Right now, nothing is more controversial than science and religion. Much of the world’s politics are driven by religious beliefs and ideals. Religion going green is a paradox. Is marriage between these two possible? A union between fact and faith? Why not? Science gives us definitions of what things are and why; religion gives us a meaning for life on Earth. There are plenty of issues that show the clashes between these two, including homosexuality, evolution and environment, but with a little out of the box thinking they can come together.
Let’s take the environment: The conservative movement finds plenty of blasphemy with the scientific methodologies used to declare the existence of global warming. Conservatives, by nature, practice caution. Defense and military spending are heavily supported by the conservative party (the major names in the conservative movement: Dick Cheney, Pat Buchanan, Trent Lott, Ann Coulter — are all big on this). This is the same movement that supports pro-life activism, refuses to recognize same-sex marriages, and blocks stem-cell research from making the next medical breakthroughs. There are so many stances that go against the ideals of liberals who champion environmental awareness, human equality and freedom of choice. On the environmental side, the conservatives say there isn’t enough proof that the global climate is in danger. Many say the planet is just dandy. They’re practicing caution once again by not making the leap of actually caring about it.
But hold that “Yarg!” Even with all this happening, due to the overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is a reality, the “progressive” conservatives (another paradox here) are now using that caution to embrace ways to protect the planet. According to the blurb on Grist (great on-line environmental news) from LA Times in an article about big corporations tackling this problem by becoming green and continuing to make a profit, “Both business leaders and enviros described a sea change in corporate strategy that is expected to transform a corporate villain into a leader for the environmental cause.” A villain into a leader for the environmental cause? If corporate culture, notorious for its Republican leanings, is taking the helm on environmentalism, then just maybe there’s hope!
Another example comes from a Post article on the eco-kosher movement in the Orthodox Jewish community, which is basically combining Jewish dietary laws with new concerns about industrial agriculture, global warming and fair treatment of workers. “Eco-kosher is part of the greening of American religion—the rapid infusion of environmental issues into the mainstream of religious life.” This article also mentions the vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals driving a Toyota Prius and more than 50 other evangelical Christian leaders pledging to reduce energy consumption. Suddenly, I’m imagining Ann, Dick, Trent, Pat, and Joe Lieberman walking around in bright orange Crocs. Seems like I just woke up from a dream where the religious fanatics are hugging the hippies of yesteryear.
All of this reminds me of a quote that reconciles the two forces beautifully. Years ago, I struck up a wonderful friendship with this person who is now a professor of biology at Gallaudet. One of our earliest conversations was about religion and science.
She shared this simple quote, from the D’var Torah (commentary on the Torah portion) at her cousin’s bat mitzvah. It left me stunned, even years later.
God gave us the earth to take care of.
Simple. Rings true. And how righteous, no matter if you’re seeing it from a scientific, political or religious standpoint. Whether you are a liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, atheist or religious fundamentalist, the truth is self-evident: It is our responsibility to take care of our environment.
Hmm…that’s food for thought.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
I do not remember which liberal article I read, either Truthdig or BuzzFlash but one of them said this also, “Earth will not die but humans certainly will.” Earth had shown its astounding durability throughout its long millenniums long before humans were an iota of genetic possibility in evolutionary history.
Pat Buchanan just announced that he changed his mind about global warming on his show. I’d have to agree with Oscar the Observer, Daniel Quinn’s quote- “The world is not in any sense in danger from itself. The world is in fact not in any danger at all. It is we who are in danger.” His book Ishmael addresses this issue in depth. See raysofraychelle.blogspot.com for more info on Daniel Quinn.
A friend just sent me this link. Apropos to this discussion thread.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19...../newsweek/
Green Catholics rejoice!
http://www.treehugger.com/file.....s_pl_1.php
Seems the Vatican is on board as well.
Liz, using the word “marriage” has a religious context to it relating the union between a man and a woman under the eyes of God. This word has always been used in that context for thousand of years. It is not a surprise that many conservatives are against same sex marriage because they see it as perverting the word “marriage.” If you ask them if they are against civil unions which allow same sex couple to be legally bound to each other then conservatives usually respond more favorably in that light.
Secondly, it is incorrect that conservatives block stem cell research. There are two kinds of stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell and adult/tissue stem cell research. The way you write makes it sound like conservatives do not like any kinds of stem cell research which is blatantly false. And the ironic thing is that in Europe where embryonic stem cell research enjoys a lot of support over the last decade showed very little results for applicable medical use compared to adult/tissue stem cell which has time and time again showed continued successes. They have provided hope for those suffering from spinal cord injuries, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, lupus, Crohn’s disease, ocular degeneration, blindness, heart disease, leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, aplastic anemia, Type 1 diabetes and sickle cell anemia just to name a few. And you wonder why the mainstream media don’t cover these successes? And if everybody is touting that embryonic stem cell has such a huge potential then where are the continued successes coming out of Europe as compared to adult/tissue stem cell?
