Christine Hall

What could Rosh Hashanah have to do with environmental activism? My colleague Sam Kazman found out last year, listening to a sermon with a surprise twist. You can read about the incident in the book High Holiday Stories by Nancy Rips.

Did Karl Lagerfeld jump the shark with his fall-winter 2010-11 ready-to-wear collection for Chanel?  The collection – by one of the most famous and historic design houses in the world – was described by the AP as global warming in theme, and subsequently scorned on Newsbusters.  The show featured icebergs reportedly flown in from Sweden (whoa! with the carbon footprint!) and some extreme costume elements – like an antler-and-ear headdress – that would only appeal as street-wear to a Lady Gaga or Bjork.  Ridiculous and unwearable?  Certainly.  Likely to be available for purchase in Saks Fifth Avenue?  Fear not.

The interesting aspect of Mr. Lagerfeld’s theatrical show is that the mastermind himself seems to show little concern, much less panic, over the purported danger of global warming.  Reuters reported Lagerfeld’s comments:

“‘Have you felt any warming this winter?” Lagerfeld, with trademark black sunglasses and white ponytail, told reporters after showing his autumn collection, referring to freezing cold weather outside. “Maybe that’s all nonsense, who knows.”

The online magazine Zimbio questions whether the Chanel show had anything to do with global warming in the first place.  The Cut reports that Lagerfeld was “inspired by the Ice Hotel in Sweden” – not politics or global warming, noting  that last season, he “put his Chanel models in a barn, with hay and everything, possibly even burrs.”

Personally, my great fear arising from the Chanel collection is that the furry mukluks will make it off the runway and into the real world.  Which might make me wish for  real-world global warming.

(A bunch more photos from the Chanel show here.)

Today’s Washington Post editorial on global warming (”Climate Insurance”) is especially ridiculous.  You can certainly read it for yourself, but I’m going to do you the favor of translating it into plain English here for you now.  I’ve put a few bits of the editorial’s language in italics for you.

Climate science is complex, and there is much that we still do not understand. On top of that, there have been some really embarrassing screw-ups and misdeeds (and, frankly, if we were forced to admit it, maybe some outright lies) on the part of key global warming scientists.  First, there was Climategate, and now there’s the snafu surrounding how and when the Himalayan glaciers might melt away.  All that – it’s not helped the cause.

It’s true that we don’t  know for sure how many degrees warmer the Earth will be, on average, by 2050 or what effect this will have on the ferocity of storms or coastal flooding or starvation-inducing drought. It’s also true that we, the opinionated writers here at the elitist Washington Post, are troubled by the cogent argument suggesting that government action aimed at stopping this possible bad stuff from happening is hopeless.  That wrenching the economy away from its dependence on oil and coal would be expensive, and the resulting benefit so minimal, that it’s not worth trying.

However…come on, people!!  We still want to use the strong arm of government to force a bunch of taxes on you. A gradually rising carbon tax made sense even before “global warming” entered most people’s vocabulary. The global warming scare just gave us some added ammo to make the case for a carbon tax.  We’re not going to spend time in this brief editorial explaining to you people why we want to tax you.  But we thought you’d find it convincing if we just say that taxing you *might* (really, who’s to say?!) prevent a bunch of the aforementioned storms, flooding, and starvation.  And, for good measure, we will merely suggest that imposing a carbon tax or a cap-and-rebate tax system that requires industry (i.e. consumers) to pay for greenhouse gas emissions would reduce American dependence on dictators in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.  How’s that?  We couldn’t be bothered to say right now.  But, if politicians can’t bear to stand behind an increased tax, the revenue from either proposal could all be returned in a fair and progressive way.  In other words, we want to force you to give money you earned to people we like better than you.  We’re the Washington (freakin’) Post, for Pete’s sake, and we know best.

CEI is co-sponsoring the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC, which is expecting to draw a crowd of some 9,000 -10,000 people from around the country.  Personally, I expect a crowd of angry-but-hopeful Americans, disgusted with Washington’s Big Government agenda but planning on real change – this time, for freedom.

CEI has 4 speakers at CPAC this year – on crucial economic reforms, the political threat posed by labor unions, and all the breaking scandals concerning global warming.  You can view the panels on Townhall.com, which is live-streaming the conference events in the main (”Marriott”) ballroom.

We also have a table in the exhibit hall.  So if you’re coming to CPAC, please stop by and say hello!