Advertising Agency, that the notion of taking ideas directly to the streets without stopping to request permission or the guidance of a coked-out ad executive appeal to me strongly.

Given this predilection for admiring such efforts, the new project “THESE COME FROM TREES” meets with my rapt adoration. The stickers available (pictured) at the project website are intended to be placed on paper towel dispensers in a public restroom near you. As their studies show that 100 pounds of paper product are saved by reminding people of the obvious connection between paper products and the world’s most beautiful creatures (damn, I’m sounding a bit like a hippie, aren’t I? must be the amaranth cereal. time to switch back to lucky charms), this little sticker gets my thumbs up as a new item to add to one’s urban guerilla tool kit.

You do have such a kit, no? I stock mine with SUV parking tickets, caltrops, handcuffs, a pair of 9mms, a video camera, night vision goggles and a copy of ‘Plan B 2.0′. Thankfully, the design team over at ENTERMODAL is working on a custom bag for me so I can finally stop wearing my fanny pack (it’s not the day-glo orange that bothers me, it’s the fact that it makes my ass look huge).

Today’s song, “Fruit Tree” by Nick Drake goes out to Jonathan and Drew, who should appreciate the lyrics:  

Edit: After finishing this post, I discover that Jeff over at the perfectly perfect Sustainablog has posted on this same topic just yesterday. No, Jeff, I’m NOT stealing your material!

Yes, I know it is crazy to think of Al Gore as a third party candidate. Yet, just for fun, why not suspend your initial dismissal of this idea for a moment and walk through this thought-exercise with me? I’m betting the Republicans of 1912 would have dismissed the notion of a third party Theodore Roosevelt, but look what happened when they took Teddy’s supporters for granted - it cost them the White House.

I’ve polled sixteen friends and acquaintances with the question, “If Al Gore were to run as a third party candidate, would you still vote for him?” Of these sixteen, eleven said YES. The others were on the fence. Not one responded with an outright NO. My friend David responded, “I love the idea of him running so that he would get his ideas out there and so that the platform for his ideas would be made even greater. To have his notions raised and covered by the greater media channels is what we need.”

Take a look at the current situation: ‘Democrat’ Joe Lieberman is threatening to hand control of the Senate to the Republicans by switching parties if any legit anti-Iraq war resolution is passed. Party front-runners Clinton and Obama are both on record saying that they refuse to take the threat of NUCLEAR attack on Iran off the table. Democrat and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been unable to muster much of her promised ‘revolution.’ The Democrats, in a few short months, are coming apart at the seams. Has there been a better time for a liberal third party? Has there been a bigger name on the sidelines with more critical experience than Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.?

Briefly then, as I’m really only out to foster debate and get this idea rolling, are some reasons that Gore would do well by running as an outsider:

1. Again, has there been a bigger name on the sidelines with more experience?
Flash back to 1992. Ross Perot leads the vote over Clinton and Bush with only a few months to go. The victory was his to give away and he did, by dropping out of the race. Why did Perot get so close to taking The Prize? Because he was the man the public believed had the most experience with the most pressing topic - the economy. Gore, too, has a grasp on the issue of the time - the environment. It’s a cakewalk for the right team (something Gore has never had) to tie environmental considerations into any arena - from resource scarcity (war) to agriculture (food) to economic stability (energy), and so on - making the environment the true focal point of the 2008 election.
2. A Gore run would give automatic credibility to third parties.
This would be very, very good for U.S. politics for so many, many reasons. As with Perot, the corrupt Commission on Presidential Debates would be forced to allow Gore into the televised debates, meaning the debates may turn into something worth watching for a change (as they would have been in ‘00 and ‘04 had Nader been invited). Hearing more than two voices on a topic is critical to developing an exchange that represents the full spectrum of the thoughts and ideals of the U.S. citizenry.

