Saturday, 21 June 2008

ABC quiz: Die carbon sucking scum!

Thanks to Fr Finigan of the Hermaneutic of Continuity for alerting us to a website 'Planet Slayer', sponsored by our taxpayer funded broadcasting service the ABC, and Film Victoria.

Professor Schpinkee's Greenhouse calculator, aimed at children, aims at showing you 'whether you are using more than your fair share of the planet's resources'.

It is pretty outrageous stuff.

The worst aspect of it is that falls under the ABC's 'Science' label!

In one of the games available, you can choose between various options - such as between a glass bottle, can or plastic bottle - and get a greenhouse rating for your choice. And get a politically correct accompanying commentary that says things like 'forget the packaging, its all cultural imperialism'!, 'meat is murder', or admonishes you for buying chinese made tea shirts. I'm surprised the meat marketing and trade organisations haven't complained.

I also thought the contrast between the ecologically sound khaki-dressed belly-button exposed 'Greena' and the nicely dressed girl in pink particularly insidious.
I couldn't bear to watch the cartoons (just the intro was enough to know what was coming).

It is the Greenhouse calculator though, is the most dangerous feature of the site. Three pigs are shown, the 'average Australian' pig and the 'green pig' for comparison purposes, and you. Your pig grows or shrinks as you make your choices (use of electricity, how much meat you eat, etc). At the end your pig explodes, telling you when you've had your share of the planet's resources (apparently my share of the planet is 3.7 years).

The implication of it is that most of us should be long dead (and perhaps should do the planet a favour by making it so?).

It does of course invite you to redo the quiz and make green choices enabling you to live longer (spent your dough on ethical investments instead of basics like food and rent and you can live forever!). I'm assuming it is really paid for by some 'ethical investments' fund scam given the way the results are structured.

Particularly as it is aimed at children (but in any case regardless of audience), this kind of fake pseudo-science and bad economics is irresponsible, disgraceful stuff.

Write and protest to the ABC and the Minister for Communications immediately. You can contact the ABC here. Details for contacting Minister Conroy can be found here. Film Victoria can be contacted here.


David said...

This has to win the Luke 17:2 Award for June 2008 know... "utilius est illi si lapis molaris inponatur circa collum eius et proiciatur in mare quam ut scandalizet unum de pusillis istis"...

Peter said...

Don't be surprised. this is the logical endpoint of the environmental movement - an alliance between Greenpease or Friends of the Earth and Dr Philip Nitschke - the extirpation of humans. And the scientific establishment is somewhat powerless to combat it because it is so predominantly atheistic and relativist (though not all scientists are faithless) - it doesn't have an argument for why you should treat humans any differently to any other lifeform.

My only hope is that some of these 'green apostles' would show the way .....

But then almost every religious institute in the english speaking world has foresaken its original charism and objective to win souls for the false religion of Mother Earth (as opposed to a sensible Catholic view of stewardship in the order of creation).

Terra said...

I agree that the scandalising children effect is the biggest problem with this.

But it is the pseudo-science and pseudo-economics whose insidious effects will infect the parents also that worries me.

The babyboomer generation were infected by the idea that the West's culture was inferior, that resources would run out, etc. This is their attempt to repackage that line again despite the evidence to the contrary.

Now don't get me wrong - I'm not a greenhouse skeptic. I agree that there is some room for doubt in the modelling and evidence, but God works only too often through nature to chastise us and I think there is enough evidence to make it prudent to do what we can sensibly do even if it subsequently proves unnecessary.

The issue as far as I am concerned is what the correct response is.

It does seem to me that this kind of rubbish can be readily refuted by the science establishment if it wanted to.

I take the point about relativism but I would have thought self-interest would prevail for most!

Some of it, it is true is just ideological - that we are each entitled to some 'share' of carbon for example.

But some is just plain wrong - that organic products have lower green house effects than conventionally grown products (the reverse is actually true), or that ethical investment will reduce greenhouse gases (no evidnece for this proposition as yet!).