K
KarenNC
Guest
Fair enough.Since the Vatican actually achieved carbon-neutral status, and Al Gore hasn’t, I think His Holiness is pretty safe.
- Status
F
fnr
Guest
That’s a truly sad statement, since it implies that we can be 100% certain that there’s no moral basis for concern in environmental or farm worker issues in the Eucharist. It seems to me that no one can be 100% certain in this matter. Being myself quite familiar with toxicology, I’m willing to say where I’m unclear, and tell you explicitly where the limitations in science are. However, to suggest that NO time be spent discussing these issues reflects a seemingly absolute confidence in one’s own rightness.
E
Ender
Guest
vern humphrey:
That’s all the Vatican has done and I am disappointed that they have participated in this counter-productive shell game. How many of you who think carbon neutrality is a good thing have investigated how to buy carbon offsets? I would be happy to sell some of mine if anyone is interested.
I guess more to the point though is this: linking environmental issues to the eucharist is an imaginative but unwarranted association. If there are environmental actions that should be taken they should be taken whether or not they may affect the bread or wine used at communion. If a particular pesticide is harmful should we care only if it is used on wheat? I object to this attempt to misappropriate the Church to achieve a political goal.
Ender
Aaarrrghhhhh. So, what would it take for Al Gore to achieve “carbon-neutral” status? Money, that’s all. He doesn’t have to change his life style one bit. If he wants carbon-neutral status all he has to do is buy it.Since the Vatican actually achieved carbon-neutral status, and Al Gore hasn’t, I think His Holiness is pretty safe.
That’s all the Vatican has done and I am disappointed that they have participated in this counter-productive shell game. How many of you who think carbon neutrality is a good thing have investigated how to buy carbon offsets? I would be happy to sell some of mine if anyone is interested.
I guess more to the point though is this: linking environmental issues to the eucharist is an imaginative but unwarranted association. If there are environmental actions that should be taken they should be taken whether or not they may affect the bread or wine used at communion. If a particular pesticide is harmful should we care only if it is used on wheat? I object to this attempt to misappropriate the Church to achieve a political goal.
Ender
E
estesbob
Guest
I didnt say NO time should be spent discussing enviromental issues. I very specifiaclly said no time should be wasted by our Clergy or Bishops polling people about what they consdier the best way to obtain Hosts and altar wine is.That’s a truly sad statement, since it implies that we can be 100% certain that there’s no moral basis for concern in environmental or farm worker issues in the Eucharist. It seems to me that no one can be 100% certain in this matter. Being myself quite familiar with toxicology, I’m willing to say where I’m unclear, and tell you explicitly where the limitations in science are. However, to suggest that NO time be spent discussing these issues reflects a seemingly absolute confidence in one’s own rightness.
E
edward_george
Guest
My question to the OP is why is he/she so concerned with what the environmental impact of the Eucharist is when there are so many other things that can adversely affect the environment. For instance, the OP is obviously using a computer to post to this forum. A computer uses a good bit of electricity, as the motors and whatnot on the cooling fans, as well as the power supply to the circuitry and most especially the screen all draw a great deal of energy. If our OP is using a desktop, the electrical usage is going to be rather large. If the OP is using a laptop, as I am, then a battery is still environmentally problematic–i.e. if the battery is not disposed of properly, some very negative effects on ground water can occur. Apart from the disposal issues of batteries or computer parts, it is also obvious that this electrical consumption can cause adverse effects–in many places, electricity is produced by burning coal, which releases loads of nasty chemicals into the atmosphere, which could cause global warming. In areas where nuclear power is how electricity is generated, then disposal issues once again confront us, although depleted uranium is much harder to dispose of and much more dangerous than various and sundry computer parts. If hydroelectric is how you roll, then think of all the land that has been destroyed, all the ecosystems, and all of the stream life that’s disrupted by flooding a valley. And that’s just from how you power your computer. Presumably, our OP is not sitting in the dark as he/she posts to this forum with that horribly destructive computer, so the lights draw more electricity. Plus there is likely heat or air conditioning in the building, which can cause myriad problems as well depending upon the method of heating or air conditioning that is being employed. Furthermore, the fact that he/she is inside of a building, which is where one generally is when using a computer, also causes great environmental impact–think of the ecosystems disrupted, the erosion caused by putting a building there–not to mention the problems associated with running water and sewer/septic lines to that building. I’m also assuming that our poster is not a nudist, and one must consider the environmental impact that growing cotton and producing chemicals for synthetic materials, as well as the production of textiles as a whole, has. Our OP probably operates a motor vehicle at some point during the week, or at least rides in one. Even if it is public transportation, there is still a gross environmental impact from the burning of hydrocarbons. If the OP tends to use a bicycle, then there are plenty of adverse environmental effects to that–the welding of the bike frame releases dangerous toxins into the atmosphere, the excess paint from the finishing stages of production can leak into the groundwater, the production of rubber for tires causes chemicals to be released into the air and to the groundwater, not to mention the dangerous chemicals that are used in the plastic making process–all sorts of wonderful carcinogens and environmental toxins.
