- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (3/13)
- Next Post »A La Carte (3/14)
Offsets and Indulgences
- 03/13/07
- 30
As I drove the 16(ish) hours from Toronto to Atlanta, I had a lot of time to think. Not only did I plan out what may just be my next book, but I also thought a lot about this whole global warming controversy. The day before I had read a book about the Reformation and I realized a stark similarity between the conditions prior to the Reformation and contemporary environmentalism. Now I’m sure I’m not the first person to draw this comparison. But indulge me.
In 1517 Pope Leo X made a Dominican monk named Johann Tetzel commissioner of indulgences for all Germany. The Vatican was in dire need of money to pay for its extravagant building and art projects. Tetzel soon toured around the country selling papal indulgences to the masses. He created a little rhyme which translates as “When a coin in coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs.” Tetzel is famous (or infamous) for having even created a chart documenting how much it would cost to receive an indulgence for various sins, and even boasted that the indulgences he sold could secure forgiveness for the heinous sin of violating the Virgin Mary. An indulgence is simply a pardon of the temporal punishment due for sins committed. In other words, a person who purchased an indulgence would supposedly escape the punishment merited by his sin.
Fast forward to 2007 and we are in the midst of a controversy about global warming. Some people claim that humans are responsible for an increase in the world’s temperature with the prime culprit being carbon dioxide emissions. Some scientists dispute this, but most people in our society are convinced that humans are causing global warming and that we need to radically alter our behavior if we are to save this planet. Leading this charge is Al Gore whose slideshow/film just won an Academy Award and who is currently the golden boy of the Hollywood crowd.
Just a couple of weeks ago it came out in the news that Gore, who tours North America trying to convince people they need to reduce the amount of energy they use, has a home that consumes twenty times the national average. The average household consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours per year. In 2006, the Gore home consumed nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours. In the world of environmentalists, this has to be the rough equivalent of raping the Virgin Mary. Thankfully, Gore has found his Tetzel and has purchased indulgences. Gore’s spokesman says that he and Tipper “purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero.”
According to the David Suzuki Foundation (David Suzuki is Canada’s answer to Al Gore) “A ‘carbon offset’ is an emission reduction credit from another organization’s project that results in less carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than would otherwise occur. Carbon offsets are typically measured in tons of CO2-equivalents (or ‘CO2e’) and are bought and sold through a number of international brokers, online retailers, and trading platforms.”
Gore buys his carbon offsets from Generation Investment Management LLP, which is “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 and with offices in London and Washington, D.C.,” that, for a fee, will invest your money in “high-quality companies at attractive prices that will deliver superior long-term investment returns.” Gore just happens to be the Chairman and founding partner of this tax-exempt company. So Gore is his own Tetzel. When a coin in the coffer rings, an oxygen molecule to the atmosphere springs. And Gore pats himself on the back. I found it interesting to hear that the gift bags given to participants in the Academy Awards contained carbon offsets sufficient to offset a year’s worth of emissions. Clearly these Hollywood types are very interested in atoning for their environmental sins.
Carbon offsets don’t really do anything. Most people don’t even pretend that they do anything more than raise awareness for environmental issues. And, of course, they pad the pockets of people selling them. According to Canada’s Free Press they “(1) demonstrate commitment to taking action on climate change; (2) add an economic component to climate change; (3) help engage and educate the public; and (4) may provide local social and environmental benefits that help to encourage the use of low-carbon technologies…The real design behind offsetting, then, is to impact the public debate, not to avert the dreaded global warming. ”
They are much like indulgences in that way, aren’t they? The papacy promised that indulgences would cause those purchasing them to avoid the punishment their sins deserved. But this is a promise that can never be fulfilled. If the people purchasing indulgences were true believers, they should have know that Christ had already taken the full punishment for their sin. If they were not true believers, nothing will reduce the just sentence for their crime. They will suffer horribly and will suffer eternally despite the piece of paper given to them. Their indulgences will not offset their crimes.
