Does being an environmentalist amount to subscribing to neopagan or pantheist beliefs?

[jcjennie]

Thanks for posting this topic lynnvinc. My husband has a similar dispute with my side of the family. They call my husband a “tree hugger” and an “Obama liberal” because he supports environmental issues. We are both devoted Catholics but are looked down on by my family because we don’t support right-wing politics 100%. It’s sad that some Catholics think you have to be a conservative Republican (in America - don’t know about other places) or you’re not a “real” Catholic. Personally I can’t vote for either party in good conscience. But pantheistic, or nature worshipping Wiccan?? Uh no.

 

[Hastrman]

No, being an environmentalist as a member of an organized movement does not amount to subscribing to neopagan or pantheist beliefs.

It amounts to joining the after-party of Marxism, with “the earth” swapped in for the proletariat and “humanity at large” swapped in for the bourgeoisie. There’s a reason “watermelon” is a common nickname for environmentalists: Green on the outside, Red on the inside.

But probably the majority of environmentalists aren’t that type, possibly not even in countries with major Green parties. Some of them are the neopagan/pantheist types, some are just decent people of various religious persuasions, including many of the most traditional, who want to maintain the world’s ecology.

 

[lynnvinc]

No, being an environmentalist as a member of an organized movement does not amount to subscribing to neopagan or pantheist beliefs.

It amounts to joining the after-party of Marxism, with “the earth” swapped in for the proletariat and “humanity at large” swapped in for the bourgeoisie. There’s a reason “watermelon” is a common nickname for environmentalists: Green on the outside, Red on the inside.

But probably the majority of environmentalists aren’t that type, possibly not even in countries with major Green parties. Some of them are the neopagan/pantheist types, some are just decent people of various religious persuasions, including many of the most traditional, who want to maintain the world’s ecology.

I think the latter – just good folks who want to save the earth for future generations. And they are perhaps more into democracy and freedoms…and are or would like to even “live off the grid.” I haven’t met even ONE who had Marxist leanings…but they have leaned toward the Democratic party (tho there are lots of Republicans, as well), simply because in recent times Democratic platforms have sounded more eco-friendly…but they are not. (Just like Republicans sound more anti-abortion friendly but they are not.)

In fact Obama just approved the oil pipeline from the Canadan tar sands which just about guarantees we are firmly committed to ending all life on planet earth. Too bad, it was nice while it lasted. I really didn’t expect much environmentalism from Obama – he wouldn’t have become IL Senator without S. IL coal & agri-biz on his side. I wasn’t even happy with Clinton – and had campaigned vigorously for Jerry Brown during the 1992 primaries – now there would have been a good environmental president who could have saved us from terrible destruction, perhaps. But I think we’re pretty much committed now to total destruction. Too bad.

 

[Hastrman]

(Just like Republicans sound more anti-abortion friendly but they are not.)

The Republicans are more anti-abortion than the Democrats. It’s not impressive—“less murderous than Hitler”—but it is true.

…about guarantees we are firmly committed to ending all life on planet earth.

Wow, tone down the rhetoric a little. Do you even understand how massive a system you’re talking about?

I’m going to quote myself from another thread, about global warming:

Hastrman:

The atmosphere of a planet the size of Earth has a mass of 5 quadrillion tons, a 5 followed by 15 zeroes. To get some idea of how big that is, the largest oil tanker ever built, the Seawise Giant, would have to take 8,853,271,200 trips to move that mass (air, of course, would take up far more volume, but I’m just talking mass—odds are very good that, unless you’re a blimp enthusiast, you’ve never actually seen a ton of air that you’d recognize as such). It’s roughly 5 million tons of gas for every single person who lived on Earth in 1984, that’s how big it is.

However many million tons of greenhouse gas we output per year, it will still take centuries to get up to even 1% of this gargantuan gas envelope’s mass. It might behoove us to be cautious, and there are certainly other reasons to switch from fossil fuels, but the problem is not urgent, and it requires—it can require—no immediate, desperate actions.

Trust me, there isn’t enough energy involved, either in internal combustion engines or in whatever radiation might be being trapped, to end all life on this planet. We need to learn a little humility.

 

[lynnvinc]

I’m going to quote myself from another thread, about global warming:Trust me, there isn’t enough energy involved, either in internal combustion engines or in whatever radiation might be being trapped, to end all life on this planet. We need to learn a little humility.

