If climate change is real, is it a sin to do nothing about it?

[rdscheirer]

I believe it was George Carlin who said “Save the world- for what?” He said the world will be here until the sun implodes in about 5 billion yrs. Save it for people-we’ve only been here for about 300 thousand yrs. Dinosaurs were here for over 160 million yrs… The earth will be here- will we?

 

[jilly4ski]

I’m not trying to be a nasty name-caller. I’m just trying to warn people.

Also, I am exceedingly heart-sick over the harms and deaths we are causing well into the future. I am a bleeding heart person. I just we people could have a tiny ounce of compassion and try to do the right thing. I hope and pray.

Denying AGW is not going to make it go away. It is based on sound science and the laws of physics. Dismissing 1000s of scientific studies and dismissing 1000s scientists as being “on the take” or “evil nature worshippers,” or whatever the latest conspiracy theory is will not make the problem go away. I’m pretty sure all of you here do know that ACC is happening. It’s hard for me to believe you really don’t know that.

I think I now see the problem. You are trying to impute causation (death of people) onto something too far away in the chain, (individual actions that may or may not cause GW and then the uncertain consequences of GW)

It is like in law. There is but-for causation and there is proximate causation. I have to be close enough in the chain of causation to be prosecuted for the crime. Think of it this way. Lets say wee bump into one another on the street, and that causes you to be 5 seconds later in your walk home, this being 5 seconds later causes you to be in the right spot to be struck be lightening. Am I the cause of your death?

Of course not, I am too remote in the chain of causation.

In the case of AGW (or whatever you want to call it) is that you cannot impute a single weather or climate event specifically to AGW. How much warming can be attributed to humans and how much to nature? What exactly is the result of this warming? It is possible that the warming will actually in the aggregate save more people than it will harm (more land and longer growing seasons for crops and human habitat).

Not only that, but which actions cause AGW, driving is ok, but only necessary driving? What is non-necessary driving? Heating ones house is ok, but don’t…, as you see this is ridiculous, how is some driving or heating ok, if it is all contributing to GW and thus “killing people.”

Which hurricane, tornado, blizzard, tsunami, flood, drought, are those caused by global warming and which ones are the ones that would have happened whether we were on this planet or not? This is not known and can not be quantified.

All these uncertainties add up to the chain of causation being broken. We cannot even say AGW has caused people to die, because we cannot say which part of warming are caused by humans, how individuals have even contributed to warming, or which catastrophic events were caused by AGW. Thus we cannot even begin to speculate about the potential people that might die in the future.

 

[lynnvinc]

I think I now see the problem. You are trying to impute causation (death of people) onto something too far away in the chain, (individual actions that may or may not cause GW and then the uncertain consequences of GW)

It is like in law. There is but-for causation and there is proximate causation. I have to be close enough in the chain of causation to be prosecuted for the crime. Think of it this way. Lets say wee bump into one another on the street, and that causes you to be 5 seconds later in your walk home, this being 5 seconds later causes you to be in the right spot to be struck be lightening. Am I the cause of your death?

Of course not, I am too remote in the chain of causation.

In the case of AGW (or whatever you want to call it) is that you cannot impute a single weather or climate event specifically to AGW. How much warming can be attributed to humans and how much to nature? What exactly is the result of this warming? It is possible that the warming will actually in the aggregate save more people than it will harm (more land and longer growing seasons for crops and human habitat).

Not only that, but which actions cause AGW, driving is ok, but only necessary driving? What is non-necessary driving? Heating ones house is ok, but don’t…, as you see this is ridiculous, how is some driving or heating ok, if it is all contributing to GW and thus “killing people.”

Which hurricane, tornado, blizzard, tsunami, flood, drought, are those caused by global warming and which ones are the ones that would have happened whether we were on this planet or not? This is not known and can not be quantified.

All these uncertainties add up to the chain of causation being broken. We cannot even say AGW has caused people to die, because we cannot say which part of warming are caused by humans, how individuals have even contributed to warming, or which catastrophic events were caused by AGW. Thus we cannot even begin to speculate about the potential people that might die in the future.

I think you are partly right.

Of course there could never be a criminal law against excessive GHG emissions, and I would never suggest that.

