There is a strain of environmentalism that not only wants to begin moving toward solutions, but won't be happy until the country as a whole says, "we've been bad; we're sinners; we're ready to suffer for our sins." As you point out, that's an absurdly counter-productive message. And it's completely insensate to human nature. People are never going to be willing to give up everything they have -- it's called "loss aversion," look it up -- and they will listen to any message, no matter how absurd, that tells them they don't have to.

The key is just to get people aware of this. Get them doing the little things. Get them interested. Their natural curiosity and competitiveness will take over. They need to desire these changes, not just accept them with woeful resignation. Once we build up some national momentum, people will start to see that saving energy, and using clean energy, and reconnecting with their local communities, are fun and rewarding, not a big dose of castor oil. But we've got to get them moving in that direction. Offsets are a fantastic, low-risk, low-commitment way for them to dip their toe in the waters.

However satisfying it may be, a political movement filled with people who view their fellow citizens as stupid and delusional, and work overtime to force their fellow citizens to admit that they're stupid and delusional, is never going to get anywhere.

grist.org

Go ahead and hate your neighbor, go ahead and cheat a friend, do it in the name of Heaven, you can justify it in the end. There wont be any trumpets blowing, come the judgment day. On the bloody morning after, One Tin Soldier rides away.

Good work jabailo.

But why declare premature defeat in the goal of changing American consumers' behavior?  Fur used to be in; now it's out. Drunk driving is decidedly uncool, but it wasn't always. A growing proportion of individual American consumers choosing organic food are responsible for the current boom. Public education campaigns have changed American culture before, and can again -- let's not give up on the possibility that at least some Americans can be enticed to evaluate and change their unsustainable lifestyles.

Let's say we decided to ban incandescent light bulbs and double CAFE standards tomorrow. The result would be massive energy savings through technology switching, with no discernible changes to consumer behavior.

The best way to promote environmentalism is to show that it can be quicker, faster, cheaper, and overall better than the status quo.

Environmentalism doesn't need to mean Sacrifices.
Done right, it's all about Upgrades.

-David Ahlport

http://bloggernista.wordpress.com/2007/03/24/question-for ...

It's feel-good medicine for a suicidal habit.

We know how harmful air travel is. Whether to take the airplane is the single biggest decision affecting global warming that you or I can make.

David and others make the argument that one should "start where people are" - sugarcoat the truth and entice people into change. At times, that's a helpful strategy... but how easily it devolves into opportunism and self-delusion. (See the biofuels debate, for a magnificent recent example.)

Consumers will never significantly change their behavior

On the other hand, citizens have repeatedly surprised us with their courage and self-sacrifice.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

And how about some recognition of what the context of Ben Pearson's remark was, really?  How do we know that he had not already thought about all the issues raised by Adam and DR?  Is it wise to underestimate him?  Is it not true that DR and others have made allied appeals for systemic change in Gristmill?

Does anyone actually believe that there are environmentalists, both friends of Greenpeace and others, who maintain a classist sense of (alleged, but false) environmentalist ethics, whereby the sinful, unwashed, ignorant hoi polloi deserve to grovel, in the dirt, eating dirt, while we, the few, the wise, the knowing, look out upon them from between organic silk curtains hanging over the windows of our faux-gilt carriages, our volunteer student-servants serving us organic marzipan bonbons and champagne?

I do not like to call myself an environmentalist, because I respect that title very highly, and do not count myself among those who have earned it.  Nevertheless, for what it is worth, I find suggestions that environmentalists are "elitist" to be extremely offensive and stupid.

Regarding "the price tag" vs. "doubly odd," see today's NYTimes editorial, "Warming Up on Capitol Hill," in favor of Henry Waxman's 80-percent reduction of GHG emissions by 2050, especially the paragraph beginning "Setting up a system."

Look, nobody on our side is trying to be dishonest.  Nobody on our side is trying to be cruel.  And if anyone who claims to be on our side is in fact seeking just wealth and/or power, then that person is a liar, and does not belong.  It is as simple as that.

As for this bizarre paragraph:
<<
Consumers will never significantly change their behavior, and they probably won't have to. Let's say we decided to ban incandescent light bulbs and double CAFE standards tomorrow. The result would be massive energy savings through technology switching, with no discernible changes to consumer behavior.
>>

1. "Consumers" is a controversial term.  Persons are not "consumers," simply.  They can become "consumers," but then they limit themselves.

