Follow up thought, Kevin:

Church indulgences had their roots in cheerful giving. Lots of cheerful "carbon giving" going on right now too; in fact, I’d call it downright prideful (which is why giving to God always had this condition on it).

That cheerful giving morphed into a guilt-giving, and was ultimately mangled by the Guardians of Truth intoਊ grotesque, compulsory tax on the faithful.

Will we see a similar pattern emerge here? Would not be surprised. Nor would I expect such a tax to be limited by national boundaries.

[Don's other habitat is evangelicalecologist.com]

  • http://blog.acton.org/ Jordan

    And we all know who should [url=http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/02/climate_right_f.html]pay early and often[/url]:

    “Methinks it’s time that those who benefit financially from the human activities that cause global warming should pay a higher price and develop new technologies for fuel efficiency and reducing emissions.”

  • Kevin

    Good points, Don.
    To clarify my post further: In the interests of brevity and wit, I chose not to explain fully my analogy by making important distinctions. I will make one here. Leaving aside the question of whether or not the environmental outfit in question is a worthy recipient of donor funds, I am of course not opposed to making voluntary contributions to organizations doing good work in a good cause; quite the contrary. More precisely, I meant to criticize the seeming implications of the e-mail notice, a) by traveling (without regard to the reason or necessity thereof) one is committing some kind of offense against nature; and b) one can rectify the wrong by giving money to an environmental action group.
    This, as you aptly put it, is “guilt-giving,” not charity in the traditional sense.