I was amazed, as I thought about this, how humans are so eager to rely on their own actions instead of grace. Indulgences bypass grace through action, through human merit. Carbon offsets do the same, relying on self-punishment (purchasing “forgiveness” for crimes committed) to assuage guilt. By purchasing an indulgence a person neither needs to regret nor change his behavior. He can simply buy forgiveness in the form of a piece of paper. The same is true with carbon offsets. A person can continue to drive his SUV and fly around the world in a private jet, but have his conscience clear because he has offset his guilt with the offsets he purchases. If we ever reach the point where we are forced by the government to purchase carbon offsets, it is the poor who will suffer and the rich who will benefit. There will be no equality.
Indulgences and carbon offsets showed me something. Somewhere in the human heart is something that demands justice, but demands a perverted justice. It demands a justice that is so human, so flawed. It demands a justice that does not rely on grace.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (30)
They are much like indulgences in that way, aren’t they?
Not to mention the misinformation and the weatherman pogroms you mentioned a few weeks ago. Very like the time of the reformation.
Josh”…the word of God is not bound.”—2 Timothy 2:9
Thank you for this brilliant comparison. I’d never seen it that way, but once you pointed it out, it’s obvious.
We should help protect the environment, but environmentalists without the Lord can do more harm than good.
I guess we all need more of that Christian discernment that you’ve been writing about.
Wow. I think next time you should fly.
The solution to the insult of indulgences is to embrace free grace and trust Christ to do what no amount of money into the coffers can do, and then, as a newly redeemed person, live a life of godliness and holiness without which I cannot see the Lord. Sooooo … as I try to continue on in the analogy you are making, the solution to carbon offsets is to - uh - ummm - trust someone else (God? The government? Al Gore?) to take care of the problem (pollution/global warming…) for me while I seek to live a life of holiness by not contributing to global warming or polluting anymore. Sounds good to me.
Hi, Tim.Long-time reader but first-time poster. What prompted me to post today? Well, this article (http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2007/03/13/carbon_conf…) from today’s Boston Globe just dovetails too perfectly with your blog entry. It’s about a lady in Vermont who thought she was buying carbon offsets. But in reality, like you wrote, she was only padding the pockets of the energy companies.
Good stuff.
When your worldview allows for, say, sucking out a baby’s brain through a hole in it’s skull, you really need to come up with some alternate measure of morality. And then a way to achieve that morality.
I completely and entirely agree with your final assessment: Somewhere in the human heart is something that demands justice, but demands a perverted justice. It demands a justice that is so human, so flawed. It demands a justice that does not rely on grace.
This could not be more true; our constant abuse is to nullify grace - which requires that we downplay the severity of our sin. My studies in philosophy continually bring me to think, “This solution isn’t going to get the job done—we’re much worse than that.” If we can pretend that we’re not all that bad, then perhaps we can muster up the goodness, or the piece of paper, that frees us from our shame.
However, I think your analogy is a bit flawed.
There is a major difference between the purchasing of indulgences to assuage guilt for sin, and the purchasing of offsets. While I am sure that many are doing just what you say—caring not at all for the environment and merely buying the right to live however they want—there is a major disanalogy here.
On the one hand, you have people paying the Catholic Church for the right not to endure punishment in hell for their sins, or at least refinement in “purgatory”. This is ludicrous. Salvation is not the sort of thing money can buy—only the atonement of Jesus Christ, not silver and gold, can accomplish this. Not even our own obedient acts can merit salvation. It is only as we are united to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that we have the hope of salvation, the hope of resurrection from the dead and eternal life in the presence of God. So to suggest that money could assuage guilt is not only wrong, it is evil and cruel (one thinks of a particular scene in the recent film “Luther”: the poor beggar woman is so excited to have just purchased her daughter’s ‘salvation’ from Tetzel; Luther must tell her that “it’s just a piece of paper.” Tetzel’s heresy cruelly led astray those who would follow God!).
On the other hand, you have people who are putting money into funding research and awareness about global warming, money which may really help reduce its effects - even if only by raising awareness. Those people who are doing this properly are aware that it will be nearly impossible for them to continue living their lives without some kind of effect on the environment; to exist in our society and be productive (in ways none of us would want to condemn) we MUST use energy. Unless we are going to say that we should go back to a powerless, agrarian society, we can’t condemn others for continuing to use power, energy, drive cars, etc. (Notice that this requirement would force challies.com to disappear - for surely it takes electricity and energy to maintain! And, moreover, the 16-hour drive which allowed this thought process would, itself, be condemned—think of the pollutants!) These people, who are aware that their style of life requires energy, also realize that their energy makes an impact on their environment and are concerned about it. So they buy these “offsets” for a lifestyle they cannot help (and, by extension, a lifestyle you and I cannot help), in order to encourage others to do what they can to lower emissions, as well as to provide funding to organizations which are working to solve the problem.