Persons can be both "consumers" and "anti-consumers," or "post-consumers," or "meta-consumers."  It makes sense to speak of persons, human beings; it does not make sense to speak so simply of "consumers."

2. "will never significantly change their behavior."  Right.  As if.  Such a statement, pronounced offensively as an undeniable truism, is in fact a highly controversial anthropological and philosophical proposition.

All sorts of people change their behavior all the time, for all sorts of reasons, with all sorts of degrees of significance.

In fact, firmly rejecting pontifications about what we should or should not do with our behavior has historically been a strong influence on how we end up behaving.

And as for what happens to the pontificators, well, sometimes they come out OK, sometimes not so good.

3. "no discernible changes."  Depends on who is doing the discerning.  My guess is, this is a matter that Ben Pearson has already thought about, and this aim is something that he already is cheering for.

In fact, though, "consumer behavior" does not proceed blindly, juggernautishly.  Independently thinking persons, as "consumers," do make moral decisions, you know, e.g., whether they want to drive this or that vehicle, or whether they want to illuminate their residence with this or that form of artificial illumination, or indeed whether they want to drive or illuminate at all.

Really, what is it that AS is insisting on as an alternative?  We are automatons?  Willy-nilly, we are going to drive, no matter what, no matter what is parked out in front?  Willy-nilly, we are going to illuminate our homes, with whatever they are selling us at the store?

To presume very much in this regard reflects disgracefully poor information about human nature, and deficient philosophical and anthropological tools for discussing it.  And unfortunately, such a presumptuous attempt ends up sounding, oh, a bit offensive.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Then sell passengers indulgences for their carbon sins.  And the carbon offset funds go where?  Who knows?  

Do the execs at the carbon offset corporations fly first class or do they grab free rides on corporate jets?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

That said, I don't think that means we can or should stop trying.  If an airline can raise people's consciousness, then great, although it does seem sort of problematic.  I guess I'd prefer, sort of, to see "consumers" treated with disrespect, as Canis characterizes it, than to see the planet become uninhabitable for the majority of species.  Even better, though, would be if people could somehow get it, somehow see that these issues actually matter to them.  I'm not holding my breath, I have to say.

Virgin Blue is taking a useful step forward.  It is only a first step -- and one easily corrupted.  But it is also better than nothing.

I would not, however, uncritically accept the notion that we can adequately respond to global warming with "upgrades" that avoid any "sacrifices."  Where's the evidence to back such a sweeping assumption?  

BiggusCattus has a point:  Any good newspaper will reveal the relevant affiliations of a contributing writer.  Grist should too.

J.S.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

For example, you will never convince a biodiesel or ethanol distributor that he should stop selling biofuel made from food crops if that is the only way he can avoid bankruptcy. In all likelihood they started out thinking they had a great idea. What entrepreneur doesn't? They believe in their product. Beliefs are hard to change because they are not necessarily based on facts and the introduction of new facts tend to have little effect.

The effectiveness of carbon credits is being debated, which is good. You will not find a stronger advocate for the idea than someone who profits from it. Profiting from it actually imparts a disadvantage in a debate because people instinctively know one's judgement will be biased, but that does not mean an advocate is wrong. Posts on locally grown produce by Tom Philpott would also require a disclaimer, as would any post by anyone who stands to profit by promoting a given scheme. What matters the most is how well thier argument measures up against an opposing argument. One can win, lose, or draw.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

"But why declare premature defeat in the goal of changing American consumers' behavior?"

Nobody is declaring defeat, we are just debating how best to change that behavior. Will ads selling a 55 MPG car save more energy by prying consumers out of SUVs than ads telling people to ride buses?

"Fur used to be in; now it's out."

Not wearing fur is hardly what you could call a sacrifice or a lifestyle change. Making environmentally benign things cool and environmentally destructive things not cool is the main game plan.

"Drunk driving is decidedly uncool, but it wasn't always."

I don't recall it ever being cool. It was, and still is, mostly  a necessity to get home after a night of drinking. Again, nobody will argue that enforcing strong, coercive laws combined with extensive public education can't help curb certain behaviors. However, drop those laws, stop those ads, and you will be right back at square one.

"A growing proportion of individual American consumers choosing organic food are responsible for the current boom."

