Catholic Climate Movement

[lynnvinc]

That sounds nice, your parish is lucky to have you

We moved away in 2002 and since there was no committee to cover any Catholic soc justice issues in our new parish, though some members were very interested, we started a “Social Concerns” committee and had various events, like Souper Sunday (about world hunger) and High on Life (about drugs), and only one on the environment, Creation Day.

However, we got so busy with our jobs we’ve been on the sideline for a number of years, and are still busy after retirement doing research on soc justice issues, like caste and untouchability among Catholics in India…which we’ll be completing by the end of this year I think.

Eventually we’ll get back to environmental issues in our parish – our priest is really into local species and knows a lot more than we do and wants us to have a committee to discuss the Church’s writings on env issues.

 

[Ender]

Getting back to the topic. Here is a good article:
“Four things every Catholic should know about climate change”…

Really? There’s a Catholic version of climate change? Is there a Catholic set of facts too?

Topics include:

1. We know a lot;
2. We’re experiencing the change already;
3. Businesses and governments are concerned; and
4. For Catholics, climate change advocacy is not about politics

Regarding number 4: of course it’s political advocacy. What else would it be: scientific inquiry? Turning this into a moral cause is simply a way of enlisting the support of those unfamiliar with the controversy.

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

…Regarding number 4: of course it’s political advocacy. What else would it be: scientific inquiry? Turning this into a moral cause is simply a way of enlisting the support of those unfamiliar with the controversy.

Ender

Well before it is a political issue (and we should be telling our government and representatives at all levels (city, county, state, federal) to do something about GW) it is a personal issue. We are called to do what we ourselves can do at home, school, work, church, etc. What is feasible & affordable (most measures save money or don’t cost, so even the poor can get in on the action).

As JPII said in 1990, it is everyone’s responsibility.

 

[Theo520]

I heartily agree with this commentary. I think we’ve created a serious setback to protecting the environment by putting all the focus on stopping the burning of carbon fuels

The answer to your problem is probably staring right back at you throughout this thread. A Catholic environmental group that focused on immediate local issues; i.e. cleaning up parks, conservation, pollution, preservation, locally produced sustainable food, and beautification of spaces for prayer and contemplation, would be widely interesting to and popular with most people. Indirectly, it would likely contribute to a reduced carbon footprint and create the atmosphere needed for generous and nuanced discussion of more thorny issues.

Instead, you and the “CCM” are choosing to start by focusing on the political wedge issue and getting discouraged when you don’t change total strangers politics. I think that is a highly irrational approach, and I am what one would call a climate alarmist.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Regardless of the topic of the article, the journal the article has been submitted to, the target audience, be it the mating habits of pygmy ants in deforested hollow logs in Brazil, the means to determine colour recognition in sheep dogs, the standard of intelligence of forumites, the genetic determination of dna in purple strawberries…

Well first of all, a peer review panel on the board of the journal the article is submitted, peer reviews that article for publication. It is usually returned to the author for a few edits, then resubmitted, peer reviewed and either rejected or accepted. But you said

““If you are writing a paper about genetic modification of strawberry, there are only a handful of scientist worldwide reading that paper. And guess what… they are corporate employees!
And they all shook hands at some convention last year…””

Now it is inaccurate to say a handful of scientists worldwide will read that paper, either published as peer reviewed or unpublished as a research letter.

You are also accusing, and in accusal yourself, if you were truly referring to the peer review process, of a multitude of scientific journals of calumny in stating:

""In a field that is extremely specific. Students or departments submitting a paper know darn well someone from Monsanto or the “big 5” is reviewing thier paper. “”

Have you ever conducted scientific research and sought to have your research published? Is this in your wheelhouse?

I am published, so is my wife. We have peer reviewed many papers.
My wife was one of the leading scientist in some GMO crops.
We are currently out of the field. I have not practiced for many years. My wife changed careers two years ago. We have worked for the big 5 and smaller agrotechnogy companies. We are not only familiar with peer review, but patent law, and FDA approval processes.