I think it’s rather uncharitable to assume that this is done as a means of assuaging guilt; and clearly the difference between purchasing salvation and trying to pay the cost of an energy-consuming lifestye - well, it’s nothing alike. In the first you have people attempting to purchase grace with money - an impossible and evil attempt. On the other, you have people trying to purchase - not guiltless nights, but a cleaner future and a real difference in community awareness - with the only resource which could possibly meet this need—money.
I think a truer analogy would be between those who try to purchase grace with money, and those who try to purchase cleaner air with silence and inaction. One must use the proper means to get what one needs; in the first case Christ is the ONLY mediator between men and God and His cross the only means of salvation; in the second, what could possibly be the means besides money?
I would caution you to be careful in leaping to assume that these celebrities are being hypocritical (though surely it is possible.) I also think it is fair to ask (and not merely an ad hominem) what you yourself have done about global warming that is purer than the purchase of offsets? I don’t mean that as an insult in the slightest - but I hope you see that it becomes a fair question once you call into question the character of others. Be careful, be careful, you cannot see their hearts more than I can see yours.
All this is meant in love and in Christ.
Tim,
I am an engineer and work for Siemens, formerly Westinghouse, and have found the global warming issue rather surprising - like people selling snake oil.
Michael Crichton has a fiction book titled “State of Fear” but loaded with facts about global warming. He creates a world and then inserts facts throughout the story to communicate about the lack of global warming. He has been interviewed by many folks and seems to be really frustrating environmentalists.
What is interesting in most of the environmentalist data is a tendency to distort data to support their own pre-assumed opinions/conclusions and then complain when others point out those errors. That of course would only happen in the world of politics and radical social movements - never in Christianity (tongue in cheek)
Anyway, here is a link to a site with some facts about the book, global warming and Crichton. Crichton has a web site on this as well. I liked your analogy and when you get done digesting all the info and links, you may conclude that Gore owes you some indulgences since your carbon foot print is smaller than his already.
By the way Tim, since your coming to Orlando, if you buy the global warming, I will also let you buy some land from me at the conference. ;-) RC can point me out to you or vice versa.
Enjoy,Derek
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16260
What’s even better is when you pay those indulgences to yourself like Al Gore does!!
http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/281949,CST-EDT-STEYN04.article
On the other hand, you have people who are putting money into funding research and awareness about global warming, money which may really help reduce its effects - even if only by raising awareness
Ben. Is there a possibility that people are putting money into research and awareness that already have predetermined outcomes? My reading into the issue indicates a real slant towards human caused global warming and much research and evidence to the contrary is ridiculed and shunned. I think it is naive to think that purchases of “offsets” are used primarily for awareness and solutions to the problem. Seriously - if people are that concerned about the problem, they can adjust their lifestyles to fit their rhetoric. I saw a lot of heads nodding at Al Gore at the Academy Awards, and many of them had more than a few homes, ride in private jets and have very self-indulgent lifestyles. The curtain that the celebrities walked through to present the awards was made of crystals worth more than a million dollars. I mean…really! I think Tim is very much on the mark with this issue.
Tim, the”carbon indulgence” analogy is spot-on, I think. Of course, I have to weigh in on the technicalities… :)
Indulgences don’t have anything to do with salvation. (I know some of you realize that, but it’s a common misconcetion.) Purgatory is kind of a washing-up spot for the saved on their way into heaven; anybody in purgatory is already saved. We believe (in contrast to Protestants) that anything we do on earth affects our overall righteousness; that is, if we do good (or avoid evil) we become more righteous than if we did not. No amount of our owqn righteousness can purchase heaven, but once saved, we can improve our holiness.
As I mentioned, purgatory is kind of like taking a bath before we go into heaven, to get rid of the last bits of sinful human ickiness that cling to us. It’s purification, not punishment. The godlier we’ve been on earth, the less there is to get rid of in purgatory.
