In answer to last week's question, "Should the US adopt higher gas mileage standards?", we received the full spectrum of possible answers. One third voted to lower mileage requirements, one third voted "other," and the balance were evenly divided between raising mileage standards and keeping them the same. If we shift the "other" answers to the categories they most sympathized with, we find half the respondents considering current fuel mileage standards too high, one third considering them too low, and the remainder considering them fine right now. Here are excerpts of the more pertinent comments:

• "99% of gasoline is consumed efficiently now. Raising the mileage standards is, in effect, simply another tax as consumers must pay huge sums to install and/or replace EGR valves, MAP sensors, MAF sensors, oxy sensors etc...."
• "Get the... fuel cell cars out that run on hydrogen and oxygen, and if you're smart, on water, which is made of these two agents... the hold up [is] converting the gas stations to hydrogen safely...."
• "The free market should decide which mileage a care has...."
• "Abolish the requirements altogether."

Factual Background:
Closed gasoline stations, fuel rationing, and long lines around the block waiting for gas were the notorious features of the 1970s that first alerted Americans to some kind of oil problem. Environmentalists, pushing their neo-Marxist agenda for dismantling the capitalist/industrial economy, proclaimed imminent doomsday scenarios of world oil supplies being depleted and argued for reducing oil usage — supposedly to conserve resources for future generations.

Other voices, notably economists, pointed out that the shortages began after the US government imposed price controls on oil, thus shrinking the profit margin to the point that it became too costly to pump and refine the oil, and thereby artificially shrinking the supply. Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan echoed this popular viewpoint, and shortly after entering office in 1981 — and under heavy pressure to fulfill his campaign promise on the issue — he lifted the oil price controls. Immediately the shortages stopped, and have not returned to this day.

What of the environmentalist projections of exhausted oil supplies? Already in the 1970s, many scientists were convinced that enough crude oil existed to fulfill demand for centuries. Since then, new surveying and exploration have continually uncovered vast, new oil deposits in many areas of the world previously assumed to have no oil at all. The known natural supply of crude oil continues to expand dramatically with no end in sight, in effect providing us a virtually unlimited supply for generations to come.

The debate has therefore shifted to the question of dependence on Arab nations for oil. Setting aside the point that OPEC nations only restrict oil supplies because of Communist provocations (many leading OPEC member governments are Communist regimes) — meaning that with the imminent Messianic Era and the self-destruction of Communism that precedes it, this will no longer be a problem in less than a decade — the fact remains that the United States itself sits on vast oil supplies that will exceed its own needs for many decades. The only barrier to tapping those supplies (in Alaska and offshore California, for example) is environmentalist regulations. In other words, the environmentalists who claim there is a shortage, and who push for restricting oil use, are themselves the cause of the shortage!

Increasingly, the heavily corporate- and government-financed environmentalist movement is left without any clear rationale at all for lowering oil usage, yet it continues escalating the campaign for restrictions.

Relevant Torah Principles:
1) Although the Noahide Laws are stated more or less explicitly in Genesis 8-9 and are alluded to elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, their fundamental source (as derived in the oral tradition) is in Isaiah 45:18, where the prophet, referring to G-d's role as the Creator of the universe, states "...not [for] chaos He created it [the universe]; to inhabit [it] He formed it...". Halacha explains that this refers to the underlying purpose of the Noahide Laws — namely, to develop and civilize the entire creation out of its natural state into a state in which every part of it is used by man in the service of G-d.

2) This point is further clarified in Genesis 1:26-28, where the Torah explicitly calls upon man to exploit and rule over all of the creation.

