Wednesday, February 08, 2006
God is great, God is good, God is GREEN
***UPDATED *** UPDATED *** UPDATED
Praise God from whom all blessings flow.
This is a mind-blower!
Challenging some of their peers, dozens of evangelical Christian leaders on Wednesday issued a “call to action” on global warming — urging governments, companies and individuals to reduce fossil fuel emissions that many scientists tie to warmer temperatures.
Read some more about it, from MSNBC.
Read all about the Evangelical Climate Initiative.
Hope springs eternal.
***UPDATE *** UPDATE *** UPDATE
From The AP, via the Houston Chronicle:
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Amid concerns that global warming is melting away the icy habitats where polar bears live, the federal government is reviewing whether they should be considered a threatened species.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said ... that protection may be warranted under the Endangered Species Act, and began a review process to consider if the bears should be listed.
Read all about the poor polar bears.
Hoo hoo. That's enough to give a righty-righty conniptions for the rest of the week.
The gov't and corporations wouldn't keep planning for people to drive everywhere if people didn't drive everywhere.
Or, in Wendell Berry's words, "There are not enough rich and powerful people to consume the whole world; for that, the rich and powerful need the help of countless ordinary people."
First, admit there's a problem.
(Confession: I'm startin' to feel guilty for my own 16-mph pickup truck. OK, I confess further: I'm feeling the pinch of $2-per-gallon gas. Hell, they want to get people to drive smaller vehicles, slap an new "green" tax on gas. That'd do it. ... On the other hand, I drove little-bitty "alleged" trucks for 10 years out of college (Ford Rangers). My big Dodge now is "the truck I always wanted." ... Maybe I'm startin' to get that out of my system ...)
As for the Polar Bears, they will have to stop being "Polar Bears" and adapt to a land existance or perish. They may have only six years to make the change.
"The sea ice in Hudson Bay, Canada, now breaks up 2 1/2 weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago, said Canadian Wildlife Service research scientist Ian Stirling, and as a result female polar bears there weigh 55 pounds less than they did then. Assuming the current rate of ice shrinkage and accompanying weight loss in the Hudson Bay region, bears there could become so thin by 2012 they may no longer be able to reproduce, said Lara Hansen, chief scientist for the World Wildlife Fund."
The Christians are too little, too late, and it is too bad. If you live in an area not more than 50 feet above sea level, move.
ER, I would love $2.00 gas. We're still paying nearly $2.50/gal down here.
Nature has published studies verifying this, as has Science.
So Antarctica is getting cooler, but the Arctic is warming and melting. 70% of the sea level rise will be because of thermal expansion of the water as it gets warm, not from the melting ice adding water to the oceans. Which will affect you more, the Arctic warming or Antarctic cooling?
This is from one of your articles:
"Antarctica is a tricky region and is more likely to do its own thing as the rest of the planet warms," he added. One reason for this, Walsh explained, is that compared with the Arctic, Antarctica is more susceptible to heat loss and gain from the ocean."
"As the rest of the Planet warms......"
Now look at the document I've posted, when you have time tonight. It is considerd a conservative estimate in many circles.
But in truth it doesn't matter what we think, for we not only won't but can't do anything about it.
By the way, some climate models actually have the Arctic warming starting an ice age in Europe because of the Gulf Stream being cut off. Nothing is simple.
Seek higher ground.
Erudite Redneck said...
"Drlobojo, you'd bitch if you was hanged with a gold rope! :-)"
...or shot with silver bullets too.
You brought up the subject. Did you think a Geographer was not going to have a strong comment on global warming. By the way, Global warming is actually a precurser for the next hemispheric ice age.
Be a good American, keep your truck but buy a Harley for routine commuting. See there is an up side to these things.
And we don't even really need scientists to verify that humanity is impacting the environment negatively, you can verify it yourself. Go catch some catfish out of the Ohio River (or, likely, your own local stream) and try eating it.
Or, 'round here, go swimming in the Beargrass Creek after a storm and watch the "floaters" going by from the Combined Sewer Overflow.
That humanity is harming the environment is not debatable. How serious our damage is, is debatable.
However, for responsible adults (especially conservatives who believe in personal responsibility), we have no real option but to admit that we need to change our ways so that we CAN be personally responsible.
That, or go ahead and eat the toxic catfish and swim in the shit.
Dr. Lobojo, that was my point - as the Arctic melts, the Antarctic picks up the slack. An equilibrium is pretty well kept.
But, that doesn't mean much for the "local" climate. Austrailia may become a tropical paradise, while Florida becomes a long corral reef.
