Mormon Environmental Ethic, Does It Exist?

[thesometimesaint]

Duh? I see I am saying the same thing Wade is. Good grief I needed a laugh.

I always need a good laugh. But I just didn't get his comment. Oh well.

[CASteinman]

I feel so good when I recycle too. I just feel so amazing.

Seriously?

[wenglund]

Wade,

I am not sure everyone gets it. The whole worship of Gaia. People feel so good when they turn their car off and not let it idle. "Its bad for the enivorment". I feel so good when I recycle too. I just feel so amazing.

I feel deeply moved as well realizing that the amount of energy expended in recycling is greater than the energy saved through recycling. Such unintended consequence ought to be featured on the Lettermen Show, the segment on "Stupid Human Tricks."

But, I suppose I shouldn't mock other people's religion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

THe issue is that the green movements and enviormentalism is more than just what they proport to be. Most of what people do (in the enviromental movements) is try to control other people through fear. Al Gore anyone?

Do you think I really want dirty air and dirty water? But we must deal with reality also. And so far most envirmental wacko's don't. They want us back in the stone age. That doesn't not work for me or for society. Millions would die if we did. So in a certain sense I am willing to deal with dirty air for the amazing technology that is the combustion engine. I think if government would get out of the way we would have a hydrogen car. I know Obama shelved that car from GM to push his idiotic electric car. It was going to come out in 2009. They had a working prototype in 2008.

Son to dad: See this beautiful snake.

Dad to son: Don't handle that poisonous snake. It will bite you.

Son to dad: You're trying to control my life through fear.

No one I know wants to return to the Stone Age. But there are more environmentally friendly ways to power our 21st Century civilization.

Just a few of the unresolved problems with large scale use of hydrogen in cars.

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/obama-kills-hydrogen-car-funding.html

I would add in hydrogen enbrittlement of most metals that would carry the hydrogen from point to point.

Going to hydrogen right now would be like try to go to the moon in the 1960's on a Redstone rocket.

Solve the problems and I be the first to join you

[thesometimesaint]

I feel deeply moved as well realizing that the amount of energy expended in recycling is greater than the energy saved through recycling. Such unintended consequence ought to be featured on the Lettermen Show, the segment on "Stupid Human Tricks."

But, I suppose I shouldn't mock other people's religion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have to get rid of my trash anyway. So it doesn't take me anymore more of my energy to drop it in one of the three bins I have. My city recycles the green wastes into compost that my garden loves. I sell the aluminium cans so pickup a little pocket change. Whom ever taught you that it takes more energy to melt processed metals than it does to melt the ore is an idiot. Same with glass and plastics. Though the process is different than that of metals and glass. Paper and other organics are put into a special landfill that degrades them to Methane(natural gas) which we burn in our stoves, ovens, and furnaces to keep warm.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

There have been some attempts to set forth and promote an environmental ethic. But it doesn't seem to have gained much traction. Is this because of a disbelief in global warming and other environmental issues? There is of course plenty of comments and statements from Brigham Young until Ezra Taft Benson to support and provide the structure for an environmental ethic, but we are seeing young marrieds coming from Utah and Idaho who don't even understand or practice recycling. How is that possible? We even used to have slogans very much like those used in such campaigns?

It is called good stewardship and came along with the creation of man. Also not sure how someone throws away trash and recycling, should be attributed to righteousness and ethics? Now days we try to label people with guns and who hunt as evil...among other things.

[wenglund]

I have to get rid of my trash anyway. So it doesn't take me anymore more of my energy to drop it in one of the three bins I have. My city recycles the green wastes into compost that my garden loves. I sell the aluminium cans so pickup a little pocket change. Whom ever taught you that it takes more energy to melt processed metals than it does to melt the ore is an idiot. Same with glass and plastics. Though the process is different than that of metals and glass. Paper and other organics are put into a special landfill that degrades them to Methane(natural gas) which we burn in our stoves, ovens, and furnaces to keep warm.

Apart from clearly misunderstanding at least some of what I said, you conveniently neglected to mention various energy-consuming aspects of the recycle process--not the least of which are the giant, gas-guzzling trucks needed to go around picking up the recycle bins (where I live, there are trucks to pick up garbage and separate trucks to pick up the recycling).

But, it is interesting to see you speak with pride about producing methane gas (an apt metaphor for much of radical environmentalism), and this without considering its green-house effect.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

It is called good stewardship and came along with the creation of man. Also not sure how someone throws away trash and recycling, should be attributed to righteousness and ethics? Now days we try to label people with guns and who hunt as evil...among other things.

