Green Hannuka:
From the Jerusalem Post, via Drudge:
In a campaign that has spread like wildfire across the Internet, a group of Israeli environmentalists is encouraging Jews around the world to light at least one less candle this Hanukka to help the environment.On the other hand, maybe a miracle will happen and the atmosphere will not be damaged.
The founders of the Green Hanukkia campaign found that every candle that burns completely produces 15 grams of carbon dioxide. If an estimated one million Israeli households light for eight days, they said, it would do significant damage to the atmosphere.
Are Jews who light Hannuka candles contributing disproportionately to global warming when compared to other religious groups, e.g., Catholics lighting votive candles in churches around the world?
While I may seem greatly exercised by this, in truth I prefer that they devoted themselves to this than to many other more harmful "progressive" agendas. (If someone will argue that this is not a "progressive" issue as such, I will back off the "progressive" label and say instead it is a view far more likely to be held by those of the "progressive" faith than non-believers.)
well at least you didn't say "environmentalism is an antisemitic ploy"...although both statements are just as wacky
i take it proper spelling also advances the anti-semite's agenda?
I think the proper response is to calculate what the carbon savings would be from all of those non-religious environmentalists refraining from driving or using electricity in their homes for one day a week all year (i.e., the Sabbath). I strongly suspect that the savings would be much much more than any putative savings from not lighting candles on Hanuka.
>>
"We have many environmental traditions in Judaism like Tu Bishvat and Succot, but there are also traditions like Lag Ba'omer and Hanukka that made sense when they were instituted but are more problematic now in the days of global warming," Wegner said.
"There are many people who just light candles for the tradition and for their children," he said. "To tell a child on the eighth day that we are not lighting the last candle as a sacrifice for the environment is an act that is not only educational but also will prevent the release of a huge amount of carbon dioxide that would hurt the environment."
>>
That is, quite explicitly, environmentalism as a substitute good for religion.
Mmmmm, Christmas-y.
But on the other hand, if they knew anything about the laws and customs of Chanukkah, then they'd be telling us to light only one light each night.
(With apologies to Jonathan Swift)
"They should encourage people to light one less cigarette instead," [United Torah Judaism MK Avraham] Ravitz said.
So they try to tell people to ignore what their faith says because it is not eco-friendly. Its silly and bound to invite controversy, and thus you have to think that the controversy is the point.
But it is inherently suspicious when people are selective like this, when it happens against jews. There is a history. Indeed, clearly anti-semitic selectivity is also a present reality, though that might not be at work here. But still you have to think we could save alot more carbon if Al Gore took one less private jet flight, if John Edwards owned one less SUV, or the potheads (who are so often environmentalists) smoked one less joint.
I'm not sure how much not driving balances leaving lights and stoves on for 25 hours - not to mention all those candles!
You remember Camelot? Were "Winter exits March the 2nd on the dot."
It is also reminiscent of destroying the Golden Calf to regain God's love. If we just renounce Capitalism and consumerism, Gaia will love us again.
All of this would just be coincidence if the evidence for AGW were stronger.
You'll be glad to know that most Orthodox Jews indeed use olive oil.
Think how many greenhouse gases would be reduced if the Green Hanukkia loudmouths were to shut up every now and then.
Those who call this anti-semitism, though, are missing the direct link between Green Hanukkia and Hannukah. After all, Hannukkah involved a civil war between hellenized Jews who wanted to outlaw Jewish practice and belief in favor of the prevailing paganism of the day. Today's Jewish environmentalists of Green Hanukkia want to abandon Jewish tradition in favor of sacrifices to the environment (see the quote in Patrick K's post). As such,Green Hanukkia is carrying forward the proud tradition of the hellenized Jewsw who fought the Maccabees. You just need to remember that today's prevailing paganism has substituted the direct worship of nature, lust and greed from the names (Ceres, Aphrodite, etc.) that the ancient Greeks and Romans gave to the idealization of those same forces.
But its nihilistic core means it ultimately can't stand alone the way a full-blown religion can; the desire to destroy something (capitalism) is spent once said destruction is complete, leaving no answer to the question "So now what?". So, the envirocult is more likely to merge with an existing religion than try to be one on its own. The "stewardship" concept makes Christianity a perfectly compatible host, for instance.
Which of the two will call the shots in that marriage? That's anyone's call, but I'd bet on the God squad.
say that all environmentalists have a desperate need to control
their neighbors but instead to say that majority do. (And I'm speaking
of ideas not the name. If we were to ask I'd guess the majority would say
they are not marxists but if their underlying ideology is explored it's
the same thing by another name.)
