Greater Threat to Humanity: Abortion or Global Warming

  • Thread starter Thread starter LindyPhil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lance said:
I certainly want to leave Earth in as good or better shape than I found it. Why would I want my grandkids to suffer for my folly? I also want them to have a chance to live as good a life as I have. They should have the opportunities to travel, live in comfort and have a good paying job like I did. I don’t toss garbage out my car window and I don’t burn excessive fuel but I am not going to live in a 2 room apartment with no air conditioning and a wood stove for heat because someone has a knee jerk reaction to global warming. I don’t believe it is man made.

If it were possible to ask the thousands of babies killed by abortion today which was the greater threat, what do you think their answer would be? I have absolutly no doubt that abortion is by far the greater evil and threat.
Click to expand...
You can switch to high energy efficient light bulbs. Pretty painless. You can also figure out your carbon foot print and donate an amount of money that will purchase enough clean energy to erase your “carbon footprint.” I’ve done so by using this website: nativeenergy.com/welcome.html It costs me about $50.00 a month to be “carbon neutral for my family”. You can, of course, purchase any amount of clean energy.

Here’s a link to an editorial I wrote on the topic. jstandard.com/articles/1276/1/An-inconvenient-opportunity.
 
Valke2 said:
You can switch to high energy efficient light bulbs. Pretty painless. You can also figure out your carbon foot print and donate an amount of money that will purchase enough clean energy to erase your “carbon footprint.”
Click to expand...
So how does donating money to somebody else reduce the amount of energy you yourself use? If reduced carbon emissions is a good thing, then isn’t it good for everybody to be doing it?

[Satire mode on:]

This whole theory actually has interesting spin-offs. Perhaps someone convicted of murder could pay another to spend time in prison for him.

And we could abort our own kids, and then pay somebody else to have “offsets” in a different country.

And to eliminate the need to grow more food, I could keep eating way too much food, and pay somebody else to stay skinny.

I could even offset somebody to go to church and fulfill my Sunday obligation! Or do do my penance!

And religious Jews could eat bacon for breakfast, lunch and dinner. And then pay somebody else not to eat bacon. Muslims perhaps. Now that’s a win/win situation if I ever saw one 🙂

The possibilities are endless.
 
vern_humphrey said:
It’s too bad he didn’t take the next logical step and ruled that the Constitution prohibits execution without trial.
Click to expand...
I guess the “law” allows execution to be conducted as an “administrative procedure” … same a lot of other extra-legal administrative procedural punishments.

On the other hand, one could have an agency take charge of any child scheduled for abortion and when that child reaches the age of 21, hand that child and the parent each a knife and offer them the opportunity: the parent can have a retro-active abortion and the child can fight back in self-defense, if the child chooses to do so.
 
ricmat said:
So how does donating money to somebody else reduce the amount of energy you yourself use? If reduced carbon emissions is a good thing, then isn’t it good for everybody to be doing it?
Click to expand...
What it does is it causes an equal amount of clean energy to be purchased and put on the “Grid”, so that you are in effect, carbon neutral. In effect you are replacing the energy you expend with clean energy. So while you are using x carbon tons, you are also providing for x carbon tons of energy to be removed from the grid and replaced with clean energy.
 
Valke2 said:
What it does is it causes an equal amount of clean energy to be purchased and put on the “Grid”, so that you are in effect, carbon neutral. In effect you are replacing the energy you expend with clean energy. So while you are using x carbon tons, you are also providing for x carbon tons of energy to be removed from the grid and replaced with clean energy.
Click to expand...
this proves some have too much time on their hands.
 
Valke2 said:
What it does is it causes an equal amount of clean energy to be purchased and put on the “Grid”, so that you are in effect, carbon neutral. In effect you are replacing the energy you expend with clean energy. So while you are using x carbon tons, you are also providing for x carbon tons of energy to be removed from the grid and replaced with clean energy.
Click to expand...
There is a “tendency” toward gaging the “intentions” of people, rather than their actual actions.