Agreed.

If we have been commanded by God to good care of our earth. Then I suppose a good case can be made that if we willfully violate that commandment it is a reflection of our righteousness and ethics.

Just depends on what people do with those guns and whom they hunt.

[thesometimesaint]

Apart from clearly misunderstanding at least some of what I said, you conveniently neglected to mention various energy-consuming aspects of the recycle process--not the least of which are the giant, gas-guzzling trucks needed to go around picking up the recycle bins (where I live, there are trucks to pick up garbage and separate trucks to pick up the recycling).

But, it is interesting to see you speak with pride about producing methane gas (an apt metaphor for much of radical environmentalism), and this without considering its green-house effect.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Those vehicles can easily run on natural gas. They don't care if that natural gas comes from ancient plants or a modern day methane digester. In fact we already do have them. http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/conservation/practices/digester.aspx

I'm hardly what anyone would call a environmental extremist.

There is no net gain in greenhouse gases by the digestion of household/garden wastes. Digging up ancient plants does produce a net gain in greenhouse gases. Isn't science wonderful.

[wenglund]

Isn't science wonderful.

Science is wonderful as long as it isn't corrupted by agenda-driven funding, particularly of the political variety (a huge problem with environmental science). In short, science is wonderful as long as it doesn't become a religion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Science isn't my religion, but I've been a scientist longer than I've been a member of the Church.

Thought you might like this.

[sdc999]

There have been some attempts to set forth and promote an environmental ethic. But it doesn't seem to have gained much traction. Is this because of a disbelief in global warming and other environmental issues? There is of course plenty of comments and statements from Brigham Young until Ezra Taft Benson to support and provide the structure for an environmental ethic, but we are seeing young marrieds coming from Utah and Idaho who don't even understand or practice recycling. How is that possible? We even used to have slogans very much like those used in such campaigns?

[wenglund]

Thought you might like this.

[media=]

I did like it. In a way, it helps illustrate how certain people, operating under the guise of science, can play a kind of shell game or slight of hand with the facts in order to advance a political agenda.

In reality, mention of volcanoes in the context of the ongoing debate isn't restricted to CO2 emissions, but rather their full impact on the environment and the temperature of the earth's atmosphere, Conveniently omitted from the presentation was the substantial "haze effect" of volcanoes.

And, it isn't just about volcanoes vs humans.

There are all sorts of ways to play fast and loose with the numbers in order to scare people into wasting millions if not billions of dollars expanding the government in ways that tend to negatively impact the economy. But, the reality is, that humans only contribute about .28% to the total "greenhouse effect." (See HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 24, 2013 by wenglund

[Alan]

I'm joining this discussion late, having been away for a few days.

I can't speak for the church but I can speak for myself as a member of the church.

I work as an Ecologist and am committed to environmental ethics. It was my church membership and my understanding of the gospel that encouraged me to pursue this career.

The instruction to "tend the garden" has never been recinded.

[CV75]

I'm joining this discussion late, having been away for a few days.

I can't speak for the church but I can speak for myself as a member of the church.

I work as an Ecologist and am committed to environmental ethics. It was my church membership and my understanding of the gospel that encouraged me to pursue this career.

The instruction to "tend the garden" has never been recinded.

One of my counselors when I was a bishop was an ecologist and a tenured professor and a prestigious college (as was my uncle); my undergraduate work was heavily ecology related; and come to think of it, my nephew just graduated with a degree in environmental science. So there's three generations right there! I would agree that the Gospel teaches us to be close to the Earth and to care for it.

[CV75]

P.S. I should add my nephew got his degree from BYU!

http://environmentalscience.byu.edu/

It seems to me the Church does plenty for the environment, for a church, that is.

[thesometimesaint]

I did like it. In a way, it helps illustrate how certain people, operating under the guise of science, can play a kind of shell game or slight of hand with the facts in order to advance a political agenda.

In reality, mention of volcanoes in the context of the ongoing debate isn't restricted to CO2 emissions, but rather their full impact on the environment and the temperature of the earth's atmosphere, Conveniently omitted from the presentation was the substantial "haze effect" of volcanoes.

And, it isn't just about volcanoes vs humans.