The enviro-marxist game here is never to propose a real solution and to
actively fight any plausible proposed solutions. Thus nuclear power plants,
which would radically reduce carbon dioxide emissions, are fought
tooth and nail. Tellingly, there is never the slightest hint of interest
in exploring strategies to reduce or elminate the risks of nuclear power.
Likewise as biofuels approach plausibility rather suddenly an hysterical
opposition develops. (It's not that ethanol made from corn makes sense
but rather there other looming feedstock technologies that might work
much better.) With the enviro-marxists no distinction is made, and, tellingly,
there is no push to get these technologies here sooner.
The only "solution" enviro-marxists push is conservation. And people
need to wake up -- conservation is not a solution. It's the superficially
plausible denial of a solution. It's meaningless as a practical strategy for
significantly reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
CO2 is not a pollutant ...
CO2 rose from 1940 - 1970 ...
Pop quiz: What did GLOBAL temperatures do from 1940 - 1970 ?
The more facts you know the less you'll be considered a moron by your grandchildren when it comes to global warming/cooling ...
Turn people into soylent green and we'll solve this problem.
15 grams of carbon per candle, multiplied by a million candles, is a fairly good-sized chunk of carbon (16.5 short tons). But compared to other sources, it's practically negligible. Burning one gallon of gasoline produces about 8600 grams of carbon dioxide. Israel consumes 250,000 barrels of oil a day; an extra candle won't make any difference...
Total anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are around 6.6B metric tons per year, but I believe these figures exclude respiration. So respiration is 2.2/8.8 or about 25% of the total. I was off by a bit in my earlier post, but certainly not to the point where respiration can be considered miniscule.
Some jews are trying to *gasp* encourage other jews to try to be more environmentally friendly by this token gesture. What's wrong with that? No, this small thing won't change the world, but so what? It's the symbolic nature of the gesture that is important.
And if we’re going to attack someone for overreacting, how about this guy: “The environmentalists should think about how much pollution is caused by one solitary diesel truck on the road," Ze'ev said. "They should be fighting the trucks instead of Judaism. This is so trivial, so anti-Jewish and so anti-religious that even the worst anti-Semites couldn't think of it. Just like the Helenists, they are trying to extinguish the flames of the Jewish soul."
Really?? It’s so anti-religious that even the worst -- worst! -- anti-semities couldn’t think of it?!
Then we're already done. Why bother, just accept the higher oceans and warmer weather. If one million candles for 8 days cause significant damage, and since those one million candles for 8 days are such a insignificant amount in the overall worldwide production of carbon dioxide, then really, why bother?
Yeah, that sums it all up right there. As long as it's symbolic, then we are doing something and now we are better than you.
"Look, it's one bad environmentalist idea! Since this environmentalist idea is bad, all other environmentalist ideas must be bad as well!"
Yeah. THAT'S the point everyone is making.
Our problem is that we are taking carbon out of 'storage' faster than we are putting it back. ('Storage' can be as underground fossil fuel or as inert liquid or solid-form carbon such as wood in housing or as some kind of carbonate - I've seen proposals to do such things as turn smokestack emissions into food-grade baking soda.)
In simple terms, the amount of carbon dioxide in the environment would be constant, were it not for the burning of fossil fuels. Thus only the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels can create a change to to the environment. Growing the olives absorbed CO2 from the environment; burning the oil merely returns that same CO2 to the environment.
He then, apparently, responds to himself a few lines later:
..and where did the carbon in fossil fuels come from?
In the long run, everything is "carbon neutral".
Well yea but its one bad environmentalist idea that is dealing with another really murderous enviromentalists idea. The idea that we are at the edge of the precipice due to man caused global warming. I can forgive them for the idiocy of not lighting one candle but the global warming nightmare is going to kill more people than the DDT nightmare did. I cannot forgive them for that.
You may have a problem with global warming theory, but you're not doing anything here to disprove it. If you can forgive the idea of some kooky environmentalist, why are you ranting about it? The answer of course is that you are just using a kooky environmentalist idea as a straw man to show that whole global warming theory is flawed.
Perhaps you should prove that global warming is man made? For the sake of my sanity please do not attempt to use the fact that x amount of scientists have signed on as "believing". Consensus is not very scientific. Have fun.
Will somebody please decide how to spell Hannukah?
The post above contains two different spellings, which are different than the two I've most often seen (Hannukah and Cha____h).
Can't the Israeli Prime Minister decide this? If we need to convene another conference, for G_d's sake, let's get cracking.
unless i missed something, i was the first one to make the link...and i thought it was clear that it was a joke to ridicule the "environmentalism is a religion" people.
