Npr Is Doing A Series On Faith And Environmentalism

[Stone holm]

Am wondering if they will have more input from the Church than just a Sister saying we don't talk about it in Church.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Am wondering if they will have more input from the Church than just a Sister saying we don't talk about it in Church.

 

The LDS church says, "minimize or reduce pollution and waste"  

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/environmental-conservation-stewardship-efforts

 

Elder Nash said, "pollution, damage, and waste are almost always the product of selfishness or irreverence " 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/journalist-notes-similarities-on-environmental-stewardship-between-faiths

 

I am very concerned about Coal-burning power plants because they emit sulfur dioxide, soot and other pollutants that are not good for our health. 

 

Nuclear Power Plants use Uranium, the source of energy for nuclear power, is available on earth only in limited quantities.The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years

Edited July 1, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

A new paper just published in Science

Edited July 2, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[The Nehor]

The LDS church says, "minimize or reduce pollution and waste"  

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/environmental-conservation-stewardship-efforts

 

Elder Nash said, "pollution, damage, and waste are almost always the product of selfishness or irreverence " 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/journalist-notes-similarities-on-environmental-stewardship-between-faiths

 

I am very concerned about Coal-burning power plants because they emit sulfur dioxide, soot and other pollutants that are not good for our health. 

 

Nuclear Power Plants use Uranium, the source of energy for nuclear power, is available on earth only in limited quantities.The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years

 

Actually nuclear power has come a long way. It is a shame about Chernobyl. The US would probably be using a lot more if we hadn't been scared out of it. Last I heard we have not built a new plant since the 70s when the technology was very crude. Nuclear power and waste is remarkably safe now. Safer then coal mining in any case. Solar power is still too expensive to be efficient. Windmills sound great but are unreliable and windmill farms affect climate. You can't slow moving air without changing what happens on the far side.

 

I think the future will be in geothermal and nuclear power and hopefully solar if we can get the engineering problems solved to make it cost-effective on a large-scale. Assuming we survive long enough to use up all the oil before we destroy ourselves.

[Stargazer]

The LDS church says, "minimize or reduce pollution and waste"  

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/environmental-conservation-stewardship-efforts

 

Elder Nash said, "pollution, damage, and waste are almost always the product of selfishness or irreverence " 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/journalist-notes-similarities-on-environmental-stewardship-between-faiths

 

I am very concerned about Coal-burning power plants because they emit sulfur dioxide, soot and other pollutants that are not good for our health. 

 

Nuclear Power Plants use Uranium, the source of energy for nuclear power, is available on earth only in limited quantities.The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years

 

Coal burning also contributes towards radioactive release into the environment for the simple reason that coal is almost all carbon, and some of that carbon is radioactive Carbon-14

[TheSkepticChristian]

Coal burning also contributes towards radioactive release into the environment for the simple reason that coal is almost all carbon, and some of that carbon is radioactive Carbon-14

 

Even if GW is false (highly unlikely), we still need to do something about the coal-burning power plants. It is clear coal-burning power plants contaminate our environment, and the position of the church is clear. 

 

 

Nuclear power and waste is remarkably safe now. 

 

Even if true, Uranium is a very scarce resource. "Nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste could be preferred targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in New York. Such a terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world"

Edited July 3, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Stone holm]

Coal burning electrical power plants, especially the older ones, have and are continuing to cause environmental damage in Vermont which has no such power plants and buys the majority of it electricity from Canadian hydro-electric projects.  Our streams and lakes have high mercury content and our high altitude spruce forests have been decimated.  The acidic content of the fog which forms on our mountain tops from time to time has an acidic content which sometimes approaches the level of vinegar.  The mercury has a curious impact on the streams and lakes, it actually makes the water clearer which signifies to many that the water is cleaner.  We, Vermonters, cannot and do not blame the Midwestern coal power plants for all of our environmental woes,  right now we are grappling with the fact that we have granted massive exemptions, waivers and subsidies to our farmers only to realize that 63% of the pollution in Lake Champlain is caused by agricultural run off -- but we are still being affected by air borne pollution that we have little or no control over especially after the recent Supreme Court ruling.