There are all sorts of ways to play fast and loose with the numbers in order to scare people into wasting millions if not billions of dollars expanding the government in ways that tend to negatively impact the economy. But, the reality is, that humans only contribute about .28% to the total "greenhouse effect." (See HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I really don't agree with people whom politicize the issue, and have even less tolerance for those that make bat crap crazy claims on either side.

There is a small but determined minority that usher in all types of misleading claims to justify not doing anything to combat the serious threat that uncontrolled

greenhouse gases pose to life on this planet.

Here is how I look at it.

1. If global warming is real and we do something. We save those plants and animals(including us) living on the planet.

2. If global warming is unreal and we do something we have a higher standard of living by not spending all that money on fossil fuels to just burn up.

3. If global warming is unreal and we do nothing. Nothing happens.

4. If global warming is real and we do nothing. Disaster.

All the science points to man made Global Warming. But you make the call.

[wenglund]

Here is how I look at it.

1. If global warming is real and we do something. We save those plants and animals(including us) living on the planet.

2. If global warming is unreal and we do something we have a higher standard of living by not spending all that money on fossil fuels to just burn up.

3. If global warming is unreal and we do nothing. Nothing happens.

4. If global warming is real and we do nothing. Disaster.

All the science points to man made Global Warming. But you make the call.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you are correct that "all the science points to man made Global Warming" rather than "climate change" (as it is now being called for reasons that are obvious), the question that common-sensical people will ask, as opposed to the "bat crap crazy" Chicken Little reactions rife throughout pop culture, are: 1) What is the percent contribution of humans to "global warming"? and, 2) In terms of cost/benefits, what, if anything, should we, or can we personally, or even as a nation, feasibly do about the human contribution, and what difference will it make?

In short, should we "devastate" the U.S. and world economies to make an imperceptible change in the "greenhouse effect" and "global warming"?

All reason says no (emoting to the contrary notwithstanding)--though this doesn't mean that nothing should be done to improve the quality of our environment.

But, we are waxing more than a bit political, and so I shan't say more.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you are correct that "all the science points to man made Global Warming" rather than "climate change" (as it is now being called for reasons that are obvious), the question that common-sensical people will ask, as opposed to the "bat crap crazy" Chicken Little reactions rife throughout pop culture, are: 1) What is the percent contribution of humans to "global warming"? and, 2) In terms of cost/benefits, what, if anything, should we, or can we personally, or even as a nation, feasibly do about the human contribution, and what difference will it make?

In short, should we "devastate" the U.S. and world economies to make an imperceptible change in the "greenhouse effect" and "global warming"?

All reason says no (emoting to the contrary notwithstanding)--though this doesn't mean that nothing should be done to improve the quality of our environment.

But, we are waxing more than a bit political, and so I shan't say more.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't buy into the devastate world economies, and in fact in many ways we might improve world economies. And, I find it interesting that in some areas there seems to be a great enthusiasm to have religion intrude into the civic field without the benefit of strong secular reasoning, but in areas where we have religious doctrine and also strong secular reasoning behind us we suddenly don't feel that it is appropriate to emphasize the doctrine we have even without any intent to intrude into the civic field. On the one hand the individual opinions need to defer and remain silent because GAs have spoken, but in the other case we don't want GAs to speak because it is sufficient to have the individual speak. And on one hand we have the realm of religion expand into politics, but on the other we want to circumscribe religion to focus on relatively narrow scope of morality. Its a little baffling to me.

[CASteinman]

in fact in many ways we might improve world economies.

I have yet to see a convincing argument based upon data for this position.

And, I find it interesting that in some areas there seems to be a great enthusiasm to have religion intrude into the civic field without the benefit of strong secular reasoning, but in areas where we have religious doctrine and also strong secular reasoning behind us we suddenly don't feel that it is appropriate to emphasize the doctrine we have even without any intent to intrude into the civic field.

A religious doctrine here that would apply would be the "multiply and fill the earth" command which takes precedent. When economies are not doing well, that command is less obeyed. Family unit creation falters.

Its a little baffling to me.

Some of that is because you use strawmen to describe positions different from your own.

[CV75]

Its a little baffling to me.

Just a thought about building bridges in your community over the more immediate, local concern about the Church's support of sound environmental practices: Contact the BYU Environmental Sciences Department and see if you can arrange a student internship/preceptorship opportunity involving one of the environmental efforts going on in your Vermont area. I'm sure they would be most appreciative and it might lead to something really cool.