Consumers are always responsible for booms, except when the government forces something on them, as they are doing with biofuels. Again, you can't call this a sacrifice. They want that food for whatever reasons, and yes, that want is the result of efforts to get them to want it, as is the goal of all ads, including the "live green go yellow" flex fuel corn ethanol ads. It all comes down to a competition for consumer's money.

"Public education campaigns have changed American culture before, and can again -- let's not give up on the possibility that at least some Americans can be enticed to evaluate and change their unsustainable lifestyles."

Again, nobody is arguing against public education. I would argue that public education alone has been and will continue to be woefully inadequate to address our problems. Kids have been taught about environmental issues in most public and private schools since the seventies. It certainly isn't a fresh idea. I'm about as educated on the subject as you can get. I also own two cars, have two kids, eat meat, take hot showers, and fly off to vacations with my family. If you think you are going to convince 300 million other Americans to voluntarily give those things up with continued public education, I wish you luck.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

In blogland we all tend to be advocates for our favorite technologies or policies and vehemently attack those we think are harmful.  Everyone knows that Adam has his particular bias.  It is upfront and therefore not a problem.

In regular media, shills for various positions are operating in secrecy behind so-called journalistic integrity.  This introduces dishonesty at a very basic level, that easily responds to industry bribery.

Some of this influence is subtle, in the form of ratings or career advancement.  Some is outright, with industry lobbyists and administration sources funneling cash to covert advocates for hire.

Honest advocacy or coniving sophistry?  Which is to be the preffered method of social debate?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

This is not going to be easy.  And not because we can't afford to save the world or any crap like that. It's not going to be easy because there are going to be what economists call "distributional" problems.  

Two quick points:

1. The right "framing" is that saving the world is going to cost maybe 1% of Gross World Product, or maybe 2%, and that it's cheap at twice the price!

2. The problem is that this is a GLOBAL problem, and that the people in the rich world -- or more precisely the rich people -- are going to have to pay the bulk of the cost.  

-- toma

Tom Athanasiou toma@ecoequity.org

J.S.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

We will not destroy the planet.  We will not eliminate life on the planet.  We will not destroy so much biodiversity that the planet cannot recover over geologic timespans.  Most likely, we will not even entirely extinct humanity even in the worst-case scenarios.

What we can do (are doing) is:

1. Impoverishing the world of biodiversity, on any human timescale (hundreds or thousands of years).
   
2. Destroying the basis of human prosperity and, ultimately, technological civilization.

Homo Sapiens will continue.  Homo Sapiens Technicus, on the other hand, may not make it.

Everyone knows that Adam has his particular bias.  It is upfront and therefore not a problem.

In an earlier post, Adam clearly identified his interests. For subsequent posts, a small tagline would be sufficient.

There have been several occasions at Gristmill, in which people representing special interests have sprung up out of nowhere, pushing a point of view, without identifying themselves. For example,  a discussion on the American Dietary Association brought out some anonymous posters. OTOH, some of the more conscientious dietitions did identify themselves.

There's nothing wrong with having a $ or organizational connection to an issue being discussed, as long as it is mentioned upfront.  Otherwise, the door is open for manipulation.

I'd argue that identifying one's interests is even more important for blogs and discussion boards than for conventional media.  

Newspapers and the conventional media have been through this business before and have developed codes of ethics that responsible journalists follow. This is one thing that U.S. journalism has gotten right in the past few decades.

Amazingdrx is right about some of the other problems with the media. I agree, for example, that an upfront point of view (e.g. environmentalist or pro-business) is more honest than a pretended objectivity.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

What we're trying to do is save ourselves and the ecosystems that we rely on. We also want to save wildlife and plants

Let us talk about preserving biodiversity for our children.  Or let us talk about saving technological civilization.

Ecosystems, wildlife, plants = biodiversity (which is not a code word for gay marriage).

We don't want to view the preservation of biodiversity as being akin to the preservation of a zoo for its entertainment and educational value. A huge amount of our medicines have come from and will continue to come from biodiversity (if it is there). The oceans are dying, pollinators for crops are declining, and the conversion of the Amazon basin to desert and fuel monocrops is moving forward unabated. If we lose the global climate and weather altering lungs of the last rainforests, game over.

Imagine our ignorant and bumbling politicians trying to hold the web of life of an entire planet together with artificial means (in a sense, we are already starting to do that with global warming). Human beings may be adaptable, but even we have our limits, which explains the dearth of urban sprawl on the moon.