Now maybe my assumptions are wrong, but if they are not, how can the OP continue to use a computer, wear clothes, use light and heat and anything else that uses electricity, or ride in a motor vehicle again? If nothing else, how can he/she do these things in good conscience, or approach the Eucharist having discerned that he/she has done these things? My Modest Proposal to the OP be that he/she get off of the computer, taking care to dispose of it in a way that doesn’t hurt the environment, shed all of his/her clothing, walk, don’t ride, to the nearest cave, and go live off of the land. Except living off the land would cause environmental uproar. So maybe don’t live off of the land…
Me, I’m going to go outside on the porch of the big apartment building I live in here at my college, look out over the deforested land that my college was built on over 130 years ago, light up a pipe (releasing loads of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere), read a theology text (printed on paper, don’t get me started on paper production), and bask in the light of the horrifically inefficient lightbulb that sits over my porch and probably wastes craploads of electricity. Not to mention the fact that the air conditioning is still running inside, quite automatically, to keep my room cool. I might bring on some kind of environmental apocalypse, but at least I’ll have a good smoke and a half-decent read in some cool night air before the entire world comes crashing down around me, or at least before I go to bed–whichever happens first (I’m betting on the latter).
-ACEGC (who is channeling Jonathan Swift tonight)
Now maybe my assumptions are wrong, but if they are not, how can the OP continue to use a computer, wear clothes, use light and heat and anything else that uses electricity, or ride in a motor vehicle again? If nothing else, how can he/she do these things in good conscience, or approach the Eucharist having discerned that he/she has done these things? My Modest Proposal to the OP be that he/she get off of the computer, taking care to dispose of it in a way that doesn’t hurt the environment, shed all of his/her clothing, walk, don’t ride, to the nearest cave, and go live off of the land. Except living off the land would cause environmental uproar. So maybe don’t live off of the land…
Me, I’m going to go outside on the porch of the big apartment building I live in here at my college, look out over the deforested land that my college was built on over 130 years ago, light up a pipe (releasing loads of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere), read a theology text (printed on paper, don’t get me started on paper production), and bask in the light of the horrifically inefficient lightbulb that sits over my porch and probably wastes craploads of electricity. Not to mention the fact that the air conditioning is still running inside, quite automatically, to keep my room cool. I might bring on some kind of environmental apocalypse, but at least I’ll have a good smoke and a half-decent read in some cool night air before the entire world comes crashing down around me, or at least before I go to bed–whichever happens first (I’m betting on the latter).
-ACEGC (who is channeling Jonathan Swift tonight)
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
Goodness gracious…who knew the Mass was causing global warming?
Look folks, we should all do our best to take care of the environment…as long as we are balanced about it…I recycle because it’s the right thing to do, I turn my lights off when I don’t need them and use neon to save money…but please don’t tell me the majority here has bought into Al Gore and the global warming hype…please…
Global Warming is caused by ONE THING ONLY…that big yellow ball of fire we see in the sky every day…unless there are SUV’s on Mars and Pluto…both warming…at a faster rate than the earth…
Carbon neutral? Methane “warms” the envirnoment at a MUCH higher rate…and water is the most plentiful “greenhouse gas”
Yes, let’s take care of the earth God gave us in a balanced approach…but don’t buy into junk science whose reason for existing is the 50 BILLION DOLLARS in research funding to support this nonsense.
Look folks, we should all do our best to take care of the environment…as long as we are balanced about it…I recycle because it’s the right thing to do, I turn my lights off when I don’t need them and use neon to save money…but please don’t tell me the majority here has bought into Al Gore and the global warming hype…please…
Global Warming is caused by ONE THING ONLY…that big yellow ball of fire we see in the sky every day…unless there are SUV’s on Mars and Pluto…both warming…at a faster rate than the earth…
Carbon neutral? Methane “warms” the envirnoment at a MUCH higher rate…and water is the most plentiful “greenhouse gas”
Yes, let’s take care of the earth God gave us in a balanced approach…but don’t buy into junk science whose reason for existing is the 50 BILLION DOLLARS in research funding to support this nonsense.
