In the New Scientist magazine, the writers argue that your personal carbon footprint should be made public because knowledge of your misdeeds might change your ways. They ask: "Would you want your neighbors, friends or colleagues to think of you as a free rider, harming the environment while benefiting from the restraint of others?"
This is an excellent question, for it exposes the real motivation behind most climate change apostles: to allow these gasbags the superior pleasure of shaming you.
It's all about denigrating your reputation in order to elevate theirs; a self-satisfied reward for their sheep-like devotion to climate change hysteria.
Now, mind you, I'm all for shame. I think it's a forgotten art, something that might be useful in curtailing some of the more disgraceful elements of American culture. I speak mainly of any show on VH1 that involves an elimination round and, of course, John Mayer.
But this enviro-shaming isn't even close to that. It's not like they're actually condemning you for authentic, immoral behavior. Nope. Rather than shaming an Islamic radical for killing innocent people, they'd rather go after those of us who didn't bring a reusable hemp shopping bag when visiting the local Whole Foods.
That's a real shame. They're manufacturing phony righteousness when, these days, real righteousness is so desperately needed. And for that, I'd happily recycle my foot in their ass.
And if you disagree with me, then you're probably a racist.