Is that resume ok?

Do you have scientific experience in the private sector?

 

[otjm]

That is true, but look around today, more trucks and cars then ever before on the roads, more companies and people having stuff made in huge chinese factories, and everyone buying it up every chance they get. LOL

Yes, there are more trucks and cars on the road. However, emission are donw phenomenally from what they were 50 years ago - or for that matter, 20 years ago.

And I bought a washer and dryer, both made by a Japanese company, and manufactured in Vietnam, which use far less water and energy than what I had previously. And your point is… not made.

Cant really be fighting to stop climate change and then take part in destroying the earth at the same time.

typical knee jerk liberal chant, with no facts.

Eventually the world will remember our times as the ones who sold out the planet to make a quick buck, whether its by our fossil fuel driven cars/ trucks or the many factories constantly cranking out cheap stuff to fill the shelves.

The Sierra Club (not your typical right wing anti-environment group) has come out about the problems with solar farms - birds attempting to fly over are fried outright while in flight. Solar panels have how many years in payback? Without government funding, they would disappear. And wind - ah yes; not only killing migratory birds, but have a lifespan of about 12 years, and a payback span of 25 - one does not need a post graduate degree in economics to understand that dog don’t hunt.

The main problem is greed, its cheap to have lots of stuff made in foreign factories, gas and diesel are relatively cheap way to move a vehicle but its also a fuel that can be metered to the public, so its no wonder oil company profits are in the billions (in other words…selling out the planet to make a buck). They all claim they are trying to develop hybrids and other types of cars to lessen demand for oil, but why would they do that when it would drastically reduce their profits. I think they will continue to ‘rape’ the planet until there is nothing left and then roll around in all their cash as the rest of the world struggles.

Brave words, based on La La progressive tripe that fantasizes a different reality.,

I know many disagree, but I find it almost comical that fossil fuels are STILL the main fuel for our vehicles, it is 2017 folks!! Why are more people not surprised there have not been any alternatives suggested in all these years?? Where are all the great inventors of our time, the Einsteins, the Teslas, etc? LOL

Oh. Now we are going to all electric vehicles. And that electricity to re-energize the lithium batteries comes from — where?

Okay, let’s dam up some more rivers (never mind the removal of dams has been the mantra of environmentalists) and put a solar panel on every square foot of bare ground and on every rooftop (which amounts to spitting in the ocean and trying to measure how much higher it is), and put up more wind towers, which cannot even approach paying for themselves. Oh - an how are we going to deal with all the lithium? Kind of like the way we can deal with nuclear waste?

Oh, and Tesla - and how many working stiffs can afford a $30,000 car, plus the replacement of batteries,. oh, that’s right - the liberals who have joint incomes of $100,000/year or better. Or for that matter, try to buy a hybrid vehicle if you are making $30,000 a year - which costs, after taxes, more than a year’s actual dollars in the bank.

 

[otjm]

I am published, so is my wife. We have peer reviewed many papers.
My wife was one of the leading scientist in some GMO crops.
We are currently out of the field. I have not practiced for many years. My wife changed careers two years ago. We have worked for the big 5 and smaller agrotechnogy companies. We are not only familiar with peer review, but patent law, and FDA approval processes.

Is that resume ok?

Do you have scientific experience in the private sector?

Touche!

 

[lynnvinc]

Yes, there are more trucks and cars on the road. However, emission are donw phenomenally from what they were 50 years ago - or for that matter, 20 years ago.

And I bought a washer and dryer, both made by a Japanese company, and manufactured in Vietnam, which use far less water and energy than what I had previously. And your point is… not made…

That’s great. We bought a frig in 1991, Sunfrost, that used less than 1/12 (one-twelfth) of the energy our previous clonker did. We did have to defrost it, but it actually kept veggies fresher so there was less waste. We figure we made up for the high cost over the years in energy savings and it basically went on to pay for itself.

Our low-flow showerhead ($6) we also bought in 1991 as saved us $1000s over the decades since in water and energy to heat it – uses half the water but we can’t feel the difference. That’s better than a Wall Street investment.