I appreciate your view, but I trust the scientists I know and respect. And I don’t trust them completely, because they are inherently conservative in their under-estimates.

Scientists strive to avoid THE FALSE POSITIVE of making untrue claims, or their reputations will be harmed, and no one will believe them…like the boy who called wolf. So they usually require 95% confidence (.05 on the null) before making a claim.

Laypersons wanting to avoid harm, OTOH, would want to avoid THE FALSE NEGATIVE of failing to address a true problem, esp if it is very dangerous. We would not want to be the villagers or got eaten up by the wolf, or fail to treat a lump because it was only 94% certain it was cancerous. See Pascal’s wager on Wikipedia (Pascal is the father of statistic and a good Catholic; he wrote about avoiding the false negative of failing to believe in God).

I’ve been following the science of CC like a hawk, ever since it occurred to me back in 1990 that I am responsible (at least in small part) for droughts in Africa, famine and death. Even tho it wasn’t until 1995 that anthropogenic CC began to reach 95% sci confidence, I didn’t need that high level of assurance that I was doing something wrong. Since 1990 we’ve been able to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by over 60% cost-effectively, saving us money, without lowering our living standards, tho I was willing to sacrifice.

I’ve known at least for 10 or more years that we could tip the climate into temporary runaway warming conditions (hysteresis), like what happened during the end-Permian extinction 251 mill yrs ago, when over 90% of life on earth died. The small warming we humans are causing could warm the earth enough to melt vast stores of methane locked in permafrost and ocean hydrate ice, which would then cause massive warming, melting, warming… Also the reduced snow & ice from our warming would reveal darker oceans and land, aborbing more heat, melting more snow/ice, …

About 3 years ago, I became aware that it is possible we could tip the climate into permanent runaway conditions, as on Venus, which could end all life on earth…not right away, but in some 100s if not 1000s of years, triggered by our human-caused warming. See Hansen’s (top NASA climate scientist’s) conference presentation (esp. pg. 24): columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf

I sincerely hope he it totally wrong, and that the paleoclimatologists are wrong about the end-Permian extinction and its causes, and that we have nothing to worry about (including our immortal souls for failing to mitigate such a serious problem).

But I would simply suggest that everyone do everything they can that has no economic loss to them – things that will make them healthier and wealthier and freer – to reduce this problem. Follow the Little Way of Environmental Healing. No act is too small, like carrying a hanky to wipe hands in public washrooms, because as Mother Teresa points out, our love makes it infinites.

Peace.

 

[ERose]

I appreciate your view, but I trust the scientists I know and respect. And I don’t trust them completely, because they are inherently conservative in their under-estimates.

Scientists strive to avoid THE FALSE POSITIVE of making untrue claims, or their reputations will be harmed, and no one will believe them…like the boy who called wolf. So they usually require 95% confidence (.05 on the null) before making a claim.

Laypersons wanting to avoid harm, OTOH, would want to avoid THE FALSE NEGATIVE of failing to address a true problem, esp if it is very dangerous. We would not want to be the villagers or got eaten up by the wolf, or fail to treat a lump because it was only 94% certain it was cancerous. See Pascal’s wager on Wikipedia (Pascal is the father of statistic and a good Catholic; he wrote about avoiding the false negative of failing to believe in God).

I’ve been following the science of CC like a hawk, ever since it occurred to me back in 1990 that I am responsible (at least in small part) for droughts in Africa, famine and death. Even tho it wasn’t until 1995 that anthropogenic CC began to reach 95% sci confidence, I didn’t need that high level of assurance that I was doing something wrong. Since 1990 we’ve been able to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by over 60% cost-effectively, saving us money, without lowering our living standards, tho I was willing to sacrifice.

I’ve known at least for 10 or more years that we could tip the climate into temporary runaway warming conditions (hysteresis), like what happened during the end-Permian extinction 251 mill yrs ago, when over 90% of life on earth died. The small warming we humans are causing could warm the earth enough to melt vast stores of methane locked in permafrost and ocean hydrate ice, which would then cause massive warming, melting, warming… Also the reduced snow & ice from our warming would reveal darker oceans and land, aborbing more heat, melting more snow/ice, …

About 3 years ago, I became aware that it is possible we could tip the climate into permanent runaway conditions, as on Venus, which could end all life on earth…not right away, but in some 100s if not 1000s of years, triggered by our human-caused warming. See Hansen’s (top NASA climate scientist’s) conference presentation (esp. pg. 24): columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf

I sincerely hope he it totally wrong, and that the paleoclimatologists are wrong about the end-Permian extinction and its causes, and that we have nothing to worry about (including our immortal souls for failing to mitigate such a serious problem).