I personally do feel responsible for people’s death from that portion of drought/famine due to AGW and to the many many other ways in which people are harmed and killed thru AGW. It is more like a sense of Christian morality and my conscience that leads me to feel the connection.

However, it would be impossible, I think, to calculate how many people I have killed or will be killing in the future – or if 100 people like me are causing the death of one person – especially since a portion of my GHG emissions may last in the atmosphere and go on harming people day after day after day for 100,000 years. Or not, if some natural or supernatural cataclysm kills everyone tomorrow or 500 years from now.

I can only act on the best information and knowledge I have today, hoping for the best and expecting the worst.

And I can understand if others do not wish to carry this burden of responsibility – they may have a sick child or troubled marriage, and are consumed with more immediate problems. I’ve been so very blessed with a relatively trouble-free life.

 

[JimG]

I believe it was George Carlin who said “Save the world- for what?” He said the world will be here until the sun implodes in about 5 billion yrs. Save it for people-we’ve only been here for about 300 thousand yrs. Dinosaurs were here for over 160 million yrs… The earth will be here- will we?

Yes, the earth is about 5 billion years old, and the recorded history of human beings covers only perhaps 10,000 years or so, although prehistory goes back farther.

It seems rather the height of chutzpah to think that we’re going to change the earth rather than the other way around. The dinosaurs must have thought they were earth changers in their day too.

In any case, another 5 billion years and the Sun will likely enter the red giant stage, when it will run out of hydrogen to burn as fusion fuel, implode, then expand to a diameter which will encompass the earth’s orbit. That will be the ultimate in global warming.

 

[kimmielittle]

I didn’t read the quote above when I wrote a couple of hours ago.

You have read those quotes many times before in different threads. You admit this in your very next statement. Yet, at least twice now you state when presented Dr Lai’s own words -"

Originally Posted by lynnvinc
I was not aware of that story,

I’ve covered this story many times,

Dr. Lal did not knowingly tell a lie.

Hmmm…You seem to have a strange view of ethics and moral compass.

Example:
I am the Lead Author - AND A DR. Of Science ] on a report used to generate policy and funding.

You are a scientist that has HONESTLY contributed HONEST Normal Science Protocol into your research papers within the report I oversee.

I come along after you and KNOWINGLY - DELIBERATELY add CONTAMINATED results “for the cause” of promoting funding and policy - In a desired direction of my choosing - KNOWING that as a Dr, of Science the act violates Normal Science Ethics.

I don’t speak out or redact that contaminated material when it was brought to my attention - BEFORE PUBLISHING BUT I already knew when I first admitted the contaminated report].

And you say I didn’t lie?
I made a mistake?
I was honest?

No Ma’am…that is totally illogical.

A Normal Scientific mistake would be if I missed covering my petri dish and UNKNOWINGLY contributed that contaminated specimen within my research results.

Normal Science Ethics…demands when my mistake is shown to me - I retract the contamination AND any results I came to… Dependant on that contamination…

Dr Lai had many opportunities to correct…Dr Lai self-admittedly chose " cause" over Ethics.

To slander Dr. Lal is surely wrong.

He admitted his acts - AND you accuse me of “slandering” him?

IMO, Your Ethical / moral compass is so confused!

Yet, you call others “sinners” - “deniers” and you are attempting to applying your broken compass to SAVE us?

You and the Daily Mail can slant the story any way you want,

Another broken compass - How did I slant his OWN words of acknowledging what he did?

but it is surely wrong to contribute to Himalayan glacier melt,

It is surely WRONG to attribute AGW CO2 to Himalayan glacier melt - When Scientific evidence says " It is Regional Not Global ] it is Soot not CO2 ] That IS the “causative”.

It doesn’t specify when those harms and deaths might occur. There is no statute of limitation on sin.

This is a philosophical argument that you keep trying to use. You have neither the knowledge or capability to argue it… BECAUSE it is philosophical.

Your Logical Fallacies:
Placing UNKNOWN weight on an UNPROVEN Scientific Hypothesis.
Arguing your UNPROVEN Scientific hypothesis - from / with a philosophical argument.

I think what we need to do is develop a sense of brotherhood with all people around the world and into the distant future.

