NZ Bishops go overboard with sea level claims?

[Petergee]

Statement on Environmental Issues from the New Zealand Catholic Bishops’ Conference
cathcom.org.nz/media.php?subaction=showfull&id=1157683596&archive=&cnshow=news&start_from=

Don’t get me wrong, I fully endorse both the spirit of the bishops’ statement and most of its textual content, but two things they said worry me -

For the peoples of the Pacific, climate change is already among the most urgent threats facing them. Rising temperatures and sea levels, and the greater intensity of storms and natural disasters, are already affecting the food and water supply for people on low-lying islands in different parts of the Pacific.

Surely this is, at the very least, controversial or disputed if not downright untrue?

The world needs to reduce its carbon output by 80 percent, and some New Zealand households could achieve that overnight by simply changing the kind of car they drive.

Surely even if it was possible to produce a car which produced zero “carbon” (Presumably they mean carbon dioxide) in its manufacture, use and eventual disposal, the family’s other basic needs (housing, food, clothing, power, cooking, heating etc) must comprise a lot more than 20% of their controbution to carbon dioxide output.

I fear that the good message of the bishops’ statement will be ignored because these two sentences will expose the bishops to ridicule by anyone who knows anything about science. It seems the bishops have been too eager to regurgitate the propaganda of the “it’s all so awful, we’re all gunna die” enviro-cataclysm zealots without having the wording checked for scientific accuracy. This is the last thing we need when some have resurrected the sily canard that the church is “anti-science”.

 

[Skyron]

Bishop:

For the peoples of the Pacific, climate change is already among the most urgent threats facing them. Rising temperatures and sea levels, and the greater intensity of storms and natural disasters, are already affecting the food and water supply for people on low-lying islands in different parts of the Pacific.

Surely this is, at the very least, controversial or disputed if not downright untrue?

While the effect of carbon (the second quote you posted), it’s relationship, whether it has an causes climate change, etc… is still being debated, the problems he posted are quite prevalant. And I’m sure they’re quite concerned. There are large amounts of shore communities/islands/etc… that have been flooded, water supplies tainted, etc… This is by no means untrue. So as the pacific population looks for answers to their fears, global warming via rising CO2 is the best they can find, so far.

 

[Petergee]

There are large amounts of shore communities/islands/etc… that have been flooded, water supplies tainted, etc… This is by no means untrue.

Some beaches may have been washed away by storms (not by a rising average sea level), as has been happening for millions of years, then the beach gradually builds up again.
Not that you would ever know it from the sensationalist doomsday stories that constantly fill the mainstream media, but there is NO evidence that mean sea levels have risen in the last 100 years. (After all, if sea levels rose, it would be obvious to coastal communities all around the world, not just in the Pacific.) It is hotly disputed whether the slight rise in temperature over the 100 years to 1998 (yes that’s right, the global temp has been getting LOWER over the past 8 years) has been caused by human activities such as those which produce CO2. Even those scientists who say human activity is the cause, agree that any further increase in CO2 levels will have little effect on global temperature, and that the so-called “runaway greenhouse effect” is pop fiction.

So as the pacific population looks for answers to their fears, global warming via rising CO2 is the best they can find, so far.

I would suggest they seek answers to their fears in the Divine and through the rational scientific human minds He created, and encouraged through His Church, rather than seeking answers in pop-pseudoscience.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Suggest that we outlaw petroleum consuming ships and return to yankee clippers.

 

[Skyron]

Suggest that we outlaw petroleum consuming ships and return to yankee clippers.

Actually, there are legitimate designs by legitimate companies that have actually done this. Both in a “clipper” design (which are quite impressive designs) in addition to an alternative “kite” method, yes, a kite. They’re primarily designed for cargo/trade ships, the biggest user of fuel (and therefore the most economically/capitalistically motivated). For a cargo ship running at it’s normal speed, fuel consumption can be dropped by up to 50%.
(it is estimated that the world’s fleet of trade ships emits as much toxic emissions as the US, so this would be a nice environmental benifit as well)

I know you comment was for fun, but it’s just a bit exciting for some of us when new environmentally-friendly technologies reach the point of becoming a no-brainer economically. SkySails has sold a few of their “kites” (as crazy as that seems) to companies that will purchase 300 more in the next five years alone, providing that the “demo” goes well.

There are some more extreme concepts in the works, zero emission cargo ships, but this one allows everyone to keep on working as normal, just better.