How can we mitigate global warming?

[Calliso]

Well there is something to wanting it stopped.

Looking at the history of the planet, the present climate works out well for us.
I am not so certain we want it changing back to anything else.

Of course, I left my climate control device in my sock drawer on the spaceship and am afraid I can do nothing to stop it…just as well. You don’t want people that haven’t a full understanding of the climate monkeying around with it.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head here. Climate has been pretty stable since civilization started. Not saying there hasn;t been any changes but nothing major. And of course no one is trying to claim that we can fine tune the climate to be exactly such and such way. But we donlt want to do things that push the climate to change to something that no human civilization has seen.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Hi,

I remember the late scientist, Dr. Carl Sagan saying that it will take more than individuals becoming aware and working to lessen what we now call our personal “carbon footprints” to make a difference. He mentioned the percentages of factories, military, and fuel companies having the greatest impact. I just mention this as Sagan was a great scientist. He said that we all have to work together to convince CEO’s, the military,etc, to do their part.

I wouldn’t debate myself on whether members of one religion are any more responsible than any other, but I would say that we can all do our best. As a grandmother, I want the best for both my Daughter’s and my Grand-daughter’s generation. So, here is what we have done around our house for decades:

We have never used a clothes dryer.
We hang laundry on the line.
Grow many of our own vegetables.
Make home made, non toxic laundry detergent.
Avoid as many paper plate/cups/ toss away materials as possible.
Vote for “green” candidates

Again, some like Sagan would argue that even if we all do this, we must work to get the large corporations, military and fuel companies to do much more and for our politicians to vote their consciences.

I will be interested to see what others post here.

Blessings,
Kathryn Ann:heaven:

 

[Cristiano]

Hi,

I remember the late scientist, Dr. Carl Sagan saying that it will take more than individuals becoming aware and working to lessen what we now call our personal “carbon footprints” to make a difference. He mentioned the percentages of factories, military, and fuel companies having the greatest impact. I just mention this as Sagan was a great scientist. He said that we all have to work together to convince CEO’s, the military,etc, to do their part.

I wouldn’t debate myself on whether members of one religion are any more responsible than any other, but I would say that we can all do our best. As a grandmother, I want the best for both my Daughter’s and my Grand-daughter’s generation. So, here is what we have done around our house for decades:

We have never used a clothes dryer.
We hang laundry on the line.
Grow many of our own vegetables.
Make home made, non toxic laundry detergent.
Avoid as many paper plate/cups/ toss away materials as possible.
Vote for “green” candidates

Again, some like Sagan would argue that even if we all do this, we must work to get the large corporations, military and fuel companies to do much more and for our politicians to vote their consciences.

I will be interested to see what others post here.

Blessings,
Kathryn Ann:heaven:

I can see that you would say that he was a well known scientist and probably a very good communicator, but I cannot see where the “great” scientist comes from.

 

[lynnvinc]

Hi,

I remember the late scientist, Dr. Carl Sagan saying that it will take more than individuals becoming aware and working to lessen what we now call our personal “carbon footprints” to make a difference. He mentioned the percentages of factories, military, and fuel companies having the greatest impact. I just mention this as Sagan was a great scientist. He said that we all have to work together to convince CEO’s, the military,etc, to do their part.

I wouldn’t debate myself on whether members of one religion are any more responsible than any other, but I would say that we can all do our best. As a grandmother, I want the best for both my Daughter’s and my Grand-daughter’s generation. So, here is what we have done around our house for decades:

We have never used a clothes dryer.
We hang laundry on the line.
Grow many of our own vegetables.
Make home made, non toxic laundry detergent.
Avoid as many paper plate/cups/ toss away materials as possible.
Vote for “green” candidates

Again, some like Sagan would argue that even if we all do this, we must work to get the large corporations, military and fuel companies to do much more and for our politicians to vote their consciences.

I will be interested to see what others post here.

Blessings,
Kathryn Ann:heaven:

That’s great.

What’s your recipe for laundry detergent?

 

[lynnvinc]

We bought a Chevy Volt 3 months ago and are plugging into our 100% wind generated Green Mountain electricity.