The Sierra Club (not your typical right wing anti-environment group) has come out about the problems with solar farms - birds attempting to fly over are fried outright while in flight. Solar panels have how many years in payback? Without government funding, they would disappear.

We went solar in 2012 and so far no bird deaths. The actually perch on the top of our roof above the panels.

And we are saving a lot of money from that. Since we retired in 2015, it was a great investment, lowering our living cost.

And wind - ah yes; not only killing migratory birds, but have a lifespan of about 12 years, and a payback span of 25 - one does not need a post graduate degree in economics to understand that dog don’t hunt.

Now I disagree with you there, they have already figured wind is cost-competitive with conventional energy.

We went on 100% wind power with Green Mountain when we moved to Texas.

Re the bird issue, I’ve read that they have devised radar systems that detect birds coming and shut the wind-generators down, so I think that problem is being solved, along with better siting in areas that are not migratory bird corridors.

And there are probably far more bird deaths from coal extraction, processing, burning, and waste & coal ash spills. I do know the SO2–>Sulfuric Acid (acid rain) kills forests, lakes, soil/crops, and people (from lung harm), and harms property.

Oh. Now we are going to all electric vehicles. And that electricity to re-energize the lithium batteries comes from — where?

We got our Volt in 2013 which is powered by our electricity (40% solar, 60% wind) and are saving some $800 to $1000 a year on that…another boon for our retirement years.

The lithium batteries do involve mining, which is harmful to the earth, but the batteries last the life-time of the car, so that is not nearly as polluting as oil which is used everyday – the harms from extraction, shipping, processing, spills and other accidents, burning, and disposal of waste are tremendous at both the local and global levels. Lithium batteries don’t come close to the enormous amount of pollution from oil.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Oil bubbles up naturally by itself.

Pollutes the oceans.

By collecting the oil [drilling reduces the pressure] and using it for internal combustion engines, we are conserving the planet.

And then there are the oil-eating bacteria:

dailycaller.com/2017/06/27/bacteria-are-eating-most-of-the-2010-bp-oil-spill/

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Oil bubbles up naturally by itself.

Pollutes the oceans.

By collecting the oil [drilling reduces the pressure] and using it for internal combustion engines, we are conserving the planet.

In what quantities does “oil bubble up naturally?” Is it in any way comparable to the oil that is released due to drilling and transporting oil, including drilling accidents and tanker spills? Where is the record of ocean pollution due to natural release? We certainly have a record of the man-made kind.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Sierra Club (not your typical right wing anti-environment group) has come out about the problems with solar farms - birds attempting to fly over are fried outright while in flight.

That happens only on one specific kind of solar farm - the kind that focuses sunlight to a central tower where the intense heat drives a turbine to generate electricity. There is no such problem with the more common silicon photo-voltaic panels that do not bother birds at all.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

In what quantities does “oil bubble up naturally?” Is it in any way comparable to the oil that is released due to drilling and transporting oil, including drilling accidents and tanker spills? Where is the record of ocean pollution due to natural release? We certainly have a record of the man-made kind.

Yeah, you might have to do some actual work to look it up.

 

[lynnvinc]

Oil bubbles up naturally by itself.

Pollutes the oceans.

By collecting the oil [drilling reduces the pressure] and using it for internal combustion engines, we are conserving the planet.

And then there are the oil-eating bacteria:

dailycaller.com/2017/06/27/bacteria-are-eating-most-of-the-2010-bp-oil-spill/

That sort of reminds me of the methane seeping out from ocean clathrates (molecular ice cages) as the warming sets in.

Which reminds me of a film I saw some 55 to 60 years ago about ocean potentials or energy potentials. They were saying how there is a lot of natural gas on the ocean floor and that someday there may be technology to capture and use that.

If only there were (and it was cost- and energy- effective…less energy to retrieve than what you get out of it), then that might help prevent CH4 from entering the atmosphere from the “methane shotgun” (which they say is more fully loaded than 55 mill yrs ago when it was last discharged during the that PETM great warming).