Moreover, we also believe that we are answerable to God not only as individuals but as a body, which is why we pray for the souls in purgatory. Anything that makes us godlier as individuals also makes the Body of Christ a little holier as a whole as well. That’s why doing God’s will on earth makes a difference for the people already in purgatory. We’re all in this together.
I understand that nobody else here believes in purgatory, and I’m not trying to convince anyone. But I do want to set the record straight on “buying salvation.” (And for what it’s worth, we’re pretty embarrassed of Tetzel, and a lot of leading churchmen were at the time, too.)
” they can adjust their lifestyles to fit their rhetoric.”
That would say a lot wouldn’t it.You hit the nail on the head. Excellent thoughts Candy.
Hi Tim,
George Monbiot published a similar notion in “The Guardian” last year. You can access it on his website here, “Selling Indulgences”,
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/10/19/selling-indulgences/
tom
How is buying an offset helping anything other than your image? It seems that you are paying money for someone to produce less CO2 than they normally would. Yet, they are still producing CO2. We tend to think of savings as earnings. If we save money on a purchase, then we are actually earning money. This money can then offset other money we are spending. If we are able to save $100 a month on our cell-phone bill, then that means we have money to spend on our gambling habit. We have a net loss of $0, even though we are still spending money on both items. This is what carbon offsets do. In effect, Algore is saying he is doing something while he is doing nothing—rather, he is saying he is doing nothing while he is doing something.The same can apply to indulgences—we are paying so that we have less sin debt than we normally would, though we sin debt. (I know that isn’t exactly the way indulgences are supposed to work, but if they can make it up, so can I) If we go out and sin like its Mardi Gras every day, and spend money on indulgences every day, are we gaining anything, or just staying static in our sin? There would be no way to pay off our sin debt. We could just add less to the debt. Since Algore sees CO2 emissions as a more heinous sin than infanticide, all he is doing is gaining less sin.
Tim: this is one of your best posts…
‘When a coin in the coffer rings, an oxygen molecule to the atmosphere springs.’
I like that
How about this one
When a coin from the taxpayer clinks, a carbon molecule to the ocean sinks.
JD
Thank you for bring a la carte back!
Flannery O’Connor once wrote, “Smugness is the great Catholic sin.”
I think you can say the same of Reformed Protestants, as well—we, too, are deeply smug. I have encountered this time and time again, but I have been (by choice) out of the Reformed loop for a few years now because I didn’t want to become smug myself. While holding to my doctrinal convictions, I’ve let off listening to certain Reformed preachers who were developing in me some rather arrogant attitudes, and I think it’s done some good (though I find more and more the depths of my arrogance - bred in me from birth by living in Silicon Valley, developed further by being “a good kid” and reading Pottery Barn catalogs).
The main point I wanted to above was not, “Celebrities aren’t hypocritical.” Or even, “Everyone who buys offsets has good intentions.” The point was, instead, this -
Judge not, lest ye be judged.
I am so wary of Christians criticizing others’ lives. It is so easy for us to point at celebrities and say, “What vain lives! If they really cared about the environment they’d sell their fancy cars and homes and live more simply!” Well, that may be true. But oh, we need to be careful—because the second we point the finger at the splinter in their eyes, the log in our own damns us.
Surely many celebrities are, indeed, vain. And surely, many are hypocritical. And, yes, much of the talk of global warming seems self-serving. Alright.
But have we forgotten that we are vain? That we are hypocritical? It seems ironic that anyone who sincerely believes Reformed doctrine—that is, that we are utterly depraved and sinful to the point of being dead, and evil to the point of being unable to choose God—would ever then turn around and criticize another human. Have we forgotten that, whatever sin they commit, we have done every bit as much evil ourselves?
There seems, to me, to be little room for Christians legitimately to speak of the faults of others. Anyway, what good can come of it? I would prefer, Tim, that you enjoy the sweetness of speaking blessing into other people’s lives - how good it would be for your spirit, and for ours!
I point these things out not to be critical of you or anyone else here (haha! the hypocrisy is at home, too!), but because I want to clarify for myself and for those of you reading that it is far more important for us to put effort into loving one another than it is to articulate what others are doing wrong. There isn’t time for that, and anyway, who are we to point fingers? We are sinners, too - saved by grace, yes, but no better than anyone. (The only righteousness worth speaking of is Christ’s, not mine.)
