Climate Change

What India Shouldn't Do at Copenhagen

Sell out its poor to cozy up to rich countries

|

In the pre-iTunes, pre-MTV age, there was usually a multiyear lag before hit songs in the West reached India. Now India is experiencing a similar time-lag on global warming. Just when fresh doubts about the issue are emerging in the West, India is flirting with the idea of hopping on the global-warming bandwagon at the Copenhagen climate-change summit next week.

This is in large part a misguided attempt to bolster India's political standing in the world. In an October letter to the prime minister conveniently leaked to the press, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh expressed concern that India's intransigence on the issue was making it a pariah among developed countries, jeopardizing its bid for permanent membership at the United Nations Security Council. He counseled that India delink itself from the Group of 77 developing nations resisting forced emission cuts without compensation, and instead make common cause with the Group of 20 rich countries pushing for climate action.

Ramesh's letter is a significant change of tune, given he made headlines this summer when he bluntly told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that India was simply in no position to accept binding emissions cuts. It is widely regarded as a trial balloon by the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and has triggered a maelstrom of protest in parliament, forcing Ramesh to pledge not to accept legally binding emissions cuts. But the government is nevertheless trying to change India's current domestic global-warming policy more dramatically than it is letting on to better align it with global demands.

The current policy, called Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions, in some ways is a declaration of India's independence on climate change. It essentially tells the world that India will undertake mitigation efforts if and when it is in its self-interest. The proposed new policy, dubbed Nationally Accountable Mitigation Outcomes, is something completely different. It would commit India to developing a mitigation plan right away. The plan would be enforced by domestic law but Ramesh—tellingly—wants to submit the emissions reports generated for international scrutiny every two years. This could well become a prelude to India eventually joining a global emissions regime.

Even worse, the new regime would unleash Byzantine new regulations on the country, from new energy efficiency standards in building codes to new fuel economy standards for vehicles. India would have to obtain 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources—wind, solar and small hydroelectric power—compared to 8 percent now. Given that these sources are typically far more expensive than fossil fuels, this would mean putting Indians, 40 percent of whom don't even have access to electricity, on an even stricter energy diet. The increased expense will put homes, air conditioning, and cars out of reach of more Indians—all of which will make them, especially the poor, less able to withstand floods, heat waves and other dire effects of global warming should they ever materialize.

The resulting emission cuts won't even make a dent in global temperatures. India's per capita energy consumption is 15 times less than America's and half of China's—the two biggest polluters. To be sure, President Obama is poised to pledge to cut U.S. carbon emissions 80 percent below 2005 by 2050 at Copenhagen. But it's an empty promise because there is little to zero chance that he will be able to get Congress to go along. China too announced plans—modest by all accounts—to curb its emissions. So India will certainly face pressure at the conference to act, despite the fact that bigger polluters won't.

But as a developing country, India can least afford to give up its right to consume as much energy as is necessary to deliver all Indians a living standard comparable to the one that rich countries take for granted. There is every reason to believe that the new License Raj will damage India's economy every bit as much as the old one in the preliberalization days, when India's growth rate remained stuck at around 2 percent. This would be unfortunate at any time, but especially now, when the West itself is in the middle of a huge rethinking on this issue.

Front and center is the ClimateGate scandal that's erupting in Britain. Leaked emails out of the climate research center of Britain's University of East Anglia, unveiled last week, suggest scientists manipulated data, destroyed inconvenient evidence, and tried to suppress opposing views. The scandal is prompting calls for a full-blown government inquiry into the science of global warming in both Britain and America. Cap-and-trade regimes in Washington and Canberra have stalled, and no one expects a climate deal of any substance at next week's Copenhagen meeting.

Meanwhile, global-warming fatigue is setting in everywhere. An October poll by Pew Center Research found that only 57 percent of Americans think there is solid evidence that the earth is getting warmer, down from 71 percent in April 2008. Only 36 percent now believe that the warming is caused by humans, compared to 47 percent in April 2008. Nor is America unique. The number of people rating climate change as the major issue they worry about has dropped to fourth place behind global economic stability in the last year, according to the HSBC Climate Confidence Monitor, a polling operation established by the bank and leading environmental outfits.