I had originally calculated (before buying it) that it would pay for the difference betwen it and the Taurus my husband wanted within 7 years of us driving 5000 miles/year on electricity and 1000 miles/year on gasoline, with gas at $5 a gallon on average (I’m sure we’re headed that way). I also guessimated the difference in selling prices after 7 years for a total assessment, with the Volt holding its value much better.

I had figured 36 miles per charge, but in actuality we are mostly getting between 40 to 46 miles per charge (the latter if we have everything off, AC, radio, etc and we hypermile), tho I expect to get less in the summer when we’ll have to use the AC on high nearly all the time (it gets above 110 F several times here during the cunicula – July-August --and that’s without global warming).

So I figure now an average per year of 40 miles per charge, and replaced the 36 with the 40, and also made some adjustments re the actual price we paid, and now I figure the Volt will pay for the difference within 6.75 years, then go on to save about $1000 per year thereafter.

((And if gas really shoots up to average out to $6/gallon, then it would only take 5.5 years.))

So what I can say about the Volt is – it is not for rich profligate people who don’t care about life on planet earth. It is only for people who either cannot afford to lose money and/or care about life on earth.

The Leaf, which is cheaper but fully electric (with a 100 mile range), is also a good option for 2-car families; the other car could be a hybrid or Volt that could be used for longer trips. I’m sure the savings would be even greater. Our problem is we need our van for some work we have to do now and then, so the Volt was the best option for us, since with its gas tank we can drive on long trips (tho we rarely do).

When the right time comes maybe we could get an EV van By then solar should be competitive, and we might be producing some of our own electricity

 

[Cristiano]

We bought a Chevy Volt 3 months ago and are plugging into our 100% wind generated Green Mountain electricity.

I had originally calculated (before buying it) that it would pay for the difference betwen it and the Taurus my husband wanted within 7 years of us driving 5000 miles/year on electricity and 1000 miles/year on gasoline, with gas at $5 a gallon on average (I’m sure we’re headed that way). I also guessimated the difference in selling prices after 7 years for a total assessment, with the Volt holding its value much better.

I had figured 36 miles per charge, but in actuality we are mostly getting between 40 to 46 miles per charge (the latter if we have everything off, AC, radio, etc and we hypermile), tho I expect to get less in the summer when we’ll have to use the AC on high nearly all the time (it gets above 110 F several times here during the cunicula – July-August --and that’s without global warming).

So I figure now an average per year of 40 miles per charge, and replaced the 36 with the 40, and also made some adjustments re the actual price we paid, and now I figure the Volt will pay for the difference within 6.75 years, then go on to save about $1000 per year thereafter.

((And if gas really shoots up to average out to $6/gallon, then it would only take 5.5 years.))

So what I can say about the Volt is – it is not for rich profligate people who don’t care about life on planet earth. It is only for people who either cannot afford to lose money and/or care about life on earth.

The Leaf, which is cheaper but fully electric (with a 100 mile range), is also a good option for 2-car families; the other car could be a hybrid or Volt that could be used for longer trips. I’m sure the savings would be even greater. Our problem is we need our van for some work we have to do now and then, so the Volt was the best option for us, since with its gas tank we can drive on long trips (tho we rarely do).

When the right time comes maybe we could get an EV van By then solar should be competitive, and we might be producing some of our own electricity

The fact that we must also consider is the amount of energy/contamination that has been used to build an energy saving tool (e.g. car or something else) and how much energy/contamination is required to dispose of it when not used anymore. My concern is that a lot of people fall prey to the idea of green items and they replace old ones without putting those numbers in the balance. My point is that if a person truly needs a new car then it is really a good idea to consider something environmentally friendly; however, if the need is not there it might be wiser and “greener” to keep the old machine. I am always very suspicious of new so-called green items that involved new electronics and new batteries (e.g. laptops, televisions and other stuff).

I see that you made a pretty solid financial analysis of the situation; however, I am not sure that personal financial savings will always be reflected in a greener solution across the border. I am not saying that you made a unrealistic choice I am simply saying that people should be aware that sometimes good choices are the ones that appear wrong at a first glimpse, and that proper homework is necessary.