I think Jesus intended us to focus on love, not criticism; certainly He who could have come in wrath came in grace and understanding, and that seems incomprably good.
Challies you gotta trademark this, it’s beautiful:When a coin in the coffer rings, an oxygen molecule to the atmosphere springs.
:D
I am with you on this one. I think this offset business, besides being a scam, demonstrates pure hypocrisy by the elite.
So I did my part and built Celebrity Carbon Offsets, just so us regular folks could send OUR offsets to the rich and let them use them…
Candy asked (in #9):Is there a possibility that people are putting money into research and awareness that already have predetermined outcomes?
No. There’s not. There is, however, a certainty of this. ;-)
Ben said (in #6):I think it’s rather uncharitable to assume that this is done as a means of assuaging guilt…
I would imagine that most who purchased indulgences “back in the day” didn’t simply regard it as assuaging their guilt, but that’s all it was capable of. Similarly, those who purchase these credits to fund “research” that will turn around and stroke their egos later (or, at most, blame others for the problem) either know what they are doing or are just as naive as those that thought indulgences would actually help them.
“But have we forgotten that we are vain? That we are hypocritical?”
I was a big time hypocite before the Lord had mercy on my soul.But since He has washed my heart clean with His precious blood, I’m not the practicing hypocritical self-righteous, and self-centered sinner i once was.
i am actually free from the grip of sin, and now a slave to Christ. (All by His marvelous grace.)I surely sin, but God’s grace works in me to will and to do, so that I can be a light in this world of deception and lies, and a world that hates God, sot that He is glorified, and so that perhaps others will also be brought into the light as I was.
Jesus said, “Judge not according to appearance, but JUDGE righteous judgement.” John 7:24
We are to judge, but we need to judge within the boundaries of the Scriptures .
I just want to thank donsands for the clarification of “judging”. I think it is an excellent comment.
Hi Tim,
I’ve not commented in some time but still read your postings daily. You have a gift in making the connections that are the very mark of the gift of genius.
I have always felt like a mugwump on the political polarizations that I see forming among Christian Leadership. For some reason it is easy to agree with both camps on this issue (at least on their altruistic goals) as the above commenter’s demonstrate.
I think one’s views on ecology and environmentalism are the direct result of their cosmology and theology.
Ironically the secularist has a healthier worldview than the fundy when it comes to earths precious resources.
If one sees this earth as expendable because Jesus is returning soon anyway you may say what the heck lets rape and pillage the resources because it won’t matter.
If you think that this is the only home we will ever have and care about your progeny then you tend to think twice before you wholesale their futures by cavalierly wasting their limited expendable energy resources.
God put man (and woman) on the earth with responsibilities for its care and stewardship, no matter how long He allows it to spin along.
Last year I wrote a blog entry that will elucidate on my views:http://togetheroneservant.blogspot.com/2006/08/oily-onanism.html
It’s an interesting post, Randy, but I almost got stopped by the title. Brings up mental pictures I wish I hadn’t had. :)
Joel.
Likewize don’t stop @ Genesis 38:9 when Onan spills his seed to keep from producing children with his dead brother’s wife.
The mental image of us likewise wastefully spilling the resources of this earth was purposeful.
Thanks for reading.
One needed buy into the Global Warming monstrosity to be a good steward.
But one of the additional issues here is the redistribution of wealth (via environmental guilt). Some of the offsets are purchasing the unused portions of pollutant productions via reduced production or increased pollution-control methods. So, those companies sell their right to produce the difference to firms like TerraFree. Income is being redistributed from the West to Emerging Nations, thru the sale and purchase of a non-product.
oops, that should be needn’t in the previous post. That’ll teach me, maybe.
that’s alright we all have comment box bleepers…anyhoo one needn’t expect too much from a cavman…oops…let’s hope the Gieco Neandermen didn’t read that.
anyhoo one needn’t expect too much from a cavman…oops…let’s hope the Gieco Neandermen didn’t read that.
They’re probably too busy getting ready for their sitcom debut. :)
Tim, this recent article by Charles Krauthammer of Time magazine plagarizes you completely. You can get rich now suing Time magazine, or at the very least take comfort knowing that you’re as good as a Time magazine journalist.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1599714,00.html