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/
So the quote “Heal thy ownself” is becoming truer every day. We have own stem cells throughout our body that have the capability to heal ourselves in ways we never thought of, including stem cells in the ear/cochlea that can help reverse hearing loss. Sure, embryonic stem cell has some potential but it has continued to be rife with problems on trying to tap into the potential not to mention the ethical use of it. There is always something to learn on both sides of the aisle but when it comes to huge potential adult/tissue stem cell is it. It makes perfect sense.
So, Bush’s veto on embryonic stem cell research wasn’t backed by the conservative movement? Remember, many members of the Congress, mostly Republicans, were in favor of expanding the federal supported stem cell research. Bush’s veto only made funding even more difficult to get. Many stem cell research companies are funded privately and stem cell transplant surgeries are happening in the States and overseas, whether you like it or not.
By the way, read “Crashing Through” by Robert Kurson which is about a blind man whose vision was restored through revolutionary stem cell transplant surgery. Quite interesting.
mcconnell said: “Liz, using the word ‘marriage’ has a religious context to it relating the union between a man and a woman under the eyes of God. This word has always been used in that context for thousand of years.”
If marriage has been a matter in the eyes of God, then perhaps the state has committed an abomination by usurping the role of controlling marriage. Perhaps we should just leave marriage to the churches and get the state out of the matter.
Also, you imply that marriage has been a static institution for thousands of years. Marriage, in fact, has evolved in response to permutations of social, financial, and institutional conditions — and such changes are perceptible over the course of decades or centuries rather than millennia. Heck, marriage at times had little or nothing to do with love. If you go to any major library and search their online catalog for studies of the history of marriage, you will see that the concept has been a fluid one. That said, I am not a proponent of the concept that “anything goes” in the ever evolving idea of marriage.
Anyway, back on topic with green spirituality… I recall reading an article some years ago about Bartholomew I, Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church. He’s been advancing a higher profile for environmental protection. I wish more spiritual leaders were like him.
The word “marriage” came into usage in English late in the thirteenth century, and it has always meant the matrimonial union betwen a man and woman. So, “homosexual marriage” is a newly invented word. You never hear “heterosexual marriage” since marriage by it’s long standing definition based on a religious context and understanding meant the union between man and woman. To me, “homosexual marriage” is an oxymoron but civil union is not. Even President Clinton agree. In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defined marriage, for purposes of FEDERAL LAW, as the union of one man and one woman.
JS asked if marriage was religious, then shouldn’t the state stay out of it? Your insistence that marriage should always retain its historical context is flawed, since the context of our Constitution formerly granted rights only to white men. The “FEDERAL LAW” changes quite often.
If marriage is a religious institution, should the state stay out? If not, should “marriage” only mean what it has always meant, or can we legislate new parameters?
You know what, I regret going off-topic. Back to greenery, politics and I-am-on-Earth-consciousness…
I hesitate to continue this thread, since it risks derailing the main theme of this blog entry, namely the union of religion and science for the defense of the earth.
That said, I want to ask mcconnell about his recourse to God, tradition, and the law to justify his view that marriage must be between a man and a woman. Are you aware of this recent statement (link goes to PDF file) by Mildred Loving? She was prosecuted forty years ago in Virginia for having engaged in interracial marriage.
She quotes the judge who presided over the court that convicted her of that crime: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
Mildred Loving’s response today: “I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.”
It’s still a marriage. It is still between man and woman, regardless of race.
To go back to the notion of how organized religion is lending its support to “green” causes, the Greek Orthodox Church has links on its websites that accord some prominence to the environment.
For example, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America has a page here. Another website of the Greek Orthodox Church itself, and therefore reflective of the agenda of the Patriarch, has an environmental link here.
I’d like to see Pope Benedict XVI put greater emphasis on environmental issues, on a scale comparable to that of the Patriarch.
Anyone know what steps other religious traditions have taken in terms of a formal agenda of environmental protection?
Gotta chuckle about the panic over global warming (as caused by human beings) which is patently nonsense.
McConnell,
It’s not wrong to be environmentally conscious. If you want to throw waste into the future, so our kids can clean up the mess, that’s your prerogative.
Shane, you’re mistaking the not agreeing with the global warming (as caused by human beings) shtick as not caring for the environment. I am all for clean air, clean water, renewable resources, alternative clean energy (while at the same time become more energy independent including obtaining our own sources for oil and gas) and so on. It’s the blatant attempt on trying to scare the consumers and people alike to think that humans were responsible for global warming when in fact global warming and global cooling have occurred many, many times over the eons. You know, it was only 600 years ago that a land called Greenland was called “Green”land for a reason but has since been covered thick with ice and snow. But the Vikings sure made use out of Greenland’s fertile soil and made a nice thriving agricultural use out of it.
