The 'greenest' Pope in history

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Cherry
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
nice to have more citations and material to view! i’ll respond to your videos when i get a chance to watch them later.

for now, i’d just like to comment on your Toyota statistic. yes, it took them 10yrs to sell their millionth Prius - but comparatively, how long did they take to sell their first millionth auto-gear sedan? or their first millionth limousine? the figure is bombastic, but there seems quite a bit more than meets the eye. furthermore, it is *not only Toyota *which is selling the hybrid - there is also Honda’s Civic Hybrid at least (i’m not sure of the other companies… i’m not in the US, btw).

in addition, underperforming politicians and no fantastic alternative aside, we **still have to cut down **on our consumption and waste-production. if that means convincing one more person at your workplace to carpool, you’d have contributed profoundly to the mission at hand: changing the mindsets of the average consumer. if you can pass around tote bags and encourage more to use them for shopping and refuse plastic carriers, ditto. switching off all computers, printers, and airconditioning after work. driving less. switching to locally-produced food. recycling more paper. investing in green companies. the list is quite cool to make, really!

the bottom line is this: the world is dying due to our actions and we are not completely helpless. do your part and change your own habits, then spread the word. it’s almost like evangelising: the truth is we have to repent the way we live in order to save ourselves. (except in Christian evangelism, the Lord saves us; we just have to let Him!)
 
IMHO biofuel isn’t the answer. Not necessarily anyway. You gotta think outside the box.

Of course I do drive a car and company vehicles. However, think that the wave of the future will be hydrogen and electricity.

Not that this has any thing to do with B16, of course.(to keep the appearance of being on topic I add this link)
autoblog.com/2006/06/29/volvo-hands-xc90-keys-over-to-his-holiness/

Nevertheless, it will take a while to make the transition.
treehugger.com/files/2009/02/electric-motorcycle-mission-one-mission-motors-ted-2009.php
 
thanks Jean!

reproduced here (emphases in content mine):

INTERVENTION BY THE HOLY SEE AT THE 15th SESSION
OF THE COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL
ADDRESS OF H.E. MSGR. CELESTINO MIGLIORE
New York
Thursday, 10 May 2007

*Mr Chairman, *
While my delegation congratulates you and your bureau on your appointment, it sincerely hopes that all delegations will work with the greatest flexibility to achieve as much as we can in this policy year.

… [1 para cut to save characters]

The interlinkages become even stronger when we consider that, ultimately, the earth is our common heritage and we have a grave and far-reaching responsibility to ourselves and to future generations for the actions we are due to take here. It should be added that the need for joint action at the international level does not lessen the responsibility of individual states.
Mr Chairman, the question of energy is rapidly becoming one of the key questions of the entire international agenda, as all of us struggle to assemble a common, global, long-term energy strategy, capable of satisfying legitimate short- and medium-term energy requirements, ensuring energy security, protecting human health and the environment, and establishing precise commitments to address the question of climate change.

The scientific evidence for global warming and for humanity’s role in the increase of greenhouse gasses becomes ever more unimpeachable, as the IPCC findings are going to suggest; and such activity has a profound relevance, not just for the environment, but in ethical, economic, social and political terms as well. The consequences of climate change are being felt not only in the environment, but in the entire socio-economic system and, as seen in the findings of numerous reports already available, they will impact first and foremost the poorest and weakest who, even if they are among the least responsible for global warming, are the most vulnerable because they have limited resources or live in areas at greater risk. We need only think of the SIDS as one example among many. Many of the most vulnerable societies, already facing energy problems, rely upon agriculture, the very sector most likely to suffer from climatic shifts.

Thus, in order to address the double challenge of climate change and the need for ever greater energy resources, we will have to change our present model from one of the heedless pursuit of economic growth in the name of development, towards a model which **heeds the consequences of its actions **and is **more respectful towards the Creation **we hold in common, coupled with an integral human development for present and future generations.

The complexity of the promotion of sustainable development is evident to all; there are, however, certain underlying principles which can direct research towards adequate and lasting solutions. **Humanity must become increasingly conscious of the links between natural ecology, or respect for nature, and human ecology. **Experience shows that disregard for the environment harms human coexistence, while at the same time it becomes clearer that there is a positive link to be made between peace with creation and peace among nations.

Not so long ago, the Security Council had a meeting to discuss the relationship between energy, security and climate. While not everyone agrees upon the discussion of such material in the Security Council, the sobering fact is that we are already witnessing struggles for the control of strategic resources such as oil and fresh water, both of which are becoming ever scarcer. If we refuse to build sustainable economies now, we will continue to drift towards more tensions and conflicts over resources, to say nothing of threatening the very existence of coastal peoples and small island states.