[thesometimesaint]

Coal burning also contributes towards radioactive release into the environment for the simple reason that coal is almost all carbon, and some of that carbon is radioactive Carbon-14

 

Burning coal is not a source of C-14. C-14 is radioactive and completely decays in about 40-50,000 years. Coal is many millions of years old.

SEE

[TheSkepticChristian]

Burning coal is not a source of C-14. C-14 is radioactive and completely decays in about 40-50,000 years. Coal is many millions of years old.

 

It feels good to be right 

[Stargazer]

Burning coal is not a source of C-14. C-14 is radioactive and completely decays in about 40-50,000 years. Coal is many millions of years old.

SEE

 

Hey, darnit, you're right.  I actually thought that the lower quality coals, such as lignite, were much younger than that.  Turns out that even lignite, the lowest grade, is on the order of 2 to 3 million years old.

 

Thanks for enlightening me.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Stargazer

[TheSkepticChristian]

Hey, darnit, you're right.  I actually thought that the lower quality coals, such as lignite, were much younger than that.  Turns out that even lignite, the lowest grade, is on the order of 2 to 3 million years old.

 

Thanks for enlightening me.

 

So what should we do (as humanity) about the coal-burning power plants? The church wants us "to minimize or reduce pollution and waste" 

 

Again, even if GW theory is false (highly unlikely), we still have a problem. 

Edited July 4, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Stone holm]

So what should we do (as humanity) about the coal-burning power plants? The church wants us "to minimize or reduce pollution and waste"

Again, even if GW theory is false (highly unlikely), we still have a problem.

I believe that one of the theoretical problems we have in approaching the fossil fuel hazards stems from our religious belief that earth resources were placed here by the Lord for the use and benefit of humankind. On the other hand, some of those things which we view as resources, such as fossil fuels may have been created, or built into the system as natural waste disposal systems such as carbon sinks, and may, or may not, have been intended for use by humankind at all. In cases where, there is doubt as to why the Lord built something into the system, we should proceed with caution and consume the item sparingly. Although this concept may seem abstract, I believe that you will find it at the heart of our Faith's inability to fully engage with environmentalism. There are other theological concepts which also impede our ability to more fully embrace environmental thought which are embodied in some of the barrages occasionally issued from the pulpit attacking intellectualism and science, and advocating free marketism as almost a Christian non-negotiatable doctrine, and fundamentalist millenialism. Edited July 4, 2015 by Stone holm

[strappinglad]

And then there is the Swiftesque proposal. If we could just find a way to remove about 6 billion people from the earth, all would right itself. Nature will find the solution whether we like it or not.

 

  For those who think the folks will do something about AGW , please note Stock holm's situation in Vermont, despite years of not burning coal the after effects are still with them. Expand that globally. How about we bomb China's new coal burning plants which come on line relentlessly.

 

  Then again, there is thorium.

[TheSkepticChristian]

  For those who think the folks will do something about AGW ,

 

So you like pollution? 

[Calm]

I suspect he has doubts about at least some governments helping out even if obvious agreement on the problem was reached.

[thesometimesaint]

And then there is the Swiftesque proposal. If we could just find a way to remove about 6 billion people from the earth, all would right itself. Nature will find the solution whether we like it or not.

 

  For those who think the folks will do something about AGW , please note Stock holm's situation in Vermont, despite years of not burning coal the after effects are still with them. Expand that globally. How about we bomb China's new coal burning plants which come on line relentlessly.

 

  Then again, there is thorium.

 

Why would I want to eliminate people? I like people. It's really pretty simple to do. Just have reproduction below replacement rate. The best way to achieve it is through the education of women. I agree nature will find a way whether we like it or not. Must likely we won't like how she does it.

 

Because of dispersion and diffusion CO2 remains in pretty uniform quantities in the air world wide. CO2 remains in the air and water for a long time.

 

PS; So are you recommending that we kill other people?

Edited July 5, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Stone holm]

Why would I want to eliminate people? I like people. It's really pretty simple to do. Just have reproduction below replacement rate. The best way to achieve it is through the education of women. I agree nature will find a way whether we like it or not. Must likely we won't like how she does it.

 

Because of dispersion and diffusion CO2 remains in pretty uniform quantities in the air world wide. CO2 remains in the air and water for a long time.

 

PS; So are you recommending that we kill other people?