But I would simply suggest that everyone do everything they can that has no economic loss to them – things that will make them healthier and wealthier and freer – to reduce this problem. Follow the Little Way of Environmental Healing. No act is too small, like carrying a hanky to wipe hands in public washrooms, because as Mother Teresa points out, our love makes it infinites.

Peace.

You climate change has been occurring on this planet unabated for what at least as long as the world has had a atmosphere. The weather changes constantly. There have been droughts, hot summers, cold winters, cold summers, hot winters, flooding, etc. for as long as this planet has existed. You can’t change that nor can you do anything to effect it. This summer here where I live in LA has been the hottest I remember and now the hottest on record. The record was originally in 1936 and not 2010 or 2009 or 2008.

The previous winter we had was the coldest I can remember, so should I believe in global cooling. Don’t get caught in the political pseudoscience **** that these progressives keep throwing out there to take away our individual rights.

 

[lynnvinc]

You climate change has been occurring on this planet unabated for what at least as long as the world has had a atmosphere. The weather changes constantly. There have been droughts, hot summers, cold winters, cold summers, hot winters, flooding, etc. for as long as this planet has existed. You can’t change that nor can you do anything to effect it. This summer here where I live in LA has been the hottest I remember and now the hottest on record. The record was originally in 1936 and not 2010 or 2009 or 2008.

The previous winter we had was the coldest I can remember, so should I believe in global cooling. Don’t get caught in the political pseudoscience **** that these progressives keep throwing out there to take away our individual rights.

I was into the science of climate change well before the fossil fuel industries turned it into a political issue – I go back decades on this.

It is true the climate (which is not equal to weather) has been changing. Which was one of my points – there have been great warming episodes involving GHGs in the past in which much of life on earth has died, and we wouldn’t want to be the ones to tip us into such a warming in this age.

In fact the world was slated to slip ever so gradually into an ice age in some many 1000s of years, but bec we have already tipped the climate scales to the warming side, that is now precluded. What we would like now – massive human death & species extinctions are already “in the pipes” (we are in the 6th great extinction event in the earth’s history) – is to avoid tipping us into total death. Again, total destruction is also slated thru nature – the sun is getting ever hotter, and will eventually self-destruct in a few billions of year. So why should we be eager beavers about ending it all life on earth billions of years before our time; of course, a huge meteor could crash into us and end all/most life, as well, but that is nature’s doing (God’s allowing), not our doing.

It’s sort of like arguing that anyway people are going to die sometime from a disease in old age or from an accident, so what’s wrong with killing them.

I would hope that anyone who wants to dismiss global warming as being caused by our greenhouse gas emissions dig into the science first (not the denialsphere bogus “science” on the internet, but the science in respectable science journals), before striving to dissuade people from doing the moral thing of reducing their greenhouse gases. It’s one thing to privately refuse to accept a problem that even JPII & BXVI have been very outspoken about, but to publically try and persuade people not to do the moral and good thing, is sad.

Some people have children, and they may want their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and so on to live good and healthy lives (or not). It is very very sad that people would put other people’s progeny at risk, even if they don’t care about their own, or don’t have any to care about. And also risk their own and other’s immortal souls.

I’m pretty sure people are not going to go to hell for turning off lights not it use, or buying energy efficient products, or cycling/walking a bit to offset some driving, or switching from coal powered electricity to wind-powered electricity.

RE the cold snaps in various localities; these are caused by natural fluctuations in the El Nino/La Nina and Arctic Oscillations (the sloshing of the weather patterns). The global average temps, however, have been steadily (not strictly) increasing. (Climate and weather are not the same things – climate is the aggregate of all weather.)

And recently I read some scientific discussion (not well established yet in peer-reviewed journals) that global warming could be causing more frequent or stronger negative Arctic Oscillations, which change the usual west-east wind pattern to a north-south pattern. For instance, the last couple of years we’ve experienced freezes here in a subtropical area that usually doesn’t get them, and N. Mexico loss over $1 billion to crop damage from an unusual freeze last winter; our home garden crops were also killed. Meanwhile the Arctic warmed by 7C above average during that time.