Then burning it would turn it into CO2, which is not at bad as CH4 in terms of GHG potency.

 

[LeahTherese]

Yes, there are more trucks and cars on the road. However, emission are donw phenomenally from what they were 50 years ago - or for that matter, 20 years ago.

And I bought a washer and dryer, both made by a Japanese company, and manufactured in Vietnam, which use far less water and energy than what I had previously. And your point is… not made.

typical knee jerk liberal chant, with no facts.

The Sierra Club (not your typical right wing anti-environment group) has come out about the problems with solar farms - birds attempting to fly over are fried outright while in flight. Solar panels have how many years in payback? Without government funding, they would disappear. And wind - ah yes; not only killing migratory birds, but have a lifespan of about 12 years, and a payback span of 25 - one does not need a post graduate degree in economics to understand that dog don’t hunt.

Brave words, based on La La progressive tripe that fantasizes a different reality.,

Oh. Now we are going to all electric vehicles. And that electricity to re-energize the lithium batteries comes from — where?

Okay, let’s dam up some more rivers (never mind the removal of dams has been the mantra of environmentalists) and put a solar panel on every square foot of bare ground and on every rooftop (which amounts to spitting in the ocean and trying to measure how much higher it is), and put up more wind towers, which cannot even approach paying for themselves. Oh - an how are we going to deal with all the lithium? Kind of like the way we can deal with nuclear waste?

Oh, and Tesla - and how many working stiffs can afford a $30,000 car, plus the replacement of batteries,. oh, that’s right - the liberals who have joint incomes of $100,000/year or better. Or for that matter, try to buy a hybrid vehicle if you are making $30,000 a year - which costs, after taxes, more than a year’s actual dollars in the bank.

Even assuming each of these objections are true (I’m not getting into squabbling about it), it’s rather noticable that you don’t present any meaningful alternatives.

 

[otjm]

That’s great. We bought a frig in 1991, Sunfrost, that used less than 1/12 (one-twelfth) of the energy our previous clonker did. We did have to defrost it, but it actually kept veggies fresher so there was less waste. We figure we made up for the high cost over the years in energy savings and it basically went on to pay for itself.

Excellent

Our low-flow showerhead ($6) we also bought in 1991 as saved us $1000s over the decades since in water and energy to heat it – uses half the water but we can’t feel the difference. That’s better than a Wall Street investment.

Out here in Oregon we did better than that. The electrical company came around and installed low flow shower heads - no cost for the shower head, and no cost for professional installation. While it was paid for by the electrical company, due to the reduction in hot water use, it paid for itself.

We went solar in 2012 and so far no bird deaths. The actually perch on the top of our roof above the panels.

You might note I said “solar farms”. Yours is not a solar farm by any stretch of the imagination. and while I am not against solar panels, what you installed is less effiecient than what they make today; and the best efficiency I have seen is about 15%. The problems are replacement cost (not exactly cheap) and the issue of re-roofing when you need to, depending on method of installation. Even if they can be reasonably moved and reconnected, it is going to raise the cost of re-roofing.

And we are saving a lot of money from that. Since we retired in 2015, it was a great investment, lowering our living cost.

Wht, if anything, was government subsidized?

Now I disagree with you there, they have already figured wind is cost-competitive with conventional energy.

Sorry, I have seen economist reports. Not so.

We went on 100% wind power with Green Mountain when we moved to Texas.

One can go “green poser” in Oregon too. Interestingly, it costs more than the regular “juice”, and what it is, is a direct subsidy to the production of alternative power. We have some extensive wind farms too.

Re the bird issue, I’ve read that they have devised radar systems that detect birds coming and shut the wind-generators down, so I think that problem is being solved, along with better siting in areas that are not migratory bird corridors.

The problem is not being solved; there is a small mitigation of it. Slowing down or stopping one of the wind generators is not an instant issue, and no power is generated while they are down - which occurs any time the wind doesn’t blow sufficiently hard to move them.