You see, sea level is not at the the same around the globe. It varies drastically according to local conditions.
And, as drlobo said, even if an equilibrium IS being kept doesn't make the climate change a good thing.
Climatic change is happening and we don't know what the results will be and that's cause for caution. For conservatism, if you will.
As I hinted earlier, this should be a conservative issue every bit as much as a liberal one.
as an outdoorsman - conservation of the environment is extremely important.
as a Southerner - the environment is important, but don't you (universal 'you') tell me what I can drive, where I can go, or what I can/cannot do.
as a Constructionist - property rights are fundamental to our way of life, therefore the government should just butt out. If I own it, I should be able to do whatever I want with it.
The environment/property-rights combo question is probably the toughest question for me, and many like me, to answer. I am conflicted about it on different levels. I try to do my part and I'd like to see others do theirs as well. I do not want to see the government get more involved.
I see this issue as similar to the First Amendment/censorship. All speech should be protected and censorship-free. But, without censorship, what passes for free speech can be irresponsible and inappropriate. Conserving the environment is important, but getting the government involved is seldom a good thing. If everybody would do the right thing, governmental involvement wouldn't be needed, much like censorship wouldn't be considered if common decency were always practiced.
But the problem is that not everyone is doing the right thing, so intervention is needed.
Wouldn't you want at least a volunteer town militia to keep the peace, even if the crime rate was 0%?
Wouldn't you want at least a volunteer fire department, even if 0% of the homes in your community had caught fire in the last ten years?
We need institutions and intervention, period.
And it's hard to compare the environment with free speech. When talking about speech, decency is a relative term. For example, it does not bother me to hear the word "fuck." Not one bit. Say it all day if you want; I will probably say it right along with you.
However, if the Joe Liebermans of this world (ooh, looky there; I'M SLAMMING A DEMOCRAT!) had their way, so long as ONE PERSON was offended by this word then it would be a criminal offense to say it even in the privacy of my own home.
So, decent is a relative term.
However, "harmful to the environment" is not relative. It either is or isn't. Toxic waste dumped in the rivers is; walking instead of driving isn't. Simple as that.
I didn't think I'd ever say this, but that guy's worse than *gasp* Mike from Mike's America.
Which means of course, that Dan Trabue needs to go there with left-wing guns blazing.
Who knows, maybe you can manage to get yourself permanently banned from YET ANOHTER blog, Dan.
Better late than never. If the evangelicals can "get it," others can, too. The fact is liberals can holler till the cows come home -- or swim by -- and it won't amount to nothing. Get some preachers involved. Guilt some companies WITH CAPITAL to throw at it, and science, technology AND the reality that dead people don't consume -- and maybe we can save Rocketship Earth before it explodes.
Heck, the evangelicals just realized that "millions of people" will die over the next century. To them, it means lost souls -- or lost donors. Fine. WhatEVER.
We get corporate America to realize that dead people don't buy anything, and don't work for slave wages in overseas factories, maybe they'll act out of selgishness if not for the planet itself.
I don't care WHY people "get it," as long as they "get it."
Oh, and of course, REM, if my house is on fire, I won't give a hoot in hell whether it's a VFD, a paid department, the city, county, state, federal government OR FRANCE that puts it out. I will surrender my property RIGHTS in defense of my PROPERTY.
("This land is your land, this land is my land ...""
That nice pickup just goes 16 Miles Per Hour? Sheesh.
OK, so I AM makin' fun of your typin' skills, but I earned that right years ago. :-)
this bleeding blog is always dropping off part of a web address
"the environment is important, but don't you tell me what I can drive, where I can go, or what I can/cannot do."
By thus saying, you're assuming that YOU (universal you) are not already telling some people exactly that. When we drive enough that the air is toxic, we are telling asthmatics and many elderly people that they can't go outside. When we drive 2 ton heaps of metal down neighborhood streets over 15-25 mph, we're telling children, folk in wheelchairs, the elderly that they can't safely walk through their neighborhood.
Right? Why do your rights overrule theirs?
"If I own it, I should be able to do whatever I want with it."
Then you won't mind if I open a toxic dump on my property next to you?
This notion that we can do whatever the hell we want is a selfish, irresponsible and, frankly, childish notion. It has little to do with classic Conservative thinking.
No man is an island. Our actions affect others. We ought to be personally responsible. Do you truly disagree with this notion, Rem?
Do you ever suspect people like RepVet and Mike are actually wacky liberals who are seeing how outrageous they can be and still have people agree with them?