Now, I’ll admit this aspect of climate science is not well established, and it may not pan out. But that would be a fine fix if it does; not only great harms from summer heat, droughts, floods, intense storms and hurricanes, wild fires, disease spread, and sea rise, but more frequent cold snaps in subtropical areas to kill our winter crops.

I would hope that compassion and mercy win out, and I pray that people relent on refusing to mitigate climate change, and on their attacks against climate scientists, who are only the messengers of this bad thing. Do we have to lop off their heads, bec we don’t like their message? Bec the truth is unpleasant and inconvenient?

My respect for the scientists weathering this hurricane of hate and denial increases by the day, and for those who are now standing in line to be arrested in DC now (standing against Obama’s decision to okay the tar sands pipeline) for the sake of the world.

I wish I could do more. I feel like Monica, crying & crying for lives, for souls. It is a real real pitty.

 

[lynnvinc]

Thanks for posting this topic lynnvinc. My husband has a similar dispute with my side of the family. They call my husband a “tree hugger” and an “Obama liberal” because he supports environmental issues. We are both devoted Catholics but are looked down on by my family because we don’t support right-wing politics 100%. It’s sad that some Catholics think you have to be a conservative Republican (in America - don’t know about other places) or you’re not a “real” Catholic. Personally I can’t vote for either party in good conscience. But pantheistic, or nature worshipping Wiccan?? Uh no.

Thanks for your post. I get similar flak.

I think a main problem is that people tend to socially construct the environment as the useless wilderness spaces far away from human civiliation – the rain forests and polar bears. If they only realized the environment is:

• The air we breathe
• The water we drink
• The food we eat
• The chemicals that permeate thru our skin
• The materials with which we build our buildings and create our products
• The climate that helps our agricultural to be bountiful and life-sustaining

…then they would not be such anti-environmentalists, and confused about our beliefs.

They would understand that being an environmentalist is being pro-life in a much deeper and fundamental way than simply being against medical/surgical abortions. We are also concerned about the babies aborted from environmental harms, and about born people, and about future generations yet to be conceived.

They would understand that we need all people – whether they be Catholics, other Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, or pagans – to all work together and help save lives (or more accurately, to help reduce harms and killings).

It would be wonderful if Catholics could get on board environmentalism, and even out-do those of other religions & atheists in our sincere efforts to reduce harms. Perhaps we could draw some people into our beautiful Church – made more beautiful by our obedience to the Church and its environmental teachings. And if not, perhaps we can at least reduce their animous towards us Catholics and Catholicism.

 

[Hastrman]

I was into the science of climate change well before the fossil fuel industries turned it into a political issue – I go back decades on this.

It was not the “fossil fuel industries” that turned it into a political issue, it was the environmentalists. Actually, more specifically, it was the population controllers: they needed a new reason to sterilize people in poor countries, and our ability to grow food was more than keeping pace with population.

So they invented Global Cooling, and started talking about legislation that would be necessary to counter it. By an astounding coincidence, what was called for was population-control and a limit to industrial development for the poor.

This was in the 1960s, I remember Larry Niven stories about it.

Now it is Global Warming, except when it is Climate Change, but whatever the name or the claim, the remedy is always “have no children, don’t improve your lives, run from technology”.

It was a lie then, it is a lie now. And a murderous one at that.

 

[ERose]

I was into the science of climate change well before the fossil fuel industries turned it into a political issue – I go back decades on this.

It is true the climate (which is not equal to weather) has been changing. Which was one of my points – there have been great warming episodes involving GHGs in the past in which much of life on earth has died, and we wouldn’t want to be the ones to tip us into such a warming in this age.

In fact the world was slated to slip ever so gradually into an ice age in some many 1000s of years, but bec we have already tipped the climate scales to the warming side, that is now precluded. What we would like now – massive human death & species extinctions are already “in the pipes” (we are in the 6th great extinction event in the earth’s history) – is to avoid tipping us into total death. Again, total destruction is also slated thru nature – the sun is getting ever hotter, and will eventually self-destruct in a few billions of year. So why should we be eager beavers about ending it all life on earth billions of years before our time; of course, a huge meteor could crash into us and end all/most life, as well, but that is nature’s doing (God’s allowing), not our doing.

It’s sort of like arguing that anyway people are going to die sometime from a disease in old age or from an accident, so what’s wrong with killing them.