This is NOT what your own words are telling. You speak Grandiose words such as these within your posts - and continue, within that same post, to condemn ALL that disagree with your views - calling them “sinners” - “deniers”. Do you actually think…anyone takes these above words, by you, serious …When YOU contradict them in the next sentence?

You, by your posts, have a STRANGE IDEA of how to cultivate a brotherhood of respect - You are too quick to judge - condemn - vilify your brother… from a broken / mistaken compass, IMO:shrug:

If you wish to attach CAGW to the wellbeing of your brother…Start from a clean slate…FIGHT for Social Justice within AGW Science, Accountability - Transparency in Normal Science - Normal Science Ethics - Policy.

This must be your first ethical / moral responsibility to your brother. Without these being demanded - You condemn your brother to bad Science and bad Policy based on bad science…AND THAT IS NOT LOVING your Brother.

 

[lynnvinc]

Yes, the earth is about 5 billion years old, and the recorded history of human beings covers only perhaps 10,000 years or so, although prehistory goes back farther.

It seems rather the height of chutzpah to think that we’re going to change the earth rather than the other way around. The dinosaurs must have thought they were earth changers in their day too.

In any case, another 5 billion years and the Sun will likely enter the red giant stage, when it will run out of hydrogen to burn as fusion fuel, implode, then expand to a diameter which will encompass the earth’s orbit. That will be the ultimate in global warming.

There is a vast difference between the dinosaurs and us. We are culpable of sin & going to hell. They are not. Even if they had had some negative impact on some creatures back then…or their behavior in some way is harming us now (which I certainly do not think it is) they would not be culpable, bec they would not have realized or understood what they had done or the moral issues involved.

God gave us brains and hearts and His Only Son for our salvation and a myriad of graces, and he expects us to follow and use these. We know about our sinfulness (from many many sources – the Bible, the Church, our parents, our priests and religious educators, our friends, if they are true friends, and our conscience), and that makes us culpable – esp those who know very well and better than others.

We had a great discussion at the Carmelite retreat I was on this past weekend about where the devil would most likely be. We figured the Vatican and our group, but not in Hollywood or Las Vegas, bec they are already in his pocket. The devil would be in the place where he can lead the most good people astray.

It is a matter of prudence, I think, to accept what the climate scientists are saying (and not blow them off as being evil liars) and do whatever sensible measures we can to reduce our GHG emissions and other environmental harms, and there are many many for those who are open to searching and finding them.

Let us hope that the climate scientists are wrong, and all is hunky-dory until the sun gets very hot as it heads toward self-destruction in some billions of years (it will actually be too hot for life on earth in about a billion years, well before its self-destruction), or God decides it is time for the End Times. It is not right to cause the end of life on earth (or a great killing off of much/most of life on earth) sooner than that.

 

[lynnvinc]

You have read those quotes many times before in different threads. You admit this in your very next statement. …

Don’t have time or patience to read your posts. What I wrote is what I know…which is not infalliable.

From reading what your wrote and what I have read, Dr. Lal really did not know that all the glaciers couldn’t possibly melt by 2035. He is not a glaciologist (you are expecting too much of him and the beleagured team of scientists and others who put in their valuable free time to write up the IPCC reports – including the glaciologist who did catch Dr. Lal’s error, but regretted he did not have time to read the WGII reports sooner and catch it sooner). Dr. Lal was just writing what he had read in some other reports that somehow got it wrong.

I’m sure he was also concerned about life on planet earth and especially the potential harm to his country and progeny from AGW. If he was not angry and incensed by our willful disregard of this problem, I’d be surprised. If I had been blessed with children, I’d not be wasting time here, but would be out on a rampage to stop people from harming my children and progeny.

Or, maybe I’d bury my head in the sand like so many others. Who knows. I do feel very sorry for my grand nieces and nephews and all the other children of the world. It is prediced to get much worse within their lifetimes (within the next 50 to 70 years), if we persist in our current path. Perhaps the people don’t think the present floods, droughts, severe storms, tropical disease spread, heat deaths, anoxic places in the ocean, and wildfires are very bad (studies have attributed some role of AGW to such recent happenings) …but we have worse AGW-enhanced floods, droughts, storms, etc, to expect in the future, if we persist on our path, and there is already much harm “in the pipes” from what we have emitted so far.

 

[kimmielittle]

Denying AGW is not going to make it go away.