I won’t be too fast with that comment :). I don’t have a list of links but I had read some articles that repeatedly proved that the present global warming and climate changes that come with it ARE the results of humans’ actions in last few hundreds of years. Yes, geologically speaking, Earth is very possibly going its scheduled change but at this rate of climate change? I think not and I am willing to bet that most respected scientists agree :).
Carbon dioxide has never been known to be the climate driver. Us mere humans contribute very CO2 as compared to what earth itself emits.
In terms of total C02, volume-wise, in the atmosphere compared to the rest of the gases makes up only .03% (or .0003) of the atmosphere. Nitrogen makes up 78% of the atmosphere while Oxygen at 21%, Argon at 0.9% and water vapor at 0.5% (Troposphere only).
The total human CO2 emissions, primarily from the use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement, are currently about 5.5 GT C (Gigaton or billion tons of carbon) per year. Sounds like a lot but lets put these figures in perspective.
It is estimated that the atmosphere contains 750 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,200 Gt C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C. Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 Gt C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 Gt C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 Gt C.
So, what does the total CO2 emission by man means? It means that the human population produces only 6% of the carbon emission than what the ocean puts into the atmosphere annually. It means that the human population produces only 9% of the carbon emission plants put out into the atmosphere annually. But the real kicker is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which constitutes only 0.03% (or 0.0003) of the total gases in the atmosphere. Very small indeed. Again, CO2 has never been known to be the major climate driver. Water vapor, yes. CO2? No.
Oscar, nothing can be proved that humans caused global warming when it is a natural occurrence that occurs often throughout earth’s history.
McConnell, you may be in the environmental business, there are many environmental scientists and scholars who will dispute with your comments.
It is pretty absurd to read that CO2 doesn’t contribute much to the global warming. It is akin to saying HIV virus doesn’t cause AIDS.
Then please show me that CO2 has been known to be the climate driver then. We are talking about 348 miles of atmosphere where CO2 only accout for approximately 0.03% of the total gases while water vapor can constitute as much as 7% of the gases which is a known climate driver because of the ability to hold and release heat much better that CO2. Water vapor by volume takes up 200 times more atmosphere than CO2. Scientists are in agreement that water vapor is considered to be the main culprit, upward of 80%, on (very small) temperature rise. The rest are by green house gases of which most CO2 emissions are made from the earth itself.
Number one - indeed, there are past occurrences of climate change - it is part of the dynamics of Earth. However, it has been shown by climate scientists that this is the fastest change in recorded history (meaning not just written history, but also geological history….)
Human’s contribution of CO2 may be just a tiny percentage, but everything was in equilibrium before. An increase is going to throw the equilibrium out the window.
And its not just that humans are producing CO2, but also other gases such as methane. Ever hear of methane from cows burping and farting?
“Experts consider cows the biggest single source of methane - a gas 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide when it comes to global warming.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_.....288012.stm
Why do we have so many cows? So we can eat McDonald’s, and drink milk in our morning cereal, before shuffling to school or work. And don’t forget all our trash - that’s a major methane source. I could go on and on, but I won’t.
Moreover, the humans are destroying one of the biggest carbon sinks: the forests. The Amazon and now the Canadian boreal forests are being harvested, clear cut, etc with poor forestry management.
And you say humans aren’t responsible for this current climate change? You are just in denial just like your fellow Republican crony Sen. Imhofe, who relies on the words of a science fiction writer of all people, above the words of nearly 2000 distinguished climate-related scientists.
The *wonderful* administration of this country had the opportunity to fund alternative energy sources 7 years ago when they came into power. But Cheny’s response to energy conservation? “Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.”
WTF???? If people practiced conservation, they would benefit in several ways:
1. lower energy bills
2. cleaner air and water
3. decreased dependence on FOREIGN OIL (which is something that Bush has been pushing for, as a silly reason to open up the ANWR)
Now Bush & Co. are realizing the errors of their ways, but they frankly don’t give a hoot, since he is a lame duck and the country is watching the clock for the day that he cleans out his desk and goes back to Crawford for the last time.
Eh, thanks, Ehh. I couldn’t explain this as well!
I was recently told that the word usage of “global warming” is misleading. There’s global cooling in some areas. Climate change is the appropriate term when describing the rapid temperature change and the extreme reactions to that.
Indeed. Global warming is not the appropriate term. True, most places will experience warming, but due to the complexities of climate dynamics, the better term is “climate change”.
McConnell, I’m no expert. One of the things I remember about ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is Gore pointing at seemingly an overwhelming correlation between global temperature and CO2 level over time. How do you explain that? (BTW, the fact CO2 make up only a very small proportion of atmosphere doesn’t matter- chemicals vary in potency.)