3) As the Lubavitcher Rebbe has explained (see, for example, Likkutei Sichos, vol. 2, Parshas Re'eh), Hasidus teaches that nothing in the creation — whether animal, vegetable, or mineral — has any intrinsic purpose for existing other than to serve man, and in particular to serve the highest, most human part of man. This means that man must exploit and use everything in the service of G-d; for gentiles, this means developing the world out of a state of chaos and preparing the way for the physical to become holy (the latter being the unique task of Jews). But unless exploited by man, nature has no intrinsic value of its own; further, leaving nature in a natural state — to conserve it as is — is immoral and irresponsible. According to Kabbalistic teachings, the essence of evil is chaos, that is, the natural state of affairs.

Analysis:
Since the purpose of the Noahide Laws is to develop nature and build human civilization, it follows that all seven commandments (and their derivatives and details) must be performed in a manner consistent with this purpose, and never in contradiction to it. This applies both to individuals (under six of the commandments) and to governments (under the seventh commandment, to establish law and justice).

No serious argument is any longer offered to justify rationing oil or restricting its use, since its supply is abundant, even limitless, for all intents and purposes. And the transition to nuclear power will supply inexpensive energy while further reducing the need for fossil fuels — thus extending supplies even longer.

Furthermore, as Torah clearly implies, fossil fuels such as petroleum were only created for exploitation by man. To leave them in the ground untapped would be a direct rebellion against the Creator's mission for us, and is thus forbidden. With such a mandate, and given the absence of any oil shortage, there is simply no reason to restrict usage, such as by creating artifical fuel mileage requirements for automobiles.

The "alternative" car engines — electric battery, hydrogen cell, hybrid systems — are all more expensive and economically wasteful than traditional gas-burning engines. Indeed, the "fuel efficiency" existing in modern cars is similarly a waste. The proof is in the fact that their overall cost is higher than for traditional car engines, factoring in production, maintenance, fuel supply, and speed and efficiency of transport.

Therefore, according to the Torah (under the Noahide Laws) it is actually forbidden to use such wasteful "alternative" systems instead of traditional gas-burning engines. Not only does the Torah require the government to eliminate all fuel mileage standards (thus allowing the economic market to determine the cheapest, most efficient engine), the government must, if necessary, take steps to prevent anyone from producing the "alternative" engines — including legal bans and punishments for auto makers who build electric, hydrogen, or hybrid cars. Under Torah Law, no one has the right to waste resources unnecessarily, and at this point, petroleum-based engines are by far the most effective and efficient.

Indeed, that is the very reason the Marxist environmentalist movement advocates such nonsense — to try to cripple and undermine capitalist, industrial development as mandated by Torah.

And now for this week's survey question:

Only one answer per e-mail address will be accepted; only e-mail addresses on our subscription list are eligible. Please send your input by Tuesday, September 13, 2005, 12pm PST.

This week's special case:
Rabbi Zelig Rivkin, (formerly) Chabad-Lubavitch of New Orleans, LA

The Torah gives numerous examples showing that G-d does not bring His judgment down upon a city or nation as long as there is a tiny minimum of righteous people left in it. But when even such a minimum is lacking, nothing can save the city.

New Orleans is a case in point. The hurricane's destruction was not preventable, despite clever atheistic propaganda insisting otherwise; it was an extraordinary judgment that would have overwhelmed any preparations people had tried to make. When G-d carries out a sentence, men cannot protect themselves — the very lesson of the Tower of Babel. Like the rest of the United States, people in New Orleans were living comfortably for themselves and their own family lives, recklessly disregarding their responsibility to fight encroaching Marxist subversion and revolution throughout the world; as such, they already did not deserve to have continued normal life for so many years. On top of that, New Orleans in particular was notorious for tolerance of homosexuality and criminal gangs (having one of the nation's highest crime rates), among other problems.

The fact that G-d's patience ran out means (a) the residents did not take advantage of their extra years to do teshuvah (repentance and return), and (b) that there was no longer a minimum of righteous people.