This is a cover-all argument and it doesn’t work.

Here is why:
The AGW hypothesis says CO2 is the main driver of warmer temperatures.

It is called a paper model ] hypothesis…

To take it from a paper model ] hypothesis - into a “working” hypothesis…it needs observational repeatable evidence “supporting” the paper model ] hypothesis.

Once the observational evidence “breaks” from the 'paper model ] run…it falsifies that model.

You consistently, as so many environmentalists, attempt to argue ALL environmental / conservation issues on the back of this “paper hypothesis”.

Each argument environmental issue etc ] demands a its own ] separate hypothesis.

It is based on sound science and the laws of physics.

If this were true the sound science… laws of physics… would produce repeatable observational empirical ] evidence at ALL TIMES.

Their BASE may have started out pristine - But their extrapolations of / from that base “sensitivities” - “feedbacks” - “unknowns” ] isn’t finding observation evidence that supports the CAGW claims.

Dismissing 1000s of scientific studies

You say this as an argument for your cause…I’m sorry Normal Science doesn’t work that way.

It is not me dismissing 1000’s of scientific studies…Nature Observational evidence ] isn’t playing out toward the BASE AGW hypothesis.

ONE study - ONE find - Example, the CERN CLOUD experiment destroyed ALL previous cloud studies that said it couldn’t work.

and dismissing 1000s scientists as being “on the take”

No one is doing that…BUT we do have evidence that within the IPCC - Journals - Base CAGW’ers there is a Cadre of Post-normal scientists who contaminate through political means.

“evil nature worshippers,” or whatever the latest conspiracy theory

It is a fact that deep within the IPCC - CRU - CAGW - GateKeepers there are confirmed ethical problems. They admit it themselves, throughout the verified Climategate papers.

That is not a conspiracy - it is acknowledging the facts.

On the other hand…we have those like you and Mr Glieck Mr Hansen…Mr Mann etc …who are all to willing to paint with unfounded claims, skeptics as Big OIL - Koch Brother toads.

I’m pretty sure all of you here do know that ACC is happening.

Follow the pea…Here you attempt to change from the AGW hypothesis…into a different argument.
Climate Change A redundant term ( Climate IS CHANGE) used to sell the concept that Climate is no longer controlled by Nature and it’s Natural Climatic Cycles ] because AGW and its CAGW claims lack observational evidence.

By intentionally switching the pea…you are using a dishonest tactic to argue the FIRST debate.

This thread deals with “IFS”…

For a sin…you need evidence CO2 is the main driver of warming temperatures. After all that is what this thread is predicated on ]… AND a proven moral / ethical solution.

 

[lynnvinc]

youtube.com/watch?v=roFB7bGCAgc

Earth First! is a radical enviro group, into civil disobedience, but I’ve never known anyone who is a member. My enviro friends are pretty mainstream. There is another one, Earth Liberation Front (ELF), that is even more radical and into crimes. I’m wholeheartedly against their approach. Burning SUVs and homes in sensitive eco-areas is not only a vicious crime, but also…think of all those GHGs and other pollutants released in those burnings. They are surely not into the AGW issue or local toxic issues. And their actions only alienate good people from environmental causes and make them hate all environmentalists.

I can somewhat sympathize with Earth First members’ concern about us chopping down the old growth forests – we could probably do much better in finding alternatives to doing that. I also felt very bad when a neighbor cut down our beautiful shrub, thinking it was on his property, and also when our city cut down a beautiful mesquite tree behind our house (it later grew back). Imagine the people of today getting into the Garden of Eden – they’d probably chop down the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life (=cross on which the fruit of life hung).

Just because there are fringe radicals in the civil rights movement (like the Black Panthers, etc) does not mean we should go back to discrimination and slavery. Likewise, just because there are fringe radicals in the environmental movement (or those who have made a religion of worshipping the earth) does not mean we should trash the planet.

I’m thinking, if we were to get more involved in environmental matters in a more mainstream and positive way (like starting a parish environmental committee and doing various good activities within Church Magisterium), then people wouldn’t feel the urge to join these types of groups that much. They might even join or come back to the Church, or at least not hate it as much. Honey attracts more flies than vinegar.

