What level of responsibility do you feel for the negative impacts of anthropogenic climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnvinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridgerunner said:
And read this one cited above: Just read this about health consequences of coal burning: wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-new…l-health-costs.

Same thing. No real facts establishing a direct cause/effect relationship between coal burning and disease or death. Just the conclusion.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of studies over the decades that link SO2 emissions and sulfuric acid (its byproduct under certain weather conditions) to lung harm, including lung cancer and emphysema, etc.

See:
Everyone here is welcome to do their own research on the various harms from AGW and other pollutants that are emitted while emitting GHGs. Please report back if you find something. For instance, there is a lot on how local and regional vehicle pollution causes health harms, including birth defects and miscarriages.

And BTW, I am more interested in avoiding the FALSE NEGATIVE (failing to address true harms) than avoiding the FALSE POSITIVE (saying a problem is real when it is not). Which is also called prudence, which is what our Church promotes. So just because there is not enough sci evidence for a particular harm yet (at the 95% confidence level), does not mean we should just ignore it.
 
lynnvinc said:
There are plenty of studies over the decades that link SO2 emissions and sulfuric acid (its byproduct under certain weather conditions) to lung harm, including lung cancer and emphysema, etc.

See:
Everyone here is welcome to do their own research on the various harms from AGW and other pollutants that are emitted while emitting GHGs. Please report back if you find something. For instance, there is a lot on how local and regional vehicle pollution causes health harms, including birth defects and miscarriages.

And BTW, I am more interested in avoiding the FALSE NEGATIVE (failing to address true harms) than avoiding the FALSE POSITIVE (saying a problem is real when it is not). Which is also called prudence, which is what our Church promotes. So just because there is not enough sci evidence for a particular harm yet (at the 95% confidence level), does not mean we should just ignore it.
Click to expand...
The above citations relate to sulphur dioxide, not to MMGW.
 
Hope you got a chance to see the Installation Mass for Pope Francis today. If not, I think it will be repeated on EWTN this evening and late tonight.

I wasn’t really sure if Pope Francis would be interested much in protection of God’s creation; I did know he is very concerned about the poor and about life issues, so I have loved him from the start.

But his homily really blew me away. He mentioned protecting creation or the environment some 8 times in his short, but beautiful homily on how St. Joseph was the protector of Mary and Baby Jesus, and ergo of the Church, and how we all need to be protectors of people and the environment. See: vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/homilies/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130319_omelia-inizio-pontificato_en.html

Now his background is in science, so I think we can no longer claim that the pope doesn’t know what he’s talking about re the environment, as was claimed re JPII and BXVI.

We’ll see if he goes on to mention AGW in his future messages (I do understand it is possible to be scientifically literate and an environmentalist, without accepting AGW as real and threatening to the poor and future generations).
 
Ridgerunner said:
The above citations relate to sulphur dioxide, not to MMGW.
Click to expand...
Yes, but these are what you might call concomitant pollution issues associated with GHG emissions. However, you are right in this regard, it is possible to reduce SO2 with scrubbers, etc, while not reducing CO2. So reducing other pollution does not always reduce GHG emissions.

The other issue is that SO2 IS part of climate change, actually a negative part in that it causes cooling rather than warming. However, its molecules only stay in the atmosphere a few weeks, while CH4 molecules are up there for about 10 year, and a portion of CO2 can stay up for up to 100,000 years. Because of SO2’s much shorter term in the atmosphere its cooling effect is greatly outdone by CO2’s long term warming effect.

There is another issue – because coal-burning plants are reducing their SO2 emissions, there is potential for greater warming (since right now SO2 emissions have been “masking” the warming caused by GHGs, so to speak). That’s may not happen for some time, bec China is building a coal-burning plant every week, and I believe their SO2 emissions are pretty high.

But eventually we could be burning coal worldwide without much SO2 emissions (and we want reduce those SO2 emissions bec of the health hazards), but with high CO2 emissions. We could be in for a lot of warming, if we fail to also reduce the CO2 emissions from those plants.