Another question- as far as I know, very significant majority of scientists believe in human-caused global warming (or climate change). Naysaying scientists are few. Why? What would so many scientists have to gain from spreading this “hoax”?
Because, Ben, it’s a can of worms. The whole purpose of global warming movement by Gore and eco-radical activists is to scare people and to force issues within the government to expand powers to govern or legislate people’s behaviors in order to “save the planet” under false illusions and premises. A growing number of scientists are already shifting views away from the human-induced global warming argument and focus on fact-based climate change issues that have been known throughout Earth’s history, long before humanity appeared few millions years ago. The whole notion of that the human race is to be blamed for global warming is fallacious and contrary to proven scientific evidences and data about climate change.
Scientists who support human-induced global warming argument are funded by powerful Democratic politicians or powerful NGOs such as the Open Society Institute with money connections to powerful private organizations and individuals who support the covert Malthusian-Darwinist depopulation agenda against the entire planet. How do you think scientists get the money from to support their researches which fall in line with the human-induced global warming argument?
It is a bunch of bunk to say that “everything was in equilibrium before” (response to “Ehh….” post #85717) when there is no such thing as “equilibrium” when you have earth’s climate that is constantly changing. The climate is always in dynamic motion and always in a feed back loop allowing earth to cool or warm. And much of it relates to the sun’s energy.
Quite surprising to see no one has yet mentioned the sun as being the primary (and only) source of heat and cosmic rays delivered to earth that help drive the climate (wind, precipitation, heat, cloud formations, etc). Mars and Pluto have shown a warming trend as well and the culprit is the sun.
A funny thing about CO2 and Temperature correlation charts is that you have to understand which comes first. Was it the warming and then CO2 or CO2 first and then warming?
The Vostok ice data of Greenland go back several hundred thousand years show carbon dioxide levels usually rose AFTER an increase in temperature, not before. In the world of science correlation does not necessarily equate with causation. You have to be careful with that.
About 1,000 years ago average temperatures were about 1 degree higher than today (which makes our concern about an 0.4 degree rise since 1980 rather minor).
About 2,100 years ago average temperatures were about 2 degrees higher than today.
About 3,300 years ago average temperatures were about 3 degrees higher than today. (The data from Greenland ice-cores goes back far beyond this time so despite what some people say, it looks like it takes a lot more than 3 degrees to melt the ice cap!)
For almost all of the last 4,000 years temperatures have been higher than today. More precisely, apart from a brief period 1200 years ago, it is only the last 750 years that have been at or below current temperatures. On this evidence it is more reasonable to assume that warmer weather is the natural condition - in so far as we can claim any stability or consistency in something that is constantly changing.
Look at the increase in temperature about 3200 years ago. It is about 1 degree in less than 50 years. In the twentieth century temperatures have risen and fallen, the most recent change being an increase since 1980 of about 0.4 degrees. The maximum was reached in 1998 and while temperatures have fluctuated since then they have not exceeded that point. An increase of 1 degree in 50 years is looking very unlikely.
http://mclean.ch/climate/Eye_opening.htm
All you have to do is ask yourselves when looking at any CO2 and Temperature correlation charts covering hundreds of thousand of years is that you see CO2 go up as well as temperature but man wasn’t around to introduce CO2 into the atmosphere yet have an abundance of data that show the up and down temperature and CO2 amount over several hundred thousand years which tells you that man couldn’t have been the culprit causing the rise in CO2 as reason for the increase temperature change.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
There are PLENTY of scientists who do not agree with the human-caused global warming scenario. During the past several years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition. And it is no surprise you have to dig around, easily so, for that information on the internet because mainstream media ever rarely report these kinds of things fr obvious reasons as Rob as stated.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
And lastly, people who go around accusing others as being “global deniers” use emotional response to try and get people to feel guilty rather than taking the time to see why none of this so-called human caused global warming makes any sense. And what do they do to ease their so-called guilt? Go out and buy a hybrid car which actually produces more energy and impact to the environment. How ironic is that?
McConnell -
Before you go spouting on about the OISM, you should check this page out.
http://campus.quehttp://campus...../kyoto.htm
Be careful of what sources you quote from. The article they used was not peer-reviewed, nor was it endorsed by the National Academy of Science.
Furthermore check this article from Scientific American regarding your quoted website:
http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?.....9EC588EF21
I wouldn’t trust anything that comes out of this website. The best bet for accurate information is the IPCC.
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/app-a.pdf
They really go through a rigorous review before publishing their results.
You’re not quite so right in this. Not every “envirowacko” buys a hybrid - some buy fuel-efficient cars that get good mileage, such as the Toyota Echo. Others forgo personal automobile transportation and rely on public transportation and/or walking shoes and bicycles.