 

[lynnvinc]

The fact that we must also consider is the amount of energy/contamination that has been used to build an energy saving tool (e.g. car or something else) and how much energy/contamination is required to dispose of it when not used anymore. My concern is that a lot of people fall prey to the idea of green items and they replace old ones without putting those numbers in the balance. My point is that if a person truly needs a new car then it is really a good idea to consider something environmentally friendly; however, if the need is not there it might be wiser and “greener” to keep the old machine. I am always very suspicious of new so-called green items that involved new electronics and new batteries (e.g. laptops, televisions and other stuff).

I see that you made a pretty solid financial analysis of the situation; however, I am not sure that personal financial savings will always be reflected in a greener solution across the border. I am not saying that you made a unrealistic choice I am simply saying that people should be aware that sometimes good choices are the ones that appear wrong at a first glimpse, and that proper homework is necessary.

I was actually aware of that – one blogger pointed out to me all the energy and resources that go into making a new car.

So…in our case, except for one new car we bought in 1976, all of our cars have been old beater cars. Someone drives the first 50,000 - 70,000 miles, then we drive the next 50,000plus miles, often until the car gets too expensive to fix. REUSE, that is the principle.

So in recent years I was just hoping and praying our old beater 1998 car would hold out long enough so that we could buy an electric car (which I had hoped to do or convert for some 20 years). Well, it reached the point of very expense repairs – leaking everywhere – so we started looking for another car (I was hoping and praying Volt…or maybe Leaf). We even talked about a new car, and it took a lot of prayer and some finagling, but I finally got my husband on board for the Volt…

…all the time aware of the energy & resources (and shipping of those resources, etc) that when into it…and also concern for environmental issues re the battery.

I didn’t do a spreadsheet on all that, but I’m thinking it is worth it.

 

[Cristiano]

I was actually aware of that – one blogger pointed out to me all the energy and resources that go into making a new car.

So…in our case, except for one new car we bought in 1976, all of our cars have been old beater cars. Someone drives the first 50,000 - 70,000 miles, then we drive the next 50,000plus miles, often until the car gets too expensive to fix. REUSE, that is the principle.

So in recent years I was just hoping and praying our old beater 1998 car would hold out long enough so that we could buy an electric car (which I had hoped to do or convert for some 20 years). Well, it reached the point of very expense repairs – leaking everywhere – so we started looking for another car (I was hoping and praying Volt…or maybe Leaf). We even talked about a new car, and it took a lot of prayer and some finagling, but I finally got my husband on board for the Volt…

…all the time aware of the energy & resources (and shipping of those resources, etc) that when into it…and also concern for environmental issues re the battery.

I didn’t do a spreadsheet on all that, but I’m thinking it is worth it.

I want to stress one more time that I was not criticizing your choice. I was just trying to make people aware that in order to be truly “green” people can end up making choices that might appear to go against the driving principle. I think that sometime it is easy to fall in the trap of “green” advertisement and just forget about the overall picture.

 

[lynnvinc]

I want to stress one more time that I was not criticizing your choice. I was just trying to make people aware that in order to be truly “green” people can end up making choices that might appear to go against the driving principle. I think that sometime it is easy to fall in the trap of “green” advertisement and just forget about the overall picture.

Another problem with buying a car that gets good gas mileage is that they then drive more miles bec it doesn’t cost them as much.

I think we need an overall ethic, and not just an appeal to financial cost/benefit. And ethics is what’s sadly lacking in our culture.

I’ve even come up with a “unethical world hypothesis,” partly in response to the “just world hypothesis” (which figures people do not accept AGW bec they view the world as good and just and such problem just could not happen in such a world where they have behaved correctly).

My hypothesis goes like this: people cannot possibly imagine that they will be saving money and helping the economy and their finances by doing eco-ethical things, such as reducing their GHG emissions; that’s bec they have an “unethical world hypothesis” that tells them only by being unethical can they get ahead in life. Then bec they view any effort to do the right thing, such as reducing GHG emissions, would be very costly and harmful, ergo there is no such thing as AGW in the first place.