And the easiest way to do that is decrease demand by lowering household energy requirements, and/or switching to alt energy 🙂
 
Michael_Mayo said:
It is worth it just for one’s conscience.

Currently it is still swimming against a very strong (and well financed) tide.
But Christianity has always been counterculture - God bless us.

I thought about getting a quadcycle
http://www.quadricycleintl.com/library/images/quadricyle_serie3_montreal.jpg

A more practical answer is to move closer to where I work.

Did you see that little car popular in Italia? Doors are optional.
Click to expand...
That looks like fun! Who said environmentalism can’t be fun? 🙂
 
lynnvinc said:
Actually there is another negative side effect of CO2, aside from GW, and that is it is causing ocean acidification (never mind the warming), which is have negative effects on sealife and on sea food production, so I think that those who wish to be good stewards of God’s creation would most certainly want to reduce their CO2 emissions for that reason alone, even if they doubt the greenhouse effect and GW are real. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

So there you have it, we would all agree, whether or not we accept AGW, we need to reduce our CO2 emissions, as well as other things that are harming the environment.

I remember the weatherman when we were in Chicago area some 15 years ago, Tom Skilling. He was a GW skeptic (I think he now accepts it) – I always considered him a humble and good person – but he always used to say there are many other reasons we should reduce our energy use, etc.

I think that is the correct posture to take if one simply cannot accept AGW is real:
“I don’t believe it is real, but there are many other good reasons we should be doing things to reduce our environmental harms, including reducing our CO2 emissions.”
Click to expand...
Thank you - of course that is certainly such an important issue - I also read recently that overfishing will collapse the seafood chain - ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-overfishing/ - would guess these two may work hand in hand ?
 
lynnvinc said:
And the easiest way to do that is decrease demand by lowering household energy requirements, and/or switching to alt energy 🙂
Click to expand...
How do you see this done concretely?

Specifically, how do you propose to reduce household energy requirements?

What alternative energy sources do you propose, and where?
 
lynnvinc said:
Hope you got a chance to see the Installation Mass for Pope Francis today. If not, I think it will be repeated on EWTN this evening and late tonight.

I wasn’t really sure if Pope Francis would be interested much in protection of God’s creation; I did know he is very concerned about the poor and about life issues, so I have loved him from the start.

But his homily really blew me away. He mentioned protecting creation or the environment some 8 times in his short, but beautiful homily on how St. Joseph was the protector of Mary and Baby Jesus, and ergo of the Church, and how we all need to be protectors of people and the environment. See: vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/homilies/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130319_omelia-inizio-pontificato_en.html

Now his background is in science, so I think we can no longer claim that the pope doesn’t know what he’s talking about re the environment, as was claimed re JPII and BXVI.

We’ll see if he goes on to mention AGW in his future messages (I do understand it is possible to be scientifically literate and an environmentalist, without accepting AGW as real and threatening to the poor and future generations).
Click to expand...
If the Pope endorses MMGW and doing things like “making utility bills skyrocket”, we’ll see then what his opinions are. Is he talking about France dumping radioactive waste in the oceans or about heating homes in Minnesota? Until we know, no one should try to use him as a supporter of political environmentalism.
 
Ridgerunner said:
How do you see this done concretely?

Specifically, how do you propose to reduce household energy requirements?

What alternative energy sources do you propose, and where?
Click to expand...
One can start with caulking any leaky windows.

When we have our solar panels put up, part of the (expensive) package is that they are going to do some test to see if we have any leaky windows or doors, do weather-stripping and tape up our heater/ac ducts (I guess with duct tape :)).

There are foam insulation for pipes and water-heater jackets.

Some people close vents to rooms they don’t need to heat or cool – but we’re sort of lazy to do that.

Can dry at least some clothes (esp the ones that have elastic that gets bad) on dryer racks, instead of the electric dryer. Can put use dryer balls and shake out clothes a bit before putting them in the dryer.