So, we must ask whether “intentions” are the same as or the equivalent of “actions”.

Some “clean energy” may not generate smokestack soot, for example, but are amazingly disruptive and expensive … but in very subtle ways.

Other seemingly dirty energy sources are actually very clean.

It gets to the issue of “public perceptions” that have been shaped, perhaps by the Main Stream Media.
 
Valke2 said:
What it does is it causes an equal amount of clean energy to be purchased and put on the “Grid”, so that you are in effect, carbon neutral. In effect you are replacing the energy you expend with clean energy. So while you are using x carbon tons, you are also providing for x carbon tons of energy to be removed from the grid and replaced with clean energy.
Click to expand...
When ‘clean’ energy is less expensive to produce it will become the energy of choice. In order to start producing more ‘clean’ energy all we have to do is make the regulations on nuclear power plants more reasonable. In 1967 ComEd was building nuclear plants left and right and we were talking about the day when Illinois would produce much, much more electric power than we consume. The unreasonable regulations the government has put into place has driven up the cost to operate those plants and now ComEd is closing them and reverting to coal. How much coal do they burn? Well we have at least 8 coal trains of 120 cars each roll through my town every day on their way to Chicago. I assume ComEd is using at least 98% of that because there are very few homes or businesses heated with coal today. Do they use scrubbers to clean the smoke? Sure, but wouldn’t nuclear be cleaner?
 
Lance said:
When ‘clean’ energy is less expensive to produce it will become the energy of choice. In order to start producing more ‘clean’ energy all we have to do is make the regulations on nuclear power plants more reasonable. In 1967 ComEd was building nuclear plants left and right and we were talking about the day when Illinois would produce much, much more electric power than we consume. The unreasonable regulations the government has put into place has driven up the cost to operate those plants and now ComEd is closing them and reverting to coal. How much coal do they burn? Well we have at least 8 coal trains of 120 cars each roll through my town every day on their way to Chicago. I assume ComEd is using at least 98% of that because there are very few homes or businesses heated with coal today. Do they use scrubbers to clean the smoke? Sure, but wouldn’t nuclear be cleaner?
Click to expand...
As you know, coal includes very tiny amounts of uranium in it. The radioactive uranium is not “consumed” by being burned, so it goes up the smokestack and is spewed out. It is invisible, however. So, a coal fired plant may actually emit a lot of radiation.

Whereas, nuclear power plants just hum along.

The French generate about 80% of their electricity from nukes. The U.S. only generates about 20% of its electricity from nukes. The French reactor designs originally were the standard U.S. designs from Combustion Engineering and other U.S. designers/vendors/builders. [Technically, the U.S. didn’t have “standard” designs; there were minor variations that resulted in the need for individual approvals that dragged on for years, which was part of the problem in cost escalations. If we had “cookie cuttered” our nuclear reactors the way we make car engines, the problems would have been greatly reduced.]

In addition, the operating companies declined to set up an elite integrated training setup for their operating staff and that caused a lot of problems.

In the 30 years or so since Three Mile Island, there has been a quiet revolution taking place. The existing reactors have been upgraded and they now have a much longer operating life. The industry has come up with designs that are easier to build and operate and that are more efficient and easier to refuel.

The major problem is that our educational system has been dumbed down so that the average person has almost no understanding of basic chemistry, physics, geology, and biology … stuff that used to be offered in high schools. At the high school I went to (a local Catholic school) everybody got three years of science (with labs), three or four years of math, and two languages. Everybody got that. The only option was an extra year of language.
 
ricmat said:
So how does donating money to somebody else reduce the amount of energy you yourself use? If reduced carbon emissions is a good thing, then isn’t it good for everybody to be doing it?

[Satire mode on:]

This whole theory actually has interesting spin-offs. Perhaps someone convicted of murder could pay another to spend time in prison for him.

And we could abort our own kids, and then pay somebody else to have “offsets” in a different country.

And to eliminate the need to grow more food, I could keep eating way too much food, and pay somebody else to stay skinny.