Furthermore, hybrid cars (and now hybrid SUVs such as the Ford Escape) have a far lower life cycle energy requirements than large SUVs.
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/....._prius.pdf
Again, you failed to quote the source for that hybrid cars were less efficient.
You’re 9 days late.
http://www.deafdc.com/blog/liz.....ment-85715
Ah. Ok. I was out travelling for work. But if you read the link from Pacific Institute (that I linked above), it shows the fallacies in that publication that you used (the “Dust to Dust” publication).
Eric the Red named it Greenland as a ploy to attract more travellers to the island. In fact, it was cold and barren and not quite suitable for farming.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/ma.....g_mwp.html
It wasn’t barren as you think in the southern part of Greenland. Certainly the name “Green”land was used to attract more settlers. However, it wasn’t barren as you suggest that farming couldn’t have taken place but it did.
“Under the leadership of the red-faced, red-bearded Erik (who had given the island its attractive name, the better to lure settlers there), the colonists developed a little Europe of their own just a few hundred miles from North America, a full 500 years before Columbus set foot on the continent. They established dairy and sheep farms throughout the unglaciated areas of the south and built churches, a monastery, a nunnery, and a cathedral boasting an imported bronze bell and greenish tinted glass windows.”
http://www.archaeology.org/onl.....greenland/
It is not surprising that the Greenland Vikings chose to farm at the mouth of a fjord. The Vikings who settled Iceland and later moved to Greenland were originally from Norway, where farming technology grew up around fjords. The centre of a fjord farm is a meadow where animals graze during winter months.
Cross-sections of the GUS soil show the Vikings began their settlement by burning off birch brush to form a meadow. Over the next 300 to 400 years, the meadow soil steadily improved its nutritional qualities, showing that the Greenland Vikings weren’t poor farmers, as McGovern and others have suggested. “At GUS, the amount of organic matter and the quality of soil increased and sustained farming for 400 years,” said Schweger.
http://www.expressnews.ualbert.....cfm?id=776
Then it got too cold to farm anymore. But today Greenlanders are excited about the increaing warming temperature of Greenland which means better yield from their agriculture work.
The religious community engaged in “saluatary neglect” about their given responsibilty of good stewardship of Mother Earth for many and many years.
The Holy Bible and Koran definitely give CLEAR instructions about koshering our foods and food preparations, etc. Many Christans and God-fearing people usually do not really pay attention what the Bible espouses about the importance of good stewardship of our “increasingly fragile” Mother Earth and proper food preparations.
The religious community always are behind many things like the civil rights issue and environmental issues til they find something real trendy to embrace and jump on the bandwagons.
God-fearing Southerners used to justify their enslavement of other peoples like the African Americans in name of God.
Many Christians justified the de facto captialism to be part of God’s plans to reap wealth and glories during the Gilded Age.
I agree with you, McConnell about how stupid the gay (GLBT) community polarize the issue of gay marriage like using “marriage”. The GLBT community have to realized that they really do not have to hetrosexualize themselves like coining “marriage”.
The GLBT community and same-sex marriage supporters have to invent some word to neturalize the polarization of same-sex marriage without imposing such horrors on the use of church facilities or use “marriage”.
Why can’t the GLBT community use the term like “legal arrangement”. The social conservatives will feel less threatened by this kind of term.
I know that the GLBT organizations use polarizing issues for the purpose of fund raising like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) repeatedly ask for finanical donations to legalize the same sex marriage. Yes, the whole truth about many non-profit organizations treat divisive issues as perfect fund-raising opporunity.
That’s why many sociologists call the issue mobilizers “moral enterpreuers”.
With due respect, Mike McConnell, many of our ecosystem like the Aria Sea in Russia went totally dry during the 60s due to excessive water drainings. That surely done by the actions of irresponsible and greedy human beings.
Have you lived near any manfacturer plants and experience such uncomfortable air exposures, ex. stench/foul air on daily basis? You ought to camp outside the polluted plant and see what they could do to your lungs and human body.
Our earth atomsphere have been radically affected by our human actions. The Holy Bible clearly state that the Almighty God give us, humans the great responsibility of being the good stewards of Mother Earth. We, humans really have not doing the good job of stewardship our Mother Earth.
We have to remmy that there is only the known habitable planet in the entire universe. We have to take good care of our increasingly fragile planet.
You, Mike McConnell, have to undy that many human civilizations collapsed due to their mismanagment of natural resources and surroundings and led to their exitinction. I could not remmy the title of superbu nonfiction book about why our human civilizations disappeared in the first place, etc.
Our earth’s oceans are getting more aciditic. No questions that we, humans are definitely responsible for the current state of oceans due to overfishing, trash dumpings and other things.
Human actions in Florida area have been responsible for injuring and paralyzing loveable mantees by the irresponsible use of speedboats and motorboats in shallow waters.
