Mormon Environmental Ethic, Does It Exist?

[Guest]

Fluorescent bulbs are a great example of government regulations trying to do a good thing and inadvertently doing a bad one. Same thing if everyone suddenly started to drive electric cars. The battery problems would be enormous .If you are interested, investigate the conditions surrounding electronics disposal and who is doing the work of dealing with the toxic waste there.The next big thing in light bulbs are the LEDs . The consumer will pay 15-20 dollars a bulb but it lasts 20 years. Sounds like a good tradeoff. I wonder about disposal there.

That is because "intentions", matter more that results, cause and effect. All that matters is that it makes them feel good. All of this sacrificing the truth on the altar of public correctness.

[thesometimesaint]

What the heck are you talking about?

 

As long as our land, air, and water are open sewers, without seeming cost, then yes it will always be cheaper for the polluters to treat them that way. IE;

SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7bmg65SS20#t=238

[MormonFreeThinker]

Bill Nye said, “It’s not a coincidence that the creationists also deny climate change. It’s a really important thing. Just look at this morning’s stories.” 

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/bill-nye-on-evolution-climate-change-and-advancements/

[JLHPROF]

Bill Nye said, “It’s not a coincidence that the creationists also deny climate change. It’s a really important thing. Just look at this morning’s stories.” 

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/bill-nye-on-evolution-climate-change-and-advancements/

 

I don't deny climate change.  I just don't believe it matters a whole lot if the second coming will happen in the next few decades.

Also, if climate change helps bring about the fulfilling of prophecy, then it needs to continue.

 

You will say: That was in the days when Presidents Benson and Maughan presided over us; that was before New York was destroyed by an earthquake; it was before Boston was swept into the sea, by the sea heaving itself beyond its bounds; it was before Albany was destroyed by fire; yea, at that time you will remember the scenes of this day. Treasure them up and forget them not.’ President Young followed and said: ‘What Brother Woodruff has said is revelation and will be fulfilled.’” (In Lundwall, Temples of the Most High, pp. 97–98.)

 

Yep.  If climate change is one of the signs, then bring it on.  I'll even stop recycling if it'll help.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't deny climate change.  I just don't believe it matters a whole lot if the second coming will happen in the next few decades.

Also, if climate change helps bring about the fulfilling of prophecy, then it needs to continue.

 

Yep.  If climate change is one of the signs, then bring it on.  I'll even stop recycling if it'll help.

 

So we're going to force Jesus to come back?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I drive a Chevy Volt and I absolutely love it but they are expensive and there is still the problem with the eventual safe disposition of the battery.  I think the main idea behind it was kind of the "if you build it, they will come" or "If you build it, they will figure out a way to safely dispose of the battery before the first one goes bad."  I'm just happy to see human ingenuity working towards making the world a better place.  I hate seeing the wide brush being used on both sides to paint environmentalists as atheists and religious people as anti environmentalists.  I think the bottom line is paradigm.  Atheists, of course, are going to put more emphasis on the earth and promote sustainability because that is all there is.  Religious people will tend to emphasize the afterlife and worry about the quality of their spiritual lives.  In that viewpoint, the earth is a temporary stopping point.  Both are important.

I got news for you, the Chevy volt is not the answer to the supposed climate issues.

 

Bring us the hydrogen powered car. I am ready now.

[The Nehor]

So we're going to force Jesus to come back?

It is crazy but there have been people who have said we need to consume resources more quickly so the Savior will return.

I personally suspect God is not pleased with those who are willing to trash the planet on the premise that Jesus will clean up after them. Do they also do this to waiters? People who clean campgrounds? To their spouses by trashing the house. We have a word for people like that: jerks.

I don't deny climate change.  I just don't believe it matters a whole lot if the second coming will happen in the next few decades.

Also, if climate change helps bring about the fulfilling of prophecy, then it needs to continue.

 

Yep.  If climate change is one of the signs, then bring it on.  I'll even stop recycling if it'll help.

Jerk.

[thesometimesaint]

I got news for you, the Chevy volt is not the answer to the supposed climate issues.

 

Bring us the hydrogen powered car. I am ready now.

 

Hydrogen is a very good intermediate step to all electric powered cars.