I am not anti-wind power; but it is hyped as the progressives want it to be, as if there are no issues at all, and having a conversation about the pros and cons is like having a conversation about immigration issues. Both topics have become so emotionally laden that an intelligent conversation is near impossible.

And there are probably far more bird deaths from coal extraction, processing, burning, and waste & coal ash spills. I do know the SO2–>Sulfuric Acid (acid rain) kills forests, lakes, soil/crops, and people (from lung harm), and harms property.

Old issues, before they reduced the amount of high sulfur coal being mined. So, no.

We got our Volt in 2013 which is powered by our electricity (40% solar, 60% wind) and are saving some $800 to $1000 a year on that…another boon for our retirement years.

The cost of replacing batteries is estimated at somewhere between $2,500 and $7,000, with no one seeming to have a clue as to what to do with the lithium. And if they told you that it would last as long as the car, they might be right. the more they go to electronics, the more problems have been arising in trying to isolate and correct the problems - and this I have from several mechanics who do this daily. They have all said that due to the greater and greater sophistication of vehicles, they life span of them is going to go down, for no other reason than the increasingly higher cost of repairs.

I have a 2006 Honda Civic, and drive a combination of highway and city; and average 39 mpg. On a recent trip to Utah, I averaged 42 mpg, with the exception of one stretch in Utah where I got 51 mpg. all without lithium.

I am in no way anti-environmentalist; but neither am I a “true believer”. I have seen enough of both sides, and am well aware that common sense is too often lacking in the conversations. I am not saying you are wrong; but you have some estimates of what can be done cost-wise that are influenced by a) where you live (I lived in Texas for 13 months, and know there is a whole lot more sunshine than farther north) and b) buying in on one side of a conversation that too often is just as skewed as the other side.

Best wishes in your retirement.

Bu the way - do you know the one problem with retirement?

You can never take a day off…

 

[Ender]

Even assuming each of these objections are true (I’m not getting into squabbling about it), it’s rather noticable that you don’t present any meaningful alternatives.

The alternatives are more of what we do today: natural gas, oil, and nuclear powered generators. Even coal is a more rational alternative.

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

That sort of reminds me of the methane seeping out from ocean clathrates (molecular ice cages) as the warming sets in.

Which reminds me of a film I saw some 55 to 60 years ago about ocean potentials or energy potentials. They were saying how there is a lot of natural gas on the ocean floor and that someday there may be technology to capture and use that.

If only there were (and it was cost- and energy- effective…less energy to retrieve than what you get out of it), then that might help prevent CH4 from entering the atmosphere from the “methane shotgun” (which they say is more fully loaded than 55 mill yrs ago when it was last discharged during the that PETM great warming).

Then burning it would turn it into CO2, which is not at bad as CH4 in terms of GHG potency.

it’s tricky to talk about methane clathrates for any purpose. As a fuel source, they’re strongly questioned because early estimates of their mass has been greatly reduced over the years. Further, some are trapped in sediment or widely dispersed so they’re difficult to collect and recover.

But also, their formation is a function of both temperature and pressure. So deep deposits are likely to remain in their present condition regardless of temperature. It may be noted that clathrates exist presently even in tropical seas.

Also, it is uncertain how much methane would actually reach the atmosphere, since it becomes diluted in water at lower pressures, consumed by bacteria on the way, and readily changes chemical composition.

Finally, and perhaps most troublesome for those who are concerned about sudden release of clathrates into the atmosphere, there is no geological evidence tying sudden methane releases to warming periods historically. Sudden increases found in ice cores do not correspond to warming. Possibly that’s due to the fast breakdown of atmospheric methane and, indeed, its tendency to be consumed by bacteria in the water column.

skepticalscience.com/toward-improved-discussions-methane.html

Presently far and away the greatest source of atmospheric methane is wetlands. Possibly we should be draining swamps?

 

[otjm]

Even assuming each of these objections are true (I’m not getting into squabbling about it), it’s rather noticable that you don’t present any meaningful alternatives.