 

[lynnvinc]

The AGW hypothesis says CO2 is the main driver of warmer temperatures.

Noooo, the climate scientists are not saying that. They are well aware of all the various drivers of warming past and present. They are saying that CO2 and other GHGs are contributing to much of the warming we see today, that the level of warming today cannot be solely explained by these other factors. (We need to give them more credit for covering all the bases.)

I know you have a paper from a Hungarian sci journal that supposedly disproves the GH effect. I’ve run it by climate scientists and they say is it bunk (they used more polite words…so they are actually better people than me).

One would think that the paper should be published in a more mainstream sci journal so all could read about it, and it could be vetted by top scientists and either stand or fall with further scrutiny.

You are not going to convince me AGW is not happening, esp since my standards of proof for it are much lower than even the scientists’ standards. I would strive to avoid the FALSE NEGATIVE of failing to mitigate a true problem, the road of prudence as the popes and bishops have advised us on this issue. Maybe the scientists cannot afford to be the boy who called wolf when there was no wolf (in their striving to avoid the FALSE POSITIVE resulting in their conservatism and reticence about making claims), but we people concerned about life on planet earth cannot afford to be the villagers who get eaten up by the wolf when indeed there is a wolf.

 

[kimmielittle]

Don’t have time or patience to read your posts. What I wrote is what I know…which is not infalliable.

EXACTLY! You prove my point!

Let’s see:
You know you are right but not infallible…BECAUSE you know you are right?
You don’t have time or patience to read my posts - yet you debate my posts?

From reading what your wrote and what I have read, Dr. Lal really did not know that all the glaciers couldn’t possibly melt by 2035.

Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature”.

He is not a glaciologist (you are expecting too much of him and the beleagured team of scientists and others who put in their valuable free time to write up the IPCC reports

Let’s see someone forced this Lead Author to take the job - I’m not to expect much of a Lead Author of IPCC WG AR4 who places himself in an “Authoritarian Position”.

**when reviewers did raise issues that called the claim into question, Dr Lal and his colleagues simply ignored them.

For example, Hayley Fowler of Newcastle University, suggested that their draft did not mention that Himalayan glaciers in the Karakoram range are growing rapidly, citing a paper published in the influential journal Nature.

In their response, the IPCC authors said, bizarrely, that they were ‘unable to get hold of the suggested references’, but would ‘consider’ this in their final version. They failed to do so.

The Japanese government commented that the draft did not clarify what it meant by stating that the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing by 2035 was ‘very high’. ‘What is the confidence level?’ it asked.

The authors’ response said ‘appropriate revisions and editing made’. But the final version was identical to their draft.

Last week, Professor Georg Kaser, a glacier expert from Austria, who was lead author of a different chapter in the IPCC report, said when he became aware of the 2035 claim a few months before the report was published, he wrote to Dr Lal, urging him to withdraw it as patently untrue.**

I’m sure he was also concerned about life on planet earth and especially the potential harm to his country and progeny from AGW. If he was not angry and incensed by our willful disregard of this problem,

We are Catholics here…we DO NOT subscribe to the “Ends Justify the Means”.

AMAZING

 

[kimmielittle]

Noooo, the climate scientists are not saying that. They are well aware of all the various drivers of warming past and present. They are saying that CO2 and other GHGs are contributing to much of the warming we see today, that the level of warming today cannot be solely explained by these other factors. (We need to give them more credit for covering all the bases.)

I invite you to reread the BASIC AGW hypothesis. It indeed, places CO2 as the main driver of warming temperatures.

I know you have a paper from a Hungarian sci journal that supposedly disproves the GH effect. I’ve run it by climate scientists and they say is it bunk (they used more polite words…so they are actually better people than me).

Actually…what I do have is the absence of empirical observational evidence supporting the BASE AGW Claim Why do you think they changed the name to “Climate Change”?]…Supporting the extrapolation claims of CAGW…the “sensitivity” claims … the “feedback” claims Is water vapor a Positive or Negative Feedback ].

One would think that the paper should be published in a more mainstream sci journal so all could read about it, and it could be vetted by top scientists and either stand or fall with further scrutiny.

You admit it’s out there in a science journal - it has been peer-reviewed…BUT it can’t be vetted?