[JLHPROF]

It is crazy but there have been people who have said we need to consume resources more quickly so the Savior will return.

I personally suspect God is not pleased with those who are willing to trash the planet on the premise that Jesus will clean up after them. Do they also do this to waiters? People who clean campgrounds? To their spouses by trashing the house. We have a word for people like that: jerks.

Jerk.

 

Rude!  I was only kidding about helping to dirty up the earth.

But I don't believe global warming is a huge threat.  I do believe that we need to be responsible.

I fully believe that the earth is a stewardship the Lord has given us, and to some extent we will be judged on how we have treated the earth.

 

But do I believe we are going to ruin the earth, make it uninhabitable, and destroy ourselves.  No.  I don't.  I don't believe for a second that if we cause global warming we are all going to drown or cause a new ice age or whatever the big concerns are.

 

God expects us to be responsible stewards, but it is also not in the cards for man to destroy the earth or themselves.

Edited November 13, 2014 by JLHPROF

[thesometimesaint]

It is crazy but there have been people who have said we need to consume resources more quickly so the Savior will return.

I personally suspect God is not pleased with those who are willing to trash the planet on the premise that Jesus will clean up after them. Do they also do this to waiters? People who clean campgrounds? To their spouses by trashing the house. We have a word for people like that: jerks.

 

 

Any fool can consume more resources than is needed to perform a task. The real challenge comes in where we figure out ways to do more with less.

[thesometimesaint]

Rude!  I was only kidding about helping to dirty up the earth.

But I don't believe global warming is a huge threat.  I do believe that we need to be responsible.

I fully believe that the earth is a stewardship the Lord has given us, and to some extent we will be judged on how we have treated the earth.

 

But do I believe we are going to ruin the earth, make it uninhabitable, and destroy ourselves.  No.  I don't.  I don't believe for a second that if we cause global warming we are all going to drown or cause a new ice age or whatever the big concerns are.

 

God expects us to be responsible stewards, but it is also not in the cards for man to destroy the earth or themselves.

 

It is the biggest threat we now face. But we have faced big challenges before, and the fact we're still here proves we can meet the challenges. But only if we recognize them as challenges first.

 

There is the story of a five year old who didn't talk and didn't talk. Then one day while sitting at the dinner table he said please pass the rice and beans. His parents were shocked and asked him why he hadn't talked up to that point. He answered with "Everything was fine up to now".

 

No one has said it would make the whole earth uninhabitable. Obviously some areas have been relatively uninhabitable even when man made global warming wasn't a factor. IE; The Sahara Desert still isn't well populated, and no one is claiming AGW was the cause. What is indisputable is that we are massively raising the level of CO2 in our atmosphere. CO2 holds heat. More CO2 = more heat. Equally obvious is that more area's will become less human life sustainable as we shift weather patterns towards hotter averages.

 

I prefer not to tell God what he can and can't do.

[emarkp]

Hydrogen is a very good intermediate step to all electric powered cars.

Frankly it's better than electric cars. Nuclear power + hydrogen cars would change the world.

Too bad they've both been killed by politicians.

[thesometimesaint]

Frankly it's better than electric cars. Nuclear power + hydrogen cars would change the world.

Too bad they've both been killed by politicians.

 

Not really. Hydrogen while the most common element in the universe attaches all too easily to other elements. Making it a net energy looser. We can only get about 85% of the heat energy out of hydrogen that it takes to freeing it from other elements. That's not including the mechanical losses inherent in the internal combustion engine. Hydrogen does have the advantage to electric in that no expensive modifications are needed. Just a pressure container and a natural gas carburetor. So hydrogen can fill as a stop gap measure while we transfer over to all electric vehicles.

 

As to nuclear it depends on what type of nuclear we're talking about nuclear fusion or fission. While nuclear fission have zero carbon emissions there is at present no solution for the long term storage of fissions byproducts which will remain deadly for very long periods of time. Right now they are just being stored onsite on those power plants. As Chernobyl and now Fukushima disasters have demonstrated nuclear fission is not without other high risks. That's not even considering the incredible expense of decommissioning, dismantling, long term storage of the highly radioactive parts of the plants themselves.