Recently, we have heard of economies that have managed to grow while actually reducing their consumption of energy. Surely this success holds out hope that our current economic model does not always oblige us to use more and more energy in order to grow. Economic growth does not have to mean greater consumption. From the standpoint of a sustainable economy, it does however mean that we will need technology, ingenuity, determined political will and common sense. Importantly, it will also demand technology transfer to developing countries, to the benefit of the entire global community.

But even technology, its transfer and political will to collaborate at the international level are not enough: to all that we must add national education schemes that will lead all of us without exception to approach our daily patterns of consumption and production in a very different way and to demand a similar change throughout construction, transport, businesses and other institutions.

Through such education, states can help their citizens grasp the urgency of what must be done, teaching them in turn to expect and demand a very different approach to their own consumption and that around them.

Worldwide, unprecedented ecological changes are already taking place and none of us can foresee fully the consequences of man’s industrial activity over the recent centuries. Remedies are not beyond our ingenuity, but we should however be careful not to choose a path that will make things worse, especially for the poor. We cannot simply uninvent the modern world, but there is still time to use technology and education to promote universally sustainable development before it is too late.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.
 
We’ll cut back on fossil fuels. That’s a given. The problem is there is nothing that can replace petroleum in the volumes required at any cost.

On batteries we’ll have to come up with something different that litium. There isn’t enough out there and what is out there is…imported.

Nuclear…Right now there is about 440 nuclear power generation plants around the world. Over 100 of those are in the US. 1 in 5 home’s electricity in the US is powered from nuclear generation - 20%. The US uses more nuclear generated electricity then England, Spain, Germany, and (yes) France combined.

Now to reach the amount of energy Rich Smalley put forth by 2050 usig nuclear generation the world would need on the order of 10,000 nuclear powered plants world wide. That means a new nuclear power plant would need to be buil every day for 27 years to reach Samelly’s goal by 2050. But Caltec’s Dr David Goodstein: Running out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil
has argued that 10,000 nuclear plants would use up the know uranium reserves within two decades using light water reaction. If we go to breeder reactors we buy more time…but who’s in favor of having 10,000 breeders spread through out the world?

The Crash Couse ties a lot of these problems (including economics) together. There’s 20 chapters ranging in recording times from a couple of minutes to about 15 minutes. chrismartenson.com/crashcourse. What we are battle here is exponential growth which is illistrated by Dr Albert Bartlett and the Crash Course relies upon: guba.com/watch/3000053112

People just don’t understand how much they rely upon petroleum in their everyday lives:
abc.net.au/science/crude/ esp see the interview with Sonia Shah. But consider how many things you use that are made from petro 3k88.com/products.htm

bottomline. The world is not going to cut back on its petroleum and CO2 emitions until geology dictates no other choice but adaptation.
 
Hydrogen my friend! Hydrogen. A technology that was suppressed by the automotive industry for a very long time and is now coming out into the open. Kits are available for the automotive enthusiast , Chevy and Ford are producing them, as hybrids… A slow transition, but a transition nonetheless. What are the byproducts of hydrogen fueled vehicles emissions? H2O and Oxygen. and it is clean… In theory it will clean the air and water as it is used…😃
 
Bill_Cherry said:
Hydrogen my friend! Hydrogen. A technology that was suppressed by the automotive industry for a very long time and is now coming out into the open. Kits are available for the automotive enthusiast , Chevy and Ford are producing them, as hybrids… A slow transition, but a transition nonetheless. What are the byproducts of hydrogen fueled vehicles emissions? H2O and Oxygen. and it is clean… In theory it will clean the air and water as it is used…😃
Click to expand...
You have to understand EROEI (energy return on energy invetment) aka Net Energy Return. Hydrogen is a net energy losser because it takes more energy (name removed by moderator)ut to get hydrogen output. The most efficient way to produce hydrgen is to crack it out of natural gas using high temp steam. But that relies upon a nonrenewable fossil fuel hydrocarbon agian.

The other way of getting hydrogen is electrolysis of water. But you have to have a fuel source to make the electricity to crack hydrogen from water. Most electricity is generated from coal so if your not going to be using fossil fuels to generate the electricity, what fuel source will that be? Because energy (name removed by moderator)ut is alway greater then energy output for hydrogen production, hydrogen is not viewed as an energy source. It’s energy storage more akin to a battery. That’s only one of the problems with hydrogen. The fuel cells require platinum and is why the fuel cell cars cost upwards of $1 million, and those cells have to be replaced before the end of the cars life. Hydrogen is also reactive, will leak through gaskets, and must be stored at high pressures to be able to get any reasonable driving distance. One of the proposals I’ve read required a hydrogen tank big enough to fill the trunk and back seat of a small car. That tank would have to be made from stanless steel and then wrapped in carbon fibers to get the strength needed to hold the 10,000 psi of hydrogen. I would not like getting rear ended with that backseat bomb.