In the long run, India will gain more international respect if it remains focused on growing its economy instead of reshackling its people under a new, green License Raj. That's the real climate-change calculation Singh should be worrying about.

Shikha Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation and a Forbes columnist. This column originally appeared appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

Advertisement

NEXT: If It's Sunday, It's Moronic Statements by Tom Friedman on Meet The Press; Plus, Winning Afghan Hearts & Minds Via Shared Toilets

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Given that these sources [“renewables” like solar, wind] are typically far more expensive than fossil fuels, this would mean putting Indians, 40 percent of whom don’t even have access to electricity, on an even stricter energy diet[…]

    Which would in turn make those energy-starved Indians seek their own under-the-radar energy sources like burning charcoal, wood or cow chips, thus creating an even BIGGER problem than “climate change”: air-polluting ash.

    1. Wouldn’t that fit into the volcanic ash theory that putting a large amount of ash into the atmosphere would create a shield from the sun and cool the planet?

      1. Re: John Galt,

        Cow chip ash does not fly all the way up enough to create a global-cooling umbrella – it just sticks to ground level to cover everybody’s lungs with soot.

        1. Thus cooling your lungs!

  2. In the long run, India will gain more international respect if it remains focused on growing its economy instead of reshackling its people under a new, green License Raj.

    You can bet the Watermellons in the MSM and Congress will immediately call for “compensatory” tariffs on Indian and (I believe) Chinese goods, once these countries reject the suicidal proposals from the schizophrenic West.

  3. If we really want to talk about reducing carbon emissions, we should be doing so on a per capita basis. By that measure, India and most developing countries don’t need to lift a finger. If you attribute the carbon emissions from China’s factories to American consumption, the Chinese look pretty good, too.

  4. Off topic, but did anyone else hear about the possibility of carbon debt? Get this: countries, like the US, who do the most polluting would owe reperations to the countries who do the least polluting. Sort of a retro-active bill for the supposed ‘harm’ done to developing nations.

    1. Re: John Galt,

      The US is not the most polluting nation on Earth. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

      1. From the American Heritage Science Dictionary:

        A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

        1. Re: Tony,

          You even resort to badly written or slanted definitions to do the question-begging for you:

          or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment.

          What’s the harmful concentration of CO2 in the given environment of the global atmosphere?

          By the way, in a closed system (like a sealed room) CO2 concentrations are not called “pollution concentration”.

          1. It’s from the freakin dictionary. You claimed CO2 isn’t a pollutant. The dictionary says it is at harmful concentrations. It’s not question begging, it’s the definition of a word. You lose.

            1. Re: Tony,

              The dictionary says it is at harmful concentrations.

              Don’t be obtuse – the question is simple: WHAT are “harmful” concentrations when it comes to CO2 in the atmosphere?

              You don’t seem to understand the problem with the definition: It is trying to define (A) with an UNdefined concept (B). Harmful for whom? At what level? Why the caveat “At harmful levels”? You mean that it is NOT a pollutant just below that concentration? Is it then something ELSE?

              1. This is a proper definition, coming from a dictionary of enginering terms:

                “A pollutant is any POISON that at beyond a certain concentration in a normal medium (water, air, soil) becomes toxic or harmful for human, animal or plant life.”

                CO2 is NOT a pollutant in the same way Oxygen or Water are not. After certain concentrations, these can become toxic for humans but only under very strict conditions (people can suffer water poisoning or oxygen poisoning). Instead, a pollutant is a toxin *all the time* – it only becomes harmful after passing a concentration threshold.

                1. beyond a certain concentration… becomes harmful

                  How does CO2 not fit this definition?

                  CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increasing the PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere increases warming. This is harmful.

  5. “If we really want to talk about reducing carbon emissions”

    We don’t. It’s a Socialist plot.

    1. If it is a socialist plot, it was one started over 113 years ago. If they are that smart, they deserve to be our overlords.

      1. If they are that smart, they deserve to be our overlords.

        What do you mean “they”, comrade? You’ve made it very plain for as long as you’ve been posting here that you consider yourself entitled to command the obedience of other people.

