U.S. Bishops' letter to EPA re Power Plants, Carbon Pollution & Climate Change

[lynnvinc]

In response to new regulations being proposed for power plants, the U.S. Bishops have written the following letter to the EPA at usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/environment/environmental-justice-program/upload/letter-to-epa-from-archbishop-wenski-on-carbon-emissions-standards-2014-05-29.pdf

“…The USCCB recognizes the importance of finding means to reduce carbon pollution. These standards should protect the health and welfare of all people, especially children, the elderly, as well as poor and vulnerable communities, from harmful pollution emitted from power plants and from the impacts of climate change…”

 

[Beryllos]

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/environment/environmental-justice-program/upload/letter-to-epa-from-archbishop-wenski-on-carbon-emissions-standards-2014-05-29.pdf

It’s a good letter.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

it refers to *Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good *written way back in 2001.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/environment/global-climate-change-a-plea-for-dialogue-prudence-and-the-common-good.cfm

Climate Change and Catholic Social Teaching

God has endowed humanity with reason and ingenuity that distinguish us from other creatures. Ingenuity and creativity have enabled us to make remarkable advances and can help us address the problem of global climate change; however, we have not always used these endowments wisely. Past actions have produced both good works and harmful ones, as well as unforseen or unintended consequences. Now we face two central moral questions:

1. How are we to fulfill God’s call to be stewards of creation in an age when we may have the capacity to alter that creation significantly, and perhaps irrevocably?
2. How can we as a “family of nations” exercise stewardship in a way that respects and protects the integrity of God’s creation and provides for the common good, as well as for economic and social progress based on justice?

Catholic social teaching provides several themes and values that can help answer these questions.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In response to new regulations being proposed for power plants, the U.S. Bishops have written the following letter to the EPA at usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/environment/environmental-justice-program/upload/letter-to-epa-from-archbishop-wenski-on-carbon-emissions-standards-2014-05-29.pdf

“…The USCCB recognizes the importance of finding means to reduce carbon pollution. These standards should protect the health and welfare of all people, especially children, the elderly, as well as poor and vulnerable communities, from harmful pollution emitted from power plants and from the impacts of climate change…”

There is no evidence that either C02 or man causes climate change. The archbishop is expressing the opinion of the bishops, what is known as a " prudential " judgment. But in this case the judgment is highly suspect since we know there is no reliable evidence to support the claim.

I am extremely disappointed in the American Bishops, once again they have done the " imprudential " thing.

Go ahead, shut down all the coal burners, shut down all the oil drilling, shut down all the fracking. What’s left? Nuclear power is the only reasonable alternative. Is that really what you want? That is the most dangerous source of energy available and the storage facilities of nuclear waste are piling up and the potential danger from this is incalcuable.

How is any of this going to help the poor? Energy prices are going to go out the roof. How will that help the poor?

Linus2nd

 

[Michael_Mayo]

There is no evidence that either C02 or man causes climate change. The archbishop is expressing the opinion of the bishops, what is known as a " prudential " judgment. But in this case the judgment is highly suspect since we know there is no reliable evidence to support the claim.

I am extremely disappointed in the American Bishops, once again they have done the " imprudential " thing.

Go ahead, shut down all the coal burners, shut down all the oil drilling, shut down all the fracking. What’s left? Nuclear power is the only reasonable alternative. Is that really what you want? That is the most dangerous source of energy available and the storage facilities of nuclear waste are piling up and the potential danger from this is incalcuable.

How is any of this going to help the poor? Energy prices are going to go out the roof. How will that help the poor?

Linus2nd

Your minority contrarian view does not give due attention to the untapped potentials of solar energy, wind power, geothermal power, biofuel and hydropower.

iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024

 

[SuperLuigi]

Your minority contrarian view does not give due attention to the untapped potentials of solar energy, wind power, geothermal power, biofuel and hydropower.

I’m an environmental scientist, and I can attest to the destruction of ecosystems by alternative energy infrastructure.

1. The construction of dams is a leading cause if not the leading cause of extinction of freshwater species
2. The construction of solar panels has disrupted conversation projects and the desert tortoise, which is an endangered species.
3. The use of certain biofuels was thought to have raised the price of food in the developing world.
4. Wind turbines seem to create health problems for humans and kill endangered birds and bats.

The sheeple attitude regarding the extremely overrated problem of man-made “climate change” is quite disturbing.