3. There is no strong candidate currently running.
Sure, Clinton may be the first electable woman to run and Obama the first electable (how I despise this term as it neuters the spirit of the left) citizen of African origins (the newest PC term), but a minority status has zero to do with whether or not one is fit for the Presidency. McCain, well, he’s a faux-maverick, back-peddling, pro-war candidate. Edwards is a bright spot, but Clinton and the Carlyle Group have squashed his chances. In a Clinton-McCain election, voters would be given (key word) the delightful choice between Warmonger A and Warmonger B. Throw Al Gore into the mix and these two will eat each other alive, leaving Gore a clear path to victory. Advantage, Gore, by a whopping margin.

4. Environmentalism finally gets a real platform. To date, neither major party has announced ANY plans for a truly ambitious program to combat climate change. Pelosi and company have done better than the Republicans, but they’ve still yet to put forth anything that moves anywhere near the accelerated timetable required (for more information, read ‘Plan B 2.0′ by Lester Brown). The Green Party in the U.S. is still far from the militant, hyper-organized machine that it needs to become to be taken seriously. It has some great people at the top, but it’s local chapters are rag-tag and riddled with tired ex-hippies who are more concerned with repeating the tired chants of the 1960s than embracing real change. No, Al Gore could single-handedly create a Party that is strengthened by its commitment to the ethical stewardship of the planet.

5. Gore needs separation from the Democrats. (I know, he’s not enough of his own man to leave his father’s party behind, but . . .) For so many reasons. For starters, he has been working feverishly to craft bipartisan support of his mission. Signing on to the home team will only ruin the advances he has made. If he is brave enough to show the citizenry and the world that he actually walks the walk, then his tarnished history will be burnished like never before. Remember, he more or less sat on his hands for eight years as a dem V.P., apparently waiting for ‘his turn’. This time he can put his passions ahead of career advancement, spurning the safe road of partisan politics while distancing himself from the cigar-sucking conservative Clinton administration that usurped his soul.

6. He could avoid partisan politics. Related to #5. Gore has spent so much time coming off as nonpartisan that it would be a real shame to see him throw this away by running as a Democrat. Aligning himself with a party that has a poor track record where his expertise is concerned is a questionable tactic. As an independent, Gore would be able to play the role of a true bipartisan peacemaker, a real man-in-the-middle. This would also free him from toeing a party line on numerous divisive issues. Now more than ever, the American citizens are starving for a President who will make decisions based on the good of the people, not the party.

7. This would allow him more time to weigh his options. As a third party candidate, Gore can afford to let his rivals smash each other publicly, exposing one another’s weak points in the process. He would also be able to see what develops in domestic and international politics. For example, if we nuke Iran, environmental considerations are off the table for the rest of the decade, if not longer as the world as we know it devolves into infinite chaos. In which case, Gore’s candidacy bid suffers immensely. It’s strange to me that, with two years+ to go, some are already saying that it’s “late” to get into the campaign. Pffft. That’s nonsense. Give me a candidate, a bunch of money (Warren? Bill?) and six months and I can promise you that s/he will be elected.

8. He has the organization and grass roots campaign in place. With Gore’s network of organizations, friends and supporters, he could get on ballots in 50 states in three days flat, without a doubt. What’s more, he can tap into people he needs with very little effort. I’m betting that the past few years have taught him that relying on D.C. advisers is a bad idea and this time around, he’d be more than willing to work with image makers and publicists who are actually a part of his constituency. Given this, he’d have another big advantage over Clinton/Obama/McCain/Giuliani who will all turn to the same out-of-touch strategists who so badly play each and every hand.That’s all for now. There are a number of other reasons but I’m going to table them until I hear back from you, dearest friends and readers on just the inanity/genius of mulling this option. What do you think?

Oh, the daily song! Almost forgot: I hereby decree ‘Revolution’ by The Cult as Al Gore’s official theme song.

Photography credit goes to the hyper-talented James Rexroad, whose permission I did not seek but whose forgiveness I very much do. Click the link and hire James for something, already - if only to help assuage my guilt.