 

[vz71]

Another problem with buying a car that gets good gas mileage is that they then drive more miles bec it doesn’t cost them as much.

I think we need an overall ethic, and not just an appeal to financial cost/benefit. And ethics is what’s sadly lacking in our culture.

I’ve even come up with a “unethical world hypothesis,” partly in response to the “just world hypothesis” (which figures people do not accept AGW bec they view the world as good and just and such problem just could not happen in such a world where they have behaved correctly).

My hypothesis goes like this: people cannot possibly imagine that they will be saving money and helping the economy and their finances by doing eco-ethical things, such as reducing their GHG emissions; that’s bec they have an “unethical world hypothesis” that tells them only by being unethical can they get ahead in life. Then bec they view any effort to do the right thing, such as reducing GHG emissions, would be very costly and harmful, ergo there is no such thing as AGW in the first place.

That is a slippery slope.
As soon as you make it an ethic to reduce “GHG” emmisions, you make it an ethic to reduce the population.

 

[lynnvinc]

That is a slippery slope.
As soon as you make it an ethic to reduce “GHG” emmisions, you make it an ethic to reduce the population.

Many decades, even centuries before people became aware of AGW and its harms there was discussion of “overpopulation” or people eating & fighting themselves out of house & home. Think Malthus.

The idea is that we live on a finite planet, and that even if we do not pollute the place and kill off people by literally poisoning them and destroying their subsistence base, we’d eventually come up against limits that could lead future generations to live in squalid conditions and die miserable deaths. It’s a matter of selfishness to insist that I and my progeny have the right to everything, while others do not – but that’s sort of the ego-force of how the world works. People want themselves to spread out (their progeny being extentions of self) at the expense of everyone else, asserting themselves over others.

I (from a family of 4 children) thought in the early 1960s, the appropriate thing for me to do, being concerned about all people not just myself and little extensions to myself, is to have 2 children. So when I met my Catholic husband (from a family of 7 children) and we talked about children, he said he wanted 4 (even tho he had originally studied demography and completely understood my argument for 2). So we disagreed about it, and as it turned out we weren’t able to have children…which was a great sorrow for me and him for a long time.

If people, like myself, want to have only one or two children, then there are ways within Catholic teaching that can be done – through the rhythm method. Last I heard that was still acceptable. If you’ve heard something different, please let me know. If for some reason that method doesn’t work quite as well as other methods, then that’s fine by me. I would welcome ALL babies that come into this world, even the 20th child of some prolific couple.

As for abortion or going around killing people in order to reduce the population so as to reduce AGW (and other problems) so as to save the world for future generations, to me that just does not compute. Killing babies to save the world for babies? Huh??? Aside from it being a terrible sin and wrong, it just does not compute, and I tell that to environmentalists that are pro-choice. There’s no telling that to women’s libbers who are not environmentalists, but are into becoming mini-men climbing the corporate ladder of success and just don’t want children, but I can make sense to environmentalists.

Which brings up the point – Catholics who deny AGW and other environmental problems (or say there is no limit to how many people earth can sustain…100 billion and more seems perfectly fine to them) and insist everyone bear as many children as possible would not be able to reach those environmentalists who might be contemplating an abortion for the sake of the world.

No one can reach those women libbers, but people could reach the pro-abortion environmentalists, if they show that they too are concerned about life on planet earth and not just about “spreading their seed” without thought of people outside their lineage.

 

[vz71]

Many decades, even centuries before people became aware of AGW and its harms there was discussion of “overpopulation” or people eating & fighting themselves out of house & home. Think Malthus.

The idea is that we live on a finite planet, and that even if we do not pollute the place and kill off people by literally poisoning them and destroying their subsistence base, we’d eventually come up against limits that could lead future generations to live in squalid conditions and die miserable deaths. It’s a matter of selfishness to insist that I and my progeny have the right to everything, while others do not – but that’s sort of the ego-force of how the world works. People want themselves to spread out (their progeny being extentions of self) at the expense of everyone else, asserting themselves over others.