        -jcr

  6. What the heck to India’s poor have to do with anything? If you believe that climate change is putting the Earth in peril, then the poor have to suck it up just like everybody else. If you don’t believe climate change is a problem, then you’re just using the plight of the poor, somewhat disingenuously, to argue about the overall cost of what you believe is a foolish endeavor. This is akin to “women and minorities hardest hit”.

  7. Re: Lamar,

    If you believe that climate change is putting the Earth in peril, then the poor have to suck it up just like everybody else. If you don’t believe climate change is a problem, then you’re just using the plight of the poor, somewhat disingenuously, to argue about the overall cost of what you believe is a foolish endeavor.

    Let’s beging by pointing out that believing climate change puts the *Earth* in peril is a serious case of equivocation – the Earth is NOT in peril, it will continue its orbit around the sun as it has been doing for billions of years.

    Second, by pointing out that climate change “solutions” will hurt the poor the most, we skeptics indicate the hypocrisy of the lefty-enviros who fancy tehmselves as being “compassionate.”

    1. You are REALLY too hung up on semantics, in a really dishonest way. Whether CO2 is called a pollutant or plant food doesn’t change the fact that higher concentrations in the atmosphere lead to warming.

      And no environmentalist is talking about saving the planet qua planet. It’s about the environment that human beings live in.

      1. Re: Tony,

        doesn’t change the fact that higher concentrations in the atmosphere lead to warming.

        Seems like the very research that was purported to prove that was misleading, massaged, tweaked and downright invented, so again, you are commiting circular thinking.

        1. I will never understand the desperate need to deny obvious reality. You have to actively try to ignore the most basic facts in this area to be this uninformed.

          1. Tony,

            Let us understand each other: Whether you like it or not, CO2 is NOT creating the warming in the planet – there’s simply TOO LITTLE of it.

            Besides this, there’s the fact that the Climate scientists that supposedly found the correlation between CO2 and temperature were found to be either fudging their research or using improper protocols.

            We are not going to agree in this, because AGW serves your own ideological purposes. To me, that very fact makes me very skeptical of the science behind the AGW scare.

            1. OM, I don’t think you said one true thing in this entire post. That is pretty impressive. Even the most crackpotty crackpots even get something right.

              Let’s take this line…it is the most fun.

              Besides this, there’s the fact that the Climate scientists that supposedly found the correlation between CO2 and temperature were found to be either fudging their research or using improper protocols.

              In one sentence, you manage to get three separate things incorrect. That is impressive.

              1: The scientists to whom you are referring to (at HADCRU) are not the ones who “supposedly found he correlation between CO2 and temperature”.

              2: MANY scientists have confirmed this link

              3: No one was “fudging” data, neither the scientists whom you are trying to talk about, nor the many who established the link.

              You either either a complete liar or deliberately misinformed. Your “some climate scientist somewhere may have done something, therefore I can lump thousands of people together and assume that they all did something a hundred times worse” is beyond stupid.

          2. I will never understand the desperate need to deny obvious reality.

            That’s a good point, Tony. Why do you deny that the Hockey Team’s shenanigans leave us with little if any reason to believe Al Gore today?

            -jcr

  8. India needs to learn the American Congressional way of naming a bill or agency as something that appeals to the baser non-thinking elements of its populus (think PATRIOT Act). How about:
    Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions for Securing Tropospheric Averages, or NAMASTE.

    Thank you, come again.

    1. Oops. Just realized I jacked up my own acronym. I’ll take recommendations to correct that E now. Efficiency maybe? Effects?

      1. Equilibrium.

        1. Perfect. NAMASTE will be a hit and marketable to the population.

        2. Will it also fund training in the Gun Katta?

          1. One of the most overrated and underrated movies of the ’00s.

    2. Bah, it’ll just get shot down by MPs from non Hindi-speaking regions.

  9. If we really want to talk about reducing carbon emissions, we should be doing so on a per capita basis.

    Why per capita? Why not per unit of economic output, for example? Why should the inefficient get a subsidy?