The state's head Chabad emissary, Rabbi Zelig Rivkin, was certainly no longer a protecting presence for the city of New Orleans, where he was located. Boruch Ellison and other former co-activists (from the days before the "JAHG-USA" name was created) tried numerous times to bring proper campaigns of Torah and mitzvos to the city — including the Rebbe's Noahide campaign and the campaign to defund the PLO (first launched in 1994). But each time, Rabbi Rivkin did anything and everything he could to squelch the activities. He not only met directly with Ellison and his fellow activists in person, openly discouraging them, but also worked behind their backs to turn others against these Torah activities. This fierce opposition to our work dates back at least to 1994, and Rabbi Rivkin has never changed or repented over the years.

His opposition was, of course, merely a symptom of a larger problem. So it is not at all surprising that Rivkin has also publicly opposed other campaigns of the Lubavitcher Rebbe — for example, the "Who is a Jew?" campaign, in which the Rebbe called upon his followers to speak out against the Reform and Conservative movements as not being Jewish, that their "conversions" to Judaism are not conversions, that their marriages and divorces are not legitimate, and that it is forbidden for Jews to participate in any Reform or Conservative activities. In 1997, when a beis din of non-Lubavitch, orthodox rabbis in New York spoke out publicly in endorsement of the Rebbe's "Who is a Jew?" message, Rabbi Rivkin had the nerve publicly to condemn those orthodox rabbis — who, in fact, were acting on a personal letter the Rebbe had sent them directly! And since that time, Rivkin has skirted (if not outright violated) Jewish Law by appearing on interfaith forums with Reform and Conservative "rabbis."

With all this in mind, we didn't even bother sending Rabbi Rivkin a copy of our proclamation (declaring the Torah duty for everyone to help defund the PLO). We already knew quite well he would not respond, and there was no point in wasting the postage.

Has Rabbi Rivkin learned anything from the recent judgment of New Orleans? After all, he has lost his Chabad House, his home, his son's Chabad House, and probably most or all of his community (through dispersion and resettlement in other areas). Does he realize why this has happened? Only time will tell.

This week's example (for the second time, but now in the Hall of Fame!):
Rabbi Shimon Raichik, Chabad of Hancock Park, Los Angeles, CA

Thank G-d, the California barrier is starting to crack. Last week a couple of additional Chabad shluchim from that state joined in endorsing the PLO defunding campaign. Most surprising was the defection of Rabbi Shimon Raichik, whom we previously criticized in this newsletter for failing to sign the proclamation.

We had not heard from him since sending him the proclamation last February. But just days ago, on August 31st, he was again approached, this time in person by a JAHG-USA volunteer. He agreed to read it and think it over, and two days later, on September 2nd, he signed. Mazal tov, Rabbi Raichik! By turning around, he is setting a particularly important example for dozens of other rabbis to heed, and he brings additional merit to protect the city of Los Angeles. And he adds his voice in open declaration that our proclamation is halachically correct according to the Torah, and that everyone must get involved in defunding the PLO.

Soon even Rabbi Boruch S. Cunin, head shliach for California — and a leading "refusenik" who opposes the PLO defunding campaign (and the Rebbe's Noahide campaign, as reviewed at www.noahide.com/cunin.htm) — may have to think about repenting and switching sides.

What do you think about Jewish leadership on PLO defunding? Send us your comments at [address withheld].

For a complete listing of all rabbis who have received our proclamation, the up-to-date status of their responses, and how you can get help the campaign, visit ATTAC Report at http://www.attacreport.com/plo/.

This week's edition of our sister site, ATTAC Report, presents:

• The buried article that blew the whistle on an AIDS-establishment cover-up — and proved AIDS isn't caused by a virus
• The final installment in our historical timeline, bringing the war between Amalek and the Jewish people up the the present rumblings of World War III
• Over a dozen concentration camps in Kyrgyzstan today (including at least two death camps), none of them closed down in the recent "re-renewal" (phony "democratization") in that Soviet republic

Because of the long newsletter this week, we'll hold off on letters until next week (IY"H).

Send your letter to the editor to [address withheld].

Be sure to visit our Web site, Noahide.com.