I (from a family of 4 children) thought in the early 1960s, the appropriate thing for me to do, being concerned about all people not just myself and little extensions to myself, is to have 2 children. So when I met my Catholic husband (from a family of 7 children) and we talked about children, he said he wanted 4 (even tho he had originally studied demography and completely understood my argument for 2). So we disagreed about it, and as it turned out we weren’t able to have children…which was a great sorrow for me and him for a long time.

If people, like myself, want to have only one or two children, then there are ways within Catholic teaching that can be done – through the rhythm method. Last I heard that was still acceptable. If you’ve heard something different, please let me know. If for some reason that method doesn’t work quite as well as other methods, then that’s fine by me. I would welcome ALL babies that come into this world, even the 20th child of some prolific couple.

As for abortion or going around killing people in order to reduce the population so as to reduce AGW (and other problems) so as to save the world for future generations, to me that just does not compute. Killing babies to save the world for babies? Huh??? Aside from it being a terrible sin and wrong, it just does not compute, and I tell that to environmentalists that are pro-choice. There’s no telling that to women’s libbers who are not environmentalists, but are into becoming mini-men climbing the corporate ladder of success and just don’t want children, but I can make sense to environmentalists.

Which brings up the point – Catholics who deny AGW and other environmental problems (or say there is no limit to how many people earth can sustain…100 billion and more seems perfectly fine to them) and insist everyone bear as many children as possible would not be able to reach those environmentalists who might be contemplating an abortion for the sake of the world.

No one can reach those women libbers, but people could reach the pro-abortion environmentalists, if they show that they too are concerned about life on planet earth and not just about “spreading their seed” without thought of people outside their lineage.

The AGW ethic is an insidious one.
It is best to maintain a Catholic ethic.

 

[lynnvinc]

That is a slippery slope.
As soon as you make it an ethic to reduce “GHG” emmisions, you make it an ethic to reduce the population.

Another thought on this topic is that draconian population control is one of those easy ways out of a problem. ((Although think of all that methane from those dead bodies from those that are killed to prevent AGW.))

And it seems there are people (I wouldn’t consider them environmentalists) who accept that serious environmental problems are upon us who would strongly promote abortions…for other people, so that their own children and progeny can have more of everything and stand a better chance at life.

This is just the other side of the same coin of denialists who are anti-abortion refusing to face the problem of AGW, eventually causing most if not of humanity to die out…which would have the effect of ending abortion. Just kill everyone through AGW and other serious environmental problems and from the conflicts that would ensue from a vicious, killer musical chairs of ever diminishing life-sustaining resources.

Both camps are morally bankrupt and full of wrong & evil thinking.

This thread is dedicated to the topic of doing the hard work of finding and implementing solutions that involve people reducing their own GHGs (and thereby reducing their other pollution, and saving resources for future generations), not reducing the people of the earth to solve the problem.

Unfortunately there is no silver bullet for AGW, only a myriad of solutions, at least some of which people can implement. At least those things that save them money or do not cost. That’s all I’m asking.

 

[lynnvinc]

The AGW ethic is an insidious one.
It is best to maintain a Catholic ethic.

The genocidal ethic of continuing to cause AGW and kill people through its knock-on effect is totally unCatholic and insidious.

But then again, some people just like it hot. Very hot.

Now, I suggest if you cannot come up with even one solution for mitigating AGW for this thread, you could start a thread about how wrong it is to mitigate AGW.

 

[daisy_jones]

I’m thinking if the Catholics and other mainstream religions can show they are really interested in reducing their environmental harm to people and God’s creation, more people would be drawn to our religions (or stop leaving them), rather than seeking neo-pagan thinking or religions.

Now I have to admit I was at one time very hard on the neo-pagans. In the 1980s I had a student who – after I had given my anthro lecture on witchcraft – said with a hurrumph, “I’m a witch and I resent the way you’re talking about us.”

I thought, Wha-??? Witches?? Hadn’t they all been burned at the stake centuries ago?? And don’t put a hex on me

Then in the 90s when an interfaith group (mainly Presbyterians and a couple of Catholics, and one Jain) sprung up – the IL Committee on Climate Change – and we were discussing outreach to other religions, I said, all religions are fine with me, except the neopagans; they’re mean. They thought it wasn’t right to exclude any religion, so decided not to exclude neopagans, tho as it turned out no neopagans ever joined. At any rate none of the neopagans I’ve ever known (like maybe 4, plus one pagan) didn’t seem much into environmentalism, certainly not more than I am.