In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

When you say things like, "the web of life" and talk about the incomprehensible complexity and beauty of the earth, which surpasses human competence... (hence the lack of urban sprawl on the Moon)

Well I just can't help but think what you're talking about is god and creation and our role in it: man is a steward of the miracle of creation. It would be arrogance to act as though we own the earth, tragic hubris to assume we have the power of creators. Biodiversity just obviously maps onto Noah and stewardship... if you're having communication problems, well then theres your framing.

Anyway, thats how I'd play it here in Georgia. Just as long as you don't start talking about rainbows... ; D

But not ArkPilot.  The point of the Ark is, it just floats, it cannot be steered.  We must beware of acting as though we "have the power of creators."

On the other hand, it will always be distasteful, even dishonest, to carry on in conversation on this subject, at very great length, with people who firmly believe that the Flood literally happened, just a few thousand years ago, and that was when the dinosaurs became extinct.

To say nothing of their rabid opposition to gay marriage.  Of course the term "biodiversity" does not mean "gay marriage."  But as the poster-boy for same-sex marriage, I must add that LGBT rights most definitely have a place within this community of living creatures, and there is absolutely no reason for BioD or anyone else to be embarrassed to find them there.

OK, so not the poster-boy, the poster-old-man.  

On the profit motive getting in the way of core environmentalist values:

On the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on Friday, the economics correspondent Paul Solman did a wonderful story on the environmentalist and anti-globalization activist Vandana Shiva, who has become our newest hero.  To her assertion that technological advances are motivated by the communitarian desire to help people, Solman provocatively responded that, surely, inventions such as penicillin and the bicycle happened, not because the inventors wanted to help people, but because they wanted to make money.  And she said that that is a serious problem with America, that "you don't think, unless you can find a way to profit from it."  And she places the development of intellectual property law within that same area of grave moral difficulty.

Here is the transcript of the story:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june07/glo ...

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Kidding. I'm just saying, You can claim the story of the flood as a cultural touchstone without being in bed with the Georgia Cobb County Charismatic Anti-Evolution Book Burning Brigade.
Everyone, left right and center, has heard of Noah and the Ark, and the moral/philosophical overtones are right. As opposed to "biodiversity", which has an ambiguous and poorly distributed cultural resonances. Quite simply, its bad framing.

Al Gore does it all the time. Nothing to do with his stance on gender politics, just being a good communicator.

PS - naw, actually serious. Someone should add the Book of Genesis to Grist's recommended reading list.

As for Noah, and whether or not he was a cultural conservative: True, he does not condemn sexual sins explicitly, or any sins really (save for the controversial curse of Ham, a text with a frightful history -- yes, by the way, yesterday was the 200th anniversary of the end of the slave trade in the British empire).  But he is Yahweh's chosen agent, so some may reasonably conclude that he shares Yahweh's agenda, to destroy all the rest of humanity on account of their alleged sinfulness.

Yahweh in fact comes across as a monster and an abomination in this story, one of the cruelest divinities ever thought up in the entire history of religion.  The abhorrence that many readers of the Flood story feel is frequently mentioned as a reason why they could never subscribe to a biblical religion.

And many Christians feel that abhorrence too, even if they remain Christian.  One of the greatest paintings in Christendom, IMHO, is Michelangelo's depiction of the Ark and the Flood on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.  The Ark is in the background; but what Michelangelo is interested in is the suffering of the poor people about to be drowned, as they flee before the rising waters, helping their loved ones.  According to Genesis, of course, they were sinners who offended Yahweh and deserved to die.  And Michelangelo's interpretation, therefore, is plainly anti-biblical.

It may or may not be relevant, by the way, that he is widely believed to have been homosexual.

And as for Noah as defender of biodiversity, that might be questioned too, after all, in view of all the talk about killing and eating the very animals that were preserved in the Ark, at the end of Chapter 8 and the beginning of Chapter 9.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

I can't believe you called God.. a monster! Is this what passes for kabbalah on the west coast??? You definitely should not do outreach to evangelicals, results would be bad. Verrry very very very bad.

Here's what I'm talking about... nothing specific, we could be talking about Genesis... or Raiders of the Lost Ark... no denominational affiliations, just... culturally resonant terms: Treasures of NOAA's Ark website.

And, I am not sure how anything that I have written could ever be confused with either yoga or kabbalah.  Those are undoubtedly fine traditions, and their practitioners do not deserve to be disdained.  But I for my part do not practise them, and do not really know all that much about them.

