M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
What we do to the environment, the common good, is truly a moral issue.
U.S. Bishops' letter to EPA re Power Plants, Carbon Pollution & Climate Change
- Status
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Brother you are talking to a Mother Earth News subscriber since the broad side days and of Home Power and a guy whose brother in law is raking in thousands from two giant windmills on his farm. Wind power and solar power depend on standard sized gas fired stand by power stations as back ups, that require utility users to pay all the expense of power line construction. And all for systems only capable of supplying, at most, 20% of power needs. What this means is that business will come to a screeching halt, massive job loss in coal, oil, and gas industries, massive increase in consumer prices. How does that help the poor!!! Futher, neither have worked in Spain, England, or anywhere else in the world. These are nothing but " feel good, " politically correct solutions. Do you want to eat or do you want to feel good, to be popular with your liberal associates?.
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I would have no power than rely on nuclear. Coal may not be clean but it is safe, much safer than nuclear, just look at the Ukraine and Japan.
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Amen brother. But the low information voter and the indoctrinated students of today can’t use common sense. Yes it would be great to have a perfectly clean, cheap, effecient power source, but God hasn’t given us a source yet and isn’t likely to.
I’m an environmental scientist, and I can attest to the destruction of ecosystems by alternative energy infrastructure.
The sheeple attitude regarding the extremely overrated problem of man-made “climate change” is quite disturbing.
- The construction of dams is a leading cause if not the leading cause of extinction of freshwater species
- The construction of solar panels has disrupted conversation projects and the desert tortoise, which is an endangered species.
- The use of certain biofuels was thought to have raised the price of food in the developing world.
- Wind turbines seem to create health problems for humans and kill endangered birds and bats.
Linus2nd
S
stevegravy
Guest
At this point it is no use arguing the facts. Like:
A. Just because you object to draconian measures, that accomplish only jacking up the price of electricity which will take money out of the pockets of the poor, does not mean you think we need to live in our own excrement. At some point the resilience of the natural ecosystem will be able to compensate for pollution as the earth bio-chemical systems seek equilibrium. If you don’t think so look at the areas around volcanoes, they spew out a whole lot of garbage, way more than man could yet the eco-system always recover. The goal of intelligent regulation ought to be to reduce emissions to where natural process can deal with the outfall.
B. If you believe in the climate warming mongers arguments, tell me which one of the many models you like since none have been right for a decade or so, from what I read.
Just MHO.
A. Just because you object to draconian measures, that accomplish only jacking up the price of electricity which will take money out of the pockets of the poor, does not mean you think we need to live in our own excrement. At some point the resilience of the natural ecosystem will be able to compensate for pollution as the earth bio-chemical systems seek equilibrium. If you don’t think so look at the areas around volcanoes, they spew out a whole lot of garbage, way more than man could yet the eco-system always recover. The goal of intelligent regulation ought to be to reduce emissions to where natural process can deal with the outfall.
B. If you believe in the climate warming mongers arguments, tell me which one of the many models you like since none have been right for a decade or so, from what I read.
Just MHO.
E
Ender
Guest
This statement is too generic and vague to be meaningful. If I harm the environment through inadvertence, that is no sin. If I harm it through indifference, it is. “What we do” is not a moral issue. Morality in most cases is determined by what we intend to do and most choices on the environment don’t involve any moral questions at all; they generally amount to simple differences of opinion about the results this or that policy will bring about. Identify a specific moral choice you think we face. I suspect you will find that what you are judging about others is not their actions but the intent that lies behind them, something you are not supposed to judge because you cannot know it is something you cannot know.
Ender
T
Tigg
Guest
I sincerely hope that this bishop’s committee on environmental issues that so urgently communicates their personal views, will also expend the same energy toward greater concerns such as the loss of faith (being discussed in another thread entitled "We are a Shrinking Community.”) If Catholics were to experience a true faith renewal and live a sacramental life by the teaching of the faith, surely these issues of pollution and climate change could and would be alleviated by the pleas of the truly faithful . Or is this just too simplistic to imagine?
J
JorduSpeaks
Guest
The “scientific” community’s view of man-made climate change is utterly un-falsifiable. In science, if your hypothesis is tested through experimentation and proven wrong, you revise your hypothesis. In climate change, if your hypothesis is tested and proven wrong, you revise your experiment.
We’ve been through, what, forty years of incorrect predictions? So why do researchers still claim that the hypotheses that these predictions are made on are correct? The reason is that colleges need federal funds to stay afloat, and they can get more federal money in the form of research grants if they justify higher taxes to “combat climate change”.
This isn’t science. It’s simony.
We’ve been through, what, forty years of incorrect predictions? So why do researchers still claim that the hypotheses that these predictions are made on are correct? The reason is that colleges need federal funds to stay afloat, and they can get more federal money in the form of research grants if they justify higher taxes to “combat climate change”.
This isn’t science. It’s simony.
E
EIF5A
Guest
How much of the federal grants are dedicated to climate research, compared to biomedical research or applied research?
How much of the taxes go to climate research, compared to social programs, military/defense, etc?
Are you saying without climate research, universities will go broke?
You can’t really “experiment” with climate research like you can with biology/chemistry/physics. There’s no experimental variable you can manipulate with precision and reliability (e.g., knocking out Gene XYZ, changing reaction conditions, etc). Hence, the prediction models.