You are not going to convince me AGW is not happening,

This is where we differ…AND differ greatly. It is YOU who is trying to convince me and others.

I’m only challenging your constant use of unsupportable claims

I don’t care what you believe in - I do care when you try to use those unsupportable claims in an attempt t0o brush me and others who don’t think like you…as somehow less ethical / moral than you.

Frankly, you have no case for justification.

 

[pnewton]

Don’t have time or patience to read your posts.

I think this says it all, especially in light of your own lengthy posts. What you want is a soapbox, a one-sided conversation, not a discussion.

 

[rdscheirer]

Again I say why is the leading “climatologist” the same one who in the late 1970’s said we were heading for a new ice age. I think his last name is Hansen. Works(ed) for NASA- why is it that historians call it the “Optimum” when the world was warmer and Greenland was actually green? When humans flourished because of the climate.

Good article in Scientific American maybe 20 yrs ago that said in order to have an Ice Age it had to be warmer- snow doesn’t fall if its too cold- Antarctica is a desert as it gets so little snow/rainfa

 

[jilly4ski]

I think you are partly right.

Of course there could never be a criminal law against excessive GHG emissions, and I would never suggest that.

I personally do feel responsible for people’s death from that portion of drought/famine due to AGW and to the many many other ways in which people are harmed and killed thru AGW. It is more like a sense of Christian morality and my conscience that leads me to feel the connection.

However, it would be impossible, I think, to calculate how many people I have killed or will be killing in the future – or if 100 people like me are causing the death of one person – especially since a portion of my GHG emissions may last in the atmosphere and go on harming people day after day after day for 100,000 years. Or not, if some natural or supernatural cataclysm kills everyone tomorrow or 500 years from now.

I can only act on the best information and knowledge I have today, hoping for the best and expecting the worst.

And I can understand if others do not wish to carry this burden of responsibility – they may have a sick child or troubled marriage, and are consumed with more immediate problems. I’ve been so very blessed with a relatively trouble-free life.

Obviously there is not a law, but shouldn’t there be if it is actually killing people? Heck you are imputing murderer status on those who emit too much HGCs. (Not sure that has ever been defined, and even if it could and individual would be incapable of reaching that level). I used murder as an example (being the one to cause you to be in the right place and time to get hit by lightening=murder) which is both a sin and a crime. So are you trying to say that this specific means of killing people is a sin but not a crime?

I hope you can see how radical this is and why we as Catholics need to stop and combat this mode of thinking. You are more or less suggesting that any and all CO2 that we emit is, has and will kill people. However, our very existence (breathing) emits CO2. This is where scary policies of limiting population, abortions, forced sterilizations and contraception, come from. To say that people are guilty of sin for any and all CO2 emissions is saying that we shouldn’t exist on this planet. Why aren’t you living like the Amish, if your CO2 emissions are making you guilty of killing people (mortal sin?) and thus destined for hell?

(The obvious answer is obviously that emitting CO2 isn’t killing people and thus is not a mortal sin).

 

[fin]

CO2 is needed by plants for photosynthesis.

That’s why ‘global warming’, if it truly exists, isn’t a bad thing. Having CO2 is actually good for plants.

 

[lynnvinc]

Obviously there is not a law, but shouldn’t there be if it [GHG emissions and AGW] is actually killing people?

Not necessarily. For instance, we also know that the local pollution ICE cars emit cause birth defects, abortions, retardation, and death (esp for those already weak or ill, such as asthmatics). For instance, one study found that 60,000 Americans die prematurely each year from small particulate matter in pollutants that is not regulated – that’s like a Viet Nam War every year, but only covers one pollutant. There is also toxic benzene, butadiene, carbon monoxide, and nitrous oxide emitted, which also cause a lot of harm.

What society has done to stop that death and harm (killing) is reduce that pollution through auto emissions regulations of most, if not, all harmful emissions. Not sure how many deaths that has reduced, but I’m sure it’s significant (some scientist may have calculated it). Nevertheless, there is still a good amount of local pollution from car emissions that is harming people.

My single drive to the grociers 2 miles away probably will not have killed anyone, but perhaps 1000 of us or 50,000 of us driving would have caused harm to one or more person during that timeframe, perhaps even caused a death. Since much of my CO2 emissions last a very long time in the atmosphere, some lasting up to 100,000 years, I can think how my many decades of driving ICE cars has surely caused some significant harm, and will go on harming for a very long time.