If you haven’t noticed I have done several years of research on this subject and like Prof Rich Smalley I haven’t heard anything viable that’d could maintain this level of lifestyle by the modern world. If there’s an energy breakthough it hasn’t been found yet…and like I’ve already said, oil isn’t just energy. It’s also products…everything from shampoo, to toothpaste, to medicines (including aspirine), to asphalt highways.

I had somebody tell me we could use cement based concrete for highways instead of tar based asphalt. He didn’t realize that in making concrete every sqare inch of the manufacture cement going into the mix had been heated to 2,800 degrees. At 600 degrees less, the lava flowing out of Hawaii’s kilauea is 2,200 degrees.

So over the last several years, at least, of research I’m of the opinion that societies are not going to cut back on their energy consumption…a cut back that would that would tank their economies… They’ go to war first.
 
Doug50 said:
You have to understand EROEI (energy return on energy invetment) aka Net Energy Return. Hydrogen is a net energy losser because it takes more energy (name removed by moderator)ut to get hydrogen output. The most efficient way to produce hydrgen is to crack it out of natural gas using high temp steam. But that relies upon a nonrenewable fossil fuel hydrocarbon agian.
…edited solely for brevity…
So over the last several years, at least, of research I’m of the opinion that societies are not going to cut back on their energy consumption…a cut back that would that would tank their economies… They’ go to war first.
Click to expand...
These are true but sad facts that I can not refute. That does not mean all hope is lost however. While more ‘advanced’ countries make the transition, those who are behind economically/technologically will fight for what the ‘advanced’ have relinquished. And even the those with oil based economies such as the middle east may try to somehow keep us dependent on them. But, I am pretty sure that it is inevitable that the transition will be made. Not over night, of course. But it will be made.

I will watch you documentary in the post you made after the one I am responding to.(52 mins?😊) But in return you gotta check this one out (careful its loud) @9 mins or so

ted.com/index.php/talks/reinventing_the_car.html

and look at this website…

car2water.com/

theres lots of this stuff coming out now. Even the Taliban or China couldn’t suppress it.

I’m just trying to be optimistic. Reach for the stars…you might get at least to the top of the trees…(and all that happy horse hooey)
 
Doug50 said:
The independent film was produced in 2005 but it still gets the point across of how much the modern world depends upon petroleum for so many things

The End of Suburbia - 52 minute documentary on peak oil
Click to expand...
Ok…well, first of all its very old. Sort of nostalgic, I guess. It is probably as old as I am. I didn’t watch all of it. Barely five minutes. Don’t be offended but I could see where it was going.And I read the info on the side …I think things are a little different now. The days of cheap gasoline are gone,it is true. As far as I am concerned, in the long run that is a good thing. Right now it stinks. And until the new technology is more affordable it will continue to stink. But remember, even DVD players started out in the thousand dollar range and now you can get one for 20 bones.

As i said, the WORST part is that it will take some time. I am inclined to believe that if the government hadn’t bailed out the auto industry it would have sped up the process. Although it would’ve stunk for the few autoworkers who would be out of work if the government hadn’t jumped in.

I have faith in human ingenuity. i am also a little leery of it. But, you can only swing with the bat in your hands. We are already advancing bases…(wo, I made a made a baseball analogy!!!Maybe some one will hit a home run soon…😃
 
Bill_Cherry said:
These are true but sad facts that I can not refute. That does not mean all hope is lost however. While more ‘advanced’ countries make the transition, those who are behind economically/technologically will fight for what the ‘advanced’ have relinquished. And even the those with oil based economies such as the middle east may try to somehow keep us dependent on them. But, I am pretty sure that it is inevitable that the transition will be made. Not over night, of course. But it will be made.

I will watch you documentary in the post you made after the one I am responding to.(52 mins?😊) But in return you gotta check this one out (careful its loud) @9 mins or so

ted.com/index.php/talks/reinventing_the_car.html

and look at this website…

car2water.com/

theres lots of this stuff coming out now. Even the Taliban or China couldn’t suppress it.

I’m just trying to be optimistic. Reach for the stars…you might get at least to the top of the trees…(and all that happy horse hooey)
Click to expand...
Hydrogen is not a good solution. Ammonia derived from sea water NH3 would be better since it’s more easily transported. One of the people, Matt Simmons, in that video believe ammonia derived from seawater will be the answer to car fuels. That still gets back to net energy return.

