Environmental Stewardship -energy savings, etc?

[melensdad]

There have been a couple threads where the enviornment has come up as a moral issue.

I wonder how far we are supposed to go to be good stewards to the environment, and who has the correct perspective on what is the “correct” way to be a good steward?

EXAMPLE # 1: It would be reasonable to presume we should cut our energy usage as much as practical. So from that perspective we should eliminate regular light bulbs and use compact flourescent bulbs because watt-per-watt comparisons show that the C.F. bulbs produce about 3 or 4 times the amount of light. So roughly a 15 watt C.F. bulb produces about as much light as a 60 watt traditional incandescent bulb. The energy savings are supposed to be about $35 over the life of the bulb, even factoring in the added cost of a C.F. bulb, it should save $30 per bulb replaced. So it is both frugal and energy-wise.

But here is the rub, the C.F. bulb uses Mercury, a toxic heavy metal that is considered hazardous waste. Granted its a small amount, but it could be a serious issue over time.



EXAMPLE # 2: New housing developements sprawl out from the city centers. As the developements grow, hunting & trapping of deer, raccoons and other animals are forced to cease in the these areas. Deer herds thrive but deer are killed by the scores in deer-car accidents. Raccoon & coyote populations grow and thrive as they have access to pet food and garbage in these new subdivisions. Rabies becomes an issue with varmint species and pets are attacked in their yards.

So do we bring in hunters to control the populations that we have caused to artifically increase? Do we prevent new suburbs and rural neighborhoods from developing in the future, therefore forcing people to re-invest in the cities and suburbs that currently exist?​

 

[athansor]

Here’s my take: On the first issue, I think that the best thing to do is to go ahead and consider the energy saving bulbs, but be sure to dispose of them properly or better yet, recycle them - check www.epa.gov/bulbrecycling for info on how and where. (plus, I just think that spiral lightbulbs look really cool).
For your second example, I like your second option! I think that we need to re-invest in existing cities and suburbs and work to fight sprawl. Walkable communities are a good thing.

 

[melensdad]

For your second example, I like your second option! I think that we need to re-invest in existing cities and suburbs and work to fight sprawl. Walkable communities are a good thing.

Well I was not trying to inject my personal opinions but simply to offer two different opposing options.

The problem with the second option is obviously the fact that it would dramatically decrease the value of raw land in the rural areas, wreaking economic havoc on land owners (typically that would be smaller farmers who can no longer economically compete with large farms and need to sell their property, but it would render their property to be comparitively worthless on a per acre basis). It would inflate urban land prices, causing housing prices in depressed areas to inflate and further increase housing prices in already inflated urban and suburban areas where many people find prices to be unaffordable.

Again, I’m just throwing this out for people to help me understand. It seems like there are 2 opposing views on these things. In many ways like the Republicans vs Democrats. Yet there are clearly HUGE consequences that must be considered.

 

[athansor]

Well I was not trying to inject my personal opinions but simply to offer two different opposing options.

The problem with the second option is obviously the fact that it would dramatically decrease the value of raw land in the rural areas, wreaking economic havoc on land owners (typically that would be smaller farmers who can no longer economically compete with large farms and need to sell their property, but it would render their property to be comparitively worthless on a per acre basis). It would inflate urban land prices, causing housing prices in depressed areas to inflate and further increase housing prices in already inflated urban and suburban areas where many people find prices to be unaffordable.

Again, I’m just throwing this out for people to help me understand. It seems like there are 2 opposing views on these things. In many ways like the Republicans vs Democrats. Yet there are clearly HUGE consequences that must be considered.

I’m not sure I’m following you. I’m guessing that you are looking at this as a US question, not a global question, based on your examples. If small farmers are going out of business because of large corporate farms, then maybe the best way to support them is to keep them in business by paying attention to where we buy our food, instead of allowing developers to buy up their land to resell and develop into more gated communities. There is also a bit of a hidden issue in the US that I think should not be ignored, and that is the notion of ‘white flight’. I sometimes wonder how often people move out of urban areas so that they can live in a gated community with people who ‘look and live’ like they do. Then when people of means and priveledge move to these new communities, they demand resources like excellent schools and in the meanwhile schools in the cities suffer. Perhaps if people learned to value diverse communities and worked to improve the areas that are already densly populated, we could continue to support small farms and rural families, build up stonger schools and communities in urban areas, all while reaping the environmental benefits of less driving.