I’m not sure what level of “sin” this is – maybe a venial one. Maybe we could add that in at confession now and then – “I am heartily sorry for any harms I have caused through pollution.” I’m thinking a simple Act of Contrition now and then would do.

The fact is we need to drive our cars to get to work and buy groceries, and even to go for some pleasure trips or we’ll go stir crazy. There are many many ways in which we are harming people just by living our normal “upright” lives in this current age. We are emeshed in structures of harm and death from which it is very hard to escape.

Car driving and other “industrial” behaviors (e.g., using coal-powered electricity) not only cause local pollution and harm, but also regional pollution (such as acid rain of sulfuric and nitric acid from SO2 and NOx under certain weather conditions – harming lakes, forests, soil, lungs and property), and global pollution and global warming.

I’m thinking the sin is not so much that we are caught up in this mesh of harm and death, but that once we understand that we are, we refuse to try and find sensible ways to reduce our pollution, or worse still we go on a campaign to deny the harm so as to get others not to reduce their pollution. Those would be the flaws of character I can see. Would it cause one to go to hell? I don’t know, I’m not a moral theologian.

God is great, and forgave the Good Thief on the cross, who was unable to get down and make amends for his sins. We don’t have to worry, only throw our cares on Jesus, and He will care for us, and slowly slowly lead us to ways in which we can reduce our harms, without harming ourselves, our pockebook, or the economy.

 

[lynnvinc]

CO2 is needed by plants for photosynthesis.

That’s why ‘global warming’, if it truly exists, isn’t a bad thing. Having CO2 is actually good for plants.

I think I covered this somewhere in this thread. The issue is more like it’s the amount that makes the food or poison. Here’s an excerpt from a paper I wrote on Food Rights & CC:
What might global warming and its effects mean for food and food production? First we need to address the argument that elevated carbon dioxide levels increase crop production. Aside from this being disingenuous because the CO2 is also causing warming and other effects that could be harmful to crops, there is evidence that increasing CO2 will not help crops as much as expected, and may even harm some crops and sea life, never mind the warming (Cline 2007: 23-26). While earlier enclosed studies showed increased growth with added CO2, recent open field studies show less increase and even a decline of some crops (Long, et al. 2006, Cruz, et al. 2007: 480). Furthermore, crops were found to be less nutritious (Högy, et al. 2009), and had greater pest damage (Hunter 2001). In the real world, crop growth is affected by many factors beyond CO2, including other nutrients, water supply, climate, extreme weather events, soil moisture, toxins expected to increase with global warming, and soil acidification from CO2 (Oh and Richter 2004). So while CO2 may moderately enhance crops up to a point, these other factors are expected to limit the potential enhancement and even lead to eventual declines. When the impact of warming is considered, a nonlinear relationship regarding crop productivity has been found for mid and high latitudes – the U.S., Canada, Europe, Russia, Japan and Northern China – with increased yields projected up to around 2050, after which the warming causes sharp decrease (Schlenker and Roberts 2009). A more recent study has found that climate change has already reduced some crops globally, despite CO2 fertilization and improved technology (Lobell, et al. 2011). As for sea life, an important human food supply, CO2-caused ocean acidification is having negative impacts on zooplankton (at the base of the food chain), shellfish, fish, and coral reefs, home to one-fourth of sealife (Rogers and Laffoley 2011; Doney, et al. 2009; Hoegh-Guldberg, et al. 2007; Munday, et al. 2010).