Wash clothes and dishes only when there is a full load. We were only using our dish washer as a rinser, until it broke down.

Can let hair and dishes dry naturally.

Of course, turn off lights not in use, and go for energy efficient lighting and appliances.

When we first started in 1990 we had this 5 amber chimney chandelier with 5 60-watt bulbs above our breakfast table (my office table – hubby gets the dining table). We got the last floor model of a beautiful oak and bevelled glass fixture from W’Mart for $49, installed it along with one15 watt CFL and actually got more light out of it that with the 300 watt fixture.

Each house is different and it’s like a Easter egg hunt trying to find ways to reduce one’s electric bill 🙂

Now is a good time to go solar – the costs of PV panels have come way down (and are expected to go way down by next year and thereafter), and the gov is still giving a 30% tax-break – but you have to be paying at least the same amount of tax as the break is for that year to get that benefit, so it is only for middle and upper income people, I guess :(.

Solar water heaters.

If you have a babbling brook on your property you could look into small hydro-power operations (tho there might be some neg ecological impacts to fish, etc).

And small wind generators for those out in the countryside.
 
4elise said:
And you don’t think that this view is contrary to what we are called to do in living our faith?
Does it matter if the right thing I do ultimately can change - or do I do it because it is the right thing to do - and in hope that others may follow?
Click to expand...
It has always been important to do what is right as an individual as one’s conscience mandates. But to suggest that others will see and follow one’s example with respect to climate change is a fiction that Oprah planted into the American consciousness. People will do what is in their immediate best interest as they see it. That’s the problem with The Enlightenment. It just didn’t consider human nature. Rousseau’s perfectibility of man is a pipe dream. Rejoice that your citizenship is in Heaven and do what is right in your own eyes. If my happiness was contingent on my fellow man doing the right thing, I would be looking for the nearest water tower.
 
Cat_Herder said:
The problem with climate change is not because of human carbon emissions. There’s no correlation between human CO2 and atmospheric CO2 or the temperatures; most of the warming is due to oceanic temperature fluctuations. But the problem is that we’re taking away the earth’s natural ability to deal with all of the CO2, whether human or natural–through deforestation. Our destruction of the forests, especially the Amazon, is eating away at the lungs of our planet.
Click to expand...
Except now across millions of acres in the US (and other countries) a temporary man made jungle of lush green vegetation that stands 6 to 10 tall grows every year the transforms millions of tons of CO2 into oxygen and carbohydrates in an orgy of photosynthesis that never existed in those areas before.
 
Ridgerunner said:
The topic itself is open, the way it’s posed. If this is an “invitation only” thread solely for those who believe in MMGW, then it’s in the wrong place being in the “open” threads.

But when you use an open thread to propagandize for one point of view, you can reasonably expect opposing points of view to appear in it, and should not attempt to silence disagreement in this manner. Restrict access to the thread or live with it.

It must be realized that the way those who do not believe in MMGW are answering is with the direct response “none”.
Click to expand...
It’s not invitation only. It’s just that you are not discussing the subject of the thread. Yes, the way those who do not believe in global warming should respond is “none”. They should not be debating the validity of global warming because that’s not the subject of this thread. As you were asked in the original post, if that’s what you want to do, go start your own thread. Stop hijacking this thread.
 
4elise said:
Thank you - of course that is certainly such an important issue - I also read recently that overfishing will collapse the seafood chain - ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-overfishing/ - would guess these two may work hand in hand ?
Click to expand...
That is a very good point. The experts say oceans are in process of dying from many env threats and overfishing. And you are certainly doing your part by following a vegan diet.