S
sprout
Guest
this reminds me, have any of you heard of blackle.com
it’s google with a black background so it uses less electricity.
There are even natural (God given) methods to control insects and animals from destroying a garden i.e. planting magnolias and onions on the periphery, so wouldn’t it make sense to actually follow His plan rather than man’s experiments with pesticides? Eating fruits and vegetables grown locally just makes more sense to me. It used to be that every home had a garden, I know my grandma & grandpa lived entirely off the land, we’ve gotten so far away from that now.
As far as the bread and the wine I think this is an inspired idea. There are alot of people who are allergic to the nitrates they put into wine. There are alot of monasteries that produce “natural” goods i.e. wine, bread, honey. news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20060522/ap_tr_ge/travel_trip_california_monastery
I think I’d much prefer having a monk who views the harvesting of grapes and making wine with this attitude
it’s google with a black background so it uses less electricity.
I’ve been buying organic and local since a couple of years ago when I read “The Maker’s Diet” by Jordan Rubin. I’ve long contemplated this idea that since God provides for all our needs (think about it we have all the fruits, vegetables, milk, honey, even medicines provided for us) it just makes sense that the foods grown in the region where I live would be the foods best suited for me.
There are even natural (God given) methods to control insects and animals from destroying a garden i.e. planting magnolias and onions on the periphery, so wouldn’t it make sense to actually follow His plan rather than man’s experiments with pesticides? Eating fruits and vegetables grown locally just makes more sense to me. It used to be that every home had a garden, I know my grandma & grandpa lived entirely off the land, we’ve gotten so far away from that now.
As far as the bread and the wine I think this is an inspired idea. There are alot of people who are allergic to the nitrates they put into wine. There are alot of monasteries that produce “natural” goods i.e. wine, bread, honey. news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20060522/ap_tr_ge/travel_trip_california_monastery
I think I’d much prefer having a monk who views the harvesting of grapes and making wine with this attitude
I used to have a cabernet sauvignon grape vine at my home. The year of “El Nino” I had 200 lbs of grapes off of one vine. Harvesting the grapes was a spiritual experience.
S
sprout
Guest
I think it’s a generational thing.
And a black & white type thinking/political thing.
as in Al Gore’s for it, so I’m against it.
Liberals are environmentalists, I’m anti-liberal therefore I’m anti environmentalism.
Fortunately our Holy Father, harldly a liberal, is moving the Church into the “green” age:
K
KarenNC
Guest
You might want to do marigolds rather than magnolias
, but you are right. I am still at a loss why it is so incredibly wrong to consider whether one would want one’s food items for the Eucharist to be chosen with any less of an eye to their origins than the vestments the priest wears, the cloth on the table, the rosary one uses in prayer.The “accidents” of the bread and wine definitely play a part in the ritual----try asking to have Eucharist with elderberry wine and a rice cake and see if that flies. What in the world is wrong with suggesting that it is beneficial to consider whether one wants those “accidents” support small farmers, the local economy (or a religious house), a return to more sustainable farming methods, etc? Whether they were grown or made with some appropriate spiritual intent, if possible?
As to the blackle—not for me. Too hard for my over 40 eyes to try to read for long, I’m afraind.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Frankly, Al Gore has squat to do with the question as far as I’m concerned. I believe it was Vern who chose to introduce him into the discussion. That would be like me saying “I’m not Catholic, so if the Pope is for it or does it in any way, I have to be against it and dismiss out of hand anything that I think might remotely connected to it.” The idea stands or falls on its own merits.
I am not sure I see the generational thing, necessarily, but then I don’t know the ages of the other posters. I’m 44.
As to being symptomatic of black/white thinking, I will buy that.
F
fnr
Guest
OK, I just figured out what OP means, so I guess that’s me.
I’d like to address the question of why I focused on the bread and wine used in the Eucharist, rather than the fact that I’m on a computer, that I have a natural gas-heated home, with predominantly-coal derived electricity, that I’m wearing clothes made in dubious factories in developing countries, or that my wife and I own two cars, neither of which is a hybrid.
Well, sketching out the rather extended list of environmental impacts that edward_george cataloged, it does appear that the Eucharist is the tiniest fraction of concerns. However, there are really three major reasons for why I focus on this:
(1) “If you can’t climb a mountain, then climb a hill. That’s much better than standing still. There’s a way if you’ve got the will, and little by little you’re there.” Basic childhood song. I don’t see why we can’t apply this philosophy here, when financial debt reduction advisors across the country start with the same fundamental premise… you can’t get out of debt overnight, but people still try! Personally, that’s where I start – to try to change my own life in little ways.