REFERENCES

• Cline, W. R. 2007. Global Warming and Agriculture. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development and the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
• Cruz, R. V., H. Harasawa, M. Lal, S. Wu, Y. Anokhin, B. Punsalmaa, Y. Honda, M. Jafari, C. Li, and N. Huu Ninh. 2007. “Asia.” Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contributions of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson (eds.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 469-506.
• Doney, S. C., V. J. Fabry, R. A. Feely, and J. Kleypas. 2009. Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem. Annual Review of Marine Sciences 1: 169-192.
• Hoegh-Guldberg, O., P. J. Mumby, A. J. Hooten, R. S. Steneck, and E. G. P. Greenfield, C. D. Harvell, P. F. Sale, A. J. Edwards, K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C. M. Eakin, R. Iglesias-Prieto, N. Muthiga, R. H. Bradbury, A. Dubi, M. E. Hatziolos. 2007. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318(5857): 1737-1742.
• Högy, P., H. Wieser, P. Köhler, K. Schwadorf , J. Breuer, J. Franzaring, R. Muntifering and A. Fangmeier. 2009. “Effects of elevated CO2 on grain yield and quality of wheat: results from a 3-year free-air CO2 enrichment experiment.” Plant Biology 11: 60-69.
• Hunter, M. D. 2001. “Effects of Elevated Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Insect-Plant Interactions.” Agricultural and Forest Entomology 3: 153-159.
• Lobell, D. B., W. Schlenker, and J. Costa-Roberts. 2011. “Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980.” Science 333(6042): 616-620.
• Long, S. P., E. A. Ainsworth, A. D. B. Leakey, J. Nösberger, D. R. Ort. 2006. “Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations.” Science 312(5782): 1918-1921.
• Munday, P. L., D. L. Dixson, M. I. McCormick, M. Meekan, M. C. O. Ferrari, and D. P. Chivers. 2010. “Replenishment of fish populations is threatened by ocean acidification.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(29):12930-12934.
• Oh, N-H., and D. D. Richter, Jr. 2004. “Soil acidification induced by elevated atmospheric CO2” Global Change Biology 10.11: 1936-1946.
• Oschlies, A., K. Schulz, U. Riebesell, and A. Schmittner. 2008. “Simulated 21st century’s in oceanic suboxia by CO2-enhanced biotic carbon export” Global Biochemical Cycles 22: 1-10.
• Rogers, A. D., and D. d’A. Laffoley. 2011. International Earth System Expert Workshop on Ocean Stresses and Impacts. Summary Report. International Program on the State of the Ocean. Oxford. stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1906_IPSO-LONG.pdf.
• Schlenker, W., and M. Roberts. 2009. “Nonlinear Temperature Effects Indicate Severe Damages to U.S. Crop Yields under Climate Change.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 106(37): 15594-15598.

 

[exoflare]

What you want is a soapbox, a one-sided conversation, not a discussion.

this

 

[lynnvinc]

I think this says it all [re my lack of time & patience to read all of KimmieLittle’s posts], especially in light of your own lengthy posts. What you want is a soapbox, a one-sided conversation, not a discussion.

I’ve pretty much discussed all KL has to say on other threads, so it is very irksome to keep on responding and responding to him…it gets him and me nowhere. There’s just no point in addressing the same issues with the same person.

I do however appreciate the other comments, esp at the beginning re clarification about what constitutes a sin.

I have been concerned for 22 years with striving to reduce my physical harms to people through my pollution (and inspire others to do likewise, calming their fears about economic collapse or totalitarian takeover if they start doing small things in their daily lives to help).

However, I also think there could be some spiritual harms in emitting pollution (especially in refusing to reduce, once one has become aware of the harms), and that is what this thread is about – not whether or not AGW is happening (which has been discussed ad nauseam on other threads & can still be discussed on the thread suggested by the moderator).

One of those spiritual harms I became aware of several years ago is the responsibility of people to inform their brethren about their brethren’s wrong-doing, or that sin falls back on the person who failed to warn. It was in a Mass reading right around the time I was deciding to give up on telling anyone about AGW and its money-saving solutions (bec that would then make people culpable, whereas if they truly did not know about AGW and its harms, they would not be culpable, even tho many lives might be lost).

So my feet are held to the fire in this – I have to speak out whatever the negative repercussion to myself.

And others, if they truly believe that mitigating AGW would cause great harm, they too must speak out. I’m listening. I’m also against food-to-fuel biofuels. I also feel bad about the birds that get killed by wind generators, etc., and am heartened by hearing about solutions to these problems. I am very amenable to mitigating AGW in ways that are benign or do least harm, and especially ways that actually lead to betterment of lives (and I’ve found many many such ways).

It seems there are negative side-effects to nearly every good or neutral thing we do in life, and it’s good to be cognizant of them and strive to reduce them. And, yes, we don’t want to go to some “eco-freak” extreme of doing crime or becoming pantheists or pagans.