I would hope that anyone who wants to dismiss global warming as being caused by our greenhouse gas emissions dig into the science first (not the denialsphere bogus “science” on the internet, but the science in respectable science journals), before striving to dissuade people from doing the moral thing of reducing their greenhouse gases. It’s one thing to privately refuse to accept a problem that even JPII & BXVI have been very outspoken about, but to publically try and persuade people not to do the moral and good thing, is sad.

Some people have children, and they may want their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and so on to live good and healthy lives (or not). It is very very sad that people would put other people’s progeny at risk, even if they don’t care about their own, or don’t have any to care about. And also risk their own and other’s immortal souls.

I’m pretty sure people are not going to go to hell for turning off lights not it use, or buying energy efficient products, or cycling/walking a bit to offset some driving, or switching from coal powered electricity to wind-powered electricity.

RE the cold snaps in various localities; these are caused by natural fluctuations in the El Nino/La Nina and Arctic Oscillations (the sloshing of the weather patterns). The global average temps, however, have been steadily (not strictly) increasing. (Climate and weather are not the same things – climate is the aggregate of all weather.)

And recently I read some scientific discussion (not well established yet in peer-reviewed journals) that global warming could be causing more frequent or stronger negative Arctic Oscillations, which change the usual west-east wind pattern to a north-south pattern. For instance, the last couple of years we’ve experienced freezes here in a subtropical area that usually doesn’t get them, and N. Mexico loss over $1 billion to crop damage from an unusual freeze last winter; our home garden crops were also killed. Meanwhile the Arctic warmed by 7C above average during that time.

Now, I’ll admit this aspect of climate science is not well established, and it may not pan out. But that would be a fine fix if it does; not only great harms from summer heat, droughts, floods, intense storms and hurricanes, wild fires, disease spread, and sea rise, but more frequent cold snaps in subtropical areas to kill our winter crops.

I would hope that compassion and mercy win out, and I pray that people relent on refusing to mitigate climate change, and on their attacks against climate scientists, who are only the messengers of this bad thing. Do we have to lop off their heads, bec we don’t like their message? Bec the truth is unpleasant and inconvenient?

My respect for the scientists weathering this hurricane of hate and denial increases by the day, and for those who are now standing in line to be arrested in DC now (standing against Obama’s decision to okay the tar sands pipeline) for the sake of the world.

I wish I could do more. I feel like Monica, crying & crying for lives, for souls. It is a real real pitty.

You know what you got to do is provide actual proof that doesn’t have to be “doctored” to support this claim of “man-made” global warming. I have heard alot of people claim that man is changing the climate drastically and I have hear alot of people say there is just no proof that this is true. Also it does alot of damage to MMGW group when they get caught doctoring the data to support their position.

Here is the thing. There is no doubt the climate is changing. Why because it is always changing and it is never static. You will never have two years with the exact same climate never!

You know I remember that it wasn’t that long ago that scientist were warning us that we are heading to a new IceAge and now they are warning us that we are warming up globally and since that data has been challenged and can’t be fully justified they have decided to change the terminology from global warming to climate change. Well duh the climate is changing and there isn’t a thing you or anyone else can do to change it.

I am not saying we shouldn’t be concerned with being good stewards of the planet we have been given and this needs to be what we focus upon. But polititians with no undebatable evidence don’t need to run around and trying to scare people in being good stewards and start placing the environment over human beings.

 

[lynnvinc]

You know what you got to do is provide actual proof that doesn’t have to be “doctored”

Nearly all data is “doctored.” In this M Mann CRU case they were splicing two different data sets, and they actuall doctored it downward against the warming in the “splice” area, and despite that the graph still showed warming. I don’t know what the denialists are screaming about; you’d expect them to scream if the data were “doctored” upward to show greater warming…which scientists may have to do some other time when they are adjusting several datasets.

What I have found time and again is over-cautiousness on the part of scientists, not exaggerations. They are not focusing on the high end (lower probability) of extreme harm, and that is where a moral, conscientious layperson should be honed in – those lower probability, but extremely dangerous scenarios. It is REALLY worth turning off lights not in use, etc, when we are risking most, perhaps all life on earth.

Perhaps we can at least agree that people could do simple things to reduce their GHGs, things that make them healthier & wealthier, and also reduce other environmental and nonenvironmental problems. And if it turns out the scientists were wrong (which I sincerely hope they are), then no harm done. That’s all I’ve ever promoted.