 

[barbfromtucson]

A lot of issues get labeled as “Republican” or “Democrat” and this is one of those issues. It is wrong.

God created the universe. We are the stewards of His earth. What kind of respect do we show our Creator when we pollute the lakes, pollute the air, and so on!

If every person changed just one of their lightbulbs (the average house has about 7-8) in the United States to a fluorescent bulb, it would be like removing 1 million cars off the road!

The second issue is a touchy subject for me. I live out “west” where there is still a lot of wildlife area and a lot of expansion. My pet peeve is when people move to these rural areas because they like seeing the deer and the rabbits…but as soon as the natural predators of these animals appear, it’s like “Get rid of the cougar! Get rid of the wolf! I don’t want these animals around when my children like to play outside.” If you move to be closer to nature, you need to learn to live with ALL the wildlife–both carnivore and prey.

And for the farmer issue–you can do a whirl of good for the ‘local farmer’ by shopping at the local Farmer Markets instead of Vons, Safeway, Frys, Kroeger, Albertsons, etc. for your grocery needs. If you don’t have any Farmer Markets in your town, than look for “organic”, ‘cage free’, “non-hormone”, etc. labels. If your town has a “Trader Joes” or a “Sunflower” or other Natural Market, start shopping there.

God Bless,

Barbara

 

[melensdad]

I guess I was not very clear in what I asked because I appears everyone missed my points.

My point was that there is a vast difference in points of view of what is good stewardship.

When I provided the “examples” they were simple examples to show that there are pretty dramatically opposite consequences. So how do we determine what is the right course, and what happens when two clear thinking Catholics come to totally different conclusions on the same issue?

Who is right?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I don’t see morality in this at all, except love others as you do yourself. If you are purposely creating polution that takes away the breath of your neighbor than you are acting out of selfishness, not love.

I see enviromentalism as simply being common sense. We all want to breath clean air, drink safe and healthy water, etc.,

I see global warming as bunk. in the 70’s the problem was global cooling. In george washington’s day, global warming, current on mars and many other planets global warming ( and there is no suvs on those planets ).

So, when you do something, ask what health risks does this put my neighbor in? and, choose the healthier action to keep your neighbor around long enough to bring them to christ.

 

[melensdad]

So, when you do something, ask what health risks does this put my neighbor in? and, choose the healthier action to keep your neighbor around long enough to bring them to christ.

Daniel, you hit the nail on the head of my dilemna here. WHO decides WHO is making the best eco-friendly choice? Is it simply personal opinion?

**Example: **It takes more energy to recycle glass than to make new glass. So do we continue to recycle glass?

**Example: ** Compact Flourescent light bulbs save energy but introduce toxic heavy metals into the waste stream, and very few locals offer recycling.

**Example: ** Gas-Electric Hybrid cars use less gasoline, but rely on toxic batteries for storage and those that plug into outlets overnight to charge use coal or nuclear fired utilities to charge the batteries. Realistically, it may be far more eco-friendly to skip the “Hybrid” cars and use diesel vehicles because they are actually more efficient, their fuel can be made from algae, soybeans, switchgrass and fossil sources, and their pollution output can actually be measured, while “hybrid” pollution output is often deferred through the common electric utility and is therefore un-measured.

**Example: ** Preventing deer hunting in state parks has resulted in over-grazing of plants, and several rare native plants have now been put on the “endangered” list because of over population problems caused by the lack of control of the herd sizes since humans eliminated wolves, bobcats, etc from the habitat in many states.

So I go back to the STEWARDSHIP question, which is very complex. How do we know we are making the right choice? It often seems like the emotionally correct choice is actually the wrong choice when a particular issue is studied to see what the deeper and farther reaching consequences will be.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

There have been a couple threads where the enviornment has come up as a moral issue.

I wonder how far we are supposed to go to be good stewards to the environment, and who has the correct perspective on what is the “correct” way to be a good steward?