-----------------------
Patrick,
That is, quite explicitly, environmentalism as a substitute good for religion.
did you read your own quote? it doesn't say what you want it to. or have you just never heard of "conservation"?
Maybe you disagree, but your rants (and others) against kooky environmental ideas do little to advance why we should disagree with the theory of global warming.
That's easy. You will be glad to know that there is one and only one correct spelling: חנוכה. How to render that in Roman letters is up to you.
Um, maybe because they are asking us to materially damage our economy, and now, apparently, change our religious practices? Once upon a time the 'scientific community' all agreed the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe.
Actually the real spelling of Hanukkah is חנכה. The Hebrew letter "waw" doesn't really belong and is added for convenience to hint at the proper vowel after the "nun".
Whether one sees a lot or a little to the "environmentalism as religion" proposition, Anonymous coward's contribution at 9:50AM was a thought-provoking one. Brian_K (aka burrnini), please engage as best you can with the thoughts others put forward here rather than trying to engage with them personally, as you regularly do. Your attempts at ridicule of others ["a joke to ridicule the '(opposing view') people") usually only make only appear ridiculous and an unworthy interlocutor.
It came (the current theory goes) from plants buried in the Carboniferous Era, roughly 300 million years ago, when the Earth was significantly warmer. By burning them we are, in a sense, transporting CO2 from 300 million years ago to the present.
In the long run, everything is "carbon neutral".
Quite right. The amount of carbon in the lithosphere and atmosphere of the Earth is constant, inasmuch as matter is conserved and the Earth's gravity is too high for CO2 to reach escape velocity.
Of course, you're missing the point. No serious person doubts that the Earth's climate has always changed, from time to time, and will always do so. The part that worries people is the possibility that it is changing so rapidly right now, because we are burning up 50 million years' production of fossil fuels in a century or two, that the ecosystem may be severely battered. It's happened before, when comets and asteroids hit the Earth, and in some cases up to 90% of all species went extinct.
That's the $10,000 question: will all this 'sudden' (on geological terms) re-injection of stored CO2 into the atmosphere be the equivalent of a meteor strike in terms of how much 'immediate' (over a few hundred thousand years) damage it does to the ecosystem?
And, will we (H. sapiens) (1) survive that damage, and (2) like the new world we inherit?
By the way, the hopeful possibility is that the climate is warming because of human CO2, because that's something we can change. If, on the other hand, the climate is warming because of some heretofore misunderstood natural interaction between the Earth and Sun, say, then that could be very bad news indeed, since there's nothing we puny humans can do about events on the solar-system scale, and there's no guarantee the result of such large-scale natural changes will leave the Earth capable of supporting life at all.
One can only imagine what will happen when one million dreidels are set spinning simultaneously. It's possible that the rotation of the earth will be severely altered.
The higher temperature will add more water vapor and methane to the atmosphere, which will make it that much more ugly, greenhouse-wise. The good news is that the increased water vapor will eventually cause additional rainfall, which will wash more calcium and magnesium from dirt, back into the oceans. Those will react with the absorbed CO2, precipitating it back out as. That will fix the problem within ~100,000 years. It always does.
Meanwhile, don't pay too much for beach property.
Yes, the credit goes to you for that "joke," ignored by most of us because it was so lame as humor and so lacking as either commentary or rebuttal.
then why did you respond? obviously the joke was too subtle for you.
Anonymous coward's contribution at 9:50AM was a thought-provoking one.
this doesn't speak well for your intelligence.
Brian_K (aka burrnini)
let's not start this again. i don't have time to spend the hours necessary to refute your repeated lies.
please engage as best you can with the thoughts others put forward here rather than trying to engage with them personally, as you regularly do.
as you appear to regularly do also. what else is the purpose of this post of yours? or any of your other posts addressed to me. what thoughts are you putting forward in this post? how are you not engaging me "personally"?
Your attempts at ridicule of others ["a joke to ridicule the '(opposing view') people") usually only make only appear ridiculous and an unworthy interlocutor.
if i'm an "unworthy interlocutor" then why did you reply to me? i find it interesting that you find random insults towards groups you don't like "worthy". you don't post comments like this one concerning anyone else.
How about skipping that trip to the mall to buy tschotskies, and buying carbon credits for planting trees in Israel from JNF as presents.
Fulfill the mitzvahs of lighting the candles and redeeming the land, accumulate carbon credits, and avoid mall madness and rampant consumerism. Win, Win all around.