(2) The billion-strong Universal Church. With the Eucharist being the center of Catholic worship, some effort from the top to try finding lower-impact sources for bread and wine might set a model for the billion faithful to consider in their own lives.
(3) My conscience. I’m a life scientist who’s studied the molecular interactions of pesticides and other environmental toxicants on cellular receptors, and so I’m rather familiar with the epidemiology and toxicology literature on pesticides. In my honest opinion, there is a preponderance of evidence that pesticides adversely affect human health and wildlife. There is also a small body of literature suggesting that organic produce has lower concentrations of pesticide residue than do conventionally-produced crops. If the wider body of scientifically-trained Catholics can reach some consensus on the extent of information, and the budget of the Church will allow it, why not start in some *small * ways to address these impacts?
I honestly have to ask whether those who view this as a complete waste of time have looked at the wider body of information out there. There are plenty of online scientific databases, such as pubmed.com, scholar.google.com, and others that will allow you to search for yourself. Keep in mind that there are professional organizations that have evaluated these questions as well, including DHHS’s National Toxicology Program, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They probably do a pretty good job of summarizing available information. If you’re convinced that this isn’t a problem, you should try to see whether the preponderance of evidence agrees with you.
Think about it this way, if there were a 1/10 chance that something you did would harm someone else, would you try to reduce the chances of that harm, or the magnitude of the harm? What if it was a 1/5 chance? 1/100? 1/1000? What level of confidence are you comfortable with?
I’d like to address the question of why I focused on the bread and wine used in the Eucharist, rather than the fact that I’m on a computer, that I have a natural gas-heated home, with predominantly-coal derived electricity, that I’m wearing clothes made in dubious factories in developing countries, or that my wife and I own two cars, neither of which is a hybrid.
Well, sketching out the rather extended list of environmental impacts that edward_george cataloged, it does appear that the Eucharist is the tiniest fraction of concerns. However, there are really three major reasons for why I focus on this:
(1) “If you can’t climb a mountain, then climb a hill. That’s much better than standing still. There’s a way if you’ve got the will, and little by little you’re there.” Basic childhood song. I don’t see why we can’t apply this philosophy here, when financial debt reduction advisors across the country start with the same fundamental premise… you can’t get out of debt overnight, but people still try! Personally, that’s where I start – to try to change my own life in little ways.
(2) The billion-strong Universal Church. With the Eucharist being the center of Catholic worship, some effort from the top to try finding lower-impact sources for bread and wine might set a model for the billion faithful to consider in their own lives.
(3) My conscience. I’m a life scientist who’s studied the molecular interactions of pesticides and other environmental toxicants on cellular receptors, and so I’m rather familiar with the epidemiology and toxicology literature on pesticides. In my honest opinion, there is a preponderance of evidence that pesticides adversely affect human health and wildlife. There is also a small body of literature suggesting that organic produce has lower concentrations of pesticide residue than do conventionally-produced crops. If the wider body of scientifically-trained Catholics can reach some consensus on the extent of information, and the budget of the Church will allow it, why not start in some *small * ways to address these impacts?
I honestly have to ask whether those who view this as a complete waste of time have looked at the wider body of information out there. There are plenty of online scientific databases, such as pubmed.com, scholar.google.com, and others that will allow you to search for yourself. Keep in mind that there are professional organizations that have evaluated these questions as well, including DHHS’s National Toxicology Program, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They probably do a pretty good job of summarizing available information. If you’re convinced that this isn’t a problem, you should try to see whether the preponderance of evidence agrees with you.
Think about it this way, if there were a 1/10 chance that something you did would harm someone else, would you try to reduce the chances of that harm, or the magnitude of the harm? What if it was a 1/5 chance? 1/100? 1/1000? What level of confidence are you comfortable with?
F
fnr
Guest
Do you think this represents the weight of scientific evidence? On what basis? Can you substantiate the quote that $50 billion has been spent on climate change research?
And, by the way, visit the Moon lately? It gets about as much sunlight as we do, but it’s a bit chilly there at night, and a little warm in the day. I wonder why…
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
My study of the science is that we simply can not say that man has caused global warming. Much of the global warming science is flawed. For instance, it was widely heralded that 1998 was the warmest year on record, proof of global warming…until a blogger in Canada recently identified flaws in the “science” that established his “fact”, NASA has now backed off that claim and we know that 1934 has been the warmest year since records have been kept. Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” has been shown to be statistically flawed, and the science is now beginning to indicate that rather than CAUSING glovbal warming, elevated levels of CO2 happen AFTER the warming has occurred. The so-called consensus is nonexistant. The $50 billion dollar figure comesthe US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Back to Mars…the temperature on Mars has risen more than the temperatures on earth during the last 30 years and is losing ice…what is the one thing that Mars and the Earth share…the SUN…which is the most likely and least looked at culprit for global warming.