EXAMPLE # 1: It would be reasonable to presume we should cut our energy usage as much as practical. So from that perspective we should eliminate regular light bulbs and use compact flourescent bulbs because watt-per-watt comparisons show that the C.F. bulbs produce about 3 or 4 times the amount of light. So roughly a 15 watt C.F. bulb produces about as much light as a 60 watt traditional incandescent bulb. The energy savings are supposed to be about $35 over the life of the bulb, even factoring in the added cost of a C.F. bulb, it should save $30 per bulb replaced. So it is both frugal and energy-wise.

But here is the rub, the C.F. bulb uses Mercury, a toxic heavy metal that is considered hazardous waste. Granted its a small amount, but it could be a serious issue over time.


​

​

Here’s where this one gets really tricky… A lot of electricity is produced by burning coal. And coal contains traces of mercury. In fact a lot of the mercury pollution in the environment today comes from burning coal to generate electricity. Over the course of its life, the incandescent bulb will likely result in the release of more mercury into the environment (due to the burning of more coal to keep it lit), than is used in the manufacturing of the compact fluorescent to begin with. And if you were to discard the CFL into a landfill, and it breaks open, the mercury is (I think) pretty much immobilized in the coating on the inside of the glass, and is not so likely to get into the ground water.

And your reward for using the more environmentally responsible compact fluorescent bulb? at least where I live in California… you may be required to drive 30 miles or more one-way to the county disposal site, and the waste disposal company will charge you $1 to take it off your hands. Gotta love it…

 

[melensdad]

And your reward for using the more environmentally responsible compact fluorescent bulb? at least where I live in California… you may be required to drive 30 miles or more one-way to the county disposal site, and the waste disposal company will charge you $1 to take it off your hands. Gotta love it…

So all of the eco-saving you did during the life of the bulb gets burnt up as gasoline in that round trip back and forth to the recycling center and they smack you with a $1 penalty for recycling?

So here is my honestly admission. I’ve been using CF bulbs for 12 years, they don’t get anywhere close to the lifespan they claim, but I still use them. Early on, the bulbs cost me about $20 each, now a similar bulb only costs about $5. But a traditional lightbulb can cost as little as 25-cents on sale!!!

I’ve had dozens of CF bulbs burn out in less than 1 year, most average about 4 to 5 years in my home. I have some that are probably 10 years old. When they burn out I toss them in the trash. We don’t have any recycling center for CF bulbs in my area.

I have no clue if I am being a good steward to the land or not. I used to think I was doing the right thing and saving money. Now I am not so sure I am saving money or doing the right thing. Maybe I need to live in the dark to be eco-friendly

And I think most people, like me, have no clue what is ACTUALLY eco-friendly. While I paid the big bucks for the CF bulbs, and continue to do so, I’m not so sure that it really means I am being a good steward to the land. IF the bulbs lasted as long as they claim, and IF there was a safe way to recycle them, THEN it seems likely that it would be a good thing. But IF they burn out long before their promised life-span is over, and IF they go into the dump, am I just kidding myself?

And that is just ONE of the dozens of eco-friendly earth stewardship decisions we are faced with.

What about wildlife management? Talk about a bag of worms between PETA’s claims and the claims of the Fish & Wildlife Service there appears to be no common ground.

 

[marci]