 

[ERose]

Nearly all data is “doctored.” In this M Mann CRU case they were splicing two different data sets, and they actuall doctored it downward against the warming in the “splice” area, and despite that the graph still showed warming. I don’t know what the denialists are screaming about; you’d expect them to scream if the data were “doctored” upward to show greater warming…which scientists may have to do some other time when they are adjusting several datasets.

What I have found time and again is over-cautiousness on the part of scientists, not exaggerations. They are not focusing on the high end (lower probability) of extreme harm, and that is where a moral, conscientious layperson should be honed in – those lower probability, but extremely dangerous scenarios. It is REALLY worth turning off lights not in use, etc, when we are risking most, perhaps all life on earth.

Perhaps we can at least agree that people could do simple things to reduce their GHGs, things that make them healthier & wealthier, and also reduce other environmental and nonenvironmental problems. And if it turns out the scientists were wrong (which I sincerely hope they are), then no harm done. That’s all I’ve ever promoted.

I don’t buy that. There has been much evidence showing that pro-global warming advocates have exagerated the data to support their claims. A perfect example is the lie about the dying polar bears and the polar bears being stranded upon a melting iceberg. Both of these have turned into boldface lies about what is really going on.

news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-arctic-scientist-under-investigation-082217993.html

What they have done has reduced alot of peoples faith in science as being an objective discipline by puting on display the subjective side. I feel really sorry for all the scientists who do try to be objective in investigating how our universe works, because due to this global warming mess they all have pie in their faces that is going to take them a while to get past.

 

[lynnvinc]

I don’t buy that. There has been much evidence showing that pro-global warming advocates have exagerated the data to support their claims. A perfect example is the lie about the dying polar bears and the polar bears being stranded upon a melting iceberg. Both of these have turned into boldface lies about what is really going on.

news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-arctic-scientist-under-investigation-082217993.html

What they have done has reduced alot of peoples faith in science as being an objective discipline by puting on display the subjective side. I feel really sorry for all the scientists who do try to be objective in investigating how our universe works, because due to this global warming mess they all have pie in their faces that is going to take them a while to get past.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there have always been a couple of unscrupulous scientists in nearly every field (like cold fusion, the Piltdown man, etc)…and there are scientists who make honest mistakes. But eventually these are found out in the process of rigorous science.

If you are using some cases (and I’m not sure about the one you cite…it simply said he was under investigation, so we have to await the results) to avoid mitigating at life-threatening problems, when you could be mitigating in many many ways that save you money, make you wealthier, and make you healthier, then there’s really no point at all.

You win the argument at great expense to everyone and lose of life (if not from global warming, then from all the other problems mitigating GW could help reduce).

End of story. I bow to you. You win.

 

[ERose]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there have always been a couple of unscrupulous scientists in nearly every field (like cold fusion, the Piltdown man, etc)…and there are scientists who make honest mistakes. But eventually these are found out in the process of rigorous science.

If you are using some cases (and I’m not sure about the one you cite…it simply said he was under investigation, so we have to await the results) to avoid mitigating at life-threatening problems, when you could be mitigating in many many ways that save you money, make you wealthier, and make you healthier, then there’s really no point at all.

You win the argument at great expense to everyone and lose of life (if not from global warming, then from all the other problems mitigating GW could help reduce).

End of story. I bow to you. You win.

This isn’t a win/loose situation. I agree wholeheartedly that we need to protect our environment. I use low wattage light bulbs, I manage my mileage in my vehicle by not over accelatoring or over braking. My wife and kids recycle cans. When my wife and I walk down the street we pick up cans. I buy energy efficient appliances. I don’t litter. etc. Conserving our world and minimizing our impact upon it is a noble concept there is no doubt.

The problem I have with the global warming hoax is that it has been used by politians as an excuse to oppress 3rd world countries, to justify promoting birth control and abortions in these countries, to handicap businesses with nonsensical regulations, etc. Basically it is and has been used by progressives in our government and the UN to push their agenda upon the world. This is where I have a problem with it.

Did you know that between 2007 and 2008 the artic ice actually expanded by 30%?

 

[lynnvinc]

This isn’t a win/loose situation. I agree wholeheartedly that we need to protect our environment. I use low wattage light bulbs, I manage my mileage in my vehicle by not over accelatoring or over braking. My wife and kids recycle cans. When my wife and I walk down the street we pick up cans. I buy energy efficient appliances. I don’t litter. etc. Conserving our world and minimizing our impact upon it is a noble concept there is no doubt.

