• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Outside the Beltway: Sacridelicious in San Francisco

    Addressing The Question of Global Warming, physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson recently wrote in The New York Review of Books:

    There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. … Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion.

    As if trying to prove Dyson’s point, the Associated Press reported last week:

    First, it was a ban on plastic grocery bags, and then on mixing recycling with compost. Now the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is asking residents to go without meat on Mondays.

    The measure passed Tuesday urges “all restaurants, grocery stores and schools to offer a greater variety of plant-based options to improve the health of San Francisco residents and visitors and to increase the awareness of the impact a green diet would be on our planet.”

    Why meatless Mondays? Was another day of the week already taken? Besides dietary restrictions, Emory University economics professor Paul Rubin identifies some other ways environmentalism now resembles a religion:

    • There is a holy day—Earth Day.
    • There is no prayer, but there are self-sacrificing rituals that are not particularly useful, such as recycling. Recycling paper to save trees, for example, makes no sense since the effect will be to reduce the number of trees planted in the long run.
    • There are no temples, but there are sacred structures. As I walk around the Emory campus, I am continually confronted with recycling bins, and instead of one trash can I am faced with several for different sorts of trash. Universities are centers of the environmental religion, and such structures are increasingly common. While people have worshiped many things, we may be the first to build shrines to garbage.
    • Environmentalism is a proselytizing religion. Skeptics are not merely people unconvinced by the evidence: They are treated as evil sinners. I probably would not write this article if I did not have tenure.

    Of course the First Amendment protects us from any City Council making a similar proclamation for Friday Fasts, but as a secular religion we are not protected from the environmentalist’s crusade. In fact, if they get their top policy priority through, cap-and-tax energy legislation, it would cost the average family-of-four almost $3,000 per year, cause 2.5 million net job losses by 2035, and a produce a cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) loss of $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035. Now that is quite a tithe!

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    14 Responses to Outside the Beltway: Sacridelicious in San Francisco

    1. Billy Bob, Disctrict says:

      Yeah, screw the Earth!

    2. Billie says:

      "sacrildelicious!" VERY CLEVER, CONN!

      The people have a right to freedom of choice. Get this religion of freedom violators out of authority. No business brainwashing us into their religion! Protein is nutritious for the body and the # one source is animals.

    3. Bill, Kansas City, M says:

      If the environmentals don't want to eat meat, that is their choice, but don't impose it on the rest of us.

    4. Mert, QC says:

      First, it is not all black or white as you try to show it. Neither one can consume and poison the Earth for his desires, nor he should deprive himself to the stone age to save it. There is a middle point, which is called sustainable development.

      If we drop the "sustainable" part of the development, that means we are destroying our future for the sake of today. Did you know how much did it cost for the US government to clean up thousands of superfund sites contaminated for the "sake" of economic growth? Check and report those numbers also.

      Caring for the environment is like caring for our health. If we do not do that, we have to pay the price soon.

      It is simple economics: First invest, then you reap (not all the americans do that). Same for everything.

    5. Virgil Evans, Casita says:

      Brilliantly and concisely stated.

    6. Virgil Evans, Casita says:


    7. Ross writes from Flo says:

      Conservation and stewardship of God's creation is personal, individual, and requires commonsense, which seems to be in short supply in today's western society, if not an endangered species. This includes all living beings and the right to be born.

      Environmentalist believe that man is the problem and should be herded onto reservations with either limited nor access to become stewards of the earth that it may "blossom" and to be in harmony with the only world any of us have or will ever know.

      Environmentalism is a secular religious power grab by the few for the few..

      Conservation is a sacred stewardship granted by the Creator of All Things to all mankind for all mankind.

    8. Mike Mancuso, San Jo says:

      I worked on California Street for ten years about thirty years ago. San Francisco's quirks made it quaint, I thought. Today, it's a joke. Suggesting a boycot of Arizona for their immigration law is the last straw. Let the leftists and tourists have it, for now.

    9. Randall Holland, Ari says:

      The only real solution to saving the earth is to eliminate the human species. I would hope that all the environmentalists would step up and be the first to go. I'll wait my turn, thank you.

    10. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    11. Paul, Layton UT says:

      Why do I think that global warming has become a religion?

      Sacred scriptures

      IPCC documents

      models that are impenetrable

      Revelation of future events

      Clergy to interpret the scriptures and the revelations

      Sin and repentance

      Forgetting (in contrast to the OT that encourages remembering)

      but no repentance from false claims

      'every day is day zero for a liberal'

      35 substantive errors in 'An Inconvenient Truth' but no statements retracted


      Indulgences – carbon offsets

      Apocalypse with a twist

      traditional – repent and prepare for the end of the world

      environmental – repent or you will experience the end of the earth

      Heretics – since when has skepticism in science been a bad word?

      Faith based

      Inquisition proposed

      Hypocritical preachers – if CO2 is so bad, why the private jet and GHG belching home, Al?


      what's yours is mine

      the ends justify the means

      trust in central planning, not individual freedom

    12. Drew Page, IL says:

      I have no problem with the people of California doing whatever they want in their own state. But it gets a little presumptive of them to start advocating their peculiar proclivities be visited upon the rest of the country.

      Maybe if California were a little more mainstream, I might be more attentive to its recommendations for the rest of the country. Their politics and lifestyles are their own and their State in bankrupt.

      The San Joaquin Valley, once with the most fertile produce farms in the country, is now again a desert, because its irregation has been discontinued in order to keep from endangering the species called the "delta smelt", a 2 inch fish that somehow can't be relocated. Yes, California, it is much more adventageous to retain the delta smelt than the 40,000 farm workers now unemployed. Who can say that California isn't sensitive to the environment.

      Now, San Francisco calls for "Meatless Mondays". Maybe they can switch to broiled delta smelt, but it will have to be served without a salad.

    13. cabdriver says:

      So, where's the government coercion? Where's the ban on selling or consuming meat?

      Also: I'm both a Christian and pro-environmentalist. And I gave up factory farmed meat long ago. But "Environmentalism" isn't a religion to me.

      You want to talk about "th emost feritle produce farms in the world" in the San Joaquin valley- but a huge fraction of the water in California is used by cotton and alfalfa.

      And framing the issue as "the farmers vs. the Delta smelt" is misleading.

      For one thing: as I noted, much of the water for California agriculture goes to cotton- a fiber crop that can easily be grown elsewhere. And the California cotton industry continues to receive massive subsidies from the Federal government.

      The top water-using crop is alfalfa- cattle feed, largely for dairy cattle. And the California dairy industry also receives huge Federal subsidies.

      I'll be back with links and statistics on that.

      Furthermore, preserving the Sacramento River watershed and the Delta isn't just about a "2-inch fish"- that's a deception. There are entire ecological systems at risk,

      And California has fishing industries, too- both commercial and recreational.

      To put it mildly: it's disingenuous to cast the controvery over California water policy as a debate between food crop famers- and farmworkers- versus a small forage fish.

      I can make a much stronger argument that rightfully speaking, the dispute is between the cotton and alfalfa farms and the food crop, produce, and orchard farms.

      And positing the rationale for judicial decisions to protect the Delta as if it could only be due to the hidden machinations of a sinister plot by some supposed pagan "environmentalist religion" cult of Californians is the nadir of demagoguery.

      I'll be back with links and statistics tomorrow.

    14. cabdriver says:

      Drew Page: I realize that for all of it's presumptions, your comment didn't go off the deep end into the demagoguery to which I alluded in my last comment.

      But I've heard truckloads of it elsewhere.

      cabdriver, 20-year resident of Sacramento

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.