 

[SuperLuigi]

It’s a good letter.

No it isn’t. It is based on faulty scientific data.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I’m an environmental scientist, and I can attest to the destruction of ecosystems by alternative energy infrastructure.

1. The construction of dams is a leading cause if not the leading cause of extinction of freshwater species
2. The construction of solar panels has disrupted conversation projects and the desert tortoise, which is an endangered species.
3. The use of certain biofuels was thought to have raised the price of food in the developing world.
4. Wind turbines seem to create health problems for humans and kill endangered birds and bats.

The sheeple attitude regarding the extremely overrated problem of man-made “climate change” is quite disturbing.

Is this a joke ?

Jim

 

[SuperLuigi]

There is no evidence that either C02 or man causes climate change. The archbishop is expressing the opinion of the bishops, what is known as a " prudential " judgment. But in this case the judgment is highly suspect since we know there is no reliable evidence to support the claim.

I am extremely disappointed in the American Bishops, once again they have done the " imprudential " thing.

Go ahead, shut down all the coal burners, shut down all the oil drilling, shut down all the fracking. What’s left? Nuclear power is the only reasonable alternative. Is that really what you want? That is the most dangerous source of energy available and the storage facilities of nuclear waste are piling up and the potential danger from this is incalcuable.

How is any of this going to help the poor? Energy prices are going to go out the roof. How will that help the poor?

Linus2nd

Yeah, but who cares about REAL evidence? It’s a chance for excuse-making Catholics to put on their “I’m with the world on this one” cool kids hat and feel good inside.

 

[Ender]

The archbishop is expressing the opinion of the bishops, what is known as a " prudential " judgment.

Actually, all he (Archbishop Wenski) is expressing is his own opinion. The fact that his letter was printed on USCCB stationary means nothing. He cannot, and does not, speak for any bishop other than himself.

I am extremely disappointed in the American Bishops, once again they have done the " imprudential " thing.

It is always disappointing when the clergy jumps into political issues, and doubly so when this suggests that there is a moral issue involved, that their opinion represents the moral choice, and it is therefore somehow immoral to disagree with them.

Ender

 

[SuperLuigi]

Is this a joke ?

Jim

abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/collisions/wind_policy.html

fws.gov/nevada/desert_tortoise/dt/dt_threats.html

the-american-interest.com/blog/2013/09/09/eu-biofuels-boondoggle-raising-global-food-prices/

internationalrivers.org/blogs/229/dams-and-extinction-going-going-gone

 

[SuperLuigi]

Actually, all he (Archbishop Wenski) is expressing is his own opinion. The fact that his letter was printed on USCCB stationary means nothing. He cannot, and does not, speak for any bishop other than himself.
It is always disappointing when the clergy jumps into political issues, and doubly so when this suggests that there is a moral issue involved, that their opinion represents the moral choice, and it is therefore somehow immoral to disagree with them.

Ender

This will make the cost of electricity go up.

I wonder if Churches will notice when people inevitability give less to the collection plate as costs go up and people are laid off.

And then I guess it’ll be time to sit and wonder why we don’t have the resources to keep Church X and Y open or why we get outspent in the culture war (including the marriage issue).

But hey, if Catholics want to use this issue in order to be a part of the “in crowd”, that’s part of the price for serving mammon instead of the Truth.

Good day!

:tiphat:

 

[JimR-OCDS]

abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/collisions/wind_policy.html

fws.gov/nevada/desert_tortoise/dt/dt_threats.html

the-american-interest.com/blog/2013/09/09/eu-biofuels-boondoggle-raising-global-food-prices/

internationalrivers.org/blogs/229/dams-and-extinction-going-going-gone

And there are arguments from scientists against such claims. In fact, common sense is enough to see that the links you provided are overblown.

Wind Energy Threat to Birds Is Overblown

ecowatch.com/2014/04/16/wind-energy-threat-birds-overblown/

Couldn’t find anything in your link about solar panels being a threat to tortoises.

Also, the threat by wind turbines to the health of humans is miniscule. On the other hand, power plants burning fossil fuels has a far greater effect to human beings.

The fact is, the debate shouldn’t be on whether humans are causing climate change or not, for both sides have their heels dug in on the issue.

The focus should be on cleaning up our environment, which can only be good for the environment and humans over all.

Who is opposed to cleaning up the environment ?