There is a difference between proposing changes, and failing to view all sides of a proposed change.

In Oregon (as elsewhere) we have dammed rivers. There were benefits and costs to doing so.The benefits were low cost electrical power. The costs were largely unknown, but have resulted in a tremendous depletion of both salmon and steelhead fisheries. There has been a strong demand to remove dams (and some have been removed), but a difficult (to put it politely) part of the conversation is, how is the electrical generation replaced?

Coal? That is the current whipping boy.

Gas? That is rejected by many as creating CO2.

Nuclear? Need I even mention the opposition to this?

Solar? Inefficient in itself, and inefficient in our climate (lots of clouds, lots of rain).

Wind? There is a reason it is government subsidized, as the cost on its own is a non-starter.

Wave? That one seems to have come and gone, as little is heard about it, and there doesn’t seem to be any progress.

Geothermal? Works in some areas, not in others; again, little heard about this alternative.

Conservation is an excellent goal; but the difficulty is in having a conversation about the costs.

Lynnvinc talks about how “they have already figured wind is cost-competitive with conventional energy.” Not identified is who is saying that ti is cost competitive, and on what basis? Governments (as in European and the US) have used estimates of a 20 to 25 year lifespan for Wind Turbines. In 2012, studies showed that the lifespan was closer to 10 to 15 years. Additionally, a turbine generates more than twice as much electricity in its first year than it does in its 15th. The efficiency rating is reduced from 24% in the first year to just 11% after 15 years. And for offshore wind farms (Danish) the drop was even lower - from 39% in first year to 15% after only 10 years.

It might be cost competitive its first year; but as it starts dropping off, it becomes less so. Further, against what form of generation is it being compared? And where is the replacement figure, given that they need to be replaced far sooner than original estimates?

I am not against wind generation. We have it in eastern Oregon. What I am against is hiding the facts, and not addressing overall costs, including maintenance (it goes up generally as the turbine ages; and frequency is another issue - estimates vs. actual); additionally, large wind farms are creating more turbulence than originally estimated, which adds to the the maintenance costs.

It is not a matter of providing alternatives, as we have alternatives to coal, gas and oil. However, there is a basic underlying dishonesty about both the real world costs and the real world effectiveness of alternatives. That makes for nigh impossible conversations, as people with limited information ( I won’t call it false, but it is most definitely misleading) have bought in so emotionally that it will take failure of some of these systems to bring about a rational discussion.

Coal mining in the US has been dropping since 2008, due to the reduction in cost of natural gas, and to a lesser extent, to alternative forms of energy; although world wide the use of coal has increased, and is expected to continue to increase at about 2% per year until 2020. /the difficult part is that coal fired plants from asia to Africa are using decades old technology, which will result in more pollution.

And while costs of wind turbines has dropped 20 to 40 percent, that still does not leave a turbine paying for itself within its real-world life expectancy. And therein are the real but hidden costs against claims that it is cost effective.

Are there new technologies? Perhaps; there has been a good deal of research in nuclear energy as a means of prviding electricity; but that too is a conversation fraught with strong emotions - not too many people are signing up for what they consider to be the next Chernobyl or Fukushima, even if it can be considered far safer than the problem plants.

And efficiency in electrical demand in what we use (as well as areas such as autos) will most likely continue.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Nuclear? Need I even mention the opposition to this?

Yes, you need to mention it, if only to recognize that many who support wind and solar also support nuclear (if done right). You should not paint all alternative energy advocates with the same brush.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And while costs of wind turbines has dropped 20 to 40 percent, that still does not leave a turbine paying for itself within its real-world life expectancy. And therein are the real but hidden costs against claims that it is cost effective.

I think that perhaps those figures for wind turbine economics include some inappropriate use of wind power, such as trying to send it over very long distances and incurring transmission losses, or trying to store energy for later use which is also very expensive. But using wind power only when it is available, and only within a reasonable distance of where it is generated is a much better deal.