    A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment.

    Who is harmed by CO2, again? Any harm other than warming? What level of warming counts as “harm” and to who? Do we get to net out the benefits to plants? Do we get to net out the benefits of warming?

    1. ostensibly because they are too poor to build efficient factories. I think percapita is probably fairest.

      FWIW, we are one of the most efficient oil users on the planet (barrels of oil/GDP)

      1. that said, I think redicing carbon emissions at all is possibly a waste of time and effort.

      2. The estimates I have heard are that India and China use three to five times as much energy to produce a unit of GNP as the US does.

        I would assume that increased investment would bring both increased efficiencies and wealth, which in turn would produce more demand for cleaner air and water as well as the means to achieve those things.

        1. That’s because we have moved most of our dirty work over there.

          If a New York banker eats a steak from a cow raised in Texas, fed corn from Iowa, grown with diesel from Saudia Arabia, why is everyone BUT the banker credited with the emissions?

  10. Oops. Just realized I jacked up my own acronym. I’ll take recommendations to correct that E now. Efficiency maybe? Effects?

    Ecstacy.

  11. The scandal is prompting calls for a full-blown government inquiry into the science of global warming in both Britain and America.

    You would not know this from the MSM – the latest headline I read was “UN Says Climate Finale [sic] May Have a Happy Ending”, which is kind of creepy…

    1. “UN Says Climate Finale [sic] May Have a Happy Ending”

      IOW “Once three fourths of the people on Earth are dead, the remainder will have an idyllic pastoral lifestyle compatible with sustainable environmentalism.”

    2. Isn’t that how most circle-jerks end? Maybe Tony and Chad can enlighten us.

      -jcr

  12. Btw, props for the picture that appears with this article on the front page.

  13. Dear Shikha,
    Accolades for good economic analysis of India’s situation. I wish to point out that India has been singing the “We are a developing nation” song for far too long and it is getting a little too old. The Lifestyle of the Developed nations that you have quite clearly pointed out as a wish list for the “Common Man” in India requires a good Waste Management System, Good infrastrucutre especially the Road network – the present one being responsible for the short lifespan of the vehicles plying on them and therefore conributing significantly to the carbon emissions and thirdly some common sense education – With the kind of economic growth India has seen, it is still one of the filthiest countries built on the exploitation of the very poor you mention run and inhabited by individuals that out their own needs ahead of the collective need of the country – if the poor weren’t exploited in the name of religion and other self-satisfying reasons, they could well afford the clean and green energy that could reduce the greenhouse emissions. I just feel sorry for Gandhi who set an example for a country of a billion blind and greedy citizens. Good Luck with India.

  14. Re: R.Nayak,

    The Lifestyle of the Developed nations that you have quite clearly pointed out as a wish list for the “Common Man” in India requires a good Waste Management System, Good infrastrucutre especially the Road network[…]

    What is required to have those things is capital investment, savings and wealth creation. They cannot simply appear out of thin air, no matter anyone’s good intentions.

    if the poor weren’t exploited in the name of religion and other self-satisfying reasons, they could well afford the clean and green energy that could reduce the greenhouse emissions.

    What they could afford depends on their level of productivity. I guess one could say that Americans could “afford” sending a spaceship to Alpha Centauri if everybody pitched in (leaving aside such insignificant productive endeavors as food and clothing production), but if all Americans become poorer in the process, then what was the point?

    If Indians become poorer in the effort of going “green”, then what was the point of going “green” in the first place.

    The affordability of something is a subjective decision undertaken by each individual, not by YOU only.

  15. Don’t worry, Shikha, MNG will be around shortly to talk about how America should go to trade war and/or real war with India over this. That should be good times.

    1. “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Climate Change Alarmism!”

  16. I would think India has much more serious pollution problems than CO2. For starters, the Ganges and Yamuna Rivers are absolutely filthy, and half a billion people rely on them for water.

    1. It makes much more sense to point the guns at the problems you mentioned (like filthy rivers) than to turn all Indians into envirowackos, like Mr. Nayak insinuated above…

    2. One scary thought: a leading geo-engineering scheme, SO2 particles, will likely result in massive draught in the Ganges basin. Models predict this, and after Pinatubo blew up in 1992, the area experienced its worst draught on record.