The problem I have with the global warming hoax is that it has been used by politians as an excuse to oppress 3rd world countries, to justify promoting birth control and abortions in these countries, to handicap businesses with nonsensical regulations, etc. Basically it is and has been used by progressives in our government and the UN to push their agenda upon the world. This is where I have a problem with it.

Did you know that between 2007 and 2008 the artic ice actually expanded by 30%?

That’s really wonderful. Now I really bow to you. That’s all I’ve ever been asking people to do over the past 21 years…the things that not only reduce one’s greenhouse gases (and all those things you mention do just that), but also have other advantages in reducing environmental and other harms.

I am very convinced GW is real and not a hoax, but I also agree unscrupulous people could use GW (or any other problem, real or imagined) as a pretext to push a bad, harmful, or evil agenda. That could be happening with GW (tho I’m sort of out of that loop and not aware of those things), and that’s just another problem we have to fight against.

I once started developing a course, Business & the Environment, and in that process came across case after case of businesses large and small benefitting greatly from reducing their environmental harms, like 3M’s 3P program (Pollution Prevention Pays) or a Mass. plating company striving to meet an upcoming reg re river pollution, first by reducing the water flow (couldn’t met the reg), then by inventing a closed-loop water system that extracted that pollution (actually valuable resources) from the water and recycled it. They figured the money they would save in using less water would pay for the system within 2 years and go on saving, but there was a city water main break. It would have stopped their business for 3 days, but since they had just installed the closed-loop system they were able to keep on with production, saving them $150,000 in losses, which helped pay for their system almost right away, going on to save them $$ on into the future.

With 3M it was a similar situation. They saw the regs approaching, so they told all their employees from managers to engineers to assembly line workers to come up with ways to reduce pollution that wouldn’t cost them too much. Instead they all found ways that not only exceeded meeting the regs (greatly reducing their pollution), but went on to save 3M $millions each year.

We should never be afraid of regs – necessity is the mother of invention. NATURAL CAPITALISM by Hawken and Lovins (see www.natcap.org) shows lots of examples of how businesses can reduce their energy & materials use greatly & save money, without lowering productivity. One company reduced its energy by 90% without lowering productivity thru their “tunneling thru” method.

If at all GW turns out to be a hoax, then it could be the best hoax ever…if we get involved in the right ways, and work against those who would use the issue for evil ends.

Also another point about fossil fuels, we are past peak of cheap oil, and are now going after expensive oil from very deep sea drilling, tar sands and oil shale – not getting much oil for the amount of energy and expense used to extract it. The prices are going to really shoot up dramatically, especially if the U.S. gov also takes away the subsidies and tax-breaks for oil & coal – in fact I don’t even think fees or regs are necessary, just take away the subsidies. So any fee that might be put on a barrel of oil or ton of coal would be very tiny in comparison to the market fluctuations. But again, I say, simply take away the subsidies, bec I bothers me that I’m paying on April 15th for other people to pollute. That’s not right.

RE arctic ice, you have to look over the long term. The melting is more like a jigsaw blade tilted down (and the warming is like one tilted up). See psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/ for a look-see at the 30 trend (3rd graph down).

 

[ERose]

That’s really wonderful. Now I really bow to you. That’s all I’ve ever been asking people to do over the past 21 years…the things that not only reduce one’s greenhouse gases (and all those things you mention do just that), but also have other advantages in reducing environmental and other harms.

I am very convinced GW is real and not a hoax, but I also agree unscrupulous people could use GW (or any other problem, real or imagined) as a pretext to push a bad, harmful, or evil agenda. That could be happening with GW (tho I’m sort of out of that loop and not aware of those things), and that’s just another problem we have to fight against.

I once started developing a course, Business & the Environment, and in that process came across case after case of businesses large and small benefitting greatly from reducing their environmental harms, like 3M’s 3P program (Pollution Prevention Pays) or a Mass. plating company striving to meet an upcoming reg re river pollution, first by reducing the water flow (couldn’t met the reg), then by inventing a closed-loop water system that extracted that pollution (actually valuable resources) from the water and recycled it. They figured the money they would save in using less water would pay for the system within 2 years and go on saving, but there was a city water main break. It would have stopped their business for 3 days, but since they had just installed the closed-loop system they were able to keep on with production, saving them $150,000 in losses, which helped pay for their system almost right away, going on to save them $$ on into the future.