E
edward_george
Guest
I will address your response to my post later on this evening when I’ve more time, but right now I’m between classes. I will say something about this, though.
Maybe the reason the moon gets chilly at night and warm in the day is that it doesn’t have an atmosphere (or at least a very very slight one) to retain heat at night and shield itself during the day. Also, the moon’s rotational pattern is vastly different from the earth’s–so much so that the same side of the moon is always facing the earth. In other words, a “day” on the moon is almost a month long. Maybe that’s why it does as you say…
-ACEGC
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
How can a man who lives on a 185 acre tree farm be an anti-envronmentalist?
F
fnr
Guest
Would you consider yourself qualified to review the evidence?
I wouldn’t consider myself qualified, and I’ve got a physics degree. What can you tell me about cloud droplet nucleation, and the extent to which global meteorological models can provide sufficiently accurate information to them to accurately model cloud formation? Since that’s a major uncertainty in the climatological debate, how do you come out on it? I know the topic, and I can’t answer the question!
The work of H. Granger Morgan is probably best reflective of uncertainty in climate assessment.
Since when is consensus a basis for scientific decision-making? There are still quackish MDs who sell ozone generators as health-improving devices, though ozone is a well-studied oxidizer of human lung tissue and the preponderance of evidence is that ozone is bad for your health.
In statistical terms, the only thing that matters is the probability of acting on a false error, either positive or negative, and the relative repercussions of the error. That’s exactly how the insurance industry operates, it’s how a lot of the investment work operates, and it’s how building standards for just about any piece of infrastructure are set.
I’m not an “all or nothing” thinker. Neither is State Farm Insurance. They don’t sell you a life insurance policy based on the guarantee that you’re going to die in the next five years. The price goes up the older you get, since the probability of dying increases, but nothing is certain in that industry. My guess is that you’d suggest that the “policy” on climate change should be based on a very low likelihood of it having any effect. That’s fine. Combine it with mine, and we’ve got a range of opinion. Do it among climatologists and actuaries, and it starts to look interesting.
A highly respected scientific institution! One whose former chairman declared global warming the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity, and who was the only committee brave enough to provide a platform for the relatively small number of climatologists skeptical of climate change, like Patrick Michaels. I’m not sure that I’d trust the pronouncements of that committee. I’d rather see if GAO or OMB has actual estimates.
Bottom line: I’m not trying to impose my will on the Church. I’m merely saying that as someone with a scientific background and a conscience, that we should have a discussion that reflects the (name removed by moderator)ut of many, many voices, and do it in a way that is reflective of Catholic social teaching.
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
At least as much as Al Gore.
Ah, but it’s not those like myself who lay claim to science by consensus it’s the crowd that say global warming is man made who are claiming that A) scientific consensus exists on man-made global warming, and B) that this suppossed consensus elevates their arguement to the level of Theory.
The problem with this is that at almost every turn those who doubt global warming is caused by humans are being shut out of the discussion…where is it they can find funding? And where does funding for research in “man-made” global warming come from…and what are the dollar figures for each? With no other evidence presented I stick with the 50 Billion figure as it comes from a government agency.
F
fnr
Guest
This seems to be somewhat of a bogeyman, since it is neither provable nor unprovable. The only way to truly evaluate things is to look to peer-reviewed, scholarly literature, which is the arena in which science operates.
I assure you that Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute has plenty of research funding.
Hmm… Dr. John Christie, the University of Alabama and state climatologist of Alabama was a skeptic, using apparently good data that the climate community agreed upon. The president asked the NAS to conduct a review of climate trends using satellite data, which showed no warming trend. Christie was on the NAS panel. Turned out when you corrected the satellite data for drift, there was a warming trend. Christie remains a skeptic, but his inclusion on the NAS panel suggests that there’s plenty of room for those who actually bring good data to the table.
E
estesbob
Guest
The moon was full last night. You think that added to global warming?You kinda blew your credibility with that question.
This morning at mass my pastor preached about homosexual marriage. I’m glad he did this rather than poll the congregation about whether the Eucharist was eco- friendly or not.
- Status