To use a comparison: at one time oil was thought to have an EROEI of 100 to 1. That is for every one unit of energy (name removed by moderator)ut 100 equivalent units of energy was produced. Hydrogen is negative. More energy goes into hydrogen production then is produced. Ethanol might have an EROEI of 1.2 to 1. That is, for every 1.2 gallons of ethanol produced on 1 gallon has to go back into the production loop to make next year’s crop. Only .2 gallons goes to consumers. So without doing a lot of math (it’s late) it doesn’t take too much imagination to realize that a huge amount of farmland would need to converted to ethanol production to equal the US oil consumption. I’ve heard it said the US doesn’t have enough ag land even if all the crops went into ethanol production.

I’m a realist by nature so my being an optimist or pessimist the world’s economic future is determined by engineering and data. That aside people, if they so choose, can still be optimistic about their ability to adapted to an economically bleak future.
 
Bill_Cherry said:
Ok…well, first of all its very old. Sort of nostalgic, I guess. It is probably as old as I am. I didn’t watch all of it. Barely five minutes. Don’t be offended but I could see where it was going.And I read the info on the side …I think things are a little different now. The days of cheap gasoline are gone,it is true. As far as I am concerned, in the long run that is a good thing. Right now it stinks. And until the new technology is more affordable it will continue to stink. But remember, even DVD players started out in the thousand dollar range and now you can get one for 20 bones.

As i said, the WORST part is that it will take some time. I am inclined to believe that if the government hadn’t bailed out the auto industry it would have sped up the process. Although it would’ve stunk for the few autoworkers who would be out of work if the government hadn’t jumped in.

I have faith in human ingenuity. i am also a little leery of it. But, you can only swing with the bat in your hands. We are already advancing bases…(wo, I made a made a baseball analogy!!!Maybe some one will hit a home run soon…😃
Click to expand...
no it’s only about 4 years old. It just draws on old film from the 1950’s (mostly) to illustrate how and why the US suburban lifestyle developed.
 
Doug50 said:
no it’s only about 4 years old. It just draws on old film from the 1950’s (mostly) to illustrate how and why the US suburban lifestyle developed.
Click to expand...
Doug50 said:
Is the IEA’s purpose to be optimistic or to give realist arguments based upon their data?
IEA World Energy Outlook 2008
oildepletiondebate.blogspot.com/2008/11/iea-world-energy-outlook-2008.html

“The Sirens Shrill”
The International Energy Agency (IEA) gives alarm: The world could run out of oil faster than expected - the danger of a supply shortage is rising
oildepletiondebate.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-follows-is-english-translation.html
Click to expand...
Hmm.Well it’s midnight here. So I wil have to get back tomorrow if I have the time. But I will be back. Thank you for making me think, Doug!

Goodnight!:yawn:

See ya next time around!
 
Holy See on Protecting Global Climate
“Educate in Ecological Responsibility”

NEW YORK, OCT. 28, 2008 - Here is the message Archbishop Celestino Migliore, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, delivered today before the Second Committee of the 63rd session of the U.N. General Assembly on the protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind.
Mr Chairman,

My delegation is pleased to join this debate on the protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind, and wishes to express at the very outset its appreciation for the effective approach to this particular item of the General Assembly.

It is often said that we have to defend the environment. The term “defense” could mislead us to see a conflict between the environment and the human being. In this forum, we speak of “protection” or “safeguarding”. Indeed, in this case, protection encompasses more than defense. It implies a positive vision of the human being, meaning that the person is considered not a nuisance or a threat to the environment, but as its steward. In this sense, not only is there no opposition between the human being and the environment, but there is an established and inseparable alliance, in which the environment essentially conditions the human being’s existence and development, while the latter perfects and ennobles the environment by his creative activity.

The use of appropriate language is important when we speak of protecting the environment and climate change, so vital for the whole of humanity today.

Ever since international law began to embrace global commons and shared ecosystems, new concepts have taken shape with a view to rethinking the legal basis of the appropriation, use, safeguard, protection and equitable sharing of natural resources as well as ecosystems. Notwithstanding some divergence of opinion regarding their meaning and normative status, the principles of “common heritage of mankind”, “state responsibility”, “common but differentiated responsibilities”, “inter-generational and intra-generational equity”, have provided valuable perspectives and guidance for addressing the interrelations of environment, economic development and ultimately human rights.

In the same vein, the principle of “responsibility to protect”, though it may not have been able to generate precise juridical norms in itself, has been invoked by some as an essential aspect of the exercise of sovereignty at the national and international levels.