I think it is false what they say that environmentalists are ONLY concerned about global warming. We are concerned about all env problems, esp those that are most harmful. And in fact environmentalists in the past few years have been focusing on several very serious environment threats to human viability on earth, including:
  • Stratospheric ozone layer
  • Biodiversity
  • Chemicals dispersion
  • Climate Change
  • Ocean acidification
  • Freshwater consumption and the global hydrological cycle
  • Land system change
  • Nitrogen and phosphorus (name removed by moderator)uts to the biosphere and oceans [who knew?]
  • Atmospheric aerosol loading
This is a very good institute that focuses on these problems. Their website has a lot of good resources: stockholmresilience.org/planetary-boundaries and stockholmresilience.org/21/research/research-programmes/planetary-boundaries/planetary-boundaries/about-the-research/the-nine-planetary-boundaries.html
 
As a member of humanity, I take responsibility by doing what I can with recycling, my diet (vegan) and using energy in a conservative manner as best I can. To ignore this situation, is IMHO, to ignore the obvious. I don’t feel “guilty” about it, but I do believe I must do something in my sphere to mitigate the negative effects of what is happening.
 
creationlover said:
As a member of humanity, I take responsibility by doing what I can with recycling, my diet (vegan) and using energy in a conservative manner as best I can. To ignore this situation, is IMHO, to ignore the obvious. I don’t feel “guilty” about it, but I do believe I must do something in my sphere to mitigate the negative effects of what is happening.
Click to expand...
Thank you. If only there were more people like you this planet wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in.
 
Farsight001 said:
It’s not invitation only. It’s just that you are not discussing the subject of the thread. Yes, the way those who do not believe in global warming should respond is “none”. They should not be debating the validity of global warming because that’s not the subject of this thread. As you were asked in the original post, if that’s what you want to do, go start your own thread. Stop hijacking this thread.
Click to expand...
So those whose answer is “none” are obliged to stand mute as to “why”? Invitation declined.
 
Ridgerunner said:
So those whose answer is “none” are obliged to stand mute as to “why”? Invitation declined.
Click to expand...
Fine. I’ll just report your posts for being off topic then. I gave you plenty of warnings. You don’t like the parameters of this thread, start your own with your own parameters.
 
Reading through this thread has been an amazing experience. I want to thank all the people who posted such good ideas and eye-opening insights. For example, I had not considered the effects of deforestation in particular with regard to climate change. Of course, forests do not cut themselves down, so this is just another example of how human activity is responsible for the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

It saddens me that that 34 of the 52 people who voted in the poll steadfastly refuse to take the issue seriously. This is clearly NOT a religious, but a political perspective - all it provides is an illustration of the prevailing political ideology of the people who post on this forum.

It certainly does not reflect the views of our Church leaders. A simple search of the Vatican website results in 93 hits for the phrase “climate change” - in quotes. All of which emphasis the reality of the problem, the devastating impact it has on human life, and the need for a genuine world-wide response in order to mitigate its effects on the poor in particular. This is where our Church leaders stand on the issue. It is sad that as Catholics we do not all stand with them.

I’m going to spend some time now reading through those 93 documents posted on the Vatican website. I hope my fellow Catholics who respect our Church leaders will do the same. As faithful Catholics, we should at the very least show our religious leaders the same level of respect shown to politicians and right-wing bloggers and READ and RESPOND to what THEY have to say.

Of course, in doing so, I hope the climate change deniers will avoid their usual mocking tone.
 
I don’t want the environment to be ruined, though I am not sure that is possible on a large scale. Overall, the environment, climate, weather,. etc…, are well beyond human power. Case in point the explosive eruption of Mt Krakatoa in the 1890’s. By sheer volume, the gases and dust from this one eruption were exponentially more than the entire industrial revolution has created, and only one year was all it took for the earth to clean itself of that. But besides all that, there are three major issues I have:
  1. As important as the environment is, human souls and lives are more important by far.
  2. I myself, and those in my immediate circle, are only a small part of the alleged problem. We do what we can, and I expect that we ( my family and I ) are solving more problems than we cause by recycling, reusing, and reducing all that we can.
  3. The fear mongering, the government based 'solutions’and the onesidedness ( humans created the problem, but are helpless to stop it ) make the ‘green movement’ far too leftist for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top