On calling God a monster: I did not call God a monster, in fact, nor do I believe that God is a monster.  It is a terrific error made too often by countless people who read the Bible, that the character in the Bible referred to as "God," or "Yahweh," or "The Lord," created by human authors of most uncertain and unreliable wisdom, is in fact God, the true God who exists outside of the Bible.  It is not their (your) fault, really; it is a great failure of Western civilization, ever since the Bible became an important book, to identify the literary character "God," "Yahweh," "The Lord," with the true supreme being whom we also call "God."

This mindless confusion is a terrific error, as I said.  The literary character drowns all of humanity, minus Noah and his family, in the Flood; burns to death all the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah; murders all the first-born of the Egyptians; and drowns all of Pharaoh's army and horses in the Red Sea.  This character is about as monstrous as anyone might conceive.  Could any reasonable person really want to worship this guy?

Or, put another way: What else could a willingness to worship such a deity bespeak, than foolishness, or senselessness, or hard-heartedness, or cruelty, or hunger for power, or servility, or cowardice?  And if anyone who worships such a deity forces his/her children to come to church and worship likewise, what else can we call that person, other than "child-abuser"?

If nothing of that is comprehensible to the church-goers of Georgia, well, I am sorry, but it is not my vocation to talk to people who are resolved to be ignorant, self-righteous, bigoted and condemnatory.  Perhaps others in the Grist community, stronger, more patient and more diplomatic than I, are willing to rise to the challenge.  But I shall sit this one out.

On "Treasures of NOAA's Ark," and the right kind of outreach, the right kind of rhetoric: See DR's "global warming = communism" post, e.g., on how evangelical Christians are deeply mistrustful of any attempt to seduce them.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

"it is not my vocation to talk to people who are resolved to be ignorant, self-righteous, bigoted and condemnatory."

Pandering to bigots is not my cup of tea either. But thats not what I propose. I'm just seeing a mismatch in rhetoric. BioDiversivist articulates, in scientific language, a sort of chaos theory of the world we live in - irreducibly complex. Consequently, his policy advice is (at minimum) to maintain the biological status quo instead of attempting to take the reins and control the system ourself, which we are structurally incapable of doing.

I see this exact same concern and set of relationships described between man, the natural world, and the appropriate policies to pursue, articulated by Southern Christians, in religious/philosophical rather than scientific language. Some of them are irredeemable self-righteous bigots. Most are not - the South is home to the Reverend Lowry and Jay Bakker, not just Ralph Reed.

These two philosophies share a lot in common. Their object relations are structurally identical.  There is a lot of room for disagreement - obviously Biodiversivist holds views about evolution whcih Jay Bakker most likely would not.

But is articulating genuine and heartfelt similarities between the two worldviews, in the hopes of joining forces, really pandering to bigots? I don't think so.

As for the religious stuff, suffice to say that your words would be horribly offensive to many an evangelical. Textuality can be very threatening to someone who prays every day so they can hold their life together. And although the literary theory underpins vast theological differences, at heart I'm a universalist. Its not my place to teach them how to read, or tell them that they are in terrific error, and I just find it unnecessary to split with my neighbor when we otherwise have things in common.

I am curious - what sort of texts do you teach?

You are absolutely right about the importance of engaging in dialogue and finding common cause with people with whom we often radically disagree (and "pandering," by the way, is not a word that I used), inasmuch as we with environmentalist sensibilities are aware of our living at a time of great crisis, especially the biodiversity crisis and the climate-change crisis.

More generally, though, it is we who are making serious efforts to be "universalist," it seems to me, while the conservative, Bible-reading Christians are the ones being exclusivist, exasperatingly fastidious and Pharisaical.  I am glad that the stewardship initiatives of Richard Cizik and others (?; pardon me, but I never heard of Rev. Lowry and Jay Bakker -- if you like them, then fine, that recommendation counts for a great deal) have been favorably received by many evangelical Christians and their allies.  But it cannot help but be observed that while we can adjust to referring to "creation care" and Noah, they pick themselves up and stalk off indignantly when such words as "environmentalism" and "biodiversity" are uttered.

I am pleased and interested that you find BioD to be saying something entirely acceptable to your Bible-reading neighbors.  Really, he should be responding to your comments, not I; but he is a tough one to coax into writing anything at great length, on any subject not of his choosing.

On reading the Bible: Far be it from me to tell anyone how to read anything.  So long as the rational, critical study of biblical literature be permitted to continue, I do not care how individual readers of the Bible interpret it.