Go to Beijing China some time and see the air pollution there. In fact, it gets so bad, the government tells people to stay inside and if they must go out, to wear masks.

Who would argue that this is good for the earth ?

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

OH, and I should’ve also stated, that I agree with the biofuel article.

It was a bad idea and I’ve protested against this long before it became what it is today.

We never want to exchange food production for energy production.

It’s a disaster waiting to happen.

Also, large hydro dams like they built in Quebec were environmental train wrecks.

Jim

 

[Beryllos]

This will make the cost of electricity go up…

Is that supposed to be a strong argument?

The auto industry howled when they were forced to put seat belts and air bags into every car. “This will make the price of cars go up!” Don’t you think such safety features and regulations have worked out well for the auto makers as well as the customers?

Electric rates probably did go up slightly when coal-fired power plants were forced to remove sulfur dioxide, and then mercury, from their smokestacks. I think that is a bargain. Who is going to advocate releasing more of those pollutants to bring prices down?

… that’s part of the price for serving mammon instead of the Truth…

Ironic? I always thought arguments based on price and profits serve mammon.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I don’t know who to believe about climate change. I can see that the climate is changing and it did appear until a couple of years ago that the earth was getting warmer. But then the temperatures stabilized and I start getting my first doubts about the whole global warming thing. I work with the scientific community and I am personally amazed at how activist and liberal they are. Mind you, it’s a liberal environment, but I’ve seen a lot of “scientists” really carry an agenda. Don’t know a single conservative among them. It’s a clique. I’ve started wondering if maybe the naysayers are right or at least have some good questions. The earth has gone through droughts, ice ages, etc., etc. At this point I think there is probably a 50% chance global warming is true and about a 50% chance it’s not. Which leaves me pretty paralyzed on this issue.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It doesn’t matter if man causes global climate change or not.

Cleaning up our environment is a win-win endeavor.

Jim

 

[FollowChrist34]

It doesn’t matter if man causes global climate change or not.

Cleaning up our environment is a win-win endeavor.

Jim

It’s a valid point - I can’t deny it. People are just not into self-control or sacrifice in this regard though. In a Church yes, in a forest or on a beach, not so much. It’s such a hard sell, even though I believe it’s the right thing to do before God. And I do worry about higher energy costs, etc. hitting the poor harder. Where I live they’ve started banning wood fire due to pollution. I love it because I want clean air and I really notice the difference on stagnant winter days - besides I have central gas heating. But I watched this documentary about these people who only had wood heat in their house. They had to apply for some sort of permit or exemption (which they were granted) just to get heat. They can’t afford to upgrade their heating system. These are the kind of compromises we need to work out, on a small and large scale.

 

[Ender]

The fact is, the debate shouldn’t be on whether humans are causing climate change or not, for both sides have their heels dug in on the issue.

Well that is what this debate is about and the opinions of bishops on the matter are not helpful. If anything, by suggesting this is a moral choice it just hardens positions that much more. As I said, this was not helpful.

Ender

 

[Tony_the_mad]

There is no evidence that either C02 or man causes climate change. The archbishop is expressing the opinion of the bishops, what is known as a " prudential " judgment. But in this case the judgment is highly suspect since we know there is no reliable evidence to support the claim.

I am extremely disappointed in the American Bishops, once again they have done the " imprudential " thing.

Go ahead, shut down all the coal burners, shut down all the oil drilling, shut down all the fracking. What’s left? Nuclear power is the only reasonable alternative. Is that really what you want? That is the most dangerous source of energy available and the storage facilities of nuclear waste are piling up and the potential danger from this is incalcuable.

How is any of this going to help the poor? Energy prices are going to go out the roof. How will that help the poor?

Linus2nd

By every statistical measure the deadliest form of energy production per kilowatt hour is unscrubbed coal by a very large margin. The next highest is scrubbed burning of coal again by a high margin. The number of deaths to coal miners is staggering (and not just to tragedies like mine collapsing but to black lung and heart disease). Then there are the large number of deaths due to the particulate matter to the people who live downwind of the power plants. Hydroelectric power has its own set of fatalities, mostly due to tragic dam collapse in China. Wind energy has deaths mostly due to people falling.

No source of energy comes free of risk. But nuclear energy per kilowatt hour has one of the best safety records. Even when you consider waste, coal produces significantly more of a very nasty coal ash and other wastes products throughout the process than nuclear energy could ever achieve.