Now, if you can, answer not with silly name-calling, but with a reasoned response to those who suggest that the environmentalism of some may be seen as a form of religion. (And note, snark, e.g., "ridicule," rarely qualifies as reasoned response.) Show others that you are indeed capable of persuasive argument, even if it isn't what you usually contribute here. If are not capable of that or unwilling to undertake it, feel free to go on adducing more evidence in support of my case, though you have already given me more than enough.
I am referring to the displays of preening
says the guy whose name is "neurodoc". did you not read your third sentence in your post? you, quite frankly, "preen" way more than i ever have. and you bring up my medical background much more often than I do.
"narcissism (my parents have good reason to be so proud of their second-year medical student son)"
i've never mentioned my parents at all.
"that braying jackass "hahaha" you throw in to mock others"
1) you don't deserve any better. 2) "hahaha" is the sound of laughter...it signifies something funny. it does not automatically mean I am mocking someone. i suppose the subtlety required to grasp the different uses of laughter is a little beyond you.
I proved you wrong and made you look foolish
in your case, i am stating a simple fact. there's nothing self congratulatory about it.
the less than honest (I'm the hotmail burrnini who posts here, don't know the yahoo burrnini who posted here before me)
you keep trying to prove this. you keep failing at it. and once i show your lies for what they are, you move to a new board and start the charade all over again.
other character revealing expressions
you mean how you've revealed that you're a petty man who holds grudges, a bigot, a liar, a hypocrite, incapable of learning, etc. take a look back at every encounter other than the first one...who started it? who started with the insults? in all cases it was you.
a reasoned response to those who suggest that the environmentalism of some may be seen as a form of religion.
but that was not the original claim i was responding to. obviously, reading comprehension is not your strong suit. there will always be fanatics at the ends of any political belief...i don't dispute that. although i do question the use of the fanatical few to discredit everyone else, esp. when this line of reasoning is not used to discredit other beliefs on this site. but i'm not going to hold my breath while i wait to see if you can grasp this concept.
Oh, take a look at my new e-mail address. I guess that must mean i'm you. since you clearly believe that e-mail addresses somehow uniquely identify an individual, there is no other explanation. i am you, you are me...we are the same person. why do you keep insisting on arguing with yourself?
Granted it's not "human respiration" that gets us to the 30% figure, it's the respiration of all air breathing species that get us to just over 30% of all emissions.
If you want to sequester CO2, which seems like a great waste of time to me (and a note to those who would try to look at 30 year windows and extrapolate to global climate over decades/centuries/millenia -- you're an idiot), if you feel the need to sequester it, then get into forestry; buy yourself some land and plant rows of pine, then chop it down, convert it to lumber and sell it.
Furthermore, if you're REALLY serious about it. Start cutting down old-growth and replant with an eye to harvesting for lumber. Old trees don't pull nearly as much CO2 out of the air as do younger, growing trees.
So for all you environmentalists out there who want to do something about global warming, go out and buy an axe and shovel and start using them.
--Jason
If you try to pass that off as a gift to me, I would return it to the store personally, even if it meant flying in a chartered plane to make the demand.
Your running dialog of taunts and epithets persuades those of us who come here for educational discourse only that incivility is a bi-partisan problem. In the seasonal spirit of good will, and paraphrasing Rodney King, can't we all just agree that you're both wrong?
i'm as tired of it as you are. if it will end this crap, i'd agree to almost anything.
my aren't we egotistical. you are not the defender of the universe and, thankfully, you do not have the power to restrict others' speech. there is no need to "defend" others...in fact, since i have long since stopped addressing posts of yours that are not directed at me, there is no need for you to even reply to my remarks. if other people take offense at my comments, they are perfectly capable of responding on their own.
my initial posts were not even addressed at you. you are always the one who begins our "conversations" with ad hominem attacks and lies about me.
The war on tobacco is a war on the mentally ill.
There are a number of reasons why scientific consensus is not definitive.
One of them is phlogiston.
i'm not going to hold my breath
Another warming denier. If you believed in warming you would be holding your breath.
The best I can do is to hold my breath for about 30 seconds. I guess I'm not much of a believer. The real believers can hold their breath for days at least.
bascially your saying "don't make posts that i don't like". how does this differ from the heckler's veto? and we all know how wrong you think the heckler's veto is*. Isn't this basically the reason why you dislike burrnini so much and why you keep attempting to link me to him.her? explain to us how this is not the very definition of a hypocrite.
*"Maybe burrnini is upset now that the "heckler's veto" was finally been overridden at the University of Leeds. I am upset that it should ever have kept the professor from teaching there, and heartened that finally he has been allowed to do so." here or any post where brian k and burrnini were mentioned together via google (site:volokh.com)