Living Like Xerxes
What do global warming "carbon offsets" and the movie "300" have to do with each other? Sounds like a riddle not even the Goracle could unscramble. Well, PJM columnist Brad Rourke has an answer.
When first we lay eyes on the evil Xerxes, in the visual revolution known as 300, he is riding a monstrous platform carried by a throng of people whom (we presume) are slaves. It’s a floating throne and court all in one, massive and imposing. He wants to get down, so he begins walking down the steps from his throne, to the platform. He keeps walking off of the platform, without breaking stride. The slaves jump to, creating a set of steps with their backs as he pads his way down.
It is an illuminating moment as we meet the Bad Guy: he thinks so highly of his own comfort, and so little of his people, that he expects they will literally place their bodies at his disposal for so trivial a purpose. It’s a great way of establishing the depths of his self-absorption and decadence. We get it. This guy’s a creep.
In daily life, though, many live like Xerxes without batting an eye, floating through the day on a cloud of comforts they don’t even see. Some feel guilty about this.
It is in vogue, of late, for people to extend this notion into the environmental arena. One of the byproducts of the last several decades’ worth of focus on ecology is the abiding notion that having any impact whatsoever on the world around us is a bad thing, to be shunned and avoided – and, whenever possible, atoned for. There appears at times to be a crushing guilt coursing through the land, that we’re doing something wrong and we’d better stop it.
In response, some people try hard to live in simple fashion, consuming little and leaving as little trace as possible. This approach is not limited to one side of the aisle or another. I admire these people, for they appear to be living their ideals.
Other people feel it’s enough for them to be aware of their shortcomings, They can congratulate themselves that they really see the impact of their well-progressed lifestyle on the environment. They don’t go much further.
But they still have that guilt, perhaps even more intensely for all their “awareness.” So, they try to make up for it.
This has reached its most ridiculous level when it comes to something called the “carbon footprint” and purchasing “offsets.” The notion is that every person engages in activities that are to blame for some portion of global warming, and that this is a bad thing. It rings true to many because it taps into the endemic environmental guilt so many already feel.
Some, notably wealthy and famous people who wish to continue using private jets and maintain luxurious homes, purchase “offsets” that represent mitigation for their carbon footprint. The offset supports some organization that, in turn, supports carbon-reducing (or, at least, non-carbon-emitting) enterprises.
Climate Care, one of the outfits that takes wealthy folks’ money, puts it this way: “Offsetting means paying someone to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere on your behalf.”
Win-win. The wealthy person gets salve for the conscience, and money changes hands. Sweet.
There are at least two, related, problems with this.
First, the notion of paying someone else to do what you yourself are not willing to do seems to undercut the whole point. Purchasing offsets seems a lot like the old practice of buying indulgences so the wealthy could continue on with their sinning, only remaining able to sleep at night secure in the knowledge that the Pope said they would not be going to Hell.
Second, few look too closely at the offsets and what they support. According to The Times of London, one of Climate Care’s projects involves using human labor in the developing world to pump water for irrigation, using “treadle pumps” that look not unlike Stairmasters. People step for hours on these things, pumping merrily along. Climate Care puts it this way: “One person – man, woman or even child – can operate the pump by manipulating his/her body weight on two treadles and by holding a bamboo or wooden frame for support.”
Treadle pumps used to be in vogue in British prisons – and were finally outlawed, according to Spiked Magazine, having been deemed too cruel a punishment. Here, they are being touted as suitable labor for a third-world child. All, ironically, so that guilty consciences can be set at ease.
Private industry, the pursuit of wealth, and the competition this engenders is at the root of much of what makes us a great nation. The flipside of this industry, which is privilege, entitlement, and lassitude, are just as strongly at the root of what holds us back.
Like Xerxes, many are addicted to comfort. We want our lifestyles to remain intact, so we hire others to do the heavy lifting. While they may well be grateful for the jobs, are we to believe we have improved our own moral standing in any real way? Or are we more like Xerxes, happy that others are there to lift us along on our platforms?
Brad Rourke writes a column on public life called Public Comments, produces a videolog called Taxonomies, is a founder of the Maryland neighborhood blog, Rockville Central, and is in a band called The West End.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
13 Comments
1. BMoon:Yep. Brad, you connected the dots. Let’s see … guilt, indulgences, absolution, self-righteousness, hypocrisy. For the true believers on the elite left, legitimate environmental concerns get transmorphed into a religious cause with all the correllating ingredients.
Could this be because of the absence of true religion in their warped psyches?
Sep 10, 2007 - 8:00 am 2. davod:Treadle pumps? And here was I thinking that the idea of helping the less fortunate in the third world was to free them up from the mundane so they could educate themselves and work for as better life.
Maybe the treadle pumps are to replace the methane producing livestock used before they were found to be anti earth.
Sep 10, 2007 - 8:45 am 3. WJ:In no way do I agree with the whole carbon offset thing. However, I think the analogy between the “300″ and this is a little thin.
Xerxes used slaves. They had no choice. British prisons used prisoners for the treadle pumps and the prisoners had no choice. IF Climatecare is paying these folks to use the treadle pumps then isn’t that a little different?
I’m NOT saying it is a good long-term economic transaction as it would obviously be better for these folks to use a more modern (ie productive) technique to improve their situation. As opposed to going for the short-term cash to use manual labor to make the buyers feel good about themselves.