Applying this principle to environmental issues and associating it with the protection of the global climate, actually gives the international community an opportunity to reflect on different aspects that can help promote an authentic human development.

The responsibility to protect the climate requires us to further deepen the interactions between food security and climate change, focusing on the centrality of the human person, in particular on the most vulnerable populations, often located in rural areas of developing countries. The strategies to confront the challenges of food security and climate change, through synergic actions of adaptation and mitigation, must take into account the centrality of these populations, respecting their culture and traditional customs.

Secondly, the responsibility to protect the climate should be based on the alliance between the principles of subsidiarity and global solidarity. In a world so interconnected as today, we are witnessing the rapid expansion of a series of challenges in many areas of human life, from food crisis to financial turmoil. Such crises have revealed the limited national resources and capacities to deal with them adequately, and the increasing need for collective action by the international community. The current negotiations on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are a good example of how responsibility to protect, subsidiarity and global solidarity are strongly intertwined with each other, a fact that we ought to take into account as we consider the protection of the global climate for present and future generations.

Thirdly, it should be borne in mind that the environmental question cannot be considered separately from other issues, like energy and economy, peace and justice, national interests and international solidarity. It is not difficult to perceive how issues of environmental protection, models of development, social equity and shared responsibility to care for the environment are inextricably linked.

Today’s society cannot respond adequately to the duty connected with the responsibility to protect the environment if it does not seriously review its lifestyle, its patterns of consumption and production. There is, therefore, an urgent need to educate in ecological responsibility, based on the fact that many ethical values, fundamental for developing a peaceful society, have a direct relationship to the environmental question. Conversely, the interdependence of the many challenges that the world faces today confirms the need for coordinated solutions based on a coherent moral vision of the world.

Such education cannot simply rest on political or ideological reasons, nor its purpose aim at the rejection of the modern world. It entails a genuine conversion and change in patterns of thinking and behavior and should be based on the value and dignity of the human person.

Thank you Mr Chairman.
 
how about reducing consumption? more emphasis on reducing waste, recycling, greener manufacturing technologies?

it’s good to know how grave the situation is… but does that mean it is absolutely hopeless? are we truly unable to reduce our carbon footprint?

one example i remember from Discovery Channel is the idea of a green building: a building which basically reduces it’s power consumption thru clever design (sometimes simple rethinking of design ethos to focus on energy-efficiency) and inclusion of renewable power generation within the building itself - e.g. incorporating wind turbines & solar cells into optimal locations on a skyscraper, water collection and osmosis filtration on the rooftop, etc. iirc, the figure for energy savings is from 40-80% - quite a good investment, no?

granted, not every piece of technology could be absolutely petrol-independent in manufacturing - but these things will “recoup their losses” eventually. if we can’t jump from excessive petrol-dependency to petrol-independency overnight, then why don’t we do what we can meantime? doomsday scenarios get pretty draggy after a while.

ultimately, i believe it is technology that will be most crucial. the oil economy has allowed petrol-related technology to make it such a cheap and attractive fuel - if we could will ourselves away from simply exploiting the cheapest resource and focus on improving the technology in utilising other fuels, i believe even hydrogen can become viable in future.

meantime, let’s not forget wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal energy. bicycles, public transport, and walking could make a huge difference too. heck, if all of us were to switch off more appliances when not in use… the difference could already be staggering. if we do manage to decrease our consumption dramatically, then we give ourselves more time and resources to improve our technology, and we learn to be more responsible with our actions as consumers.

the challenge is there. it’s not gonna go away. now, do we spend all our time talking about how difficult it is? or should we get down to business wherever we can immediately?
 
ahollars said:
I could care less…

Okay, maybe I care some. I am all for conservation, and self-denial of the excesses of society.

However, I have little respect for people who actually believe that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that must be regulated. Global warming is loosing credibility, so now the moniker is “climate change”. Our world is supposed to fluctuate and be in a constantly changing state. There is no ideal condition to aspire to, since we’ve only been keeping track of the weather on a scientifically reliable basis for the last couple of centuries. Carbon occurs naturally in the air without our help, and it’s necessary for plant life. More of it will make them grow faster, stronger, and healthier, and according to the tree-huggers, that’s exactly what we need anyways.

Everything else, I’m all for it.
Click to expand...
Amen.

Pax.
 
I take my hate off to all of you who have bothered to participate on this thread. There is global warming and climate change. You don’t have to be a scientist to be aware of this. However, being no scientist, I was lost amidst the technical jargon in some posts. I hope to keep up. I do notice that there have been relatively few posts on this thread. Is there a similar thread?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top