      Can you imaging trying to tell a billion people “Sorry, we have to turn your bread basket into a dust bowl to save ourselves from our own garbage”.

      1. Can you imaging trying to tell a billion people “Sorry, we have to turn your bread basket into a dust bowl to save ourselves from our own garbage”.

        Sounds like it’s right up your alley.

        -jcr

  17. begs the question of how committed white people are to AGW?

    what will they do to the rest of the planet if they refuse to stop developing?

    Its a scary prospect considering the religious nature of AGW and the previous history of forceful religious indoctrination

  18. The problem, Shikha, is that it is not at all clear that renewables are more expensive than fossil fuels. Sure, they are more expensive than subsidized fossil fuels, but that is hardly a fair or meaningful comparison. Without pollution taxes, the market cannot sort this out correctly.

  19. From the AGW perspective it seems like the choices are: Be destroyed or destroy ourselves (to keep from being destroyed). Sound about right?

    1. Umm…no. Fixing AGW will cost 1-2% of GDP…a whopping 6 month’s of economic growth.

      I think the people of 2100 would be willing to wait until June for the new IPodX3000BrainInterface, rather than getting it in January, in order to have a habitable planet.

      1. Most of the AGW believers seem to indicate that a return to the stone age is needed. But maybe I’m just reading the wrong ones.

        1. Citation, please.

  20. FOR ANY REASON OF SOMETHING BAD IN THE WORLD, LULA ALWAYS BLAME THE USA.
    Why Lula is always looking to blame the USA when something bad happens in the world?
    In fact, It is high time the USA to an ice President Lula.
    President Lula has been very false and ungrateful with Obama ahead of Obama is a behavior behind speaks ill and criticizes the USA.
    Lula has preferred to ally themselves with dictators and terrorists presidents and his friendship with Hugo Ch?vez and especially with the president of Iran does not like anything in the Brazilians.
    The Brazilians have always had a lot of affinity and friendship with the USA, and do not like to see Brazil’s president trying to get all forms discard the USA this partnership and friendship of decades between Brazil and USA.
    In fact the president of Brazil does everything to pass into the world, his good boy image and has concern for the health, hunger and world peace.
    But all this is demagoguery and deceit of Lula, because their goal is to promote high for the world as a president who cares about the needy.
    Lula is seeking to win the Nobel Peace Prize, and he will do anything to get to be so enshrined as the most popular president in the world.
    We have no doubt it was for him (Lula) a big surprise Obama has won the prize this year and for sure he felt very jealous of Obama.
    Therefore the opinion of many Brazilians is that it’s past time to give President Obama a freeze on Lula da Silva to learn where their place and stop being false and sucker the presence of Obama at meetings of state to take advantage.
    When Obama called Lula “O CARA” Lula has promoted it in the outside world, but the arrogant and false Lula was unable to recognize the praise for Obama and also to take advantage for their own benefit, Lula was ungrateful and even today continues to speak Mau the USA.
    When Lula wants to appear to the world, criticizes Obama and the USA.
    Lula uses the methods of the dictator Hugo Ch?vez, speaking ill of the USA to appear, but when esatr Next to Obama behaves as a friend (FALSE).
    Again, Obama needs to give a freeze on Lula da Silva to learn to be humble and respect the USA.
    It is here recorded our humble opinion,