With 3M it was a similar situation. They saw the regs approaching, so they told all their employees from managers to engineers to assembly line workers to come up with ways to reduce pollution that wouldn’t cost them too much. Instead they all found ways that not only exceeded meeting the regs (greatly reducing their pollution), but went on to save 3M $millions each year.

One of the things that people just don’t recognize is that the far majority of companies out there don’t like to pollute for multiple reasons. Some yes it is for the nobility of it. But for many it is a viewed as waste. Waste cost money to deal with and waste doen’t produce money. So companies are doing things to take advantage of the waste products and sell them whenever possible. One example is box making plants collect and sell their waste paper, which is recycled back through the paper mills. The oil industry is a great example for there is not a drop of oil that goes to waste. They use every single bit of it during their processing. So most companies view any form of waste as a loss in profits and they figure out how to minimize them or make a profit off of them. And none of this is due to regulations, but is economically driven.

No one likes to waste money not even businesses.

We should never be afraid of regs – necessity is the mother of invention. NATURAL CAPITALISM by Hawken and Lovins (see www.natcap.org) shows lots of examples of how businesses can reduce their energy & materials use greatly & save money, without lowering productivity. One company reduced its energy by 90% without lowering productivity thru their “tunneling thru” method.

Like I said before companies are already doing these things without regulation from the government to do so. What company in their right mind would want to loose money? Those that will not be in business for long.

Also another point about fossil fuels, we are past peak of cheap oil, and are now going after expensive oil from very deep sea drilling, tar sands and oil shale – not getting much oil for the amount of energy and expense used to extract it. The prices are going to really shoot up dramatically, especially if the U.S. gov also takes away the subsidies and tax-breaks for oil & coal – in fact I don’t even think fees or regs are necessary, just take away the subsidies. So any fee that might be put on a barrel of oil or ton of coal would be very tiny in comparison to the market fluctuations. But again, I say, simply take away the subsidies, bec I bothers me that I’m paying on April 15th for other people to pollute. That’s not right.

We need to get something straight here. Subsidies and tax breaks have been given to compensate for the excessive taxation that has been applied to this industry. Also the tax breaks have been given to help American companies compete with the foriegn companies that are not under the excessive corporate taxes that this country has placed on its companies. But primarily these subsidies and tax breaks are given to American companies to keep them from going overseas. Our high corporate tax rate has already sent enough formally American companies overseas. We don’t need to see any more jobs leaving. That though is another thread.

RE arctic ice, you have to look over the long term. The melting is more like a jigsaw blade tilted down (and the warming is like one tilted up). See psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/ for a look-see at the 30 trend (3rd graph down).

And this is my point. The climate is always changing and fluctuating and climatology is not an exact science. We can’t even dictate what the climate is going to be like next year. You have two or three major volcanos erupt and then we are talking about global cooling again.

 

[kimmielittle]

One of the things that people just don’t recognize is that the far majority of companies out there don’t like to pollute for multiple reasons. Some yes it is for the nobility of it. But for many it is a viewed as waste. Waste cost money to deal with and waste doen’t produce money. So companies are doing things to take advantage of the waste products and sell them whenever possible. One example is box making plants collect and sell their waste paper, which is recycled back through the paper mills. The oil industry is a great example for there is not a drop of oil that goes to waste. They use every single bit of it during their processing. So most companies view any form of waste as a loss in profits and they figure out how to minimize them or make a profit off of them. And none of this is due to regulations, but is economically driven.

No one likes to waste money not even businesses.

Like I said before companies are already doing these things without regulation from the government to do so. What company in their right mind would want to loose money? Those that will not be in business for long.

We need to get something straight here. Subsidies and tax breaks have been given to compensate for the excessive taxation that has been applied to this industry. Also the tax breaks have been given to help American companies compete with the foriegn companies that are not under the excessive corporate taxes that this country has placed on its companies. But primarily these subsidies and tax breaks are given to American companies to keep them from going overseas. Our high corporate tax rate has already sent enough formally American companies overseas. We don’t need to see any more jobs leaving. That though is another thread.

And this is my point. The climate is always changing and fluctuating and climatology is not an exact science. We can’t even dictate what the climate is going to be like next year. You have two or three major volcanos erupt and then we are talking about global cooling again.

:clapping::clapping: