Trib Article: "What is religious and what is political?"

[bluebell]

59 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think he misspoke. Google tar sand mines Canada. Different technology than shale extraction. 

That makes sense that it’s tar sand.  I doubt that anything green was growing on the tar sands before people showed up. Plants don’t often grow in oil. But that doesn’t mean the operation hasn’t had a big negative environmental impact.

If these kinds of operations are going to exist they need to be heavily regulated. And often they haven’t been.

There is an argument for the US using its own oil resources, which we can control through regulations, than shutting down oil here and using the oil of other countries that don’t care about the environmental impact of their operations.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That makes sense that it’s tar sand.  I doubt that anything green was growing on the tar sands before people showed up. Plants don’t often grow in oil. But that doesn’t mean the operation hasn’t had a big negative environmental impact.

http://www.fossilfuelconnections.org/cree-oil-in-alberta

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Part of the reason for that is that people who aren't climate scientists (or any form of scientist) either directly make claims or misinterpret what climate scientists have said, and then make grand claims about how bad it really is. Have a look through https://extinctionclock.org. For example based on media articles , the Arctic was meant to be ice free by 2000, then 2004, then they swapped to ice free arctic summers in 2008, then 2012, then 2013, then 2014, then 2015, then 2016,  then 2017. They're now saying 2044.

It's pretty easy so see why people are going to claim that it isn't as serious as they say, or that scientists don't know what they are on about when the media makes grand claims.

Don't worry though, humans are apparently going to be extinct in three years so we won't need to deal with it for long https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/86778981/climate-change-specialist-predicts-human-extinction-in-10-years

 

edit: Yes climate change is real. Yes it's getting worse. Yes we need to change our lifestyles if we want to try and move it in the other direction. Alas I don't think society as a whole is willing to do that.

I was looking through some of the dates. Some (future ones usually) I’m not surprised by as they’re still common scientific predictions expected in the next couple years. A couple to me were obviously hyperbolic statements being taken literally. Some I questioned how they decided that these predictions haven’t happened. For example one in Australia stated that there was a possibility for some worsening health outcomes in Australia tied to CC by 2020 but the site says it didn’t come true….except there have been increased risk with an increase in the number of heat waves and bush fires. And it’s predicted to continue to worse over the next few decades. So I question how many of these aren’t true just to them, rather than not actually true to true enough. 
 

that said I can get that people can find false or exaggerated doomsday statements and write off the phenomenon all together as serious. I still think that piss-poor judgment…it’s a great example of throwing out the baby (general scientific consensus) with the bath water (occasional hyperbole or incorrect predictions/interpretations via new media). 
 

with luv, 

bd 

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

http://www.fossilfuelconnections.org/cree-oil-in-alberta

It all must have been deeper underground. I wonder how long the operating has been there?  

[BlueDreams]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It all must have been deeper underground. I wonder how long the operating has been there?  

This site has some info on it: 

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/Athabasca

 

It started with smaller mines from the 1960/70’s, but seems to have expanded the most in the 2000’s. 
 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think he misspoke. Google tar sand mines Canada. Different technology than shale extraction. 

Yeah, sorry, I was tired. I meant the tar sand extraction site in Alberta. It is a festering wound. It is the kind of thing a Captain Planet villain would build.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, sorry, I was tired. I meant the tar sand extraction site in Alberta. It is a festering wound. It is the kind of thing a Captain Planet villain would build.

Agree.  It's horrible.  I'm really really surprised, with as environmentally conscience as Canada is, that they allowed it.

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

I completely agree.

I'm not wondering whether or not we should try to change stuff, only whether or not we actually could make so many changes that Christ's second coming could happen without the "bad" prophecies from the bible ever happening.

If all or most of us did (which would entail a massive cultural shift). I can’t see why we couldn’t. Similar to how the people Jonah taught were bound for destruction until they repented. And then all the sudden they weren’t. I don’t think all of us will though. Agency and temptation means some of us will always choose course that allow for more self-gratification and plumping up our own hubris. 
 

with luv, 

BD

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

If all or most of us did (which would entail a massive cultural shift). I can’t see why we couldn’t. Similar to how the people Jonah taught were bound for destruction until they repented. And then all the sudden they weren’t. I don’t think all of us will though. Agency and temptation means some of us will always choose course that allow for more self-gratification and plumping up our own hubris. 
 

with luv, 

BD

I’ve never really seen the second coming prophecies tied to sin though. Some of them are for sure. But there are many where that connection is never made.

On the other hand, when a prophecy of destruction was/is tied to sin, that is almost always (always?) very clear in scriptures.  

[Calm]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Agree.  It's horrible.  I'm really really surprised, with as environmentally conscience as Canada is, that they allowed it.

I am surprised as well, but Alberta wasn’t as liberal as the most of the rest of Canada. In many ways it was closer to the West in the US than in Eastern Canada. Fossil fuel is Alberta’s wealth. We were told by some Albertans while we were living there that they were paying for Ottawa and Quebec’s social programs and subsidizing the rest of Canada. They were not happy about it (I have no clue how accurate that was).  The Reform Party was birthed in Alberta (that probably means nothing to you, lol…conservative right).  Edmonton the capital tends liberal, but the rest is pretty conservative.  Calgary is Oil and Cowboys.   If I understand the reference in wiki, Alberta may be the reason Canada doesn’t have a National Energy Plan. Maybe Duncan or another Canadian can confirm. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Alberta

Edited August 28, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

I think blackstrap lives in Alberta, maybe he can update us on it. 

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

I am surprised as well, but Alberta wasn’t as liberal as the most of the rest of Canada. In many ways it was closer to the West in the US than in Eastern Canada. Fossil fuel is Alberta’s wealth. We were told by some Albertans while we were living there that they were paying for Ottawa and Quebec’s social programs and subsidizing the rest of Canada. They were not happy about it (I have no clue how accurate that was).  The Reform Party was birthed in Alberta (that probably means nothing to you, lol…conservative right).  Edmonton the capital tends liberal, but the rest is pretty conservative.  Calgary is Oil and Cowboys.   If I understand the reference in wiki, Alberta may be the reason Canada doesn’t have a National Energy Plan. Maybe Duncan or another Canadian can confirm. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Alberta

It's a hard thing. 

A lot of good has probably been accomplished with the money from those tar pits, and not just to owners of the companies involved.  Jobs, taxes that benefit Alberta and Canada itself, families lifted out of poverty. 

At the same time, a lot of bad as well.  If companies had been less greedy they could have maximized the benefit while minimized the harm, but experience shows that companies very rarely do that of their own free will, and countries turned a blind eye to problems for decades.  Now we have a lot of "probably too little, too late" stuff happening. 

[rodheadlee]

23 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, sorry, I was tired. I meant the tar sand extraction site in Alberta. It is a festering wound. It is the kind of thing a Captain Planet villain would build.

In the same respect in the Santa Barbara channel the oil seeps to the surface of the ocean naturally. If it's not gathered up and processed it'll just pollute the channel without human intervention. I'm sure you're more educated on it than I am but a lot of this stuff is overreached by regulation.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

In the same respect in the Santa Barbara channel the oil seeps to the surface of the ocean naturally. If it's not gathered up and processed it'll just pollute the channel without human intervention. I'm sure you're more educated on it than I am but a lot of this stuff is overreached by regulation.

The Alberta tar sands are not naturally occurring. It is large scale strip mining and both the extraction and processing output a LOT of CO2.

Fun Fact: In the 50s the Canadians briefly considered a plan to partner with the American government to detonate an underground nuke on the site to make extraction easier. It was believed that a nuclear detonation would liquify the bitumen deposits and make it possible to extract the resulting oil using conventional drilling methods. It is not clear if it would have worked. I suspect it would have glassed the area. The downside is the product would be radioactive and so would the site and areas downwind from the blast site. An underground detonation is usually less dangerous than the air burst approach which causes more widespread damage and spreads radiation further (this is the way they would be used in an attack).

The pools you see in photos are from on site processing. They are a sludge mix of heavy metals and chemicals used in the development. These lakes of sludge can be seen from space. There is little data available on the damage this has done to the water table and nearby lakes and rivers. This lack of information collecting is VERY deliberate.

[rodheadlee]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The Alberta tar sands are not naturally occurring. It is large scale strip mining and both the extraction and processing output a LOT of CO2.

Fun Fact: In the 50s the Canadians briefly considered a plan to partner with the American government to detonate an underground nuke on the site to make extraction easier. It was believed that a nuclear detonation would liquify the bitumen deposits and make it possible to extract the resulting oil using conventional drilling methods. It is not clear if it would have worked. I suspect it would have glassed the area. The downside is the product would be radioactive and so would the site and areas downwind from the blast site. An underground detonation is usually less dangerous than the air burst approach which causes more widespread damage and spreads radiation further (this is the way they would be used in an attack).

The pools you see in photos are from on site processing. They are a sludge mix of heavy metals and chemicals used in the development. These lakes of sludge can be seen from space. There is little data available on the damage this has done to the water table and nearby lakes and rivers. This lack of information collecting is VERY deliberate.

So when are we going to break the fusion barrier? Wind and solar is not going to cut it alone. I have had wind and solar on my home for 20 years and it always has to be augmented at least 2 hours a day by diesel.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

So when are we going to break the fusion barrier? Wind and solar is not going to cut it alone. I have had wind and solar on my home for 20 years and it always has to be augmented at least 2 hours a day by diesel.

I have faith that wind and solar could cut it with further investment.  I have little doubt that if all the money that is in oil was placed in green energy, there would be major breakthroughs and improvements in efficiency that could sustain us.   Technology is approaching 50% efficiency with solar - where has long averaged around 20% 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have faith that wind and solar could cut it with further investment.  I have little doubt that if all the money that is in oil was placed in green energy, there would be major breakthroughs and improvements in efficiency that could sustain us.   Technology is approaching 50% efficiency with solar - where has long averaged around 20% 

I really don't know much about the use of solar.  I know that it takes up huge areas of land and kills off a lot of birds, but that's about it.

Things that I would be interested to know is how long do the panels last?  Is it possible to make them without using petroleum products?  How biodegradable are they?  Where will we put trash ones when they need to be replaced?

I'm wondering these things because these are the big issue with wind turbines.  Their blades are made of non biodegradable petroleum bi-products and the blades must be replaced every ten years or so.  This is a huge issue since each blade is typically as long as a football field and must be transported-one at a time-via oversized trailers and large semi trucks.  And then they have to be buried somewhere where they will never decompose.  

They also kill hundreds of thousands of birds each year, but whether or not someone finds that a problem really depends on their view of birds.  Environmentally, it's probably not that big of an impact.

[Teancum]

On 8/24/2022 at 2:59 PM, smac97 said:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/08/24/matthew-bowman-big-question/

Unfortunately, virtually everthing is "politicial" these days.  And weirdly, it seems that folks like Bowman decry this in one breath, only in the next to attempt to further fuse a political angle onto every issue, which angle is apparently supposed to predominate over all others.

 

Yes.  Even your entire post.

On 8/24/2022 at 2:59 PM, smac97 said:

Ah, the ever-reliable "some say."

Some say and the others said say.  Both are not inaccurate.  Do you disagree that some do say the church should be more outspoken on the topic and others say the opposite?

 

 

On 8/24/2022 at 2:59 PM, smac97 said:

Anyway, there seems to be another consideration in play.  I suspect that the Church recognizes that "environtmental issues" have become hugely politicized and trendy, and run the gamut from reason-and-evidence-based to speculative, from circumspect and prudent to overzealous and feckless, from substantively philanthropic to creepily misanthropic. 

And then, of course, come "the political" dimension, which  at one extreme is grossly irresponsible (no governmental oversight/regulation at all) and at the other is tyrannical, voracious, ever-increasing, corrupt, and grossly-indifferent-to-positively-misanthropic.  The challenge, I think, is that this latter extreme has far more social/political sway than it ought to have.  The answer to every "environmental issue" is, for many of these folks, always going to be more government, more taxes, more regulation.