Just last week I was giving a similar anthro lecture about witchcraft, explaining how such beliefs in some societies without much formal social control (bands and tribes) serve as informal social control (no one wants to be labeled the witch and be excommunicated or killed if someone’s baby dies or a crop fails, so people strive to act good, positive, and bury the hatchet, etc).

I also mentioned how neopaganism and brujaria & Curanderismo (Spanish for witchcraft & shamanism) had been on the increase in our own society, and figured it might be due to lack of social control or ability of society to solve pressing problems. One student suggested maybe it was because the Christian Right was so mean that it turn people off of Christianity, pushing them into neopaganism.

At any rate, I think it would be wise to avoid both the “pushes” on people in our faith community toward seeking some other faiths, and work on increasing the “pulls” toward us.

Jesus and his methods are a great pull; they just need to be put into practice more.

BTW, I still think my theory may have some merit – that society’s (and its social institutions, incl gov, biz, family, church) lack of even addressing, much less working to solve such serious problems of AGW & other enviro harms, might be a factor in pushing people to grasp at things like neopagan beliefs. They are looking for something that might work. We need to make Catholicism work (or work better).

At the very least, if a lot of mainstream Christians embrace environmentalism in truly Christian ways (instead of standing on the sides pointing out all the flaws of environmentists they encounter), at least that will reduce the proportion of neopagan environmentalists.

I smiled while reading this entire post!

 

[MidnightSun12]

This thread is dedicated to the topic of doing the hard work of finding and implementing solutions that involve people reducing their own GHGs (and thereby reducing their other pollution, and saving resources for future generations), not reducing the people of the earth to solve the problem.

Unfortunately there is no silver bullet for AGW, only a myriad of solutions, at least some of which people can implement. At least those things that save them money or do not cost. That’s all I’m asking.

Lynn, I think that the discussion you are having here is pure and I don’t believe that you are doing anything contrary to a sound Catholic faith by encouraging people to think of ways to reduce their consumption (we are very much called to avoid gluttony and not consume more then we need from the earth). If this thread was titled “how can we mitigate our over-consumption” it would have my full 100% backing.

What I feel obligated to re-inforce, however, is that the leading scientists and politicians behind the climate change movement don’t share your view on being open to life and are actually promoting a very dangerous anti-catholic world view. Reducing consumption is, in fact, only a small part of a much larger umbrella. The fact that scientists are warning of a coming “global catastrophy” where all life will end inherently justifies much more then a personal reduction in consumption. Since we are talking about how to mitigate climate change instead of personal comsumption on this thread, I feel that it is my duty to continue posting what leading minds in the climate change movement truly believe the solution to global warming to be:

A quote from the United Nations Population Fund:

The importance of the speed and magnitude of recent population growth in boosting future greenhouse-gas emissions is well recognized among scientists, including the authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports.

I quote Dave Foreman, Co-founder of Earth First:

My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure, and see wilderness returning

I quote CNN co-founder and UN supporter Ted Turner:

A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal

Please note that I am not doing this to attack you, but promoting climate change as merely being a reduction in personal compsumption is simply inconsistent with the view’s of the “experts” in this field. A Catholic needs to take a very close look at some of these quotes when deciding what “Climate Change” actually means and that we are actually condoning much more then simply a reduction in personal consumption when we “support” reducing emissions and cast our votes and donate to charities that support such an end.

 

[vz71]

The genocidal ethic of continuing to cause AGW and kill people through its knock-on effect is totally unCatholic and insidious.

This is why I also specified it far better to simply have a Catholic ethic.

It has nothing to do with liking it hot, it has everything to do with placing values where they should be.
We are called to be good stewards, but we are not called to place the environment above humanity.

 

[Calliso]

This is why I also specified it far better to simply have a Catholic ethic.

It has nothing to do with liking it hot, it has everything to do with placing values where they should be.
We are called to be good stewards, but we are not called to place the environment above humanity.

