Albannach,

I will refrain from commenting on the book and the claims of the like minded because I am not familiar with their arguments, making any comments presumptuous. However, you have made some comments that have sparked a response from me.

1. Emphasizing “theories”—as if it is self-evident that this observation alone should make one doubt claims associated with it—is highly dubious. Do you doubt gravity? Gravitational theory helps us explain why we don’t wander off into space. No one can say for sure why we don’t. How about aerodynamic theories? I assume you fly regularly. Using “theory” as a derogatory remark smacks of strategies of conservatives who war on science. (As I tell my students, if you want to write off science, please be morally consistent by never seeing a doctor again and selling all of your electronics.) “Theories” are simply our best explanations, accepted by a majority of scientists, for a given phenomena. They can be replaced—as can the theory of gravity—when another better explanation comes along.

2. “tax raising and self-justifying, progress hating, development restricting, vested interest terror engine.” What are you talking about? Seriously, do you believe in conspiratorial illuminati theories? Who gets to define “progress”? How come “progress” seems to be so often defined in relation to a specific worldview and why do the benefits of this so called progress seem to flow only to those who claim it to be “progress”? Same with “development”. Why do you accept these terms as beneficial? Have you examined your own worldview to see if it is not beholden to capitalism and, especially, whether this capitalism has been married to or become congruent with your faith? If so, how is this not idolatry?

3. Again, I can’t speak for the claims of the book, but I don’t believe any of the environmental activists I know secretly hope that so-called “underdeveloped” nations remain with high levels of poverty. They simply claim that our theories of the market do not incorporate externalities such as finite resources, which means that the likelihood of these nations experiencing our lifestyle and its consumptive habits is a virtual impossibility at this rate. Significant alterations in the capitalist system are necessary to have sustainable wealth creation outcomes.

4. “Do we really think Americans are stupid? They would need to be to risk sacrificing everything they have by ignoring the carbon threat. Yet, they ignore it. Why? Is there another truth?” Why you assume that Americans can see the larger picture and make purchasing habits in accordance with it is beyond me. It’s not even good reformed theology that accounts for a real sin nature. Secondly, most Americans start from an individualistic worldview and work outwards. Few believe they are connected in any intimate way to the larger whole, increasingly to include the whole globe (ecological crises being only one of the ways this is occurring). To suggest “Americans” know better about the carbon crisis and, in all their divine wisdom, choose to ignore it because they have grasped its full claims and outcomes and judged them to be false is, prima facie, pretty silly to me. A basic text in sociology that covers socio-cultural movements would easily demonstrate the falsity of this claim.