Results tagged “global warming” from Marilyn Sewell

The headline in the NY Times this morning tells us that China is planning to become the leading producer of hybrid and all-electric cars within the next three years.  And don't think they can't do it.  Five thoustand auto engineers and 5,000 battery engineers are living in a high-tech ghetto of 15 yellow 18-story apartment buildings in Shenzhen, and they are busily working to accomplish this goal for their country.  They earn less than $600 a month, and that includes benefits.

China is offering hefty subsidies for buyers, and they would like to raise their annual production rate to 500,000 hybrid or all-electric cars and buses by the end of 2011.  The U.S. has its own comparable program, of course, and the Department of Energy will get $25 billion to develop electric-powered cars and improve battery technology, plus another $2 billion for battery development.

China says that its intention--besides creating jobs and exports--is to fight urban pollution and reduce its dependence on foreign oil.  The problem is that the electricity that runs cars has to be produced somehow--a fact which electric car enthusiasts often seem to overlook--and China gets the bulk of its electricity from coal, the dirtiest source of energy for our planet. 

And then there was the news in March, coming from India: Tata Motors is launching its Nano, a small car that will cost only $2,200 in the U.S., for the cheapest model.  It is being touted as the "new way"--the smaller and cheaper form of transportation for the masses.  They plan to begin selling the cars this July, and will market an eco-friendly version which uses compressed air as fuel, as well as an electric version.  Tata is planning for an initial production target of 250,000 units a year.  Millions of Indians who never thought they could own a car will now have a chance of doing so. 

I have to ask a simple question: when emissions from the automobile are quickly ruining the planet, why are we human creatures going to produce automobiles of any kind for everyone on earth?  Shouldn't we instead be working very hard to create alternative models of transportation?  Shouldn't we be learning how to live and work in a more circumscribed area?

On top of the not-inconsequential problem of global warming, there is the on-going slaughter on our highways, which nobody seems particularly worried about.  Each year 43,000 people die on our roads.  You know some of them.  And 3,000,000 more are injured.  Chances are that you, at one time or another, have been among them.  Some of these injuries are devastating.  In India, 90,000 people are killed every year on the roads.  I hesitate to think what will happen when hundreds of thousands of little Nanos are added to the mix.

When will we understand that the problem is not (1) how to live the same way we've always lived, but more cheaply, and it's not (2) encouraging everyone in the world to follow the American Dream.  Our problem is to actually change the way we're living.  And the U.S. has the responsiblity to lead in this effort, for we have been leading in the wrong direction for our planet, for far too long.

Why, oh why, are we behaving like lemmings rushing to the sea?  What will it take to wake us up? 

 Share this

Many liberals have taken Barack Obama to task for choosing the evangelical preacher Rick Warren to pray at the coming inauguration.  Many gays and lesbians, who strongly supported Obama, feel betrayed.  It is true that Rev. Warren came out for California's Proposition 8, which disallowed gay marriage, and it is true that he has been an outspoken opponent of abortion.  Why would Obama make such a choice?

I believe such a choice is consistent with Obama's core message: "I want to be everyone's President--I want to bring this nation together."  Whereas George Bush said that and did just the opposite, I believe that Obama will genuinely try to be inclusive.  For eight years we have had an administration for whom the only qualification for office, whether it be Attorney General or a lowly intern, was that you were pro-Bush.  Everyone else was methodically winnowed out.  I for one never want another such administration.  I want a President who is strong and confident enough to engage those who disagree with him, considering their perspective, and possibly pulling them into his sphere of influence.

Who is Rick Warren, anyway?  He is one of the "new evangelicals"--more like Jim Wallis than Jim Bakker.  He is serious about Jesus, and that means being serious about poverty and being serious about global warming.  He doesn't understand Christians who dwell in the "end times" or pray for prosperity for themselves.  As I hear him, he believes that the Kingdom of God is to be made among us, here and now.  He is not one of your charismatic TV evangelists who is mainly an entertainer, collecting money from vulnerable people.  He is a man of integrity, so far as I can tell, who wants to follow the will of God.  And he is enormously influential with literally millions of American church-goers.

Do I agree with his theology?  Well, a big NO.  Am I looking forward to his prayer on the day of the inauguration?  No, again.  And I think I understand the hurt and disappointment of my gay and lesbian friends.  I personally would have preferred, say, Rev. James Forbes, the Emeritus Minister of Riverside Church in New York, where he succeeded William Sloan Coffin.  Forbes was the first African American to pastor this church, which is the pre-eminent American protestant pulpit; he is an amazing preacher; and he is a flaming liberal.  But after the Rev. Wright furor, perhaps another black liberal minister wouldn't have cut muster. 

Obama made a logical and consistent choice.  He chose a minister who would be known and admired by evangelicals, signaling to them that he cares about them--that they, too, are part of the America that he will serve.  He made an appropriate political choice.  This inauguration is not like a wedding, where you choose your best friends for the various roles, so they can be there to love and support you.  The inauguration signals to the whole country that all are welcome in this administration.

Consider also that Rick Warren will not be making policy--he'll be saying a short prayer.  Is the choice of Warren symbolic?  Well, yes.  But will Warren's theology influence this administration?  I think it may be the other way around.  I think Obama's friendship with Warren may make inroads for Obama into the evangelical community, as nothing else could.  I believe that this country is turning around on the question of gay marriage--the movement is toward inclusivity, toward acceptance of many kinds of love.  Rick Warren could change his mind.  Stranger things have happened. 

Yesterday the NY Times published an amazing photographic article called "The New Team" (p. A12), and it was a full page picturing 25 of the choices Obama has made to help him forge policy for our country.  Of the 25, there were only 12 white men.  Consider that--only 12!p  When have you ever seen anything like it?  There were 10 people of color, and there were 7 women.  I would have preferred more women, of course.  But you know what?  I'm ecstatic about our new President.  He's moving carefully and well, and I for one am not going to try to second-guess him all the time.  Liberals have been known forever to fail because of internal squabbling.  Just this one time--let's hang together and let this good man have a break and find his feet.  He has enough challenges before him, don't you think, without having to constantly fend off criticisms from his friends.  

 Share this