I could go much further on our human actions on the hundred years of human progress within technology and mechnical advances.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
You, Mike McConnell, have to undy that many human civilizations collapsed due to their mismanagment of natural resources and surroundings and led to their exitinction. I could not remmy the title of superbu nonfiction book about why our human civilizations disappeared in the first place, etc.
You’re referring to the book called “Collapse” by Jared Diamond? If so, I have not read the book but I saw a special TV documentary about him on PBS and his reason for why human civilizations collapsed was not because of mismanagement of resources but from a simply misunderstanding of geography being at the mercy of nature. Human civilizations were caught in the struggle between geography and nature that they were at the mercy with either force they cannot really control.
Jack Shafer said it best here:
“Often as sensationalistic as its yellow predecessor, green journalism tends to appeal to our emotions, exploit our fears, and pander to our vanity. It places a political agenda in front of the quest for journalistic truth and in its most demagogic forms tolerates no criticism, branding all who question it as enemies of the people.
Not all green journalism harangues, but even the gentlest variety sermonizes, cuts logical corners, and substitutes good intentions for problem solving.”
How has humans “radically affected by our human actions” knowing that the atmosphere reaches 348 miles around the globe?
RLM, I’m in the environmental business in water, air and fire. I’m pretty savvy when it comes environmental history and astute in the envionmental field. Many of the civilizations collapsed either because of war, disease, increasing salt in their agriculture fields, or that resources were finite or unsustainable to begin with.
Let’s not get into this global warming (as supposedly caused by humans) screaming nonsense.
again, I have to point out that the correct term to use should be “climate change”, not “global warming”.
The issue they are screaming about is global warming.
“National Association of Evangelicals driving a Toyota Prius and more than 50 other evangelical Christian leaders pledging to reduce energy consumption.”
Also, I find it ironic that driving a Toyota Prius actually causes a reduction in energy consumption which isn’t true since it takes energy, time and resources to build a Toyota Prius and support it (e.g. automotive parts, batteries, etc). The question becomes what are the real overall energy costs from “dust to dust” in producing vehicles for consumer use?
“For example, the Honda Accord Hybrid has an Energy Cost per Mile of $3.29 while the
conventional Honda Accord is $2.18. Put simply, over the .Dust to Dust. lifetime of the Accord Hybrid, it will require about 50 percent more energy than the non-hybrid version. One of the reasons hybrids cost more than non-hybrids is the manufacture, replacement and disposal of such items as batteries, electric motors (in addition to the conventional engine), lighter weight materials and complexity of the power package.
And while many consumers and environmentalists have targeted sport utility vehicles because of their lower fuel economy and/or perceived inefficiency as a means of transportation, the energy cost per mile shows at least some of that disdain is misplaced.
For example, while the industry average of all vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2005 was $2.28 cents per mile, the Hummer H3 (among most SUVs) was only $1.949 cents per mile. That figure is also lower than all currently offered hybrids and Honda Civic at $2.42 per mile.
If a consumer is concerned about fuel economy because of family budgets or depleting oil supplies, it is perfectly logical to consider buying high-fuel-economy vehicles, says Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research, Inc. But if the concern is the broader issues such as environmental impact of energy usage, some high-mileage vehicles actually cost society more than conventional or even larger models over their lifetime.
We believe this kind of data is important in a consumer’s selection of transportation,. Says Spinella. Basing purchase decisions solely on fuel economy or vehicle size does not get to the heart of the energy usage issue.
http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/au.....ERSION.pdf - warning…458 pages!
So, buying a Toyota Prius is just a way of feeling good thinking one is helping the environment when in reality doing what they have done is to make it worse when looking at the overall environmental impact.
You’re right, those “green” things are becoming chic. Often, consumers aren’t aware of how it’s really not the better alternative after all. Even so, the point of this blog was to accentuate the importance of religious leaders from across the board to take action to rectify ways the community thinks and acts and be more proactive in making little decisions to reduce the number of carbon footprints we leave behind. Pointing out the Nat’l Association of Evangelicals and Toyota Pirus, was, in my opinion, a great visual.
This “carbon footprint” is all a big joke. Even al-Gore is a big polluter. When one says “carbon footprint” what they’re talking about is the release of carbon dioxide (e.g. burning of fuel or oil).
Humans produce between 6 and 7 gigatons (billion) of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. Earth produce her own carbon dioxide by releasing some 170 gigatons into the atmosphere. We us puny humans release less than 1% of the total carbon dioxide compared to what earth releases yearly. And then we are still learning about carbon sinks and how much of earth absorbs CO2 (and other gases). It’s a complex interaction.
This “carbon footprint” thing is a farce. I’d be more interested on addressing the local and regional pollution problems first because they impact us immediately (healthwise, view, economic and so on) and get away from using that ridiculous buzzword because it all goes back to this global warming (as supposedly caused by humans) panic which, again, is utterly ridiculous.