M
mkarzon
Guest
Perhaps our bishops should consider staying out of worldly issues and focus on next-worldly issues, lest we Catholics consider using part of our taxes as a tithe.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Says who? Hint: the non-scientists and perhaps a few scientists who are NOT climate scientists. Regular scientists broadly educated in sciences have been aware for nearly 200 years that CO2 and other GHGs cause climate change. Even I’ve been aware of it for the past 50 years, having read general science books beyond my high school science curriculum. And that is regardless of the GHGs’ source of increase, whether man-caused or nature-caused. It’s a done deal. There is NO debate on this and I’m sorry that some people have been misinformed that there is a debate.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
((Now I’m wondering where my educational tax dollars are going. I think I’ll join the Tea Party, the Green Tea Party
))It seems to me the poor, if they are indeed poor, cannot afford to shuck energy/resource efficiency/conservation, they cannot afford not to caulk their windows, turn off lights not in use, and the myriad of other measures that save money and reduce our harm to the earth and creatures thereupon (including us). And if both the poor and rich would follow that path, our CO2 emissions at least in America could be reduced by 50% to 75% (I know bec we did it down to a 60% cut below our 1990 emissions before we went on wind energy, got a Volt, and installed solar panels – all of these saving us $$$ while reducing our harm). The remainder can be supplied mainly by alt energy, such as solar (which has plummeted in price), wind, etc. No need for nuke – which also kills and harms from uranium mining all the way thru.
There are plenty of solutions, but first we must face the problem and follow the Lord, who distinctly told us “Thou shalt not kill.”
Then we can look into algae-based or fungi-based bio-fuel or biochar, etc. Once one decides to be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem, the Lord truly shows the way in a manner well beyond our wildest dreams. Climate change is a grand challenge, but it is also a great opportunity, and by reducing our CO2 emissions (and nearly every product, water, and hot water has a CO2 component) we also reduce many other pollutants that kill and harm…mainly the poor.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Hi Jim, Luigi has valid points – there seem to be down-sides to nearly everything…like risking one’s life bicycling & getting hit by a car…even tho bicycling can be very good for the health and uplifting to the spirit, and if enough people do it, can reduce crime and road maintenance, lead to more neighborly interactions, etc. My husband’s uncle, a parish priest, bicycled many miles to town from his boondocks parish in India into his 80s.Is this a joke ?
Jim
There are also issues with metals used in EV (and computer) batteries, etc. Luigi missed a lot.
This is where it is important to do a “cost-benefits” analysis, not the business type, but the life type. ICE cars emit not only CO2 but lots of pollutants that kill, cause health problems and abort fetuses, etc. Same with Coal-fired plants, and gas from fracking has lots of issues, from inordinate water consumption, fugitive (escaped) methane, pollution to the water, soil and air. Coal-fired plants also use an inordinate amount of precious water, and there are issues with mountaintop removal and coal ash spills.
Wind generators do kill bird, but so do cats (they win the prize for bird killing…ours caught a pheasant!). And climate change is already making bird species go extinct, with the worst yet to come. Either way – mitigate CC with wind power or fail to mitigate, we are doing poorly by our feathered friends
.Considering tha CC is harming crops in poor areas around the world, and will be severely hitting our mid-latitudes by mid-century and on into centuries and millennia, one can understand that CC is and will be greatly harming humans, as well as other species.
My own sense by reading deeply into the studies is that it is better to mitigate CC, even with wind and solar, and very definitely by energy/resource efficiency/conservation, than to fail to mitigate because some of the measures also carry a harms price tag. The added bonus is that mitigating CC saves people a lot of money
– I figure $1000/yr from our Volt, $1000/yr from our solar panels, $2000 over 20 years from our low-flow showerhead, etc, etc. We’ve also lived very close to work and shops for the past 40 years (within 1 to 2 miles), concerned then about the energy crunch. Imagine the savings, less harm to health, less stress, more family time, etc. We are very well positioned now for our upcoming retirement, and we did all this only thinking about saving resources for future generations and saving lives; the $$ savings are a bonus.When you seek first the kingdom of God and its righteousness, all things will be added unto you. Alleluia!
L
lynnvinc
Guest
You have to understand that many of them have children and/or grandchildren. When they see what’s happening and the projections for the future (despite temporary fluctuations), it is no wonder they became activists.
Are there people here who would simply shrug their shoulders if their kids’ and grandkids’ future were at risk? I don’t think so.
I don’t have children, but I am concerned about the children of the world, and about the poor. That’s why we contribute to charity, why I don’t gripe about taxes (unless there’s a war going on), and why I try to reduce our personal harms to the children and the poor, and pray that others would do likewise. Perhaps if I had kids, I’d become a raving mad activist…or bury my head in the sand. I don’t know; it’s hard to understand that people would take very lightly any news that indicated their children’s future was in jeopardy, refusing to believe the 99.9% of climate scientists who say the problem is real and dangerous, over the 1 or 2 who say it won’t be as bad as the others say. Note that there are NO practicing, publishing climate scientists who deny CC, only a few who say it won’t be so bad.
F
freeRadical
Guest
Actually nuclear power is way safer and cleaner then fossil fuels.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Getting rid of nuclear waste offsets the benefits.
They still don’t know what to do with it, other than bury it under ground or in the ocean, which of course those containers will one day deteriorate and release the radioactive waste in high levels. Of course the owners of nuclear power plants won’t be around, so they don’t much care how it effects those generations down the road.
Also, when an disaster takes out a nuclear plant like Fukushima in Japan, the effects are disastrous, but also the effects of radiation spreading to the rest of the world are still uncertain.
JIm
- Status