"Then you won't mind if I open a toxic dump on my property next to you?"
I did that in the corner of my back yard and three of my neighbors threated to shoot my cats if I didn't clean it up.
"I wadn't kidding when I accused RV of playing a farcical game, sort of a right-wing Sam Kinnison, for laughs"
Nope he's for real, I recognize the anger.
"Junior the Bear is the coolest dude in the Universe!"
Ole Junior T. Bear is just melting with pleasure at your praise.
On the other hand, if we allow terrorists to keep blowing everyone up, there will be no globe left to warm.
Get your priorities straight. Allow the NSA to wiretap terrorists, and stop the terrorism, and then we can worry about the average mean temperature going up 2 degrees every 100 years or so.
Last time I was in Oklahoma, the lakes were unmuddied, and the sky was an azure sky of deepest summer. I didn't see any toxic air. And there isn't any where I now live either.
That's all. I just popped in to see who ER says replaced Pero as the "rightiest of the right"
Learn to make an argument, or at least learn some manners, or at LEAST stick to the topic.
Oh, wait: "learning" often requires books, and Mark is on record as not fooling with those much; it suggests education, and Mark is on record as opposing that; and it requires changing one's mind, which Mark sees as a sign of weakmess, apparently, when it actually is the opposite.
What in the F do terrorism, illegal domestic spying and evangelical's coming around on global warming have to do with one another?
Get your own priorties straight, mark: Learn something.
For the record: two years ago I became convinced that the global warming trend was real, although did not take the side of whether it was the consequences of manmade CO2 or another natural or manmade process. I then sold my (very modest amount of) Allstate Insirance stock because (contrary to Mark's assertion), as we see from El Nino/La Nina, a small change in average ambient temperature can affect weather patterns quite drastically, and such change is likely to be destructive. Perhaps by chance and only in the short term, I happened to be correct about the weather, but, final irony, was quite wrong about the stock, which has done well despite record storm damage in the Southeast.
Omigosh - was that as dull as it sounded? Nevermind.
I know! How about if we have all the anti-environmentalists move to Yucca Mountain where they'll be storing all that nuclear waste. It can become the national dump for toxins and anti-conservation conservatives.
I'm done being mean now.
Mark, every other day now Oklahoma's air is filled with smoke from the wild fires. Thanks to La Nina all of our rain is falling 400 miles to the East and we have had the warmest January on record, and the highest average wind speeds for January on record. Our burned off areas now total over 600,000 acres, several hundred homes, a bunch of cattle, and a few humans, and more are added every day. The bad news is soon the dust will come. The good news is our ozone contamination has been blown into Missouri.
if 86 evangelicals support reduction of fossil fuel emissions -- but Mark doesn't -- Mark is no longer a Christian??:-)
I spoke on the subject of Global warming. I said it is not as serious a problem as terrorism. That is more on the subject than how fast your truck goes. Or about any issue Trixie and I have.
ER, I am tired of your lies about me, and your insults and ad hominen attacks on me. I have taken all I can from you and your moonbat friends.
I made a polite and respectful comment in this thread and you proceeded to insult me and tell lies about me.
I never said I don't read. In fact, last week I posted an entire post based on a book I had just read on Scotland. Before that, I mentioned I have read just about everything from Beowilf to Virginia Woolf. Currently, I am reading "Abandon Ship!" , the saga of the USS Indianapolis, the greatest Naval Disaster in U S history. So You are lying about me.
In addition to that, you are either not being intellectually honest, or you are just thick aas a brick. Everyone knows the NSA is not doing domestic surveillance, legal or illegal. They are wiretapping known terrorist who are calling this country from other countries.
I tell you, ER, I have about had it with you and Liberal moonbat lunatic amen corner. And don't even feign outrage at my remarks. You asked for it by insulting me. If you can be offended, so can I. Do you think you are the only one that can be offended?
Oh, and one last point before I leave and never come back: If reading a lot of books makes one arrogant, rude, condesending, dishonest, mean spirited, duplicitous, and blasphemous, then I don't want to read.
I didn't want to come in here and drag mud into your place as you are so fond of saying, but I came in here with clean feet. I just tracked through the mud you threw at me when I came in.
Does that offend you? I. DON'T. CARE.
Don't come into my place unless it is to apologize. I didn't start this fight but I can for damn sure end it. The gloves are off.
And he and I have talked -- IM'd, actually -- for a long time.
Mark and I don't agree on ANYTHING -- except Christ and Him crucified, and risen.
Mark and I are bloggy buddies.