 

Nuclear fusion has the slight advantage here, but so far we haven't been able to meet the breakeven point where the produced energy is equal to the energy needed to start the process. But they are getting closer.

[MormonFreeThinker]

The anti-science arguments presented here have been debunked, I hope people watch the video before commenting. 

 

[emarkp]

Not really. Hydrogen while the most common element in the universe attaches all too easily to other elements. Making it a net energy looser.

Some lossiness as a storage medium is acceptable. It's a far lower cost than the massive environmental damage producing Lithium based batteries, which have a short operable lifetime. Shell + GM's effort was promising (electrolysis of water to get the hydrogen at point of sale, requiring no dramatic new infrastructure).

 

As to nuclear it depends on what type of nuclear we're talking about nuclear fusion or fission.

Nuclear fusion is still a dream for the future. Thorium-based fission is a viable solution that would obviate most of the problems involved with uranium-based solutions.

 

As Chernobyl and now Fukushima disasters have demonstrated nuclear fission is not without other high risks.

Chernobyl was a criminal operation, useless as an example. Fukushima was an obsolete design already scheduled for shutdown. Both combined resulted in fewer total fatalities than coal mining does annually.

 

Nuclear fusion has the slight advantage here, but so far we haven't been able to meet the breakeven point where the produced energy is equal to the energy needed to start the process.

Yes, my brother works at LLNL, supporting NIF, so we're kinda in the loop there. Edited November 14, 2014 by emarkp

[thesometimesaint]

Some lossiness as a storage medium is acceptable. It's a far lower cost than the massive environmental damage producing Lithium based batteries, which have a short operable lifetime. Shell + GM's effort was promising (electrolysis of water to get the hydrogen at point of sale, requiring no dramatic new infrastructure).

 

Nuclear fusion is still a dream for the future. Thorium-based fission is a viable solution that would obviate most of the problems involved with uranium-based solutions.

 

Chernobyl was a criminal operation, useless as an example. Fukushima was an obsolete design already scheduled for shutdown. Both combined resulted in fewer total fatalities than coal mining does annually.

 

Yes, my brother works at LLNL, supporting NIF, so we're kinda in the loop there.

 

We're not talking about storage losses. Which may or may not be minor depending on containment method. Hydrogen while flammable is calory deficient. It takes more energy to separate out the hydrogen atoms from the parent material than the energy that hydrogen produces. That is just simple chemistry.

 

No one I know of is suggesting that we simple dump Lithium-ion batteries into the landfills like we did for many years with lead-acid batteries. They still need to be safely decommission, and recycled for their constituent parts. Their big advantage is that they have a very large power to weight ratio making them ideal for laptop computers and cars where weight is a very big factor. IE; I have both laptop and desk(Tower) computers. I really don't see a practical way to carry around the desk top. Life time issues are being resolved. Serious consideration is being given to the idea of easily transferred battery packs instead of permanently fixed ones. IE; About once per year you take your car in and have the battery packs replaced as part of normal maintenance. Plus there are far fewer moving parts on an electric car than a gas one to break, even if that gas is hydrogen. I'm not poo-pooing the idea. It is a good one, but I just don't see it as a permanent solution.

 

Yes earth bond controlled nuclear fusion is still a future dream. But if I had to guess(I'm terrible at guessing ).  I'd say within 10 years that problem will be solved. France, and America are making great strides in that effort. However because France is using Tritium, another radioactive element, the same problems may arise that plague fission reactors. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

Thorium may have a limited future for a host of scientific, economic, and nuclear proliferation issues. I'm not willing to invest too heavily in it when other cheaper environmentally sustainable ways are available.But I feel it is still worth researching. If every house in America were properly weatherstripped, and insulted we'd cut our total energy use by almost one half.

 

The meltdown of Chernobyl wasn't criminal. It was bad science. Graphite is far from the ideal medium to control nuclear fission reactions, but it does work when used consistently and with due care. It was the lack of appropriate response to that meltdown that was criminal.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator

 

It may be obsolete, but was still a very common way to do it. Add in that here in the US we too have that style of reactor construction in highly geologic unstable areas, and/or areas prone to flooding. 