You realize right that the enviroment is very important to human civilization right? Or perhaps more accurately the climate. The climate has been fairly stable since human civilization started. Now we might be pushing the climate towards a state not seen in 100s of thousands and maybe even millions of years. This is not a good thing and could and quite likely will have very negative consequences. Maybe not species ending or billions dying but still things could get pretty bad. And the more we donlt do to mitigate the likely worse it will be.

 

[vz71]

You realize right that the enviroment is very important to human civilization right? Or perhaps more accurately the climate. The climate has been fairly stable since human civilization started. Now we might be pushing the climate towards a state not seen in 100s of thousands and maybe even millions of years. This is not a good thing and could and quite likely will have very negative consequences. Maybe not species ending or billions dying but still things could get pretty bad. And the more we donlt do to mitigate the likely worse it will be.

And without a full understanding of what is happening and why, taking action to ‘mitigate’ anything becomes a giant game of russian roulette.

Remember, taking the wrong action can often be worse then taking no action at all.

I choose not to subscribe to the notion that we must do something prior to understanding what and why.

 

[lynnvinc]

Lynn, I think that the discussion you are having here is pure and I don’t believe that you are doing anything contrary to a sound Catholic faith by encouraging people to think of ways to reduce their consumption (we are very much called to avoid gluttony and not consume more then we need from the earth). If this thread was titled “how can we mitigate our over-consumption” it would have my full 100% backing.

What I feel obligated to re-inforce, however, is that the leading scientists and politicians behind the climate change movement don’t share your view on being open to life and are actually promoting a very dangerous anti-catholic world view. Reducing consumption is, in fact, only a small part of a much larger umbrella. The fact that scientists are warning of a coming “global catastrophy” where all life will end inherently justifies much more then a personal reduction in consumption. Since we are talking about how to mitigate climate change instead of personal comsumption on this thread, I feel that it is my duty to continue posting what leading minds in the climate change movement truly believe the solution to global warming to be:

A quote from the United Nations Population Fund:
Quote:
The importance of the speed and magnitude of recent population growth in boosting future greenhouse-gas emissions is well recognized among scientists, including the authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports.
I quote Dave Foreman, Co-founder of Earth First:

Quote:
My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure, and see wilderness returning
I quote CNN co-founder and UN supporter Ted Turner:
Quote:
A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal
Please note that I am not doing this to attack you, but promoting climate change as merely being a reduction in personal compsumption is simply inconsistent with the view’s of the “experts” in this field. A Catholic needs to take a very close look at some of these quotes when deciding what “Climate Change” actually means and that we are actually condoning much more then simply a reduction in personal consumption when we “support” reducing emissions and cast our votes and donate to charities that support such an end.

This is all the more reason why Catholics should get on board, to bring a Catholic ethic and sensibility to the table. For instance, that it is totally wrong to kill children (thru abortion) in order to save the world for the children.

However, I have nothing against people becoming priests, monks, nuns, hermits and other celibates…or practicing the rhythm method, which would also have the effect of reducing population. But I would not promote an anti-child ethic, which could be detrimental to young children growing up & thinking they are the problem. ((For instance there was a GRIST blog thread about a story of a woman in England who mounted a “No Baby” campaign with a symbol of a baby carriage with a slash through it. I heartily objected to it and said if a couple decided not to have babies so as to help the environment, which they should do thru natural family planning, then they should not publically advertise it, especially with that “No Baby” slogan and symbol, bec it would be harmful to young children and make them feel unwanted and they are somehow the problem. That is my Catholicism in action.))

I’ll relate this little story: I had a good Catholic friend up north who had twin girls. When they were about 5 years old she got pregnant again. One day when someone asked her girls if they wanted a little brother or sister, they said, “I don’t care, as long as it isn’t twins.” Apparently they had overheard their mother saying that to a friend, and she felt terrible that they had gotten the message that there was something wrong with twins, with them.

The children have NOT caused the environmental problems – they are simply inheriting these problems from their parents, parents’ generation, and grandparents’ generation – the state of the earth is our legacy to them. If anything we need to do all we can to make the world good and better for them.