On the other hand, when certain readers of the Bible use it as a weapon of injustice, aggression and destruction, then it behooves all decent-minded people, and not just Bible scholars, to protest against that use.  Or rather, abuse.

On texts that I teach: the Bible; ancient Near Eastern literature, especially the Epic of Gilgamesh, but the collection titled "Inanna," by Diane Wolkstein and the late Samuel Noah Kramer, is a lot of fun; Greek and Latin classics, e.g. Homer, Hesiod, the tragedians, Plato, Virgil; and Christian stuff, up to and including Dante.  I would love to do a course that gets me out of the Mediterranean, my home, e.g. using the Bhagavad-Gita, or No dramas, or collected Native American stories as texts; but so far, alas, I have not had that opportunity.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Well, yes. They are explicitly not universalists - forgiveness is conditional in these communities. It is irritating... but it is the religion they have chosen. As far as political coalitions go, the question is - well, purity vs. efficacy.

re: Rev. Lowry and Jay Bakker -- they're just two notables in the Southern Christian community who are somewhere along the spectrum towards Progressivism. Reverend Lowry is Methodist and founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Martin Luther King Jr. Jay Bakker is the son of TV evangelists Tammy Fay and Jim Bakker and has made herculean efforts to dialogue outside his traditional circle. He used to preach at a fetish club down the street from me, and can now be found at a club on Lorimer St. in Williamsburg. I have little in common with either theologically, and neither is progressive on Choice, LGBT, womens rights. But they carry weight in their communities, and would be worth talking to on environmental issues.

>>"pandering," by the way, is not a word that I used...
Yes.. I rely too heavily on association in my thinking - sometimes its useful, but slippage is my worst fault.

>>On texts that I teach: the Bible; ancient Near Eastern literature, especially the Epic of Gilgamesh,
Wow. I really picked the wrong person to mouth off in front of about the meaning of the flood, huh... lol. Oh, typical me...

(podcasts and videocasts are available and highly recommended)

These people essentially believe that because humanity are god's stewards we must treat the world well.

On all other issues, this group of conservative Christians walk the party line (eg- abortion, gay marriage...).  It's interesting and refreshing to see a different kind of green.  It's also these kinds of people who must be embraced if the environmental ideals are to be spread beyond hippie liberals.

Here's a brief summary of their beliefs:

Our common Judeo-Christian heritage teaches that the following theological and anthropological principles are the foundation of environmental stewardship:

   

1.       God, the Creator of all things, rules over all and deserves our worship and adoration.
      

2.       The earth, and with it all the cosmos, reveals its Creator's wisdom and is sustained and governed by His power and loving kindness.
      

3.       Men and women were created in the image of God, given a privileged place among creatures, and commanded to exercise stewardship over the earth. Human persons are moral agents for whom freedom is an essential condition of responsible action. Sound environmental stewardship must attend both to the demands of human well being and to a divine call for human beings to exercise caring dominion over the earth. It affirms that human well being and the integrity of creation are not only compatible but also dynamically interdependent realities.
      

4.       God's Law-summarized in the Decalogue and the two Great Commandments (to love God and neighbor), which are written on the human heart, thus revealing His own righteous character to the human person-represents God's design for shalom, or peace, and is the supreme rule of all conduct, for which personal or social prejudices must not be substituted.
      

5.       By disobeying God's Law, humankind brought on itself moral and physical corruption as well as divine condemnation in the form of a curse on the earth. Since the fall into sin people have often ignored their Creator, harmed their neighbors, and defiled the good creation.
      

6.       God in His mercy has not abandoned sinful people or the created order but has acted throughout history to restore men and women to fellowship with Him and through their stewardship to enhance the beauty and fertility of the earth.
      

7.       Human beings are called to be fruitful, to bring forth good things from the earth, to join with God in making provision for our temporal well being, and to enhance the beauty and fruitfulness of the rest of the earth. Our call to fruitfulness, therefore, is not contrary to but mutually complementary with our call to steward God's gifts. This call implies a serious commitment to fostering the intellectual, moral, and religious habits and practices needed for free economies and genuine care for the environment.
   

http://www.stewards.net/CornwallDeclaration.htm

Interesting that they come to many of the same conclusions as I do, but for very different reasons.

Andrew Eisenberg
The gateway project is wrong---http://www.livableregion.ca