 

Bravo to your brother.

[emarkp]

We're not talking about storage losses. Which may or may not be minor depending on containment method. Hydrogen while flammable is calory deficient. It takes more energy to separate out the hydrogen atoms from the parent material than the energy that hydrogen produces. That is just simple chemistry.

I meant, lossiness in the conversion from electricity to hydrogen in electrolysis, then back into locomotion (whether by combustion or by fuel cell). We lose energy from transmission loss, all conversions, etc.

 

No one I know of is suggesting that we simple dump Lithium-ion batteries into the landfills like we did for many years with lead-acid batteries.

Nor was I. The mining isn't so hot though. The nickel mines for the previous generation of batteries have left moonscape-like features in their areas.

 

Their big advantage is that they have a very large power to weight ratio making them ideal for laptop computers and cars where weight is a very big factor.

Yes, but energy to weight is laughable compared to gasoline or liquid hydrogen. It's orders of magnitude lower. Just check here, it's about 150-1 Hydrogen vs Lithium Ion.

 

But if I had to guess(I'm terrible at guessing ). I'd say within 10 years that problem will be solved. France, and America are making great strides in that effort.

It's been "in 20 years" since I first heard of the tokamak testing in the 80s.

 

Thorium may have a limited future for a host of scientific, economic, and nuclear proliferation issues. I'm not willing to invest too heavily in it when other cheaper environmentally sustainable ways are available.

Uh, Thorium is pretty safe. What "cheaper environmentally sustainable ways" are available? Solar? It's still below break-even, so current technology is just as bad as you see hydrogen. Wind? Biomass?

 

But I feel it is still worth researching. If every house in America were properly weatherstripped, and insulted we'd cut our total energy use by almost one half.

Can you produce the numbers for that?

 

The meltdown of Chernobyl wasn't criminal. It was bad science. Graphite is far from the ideal medium to control nuclear fission reactions, but it does work when used consistently and with due care.

There was no containment vessel, and they ran an unsafe test. The design was criminal, the test was criminal.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Here is an intellectual Global Warming debate. 

 

Richard Lindzen is one of the approximately 3 percent of climate scientists who believe the human influence on global warming is relatively small (though Lindzen is now retired, no longer doing scientific research). 

 

Andrew Emory Dessler is a climate scientis and he has published peer-reviewed literature on climate change.

 

[thesometimesaint]

Emark:

 

Haven't got time to fully respond until tomorrow, but thought you'd like this.

[MormonFreeThinker]

It is so wrong that people do not care about the environment, CO2 is a pollutant (acidification of the ocean)

[LinuxGal]

It is so wrong that people do not care about the environment, CO2 is a pollutant (acidification of the ocean)

 

The oceans are mildly alkaline with a typical pH between 8.2–8.5, the very weak effect of dissolving a little bit more CO2 would simply bring this closer to neutral, and in such a small degree that it would not be detectable above the normal variation of the sea.

[MormonFreeThinker]

The oceans are mildly alkaline with a typical pH between 8.2–8.5, the very weak effect of dissolving a little bit more CO2 would simply bring this closer to neutral, and in such a small degree that it would not be detectable above the normal variation of the sea.

 

As ocean waters absorb CO2 they become more acidic. This does not mean the oceans will become acid. Ocean life can be sensitive to slight changes in pH levels, and any drop in pH is an increase in acidity, even in an alkaline environment.

 

 

So you agree that CO2 warms the planet? 

[thesometimesaint]

The oceans are mildly alkaline with a typical pH between 8.2–8.5, the very weak effect of dissolving a little bit more CO2 would simply bring this closer to neutral, and in such a small degree that it would not be detectable above the normal variation of the sea.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid

[LinuxGal]

 

So you agree that CO2 warms the planet? 

 

I do, and a good thing too, since the average temperature of the moon, which has no CO2 (or air for that matter) is -10F.

[thesometimesaint]

I do, and a good thing too, since the average temperature of the moon, which has no CO2 (or air for that matter) is -10F.

 

Like everything too much of a good thing is still too much. IE; Cyanide is a poison to humans. Yet Cyanide is an ingredient in the essential to humans vitamin B-12.