[thesometimesaint]

wengland:

What "obvious" change is that? If I tun on my oven and it warms up. It is "obvious" a change of the climate within my oven. Though it "obviously" has little effect on my whole house climate. With Global Warming some places will get "obviously" cooler, some will get "obviously" wetter, some will get obviously" drier, and some will get "obviously" hotter. Overall the earth will get hotter on average.

Welcome to the new normal. http://blog.getup.org.au/2013/01/10/climate-update-the-new-normal/

I'll partially answer your first question with a fact and a question of my own. You body "obviously" produces hormones. Even the "obviously" small amounts have "obviously" big consequences, and we wouldn't be alive without them. What percentage of your total body weight is hormones? But to answer directly your first question. The lions share of CO2 increase over natural variability comes from man. As presented in that first video. Carbon comes in three forms. We have accurately measured those three types of Carbon. There is no doubt that it is man made.

For your second question. As individuals we can use less fossil fuels. Buy high efficiency appliances. I've decreased my electrical consumption by about a third yet live a higher standard of living than before I started on my program to conserve. Buy a higher fuel efficiency car. Everyone appreciates lower gasoline bills. Install a solar water heater. Plenty of hot water and lower fuel bills. Install solar electric panels. The electric company will either eliminate or significantly reduce your electric bills.

The makers of Sun Chips use the sun to heat the oil that cooks their delicious chips. Eliminating a big continuing cost for the fuel they use. We should encourage other manufactures to use as much alternative energy sources as possible.

As a nation as we individually, and in manufacture, use less power, fewer power stations are needed to be built, and they need not be as large in scale. Smaller more localized power production using more environmentally friendly sources can economically be used.

Is it worth it? For most of us yes, just on economics alone. But I'd add in that a healthier environment has benefits far beyond just the economics. I live in southern California right up against beautiful 10,000+ ft mountains. On really smoggy days I can't see them. So while that isn't only an economic problem. It sure diminishes my enjoyment of them.

[wenglund]

wengland:

What "obvious" change is that? If I tun on my oven and it warms up. It is "obvious" a change of the climate within my oven. Though it "obviously" has little effect on my whole house climate. With Global Warming some places will get "obviously" cooler, some will get "obviously" wetter, some will get obviously" drier, and some will get "obviously" hotter. Overall the earth will get hotter on average.

That was a lovely semantic dance. I won't comment further, as promised.

I'll partially answer your first question with a fact and a question of my own. You body "obviously" produces hormones. Even the "obviously" small amounts have "obviously" big consequences, and we wouldn't be alive without them. What percentage of your total body weight is hormones? But to answer directly your first question. The lions share of CO2 increase over natural variability comes from man. As presented in that first video. Carbon comes in three forms. We have accurately measured those three types of Carbon. There is no doubt that it is man made.

Not that it matters, but you evidently didn't correctly read my first question (hint, it doesn't specifically mention, nor can it reasonably be restricted to, CO2 emissions).

For your second question. As individuals we can use less fossil fuels. Buy high efficiency appliances. I've decreased my electrical consumption by about a third yet live a higher standard of living than before I started on my program to conserve. Buy a higher fuel efficiency car. Everyone appreciates lower gasoline bills. Install a solar water heater. Plenty of hot water and lower fuel bills. Install solar electric panels. The electric company will either eliminate or significantly reduce your electric bills.

Not that it matters, but you evidently didn't correctly, or entirely, read my second question (I saw no costs/benefit analysis in your response, particularly in terms of what difference it would make to human generated global warming).

The makers of Sun Chips use the sun to heat the oil that cooks their delicious chips. Eliminating a big continuing cost for the fuel they use. We should encourage other manufactures to use as much alternative energy sources as possible.

I could comment here, but I wont as promised.

As a nation as we individually, and in manufacture, use less power, fewer power stations are needed to be built, and they need not be as large in scale. Smaller more localized power production using more environmentally friendly sources can economically be used.

Is it worth it? For most of us yes, just on economics alone. But I'd add in that a healthier environment has benefits far beyond just the economics. I live in southern California right up against beautiful 10,000+ ft mountains. On really smoggy days I can't see them. So while that isn't only an economic problem. It sure diminishes my enjoyment of them.

I appreciate you sharing your superficial opinion. I will let you have the last word.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Here is my last comment. Sometimes you can lead a horse to water, and still not make him drink, no matter how much you salt the oats.

Edited April 24, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[wenglund]

I don't buy into the devastate world economies, and in fact in many ways we might improve world economies.

I could suggest studies that clearly demonstrate otherwise, but I promised to say no more. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-