From the treadle pump users perspective this “carbon offset” thing could turn out to be quite good, under one scenario and if they are clever about it. Let’s say you are a treadle pump user out of necessity. You can’t don’t have the capital to buy something more productive. Your only choice right now is treadle pumps to irrigate your crops.
Along comes this “carbon offset” program to make the left feel less guilty. They will pay you for doing what you had to do anyway, use the treadle pumps to irrigate your crops.
Then after awhile, you save the “carbon offset” money and buy yourself a better pump. You lose the “carbon offset” money, but you end up better off cause you are more productive now with the better equipment. Then you start buying tractors….
Sep 10, 2007 - 10:04 am 4. QwkDrw:Great post. Information (knowledge) presented with a sharp wit — entertaining. Some educators could take a clue.
Sep 10, 2007 - 11:34 am 5. Morton Doodslag:In that disturbing third person self-referential kind of way, Brad Rourke’s website informs us that “Brad Rourke is a writer, consultant, essayist and musician based in Rockville, MD…Brad Rourke is founding editor of the Rockville Central community blog, one of the few community-generated information sources in the third-largest city in Maryland. He is also singer and guitarist for The West End…Brad Rourke received his B.A. in comparative literature from U.C. Berkeley. He is listed in Who’s Who in America.”
He forgot to mention that Brad Rourke seems to despise our economic and governmental systems, systems which he parasitizes apparently for his livelihood as a ‘consultant’. He forgot to mention that Brad Rourke is deeply troubled by his own human nature, so much so that Brad Rourke seems to think that it’s a very nasty thing — a thing that requires a LOT of social engineering by confused elitists such as Brad Rourke for the fixing. Brad Rourke forgot to mention that Brad Rourke exhibits many traits of the narcissist, and that Brad Rourke seems to have a little problem projecting Brad Rourke’s own internal guilt, Brad Rourke’s own interanal anger and frustration, and Brad Rourke’s own internal demons onto the world around Brad Rourke.
I observes that this is the M.O. of most of the world’s zealot fanatics. Such persons eject their own internal conflicts and project them outwards where they can set about waging crusades and ‘movements’ to destroy these constructed demons.
Brad Rourke writes very easily about what other people are thinking, or should be thinking if they ‘think right’ like he does. But perhaps Brad Rourke would do well plucking the beam out of his own eye before he plucks the mote out of his neighbors’.
Sep 10, 2007 - 11:37 am 6. RiverCocytus:Morton.. um.
Projection much?
Sep 10, 2007 - 12:02 pm 7. Bmoon:Mort,
Sep 10, 2007 - 12:32 pm 8. Janus Daniels:We all have issues.
Sounds like you may have stored a few too many National Geographics away in your attic.
see: free enterprise; job creation; capitalism; employment… clueless…
Sep 10, 2007 - 4:21 pm 9. Morton Doodslag:“First, the notion of paying someone else to do what you yourself are not willing to do seems to undercut the whole point.”
Yep — everyone has issues — but right now I’m responding to this absolutely inane nonsense published by Mr. Rourke at PajamasMedia… Rourke clearly can’t tell the difference between a cartoon construct invented in his own mind about the human nature and the essence of capitalism, and a cartoon image of evil as depicted in a movie.
Take a look at Rourke’s recent item here at PajamasMedia about Barrack Obama — it reads like an embarrassing letter from a 7th grade girl to a boy she has a crush on (no offense meant to 7th grade girls…) Note how he simultaneously adores Obama and elevates him to near messaih status, while reducing him to an infantile object who is incapable of lucid actions or decisions. It’s downright creepy in my opinion:
“Please Don’t Run!”
http://www.bradrourke.com/pc/2007/08/dont-run.html
I really question why this guy is featured at this otherwise excellent website!
Sep 11, 2007 - 9:26 am 10. Boris:Brad isn’t telling the whole story. Treadle pumps require labor, but they will be available to farmers at all times, whereas they would have to rent the diesel pumps (and be responsible for any damage to them). As a result, farmers who cannot afford to rent diesel pumps will be able to have more harvests and others will save money from the rentals. Farmers will earn from two to five times what they earned using diesel pumps.
But don’t let facts get in the way of a good “enviromentalists are using slaves” story.
Sep 11, 2007 - 9:39 am 11. Jon S.:Left unsaid here is that carbon offsets even in theory are ridiculous: if you give money to a group that promotes green causes, you are not reducing the amount of carbon used at all. The amount of money donated will almost certainly go for administrative expenses, paying staff to write op-eds, organizing Save the World concerts that use more energy than save energy, and so on. As one economist whose name escapes me said, it’s like someone on a diet telling people that b/c they eat salad, they’re entitled to eat a big piece of cake for dessert.
Sep 12, 2007 - 4:10 pm 12. Boris:Wrong. Carbon offsets are used to fund renewable energy programs, usually in poorer, less developed countries. The treadle pumps are an example of how there will be fewer emissions–there wil be fewer diesel irrigation pumps.
Obviously, we need to reduce carbon emissions as well, but the biggest problem for the next century is supplying green power for nations that are developing. Keep in mind that if there were no carbon credit market, there would be no incentive for anyone to help these poor farmers except charity. Now, everybody wins. Why someone would complain about this is beyond me.
Sep 13, 2007 - 12:35 pm 13. RiverCocytus:The funding which will probably place more businesses on the government teat.
Sep 13, 2007 - 1:24 pm