I could even offset somebody to go to church and fulfill my Sunday obligation! Or do do my penance!

And religious Jews could eat bacon for breakfast, lunch and dinner. And then pay somebody else not to eat bacon. Muslims perhaps. Now that’s a win/win situation if I ever saw one 🙂

The possibilities are endless.
Click to expand...
We have become a couch potato society. And that mentality has infected the Church. To many of us, “social justice” doesn’t mean we have to do anything – as long as we support the right government programs.

We see things getting worse all around us, and feel no call to personal action, nor for action as a Church. We vote, pay a little more taxes, contribute a tad to some “good cause,” and go on our way.
 
Al_Masetti said:
There is a “tendency” toward gaging the “intentions” of people, rather than their actual actions.

So, we must ask whether “intentions” are the same as or the equivalent of “actions”.

Some “clean energy” may not generate smokestack soot, for example, but are amazingly disruptive and expensive … but in very subtle ways.

Other seemingly dirty energy sources are actually very clean.

It gets to the issue of “public perceptions” that have been shaped, perhaps by the Main Stream Media.
Click to expand...
the two forms of clean energy I was referring to are solar and wind. although there is also a biomass option avialble at the website.
 
Dandilion Wine,

I like some of the things that you said; however, you also said that "abortion is killing some ppl and global warming May kill many ppl. I think that abortion is killing some ppl is a HUGE HUGE HUGE understatement. It has killed million if not billions of babies. 1 of every 3 babies are aborted now a days. That is worse than a tragedy.

God bless and Pax Christi,
Jacob
 
I want my 66 chrysler back , so I can drive it arround putting all that co2 into the air while I have the window open spraying an aerosol can. thats my opinion of envirmentalism!!!😛
 
I believe the real issue is how effective Capitalism is. If something is package right people will buy it. The Church is here to keep the Capitalist honest and to try to protect the gullible. We are all Capitalists some know how to work the system better than others and there are plenty of people without a conscience who are getting rich through that. I believe this lack of conscience is a factor behind so many of these global scare scams. Whether Mr. Gore actually believes what he is preaching who can tell but he is making a financial killing over it.

Old Joe Kennedy would probably blush.

CDL
 
GregoryPalamas said:
I was wondering if this fellow is related to Al Gore

OTTAWA (AFP) - A former Canadian defense minister is demanding governments worldwide disclose and use secret alien technologies obtained in alleged UFO crashes to stem climate change, a local paper said Wednesday.

news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070228/od_afp/canadaenvironmentkyoto;_ylt=AkFNvoTajAmob7k4blMSj4YDW7oF

CDL
Click to expand...
Twins, separated at birth. The word on the street is that he claims half of Al’s Oscar, and Al has a hitman under contract to eliminate him.
 
GregoryPalamas said:
I believe the real issue is how effective Capitalism is. If something is package right people will buy it. The Church is here to keep the Capitalist honest and to try to protect the gullible. We are all Capitalists some know how to work the system better than others and there are plenty of people without a conscience who are getting rich through that. I believe this lack of conscience is a factor behind so many of these global scare scams. Whether Mr. Gore actually believes what he is preaching who can tell but he is making a financial killing over it.

Old Joe Kennedy would probably blush.

CDL
Click to expand...
so are you saying that the Church is packaged right? How much money has Al Gore made from global warming?
 
I would think quite a bit, though I wouldn’t know how to calculate it. He tries and succeeds with many to scare the bejeezus out of the country about some unprovable connection between human activity and global warming catastrophe. He makes a movie from which he gains an income. He writes a book, more money. He creates a clearing house to gain money to make clean air. To show how sincere he is he never rides his private jet:whistle: He confines himself to one three bedroom house :rolleyes: and he never rides in a limo:whacky: .

CDL
 
Actually, he’s pledged to donate all the proceeds fromthe filmto further educational programson global warming. I couldn’t find out what he doing with his share of profits from the book, but its a safe bet that those proceeds are being donated as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top