If anyone reads this article, they must also read the article that refutes the “dust to dust” publication. It describes the flaws and faults of McConnell’s quoted publication.
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/....._prius.pdf
The conservative movement finds plenty of blasphemy with the scientific methodologies used to declare the existence of global warming. Conservatives, by nature, practice caution. Defense and military spending are heavily supported by the conservative party (the major names in the conservative movement: Dick Cheney, Pat Buchanan, Trent Lott, Ann Coulter — are all big on this).
I take issue with that line, Liz. It is patently false to assume only the conservatives heavily support the defense and military spending just because they support the American military/defense policies by and large alone? Liberal Democratic politicians also support the military-defense industry as well because some of their districts and states have military bases with heavy ties to local and state economies. One less military base mean less tax money for the local/state economies, also mean less voters to support the Democratic platforms across the board. Most liberal Democrats talk up a good game of world peace, environment responsibility and all that liberal do-goodies stuff but they will NEVER speak ill of the vaunted military-defense industry. The military-defense industry in the United States is one of the largest and most profitable industries in the world, also the most heaviest with tax revenues generated from the local and state economies tied to the military bases and defense businesses anywhere in the United States. Can you think of any other non-defense industry that can match equally with or greater than the military-defense industry when it comes to dollar and tax revenues?
The defense industry is FREE ENTERPRISE. Conservatives support free markets and free enterprise in this country because it’s good business for everyone, good for the working families, good for the middle class families and good for the wealthy families. Respectively, it come down to JOBS, EDUCATION and INVESTMENTS. However, all of these needed the military to protect the country from invasion, terrorism or war, since families are willing to pay taxes to support the military in order to protect them, their values, their interests and their country from invasion, terrorism or war.
Both real liberals and conservatives know that. To imply only the conservatives alone support the military-defense just because of Cheney, Lott, Coulter were behind it is just plain shortsighted and ignorant.
from the far confines of Seattle, it gives me great pleasure to see such an intelligent debate amongst the Deaf. It bodes us well to hone the skills of debate. You are the standard bearers of the deaf world! Role models that kids must have. Rare for me to see such intricate topics being debated in public with both sides being CIVIL to each other and respectful. Keep it up dudes!
Pleasantries aside! Bah! :-)
My humble observations:
1. McConnell: Marriage may connote a meaning of union between man and woman for thousands of years BUT, language is not static. It’s changing every day. Meaning change. Why should the term “Marriage” remain steady?
2. I agree that global warming is nothing new. It’s an on going phenomena that has been going on for millions of years! Come out west to Seattle and I will take you for a ride down to the Gorge and you can see first hand the tell tale marks of the great Glacier. As it retreated, the huge water flows carved out some of the most beautiful gorges I have seen. You can still see them today! Evidence of ice age thousands of years ago. No one complained then.
2. At the same time, I must say that we as human beings need to take care of the environment. My biggest peevee is plastic! Why do we need so much plastic? Plastic forks/knives/cups/spoons etc. What for?? Why can’t we live with simple paper cups or glass cups? paper is biodegradable and glass can be washed and reused. Next time you go to the food store, ask for paper. Not plastic!
3. As for religion going green: Kudos! Whatever it takes to make people aware of the surrounding…good! If we can only educate Americans to cut waste, we would have a hell clean planet. No contaminated ground water. Plenty fish in the sea. No toxins etc. My favorite quote growing up: “Don’t believe that the earth owes you a living. The earth owes you nothing! It was hear first.”
But I ramble! Keep the debate going!
My biggest peevee is plastic! Why do we need so much plastic? Plastic forks/knives/cups/spoons etc. What for??
Two reasons:
1 - Weight: eating utensils made of metal (such as silver) are bit heavier than plastic eating utensils. When distributing to grocery, general market or convenience stores, weight of plastic eating utensils are significantly less on fuel usage for transport than metal-based eating utensils. In some cases, people like to have picnics or large party gatherings (think company picnic or party, for example), plastic eating utensils are cheaper to purchase and would you bring your own eating utensils for such a large gathering to eat out with?
2 - Germs. Some people are still conscious or phobic about using metal-based eating utensils that have been used by other people in the mouths, even though these things have been repeatedly washed, sanitized and dried before re-using.
Once I saw a lady who bought her plastic eating utensils to a fine dining place because she refuses to use the silverwares for eating.
Rob:
The life expectancy of people living in developed countries today is not much ahead of those who lived in the past when plastic wasn’t invented. Even before plastic utensils, people had picnics and BBQs and parties. My point is: use one, throw! Then what? It lies undecomposed for thousands of years and contributes to ugly landfills, environmental pollution and death of other species!
It lies undecomposed for thousands of years and contributes to ugly landfills, environmental pollution and death of other species!