I have strong beliefs on this subject. I believe what a previous poster said, which is, you do what you can as an individual to do what is right by your neighbor. Beyond that what can you do?
The OP is right. Because, this is such an emotional issue for some, they don’t look beyond the “act” which they have been told is the right thing to do environmentally. To use a previous example. Recycling certain items actually uses more energy than starting from scratch, but you never hear that side of it. Why? In my opinion, there is money in environmentalism. Recycling products, organic goods, light bulbs, hybrids, etc., equals business. Not always, but I believe the American public has been sold a bill of goods by savy advertizers and enterprizing companies.
That’s just the private sector part of it. Government burocracies do their part to facilitate the continuation of jobs, funding, and power for their own purposes. For example, if the burocracy of the wellfare system were to be erradicated tomarrow, each and every family on wellfare could receive $70,000 a year. Burocrates don’t like to see their jobs disappear. That’s why nothing is ever solved by government. It’s existance depends on NOT solving problems. And then there’s the so called non profit organizations and special interest groups that live off of the media hyped global warming disaster that’s just around the corner.
Finally, I believe the environmental movement in this country, closely akin to the animal rights activists, are simply replacing faith in a diety to a form of pagan earth worship. The human condition needs a higher power to believe in. They need to believe that there is more to life than themselves. Since we have just about succeeded in chasing God out of society, we now have to usher in a replacement. Hello, radical environmentalism. Many may disagree with me, but it IS a religion for many involved, especially the young. There are other examples of religion replacement causes out there, I’ve mentioned animal activism, but you could add the pro-choice movement, feminism, and the socialist movement which is making enormous headway in this country.
Now, let me get radical on you. All of this, I believe, is born from evil designed to create an atheistic society in which their are no longer any moral standards. Anarchy rules and God is only known to those few willing to risk the ridicule and danger that faith will bring apon them.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I would say, do what works, not what’s Politically Correct.

For example, I have a Water Furnace which circulates water through 5 150-foot wells. This 55-degree water is used to warm air before compressing with a heat pump in winter, and to cool compressed air in summer before releasing it. This has resulted in considerable monetary savings, which translate into energy savings.

I have 185 acres, most of which are in trees. This is good for the environment, and the trees are a renewable resource – I have the place selectively cut every so often.

I am currently investigating a solar system that would allow me to sell power to the electric company – any power in excess of my needs would drive the meter backwards.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

EXAMPLE # 2: New housing developements sprawl out from the city centers. … to control the populations that we have caused to artifically increase? …[/INDENT][/INDENT]

Go to Arizona and compare 10,000 acres of raw land to 10,000 of golf courses, lawns, etc The water control has increased everything. So is the impact negative?

… I’ve been using CF bulbs for 12 years, they don’t get anywhere close to the lifespan they claim…

There is a battle going inside manufactures because many do not want to report their “Life cycle” cost If one bulb is 10% more efficient per hour but last one year while the other bulb is less efficient but lasts 5 years the life cycle cost is reversed. Most environmental improve comes despite the “eco-friendly” crowd not from them. They are good hearted people but they do not do the math. They look for short quick answers, no home work needed. For example insulation which lasts the life of the building has very high impact on the environment (via heating/cooling) yet they pass in the best insulation, opting for recycled paper which is poor in comparison. Instead of using urethane it saves lots of energy for decades they say do not use urethane it uses blowing agents. Free markets often opt for the best insulation because they want the lower heating/cooling bills. The bill is lower because the usage is lower thus less coal burning, gas burning, or nuclear waste.

 

[KathleenElsie]

There have been a couple threads where the environment has come up as a moral issue.

I wonder how far we are supposed to go to be good stewards to the environment, and who has the correct perspective on what is the “correct” way to be a good steward?

EXAMPLE # 1: It would be reasonable to presume we should cut our energy usage as much as practical. So from that perspective we should eliminate regular light bulbs and use compact fluorescent bulbs because watt-per-watt comparisons show that the C.F. bulbs produce about 3 or 4 times the amount of light. So roughly a 15 watt C.F. bulb produces about as much light as a 60 watt traditional incandescent bulb. The energy savings are supposed to be about $35 over the life of the bulb, even factoring in the added cost of a C.F. bulb, it should save $30 per bulb replaced. So it is both frugal and energy-wise.
Using less energy is a good thing. But, we can not all use CF bulbs in every room. The quality of light they produce give some people headaches and can cause seizures in others. Also in places that light is required for short time use only a couple of minutes the never get bright enough to use safely.

But here is the rub, the C.F. bulb uses Mercury, a toxic heavy metal that is considered hazardous waste. Granted its a small amount, but it could be a serious issue over time.

Not only are they toxic but there is the question of how to dispose of them.

EXAMPLE # 2: New housing developments sprawl out from the city centers. As the developments grow, hunting & trapping of deer, raccoons and other animals are forced to cease in the these areas. Deer herds thrive but deer are killed by the scores in deer-car accidents. Raccoon & coyote populations grow and thrive as they have access to pet food and garbage in these new subdivisions. Rabies becomes an issue with varmint species and pets are attacked in their yards.