    Em Portugu?s:
    POR QUALQUER MOTIVO DE ALGO RUIM NO MUNDO, LULA SEMPRE PROCURA CULPAR OS USA .
    Porque Lula procura sempre culpar os USA quando algo ruim acontece no mundo ?
    Na verdade, J? passou da hora dos USA dar um gelo no presidente Lula.
    O presidente Lula tem sido muito falso e ingrato com Obama, na frente de Obama ? um comportamento, por tr?s fala mal e critica os USA.
    Lula tem preferido se aliar a presidentes Ditadores e Terroristas e sua amizade com Hugo Ch?vez e principalmente com o presidente do Ir? n?o agrada em nada os Brasileiros .
    Os brasileiros sempre tiveram muita afinidade e amizade com os USA, e n?o gostam de ver o presidente do Brasil ficar tentando de todas as formas descartar os USA desta parceria e amizade de d?cadas entre Brasil e USA.
    Na verdade o presidente do Brasil faz de tudo para passar para o mundo, sua imagem de bom menino e que tem preocupa??o com a sa?de, fome e paz no mundo.
    Mas tudo isso ? demagogia e falsidade de Lula, porque seu objetivo ? se alto promover para o mundo como um presidente que se preocupa com os Mais necessitados.
    Lula tem como objetivo ganhar o premio Nobel da Paz, e ele far? de tudo para conseguir para assim se consagrar como o presidente mais popular no mundo.
    N?o temos d?vida que foi para ele (Lula) uma grande surpresa Obama ter ganho o premio este ano e com certeza ele sentiu muita inveja de Obama .
    Portanto a opini?o de muitos brasileiros ? que j? passou da Hora do presidente Obama dar um gelo em Lula, para Lula aprender onde ? seu devido Lugar e parar de ser Falso e aproveitador da presen?a de Obama em reuni?es de estado para tirar vantagens .
    Quando Obama chamou Lula de “O CARA “, isso promoveu Lula pelo mundo a fora, mas o arrogante e falso Lula, n?o soube reconhecer o elogio de Obama e al?m de tirar vantagens para beneficio pr?prio, Lula foi ingrato e at? hoje continua falando Mau dos USA .
    Quando Lula quer aparecer para o mundo, critica Obama e os USA .
    Lula usa os m?todos do Ditador Hugo Ch?vez, fala mal dos USA para Aparecer, mas quando esatr ao Lado de Obama se comporta como amigo(FALSO).
    Repito, Obama precisa dar Um Gelo em Lula para Lula aprender a ser mais humilde e respeitar os USA.
    Fica aqui registrado Nossa modesta Opini?o,

    Nikacio lemos
    23 anos Universit?rio
    Associa??o dos Estudantes da URFGRJ
    Rio de Janeiro Brasil

  21. Does India really think it can become a permanent member of the security council? I don’t see it happening.

  22. Many analysts, including some of India’s own negotiators at Copenhagen have it all wrong. They incorrectly equate emissions to development.

    We need to clearly delink the two. Why should we not aim for clean and sustainable development. When we already have the technologies for pushing clean development why must we pollute the planet and bring it to the brink to develop?

    In the last 30 years we have added so much CO2 belching coal power to our grid, but still nearly 800 million rural people barely get 12 hours of electricity.

    The problem with coal is it is highly inefficient technology. Nearly 80% of energy generated from coal is lost before it reaches the consumer.

    Why not provide them with small scale, decentralized solar, biomass and wind plants?
    Why not improve energy efficiency of our devices?
    Why not improve our public transport systems and reduce dependency on cars?
    Why not improve fuel efficiency of vehicles?

    These are all possibly with current technology, but industry does not want to make the move.

    I think Jairam Ramesh has taken bold steps and pushed India into a leadership position.

    When the British used violence to control the Indian freedom struggle did Gandhi refuse to talk to them unless they quit the violence? He continued to protest in a non-violent manner, thus showing them he was intellectually, politically and spiritually ahead of the so called “civilized” British.

    We have to SHAME the “developed” world into seeing their folly just like Gandhi shamed the “civilized” British.

    It’s not use arguing about who created the problem. We should now get the US and other annexe 1 nations to commit to 40% emission reductions, as well as to provide funds and technology so we can make even better reductions on emissions.

    We have taken a bold first step and shown leadership, now the developed world should follow.

  23. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on…the Bible’s books were written by people with very different mindsets

  24. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on…the Bible’s books were written by people with very different mindsets

  25. OK. We are WIDE awake this morning thanks to Nike and Justene Jaro who, bless her soul (body?), has awoken us in ways that are, well, just not fit for publication…even on Adrants. See the original post here: brand shoes box […] OK. We are WIDE awake this

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.