How the heck do you know that?! Did you travel thousands of years in the future to dig up and see undecomposed plastic spoons that pollute the environment already? Come on. You got a time-traveling machine you’d constructed in your garage?
Rob:
Being an organic chemistry major in college, I think I am quite qualified to know that it takes a thousand years for plastics to decompose without the aid of a time machine. and that is IF they do decompose! The carbon-carbon bonds are the strongest bonds in chemistry that hold molecules together!
Have you ever BEEN to a landfill? I have! Trust me, it’s ugly! TV monitors, aluminum cans, car parts, etc! and it STINKS !!
Check on the web for authoritative sources as to how long plastics take to decompose.
I’ve also seen marine mammals trapped in those plastic 6 pack-sodapop-can-holders.
Hence my aversion to plastic.
Okay, fair enough. ;) Hmm, put yourself in someone’s sandals more than 3000 years ago and you would be complaining about people throwing useless or broken potteries in the dumpsters and worrying about dried paints and decorative pieces from potteries poisoning the groundwater. Archaeologists nowadays are digging up TRASHES which mostly consisted of potteries of all kinds and sizes and they think these trashes are historic treasures from the past.
I’ve been landfills a couple of times. My biologist teacher in high school once told me the stink doesn’t come from regular trashes but from bacterias, molds and fungus that formed inside or attached to trashes during a decomposing period under temperature, humidity and wind-shifting. When you mix up all sort of biodegradable and non-biodegradable trashes together for a period of time, you end up with a stink formed by bacterial molds that have yet to take shape.
The downside is that throughout human history, people have always throw all sort of wastes away in landfills. Future archaeologists will think today’s trashes as treasure troves in the future. ;)
One tiny problem, Rob, the magnitude of modern landfills and ancient “landfills” are vastly different. That poisoning of groundwater, etc in ancient times were balanced out by nature’s cleaning processes while modern day Mother Nature is doing everything she can to keep up but falling behind miserably.
Rob
Methane and a few other organics produced during the decomposition of biodegradable substances is what produces the stink. Also, sulfur gas is released which causes the rotten egg smell! As Oscar put it, the vast amount of garbage we have is toxic stuff that leaches into the ground water. Mercury fromlight bulbs is just ONE of the toxins that we should worry about. You touch Mercury, you’re signing your death sentence. As it accumulates, what will it’s effect be on future generations?
Most of what archeologist find are not “landfills” or trash as you said, but mostly abandonded cities, burial grounds, tombs, graves and places like that where people took things with them into afterlife. Or a natural calamity just froze the city in time. 3000 year old landfills? Hard to imagine! Specially since landfills started only a few 100 years ago when mass production of consumer goods started, with the first Model T!
I sailed in the Atlantic Ocean and was told it’s illegal to dump plastic. Information I found via Google is shown below.
California Coastal Commission:
“In 1988, the U.S. signed onto MARPOL Annex V, joining 64 other countries that signed the international protocol that regulates ocean dumping and made it illegal to dump plastic into the ocean.”
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/publ.....ebris.html
International Marine Organization:
http://www.imo.org/Environment.....pic_id=297
It is illegal, WAD, but that doesn’t stop people from dumping. The Navy does it, for one. And if nobody’s around, who’s going to find out that *you* did it?
DP, I know that and do not have a solution for it. I prefer the plastics to be into the landfill rather than into the ocean. That way, I can catch more fish for bragging rights. :D
While I’ve been a bit leery about jumping in on this topic, I would like to offer up my own views, which are based to a large extent on the fact that I am a practicing Pagan.
Liz asks why can’t we merge science and religion? Indeed, why not? Paganism has a long history of doing exactly that. Even today many are drawn to the Craft not by its religious or spiritual content, but by its scientific and technological allure. Anyone who has watched the Harry Potter movies knows what I am talking about - the science of making things happen their own way. It fact, I have a difficult time with the “witchy wannabes” who are more interested in learning how to cast love spells than in understanding the spiritual meaning of our faith.
Paganism (and Witchcraft) is both a set of scientific principles and a religious structure. People can enter it from both directions - those who come to the Craft on the basis of science discover the religion, and those looking for a comfortable religious doctrine discover the science. They are indeed a union here.
As for the “greening of religion”…that’s nothing new to us. According to Ronald Hutton, a professor of history at the University of Bristol and a well-known scholar on the subject of Paganism, one of the central characteristics of the Pagan faith is a love and kinship for nature. Paganism is particularly recognized as a “green” religion, and many Pagans are environmental activists, as well as engaging in such behaviors as recycling, vegetarianism, organic living, etc.
Is it any coincidence that as we see a growing interest in environmentalism, protecting the earth, etc. we are also seeing a growing interest in alternative, earth-based religions and lifestyles?