You are sharing what you know, you are duty-bound to do it, but keep in mind that you are sharing gradually-emerging physical facts, not revealed truth. It’s a bit different. Even the Vatican is not coming out with technical solutions. The Vatican is only saying that having the scientific discussion and living according to our best understanding of the environment is a serious matter, a matter of morality. The Vatican doesn’t talk in terms of whether the decisions of venial or mortal because they don’t want to make this into a juridical matter. …
The issue of high energy consumption, especially high petroleum consumption and certain patterns of chemical use and natural resource harvest and disposal has some similar issues. It is not that there are many people of good will who believe that it is just fine and dandy to waste energy or lay waste to nature. Nobody here is saying that, at any rate. It is that there are many people of good will who believe that the cons of some alternatives energies carry dangers that are comparable to the cons that come with petroleum use. There are societal prices to be paid for ideas such as “carbon credits”. It’s not like just asking people to drive a lot less and keep their furnaces turned down. I don’t think anyone here is arguing in favor of being wasteful. The question is whether certain public policy proposals are the best way to manage limited human, financial, and natural resources.
So while it is very important whether we make the right sense out of the physical data that have been collected, it is also very important that we don’t discuss this with an “us” vs. “them” mentality. We have to listen to each other’s concerns, we have to take each other’s reservations seriously. If we don’t do that, we might be deaf to what we’re supposed to hearing from them or have ourselves to blame when they aren’t any more inclined to listen to us than the other way around.
Does that make sense?
I’ve never mentioned anything about policy – in fact I’m against “Cap&Trade” as being inefficient and useless, and have said so.
However, I HAVE mentioned that I’m against policy (& ideology) - driven “science.” Let the chips lay where they may, and let us respond in Christian fashion. As JPII said AGW is everyone’s responsibility.
The science is not up for debate or even much discussion at this point. It is pretty much settled, except for details. The greenhouse effect theory has been around for over 100 years…and it’s the only thing that explains much of paleoclimatology and recent climatology here on earth and climate differences among planets in the solar system. And it is based on the laws of physics.
What was not settled was whether the evidence (entangled in much natural fluctuation “noise”) showed that human-caused GW was happening. The first studies to get signal-to-noise findings on it and come in at .05 on the null (95% confidence) were in 1995, and the science has become very robust since, with many lines of proof.
This is sort of like evolution. The theory was out there since the 1800s, well before a lot of evidence came in, but it did come in and very strongly and definitively by our time. Except of course not accepting evolution is no skin off anyone’s noise and doesn’t have human lives at stake.
Even tho the evidence re AGW was not that strong in 1990, I started mitigating then (and JPII started telling people to mitigate it that year), bec I didn’t need 95% confidence I was harming people thru AGW; just the meager knowledge I had then was enough to get me going. And altho I was willing to sacrifice to reduce our GHGs, I’ve found over the past 23 years that we’ve saved many $1000s by reducing down to 60%+ below our 1990 levels, while actually increasing our living standard…and increasing our sense of financial security as we head into retirement; and perhaps reduced marital stress over finances. And we still have more to do … and save $$.
People can follow their own policies and measures. I’ve never insisted on any particular policy. I’ve offered take-it-or-leave-it suggestions that have worked for us.
I’ve also suggested that if the gov deigns to get into some climate policy (doubtful), it should first take away the heavy subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuels, bec I feel bad about paying on April 15th for others to go around polluting and harming people (just like I wouldn’t want my tax dollars going to abortions). It would be sort of byzantine to keep giving subsidies to fossil fuels and at the same time levy fees on them, or worse still create a labyrinth of cap-and-trade mazes they have to go thru.
Just ending or reducing subsidies would probably be enough. However, if people are adament about not reducing their GHG emissions then they will be willing to pay thru the nose to emit them, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. It’s really up to individuals and households to either do the EC (environmentally correct) things … or not.
So I’ll give up and bow out now.
I have a brother I just filed a missing person report on that I’m into now. I could use your prayers.
, and if depictions of St. Teresa of Avila’s spot in Hell for her sins before her “second conversion” are accurate, I can imagine my spot to be much much worse.