I don't hear much in environmental community about population control anymore. I don't think people see that as the significant issue, the issue is not how many of us there are, but rather how we behave. Since it really is a behavioral issue, I would have thought more religions would have embraced it. Surely, such an attitude would help ease tensions between the scientific community and the religious.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't hear much in environmental community about population control anymore. I don't think people see that as the significant issue, the issue is not how many of us there are, but rather how we behave. Since it really is a behavioral issue, I would have thought more religions would have embraced it. Surely, such an attitude would help ease tensions between the scientific community and the religious.

 

It's a mixed bag. It's a matter of carrying capacity. If people in the US wanted to live like a subsistence peasant in India then sure then we too could have a population like India. Not too sure many in the US would like that lifestyle. Or we could conserve, be frugal with our resources, develop better ways of powering our homes, town, and cities. I think religion can have a positive impact on how we use this beautiful world. 

Some of the first instructions God gave Adam and Eve was to dress, tend, and take care of The Garden. I don't believe he said pollute it.

[TheSkepticChristian]

I suspect he has doubts about at least some governments helping out even if obvious agreement on the problem was reached.

 

So what should we do (as LDS) about the coal-burning power plants? Even if GW theory is false (highly unlikely), we still have many problems because the power plants contaminate our environment. 

 

PS CO2 is also a pollutant in many ways, for example, as the oceans absorb CO2 (extra CO2) from the atmosphere, it leads to acidification that affects many marine ecosystems.

Edited July 5, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

Some of the first instructions God gave Adam and Eve was to dress, tend, and take care of The Garden. I don't believe he said pollute it.

 

good point 

[strappinglad]

On occasion, more often lately, I stop whatever I am doing and ask myself what impact I am having on the environment. I think about throwing away a plastic bag and think, " My actions are being duplicated by millions .What happens if my actions are multiplied by billions as the underdeveloped nations try to improve their lives ? "

My town requires that all garbage be bagged before putting it in the dumpster. That is a massive use of plastic over time. Expand that to all the towns and cities in North America. We buy gasoline. A few drops are wasted for each filling . Multiply that by billions of fillings each week. We buy the latest tech and are either ignorant or ignore what has to happen to create the electronics and covers etc. We turn a blind eye to the disposal and recycling of our old computers which causes dangerous pollution in other counties. Oh well, out of sight, out of mind.

Think of all the packaging that goes into most everything we purchase. Food packaging alone adds greatly to the environment overload, yet we mindlessly keep on keeping on.

And we have the gall to try to stop our third world neighbors from burning coal etc. so that they might create the energy to make life just a bit less harsh. It's all very well for us to use that AC all day every day and take that vacation to Paris , but the hoards of India and China and Africa, must suffer and die in the heat and never expect anything but a staycation. Calmoriah is correct, I am nothing if not skeptical... and down on hope.

[TheSkepticChristian]

And we have the gall to try to stop our third world neighbors from burning coal etc. 

 

A study has shown that coal pollution in India results in 80,000 to 115,000 premature deaths every year and this statistic is expected to rise to 1.5 million if we continue on our current path. 

 

Coal power plants contaminate the environment, the church doesn't like pollution. 

 

PS One of the worst climate ironies is that the poorest nations, which contribute the least to the problem, will tend to be the most impacted by human-caused climate change. At least rich countries (USA and China) should stop burning so much coal. 

Edited July 5, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Stone holm]

It's a mixed bag. It's a matter of carrying capacity. If people in the US wanted to live like a subsistence peasant in India then sure then we too could have a population like India. Not too sure many in the US would like that lifestyle. Or we could conserve, be frugal with our resources, develop better ways of powering our homes, town, and cities. I think religion can have a positive impact on how we use this beautiful world. 

Some of the first instructions God gave Adam and Eve was to dress, tend, and take care of The Garden. I don't believe he said pollute it.

I agree, although I also think we could probably slow down our lifestyle a wee bit. The subsistence lifestyle and the self sufficient lifestyle do have some social rewards lacking in our current atomistic frenzy. We might have to consider a separation, if not a divorce, from free market capitalism and Modern Christianity though.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Nuclear fusion is the Holy Grail of energy, offering the possibility of limitless clean energy through harnessing the very same nuclear reaction that keeps our Sun burning, so we need more scientists and more scientific research 

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102729780

[TheSkepticChristian]