So do we bring in hunters to control the populations that we have caused to artificially increase? Do we prevent new suburbs and rural neighborhoods from developing in the future, therefore forcing people to re-invest in the cities and suburbs that currently exist?
​

There is more then enough land for “new” development if the cities would just redevelope the areas of abandoned housing, factories and other previously used land. It is in the best interests of all to have green zones and to build where the existing amenities are already installed.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Look as long as you use only what you need (yes this includes to make your life comfortable) then IMHO you are doing what is right for the earth and your fellow man.

I get confused when I hear from single people with large houses that could house a small village asking that someone else that has a big family in the same size house to conserve. If we want to judge others consumption then maybe we need to start with ourselves first.

My idea is to tax energy use by the number of persons in a household. The fewer the people the higher the tax:thumbsup: . So if a family of five or more is in a 3600 sq ft home and uses X power their tax is X. If a single person is in that same 3600 sq ft home and they use 6 times the power then their tax is X times 6. 600 square feet of home energy is not taxed for each person in the household anything over that is excessive LOL and needs to be taxed. Not the house itself, but the consumption of resources that the home requires to keep it heated, lighted etc.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Look as long as you use only what you need (yes this includes to make your life comfortable) then IMHO you are doing what is right for the earth and your fellow man.

I get confused when I hear from single people with large houses that could house a small village asking that someone else that has a big family in the same size house to conserve. If we want to judge others consumption then maybe we need to start with ourselves first.

My idea is to tax energy use by the number of persons in a household. The fewer the people the higher the tax:thumbsup: . So if a family of five or more is in a 3600 sq ft home and uses X power their tax is X. If a single person is in that same 3600 sq ft home and they use 6 times the power then their tax is X times 6. 600 square feet of home energy is not taxed for each person in the household anything over that is excessive LOL and needs to be taxed. Not the house itself, but the consumption of resources that the home requires to keep it heated, lighted etc.

When we start using taxes like that, we’re on a slippery slope. Simple economics will do a great job in taking care of the problem.

We might also consider that someone who has taken many energy saving measures might be using less energy per person than a person with a smaller, but less efficient house.

 

[KathleenElsie]

When we start using taxes like that, we’re on a slippery slope. Simple economics will do a great job in taking care of the problem.

We might also consider that someone who has taken many energy saving measures might be using less energy per person than a person with a smaller, but less efficient house.

I know it would not work Vern. But it would me more fair then the things being proposed now.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I know it would not work Vern. But it would me more fair then the things being proposed now.

You know what I always say? “No tax is fair when the government squanders the money.”

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Look as long as you use only what you need (yes this includes to make your life comfortable) then IMHO you are doing what is right for the earth and your fellow man.

I get confused when I hear from single people with large houses that could house a small village asking that someone else that has a big family in the same size house to conserve. If we want to judge others consumption then maybe we need to start with ourselves first.

My idea is to tax energy use by the number of persons in a household. The fewer the people the higher the tax:thumbsup: . So if a family of five or more is in a 3600 sq ft home and uses X power their tax is X. If a single person is in that same 3600 sq ft home and they use 6 times the power then their tax is X times 6. 600 square feet of home energy is not taxed for each person in the household anything over that is excessive LOL and needs to be taxed. Not the house itself, but the consumption of resources that the home requires to keep it heated, lighted etc.

I am rather concerned about that idea. How about reducing property tax and taxes on heating/cooling by a personal deduction amount? ie a $10 tax creadit per month per resident per energy bill. This may sound the same but is very different. This method requires a lot less government invovlement.

I love seeing the government hiring people to drive around to save money

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am rather concerned about that idea. How about reducing property tax and taxes on heating/cooling by a personal deduction amount? ie a $10 tax creadit per month per resident per energy bill. This may sound the same but is very different. This method requires a lot less government invovlement.

I love seeing the government hiring people to drive around to save money

Why not just let the market handle it? I have a fairly large house, but use less power than a lot of people with smaller houses, due to some of the things I incorporated when building.

Rignt now I’m looking at a solar system that “sells” power back to the power company after meeting household needs – if it pans out, it would be good for both my family and the rest of the courntry.