A couple things. Yes environmental issues are political.  But it is no surprise really that they are is it?  The environment, natural resources, etc really ought to belong to us all yet really to no one person.  Don't we as humans organize governments to help with things just like this?  It seems to me ultimatly a partnership of private citizens, companies and governments makes the most sense.  Bill Gates seems to promote this in his recent  book on the topic.

On 8/24/2022 at 2:59 PM, smac97 said:

Another repugnant aspect of politicized "environmentalism" is the flagrant "for thee and thine, but not for me and mine" hypocrisy and virtue-signaling of so many of its prominent proponents:

Anyway, I think the Church is increasingly concerned about the environment, and I think that's a good thing.  I don't, however, equate that to the recommendation from Bowman's sockpuppets that "church leaders should make more vigorous statements about the environment because of scriptural commands to be good stewards of the earth," particularly when framed in a "what is religious and what is political" context.  

WE still live in a world where we need to travel and use the energy sources we have. I think whining about these  types of things is petty and an attempt to deflect and justify doing nothing.

On 8/24/2022 at 2:59 PM, smac97 said:

 

We stopped polygamy because God told us to. 

Nah not really.  The federal government was going to essentially destroy the Church so the leaders capitulated in a way just the opposite of what prior leaders said they would.  But that is another topic really.

On 8/24/2022 at 2:59 PM, smac97 said:

 

 

More particularly, Kate Kelly and Sam Young both tried to advance their personal preferences by loudly and publicly connecting those preferences to their (Kelly's and Young's) status as members of the Church.

A fine example of making sure if you don't want to get kicked out don't openly advocate against the top leaders.

On 8/24/2022 at 2:59 PM, smac97 said:

In all of these there is a common theme: usurpation of authority and (mis)appropriation of Y's influence for X's political purposes. 

Group X sees and envies the influence and reputational standing of Group Y, so Group X does what it can to "borrow" or appropriate Group Y's clout to advance Group X's objectives, regardless of how attenuated Group Y's purposes and objectives are to Group X's goals.

In the end, it looks like Bowman is advocating for something along these lines.  He is encouraging "Latter-day Saint groups {} seeking to combat climate change" to hitch their political objectives and preferences to "the powerful moral language and organizing potential the church offers."  To persuade other members of the Church to "broaden what Latter-day Saints mean by 'religion'" to include . . . support of these groups' political objectives/preferences.  So being a good Latter-day Saint becomes less about developing faith in and obedience to Jesus Christ, about repentance, baptism, keeping covenants, serving others, and so on, and instead becomes more about supporting self-appointed environmentalist groups and their political goals.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

I would think what he encourages is problematic since while I think  at least in the US most church members lean conservative, and some extremely so, there are other viewpoints.  I am not sure how the church walks a fine line on this really. On the other hand if say climate issues do pose an existential threat to humanity it does seem the Church that claims to be led by God with prophets that God directs ought to do more.  The pope certainly has taken a position on climate issues as well as other difficult topics.

[Teancum]

On 8/24/2022 at 5:07 PM, jkwilliams said:

What I wonder is why so many members of the church are so opposed to environmental conservation. My parents and many of my relatives act like environmentalists are the spawn of Satan. 

Because they think  the second coming is around  the corner so who cares about the planet.

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I really don't know much about the use of solar.  I know that it takes up huge areas of land and kills off a lot of birds, but that's about it.

Things that I would be interested to know is how long do the panels last?  Is it possible to make them without using petroleum products?  How biodegradable are they?  Where will we put trash ones when they need to be replaced?

I'm wondering these things because these are the big issue with wind turbines.  Their blades are made of non biodegradable petroleum bi-products and the blades must be replaced every ten years or so.  This is a huge issue since each blade is typically as long as a football field and must be transported-one at a time-via oversized trailers and large semi trucks.  And then they have to be buried somewhere where they will never decompose.  

They also kill hundreds of thousands of birds each year, but whether or not someone finds that a problem really depends on their view of birds.  Environmentally, it's probably not that big of an impact.

Those are certainly all downsides to wind.   Solar panels last around 25-30 years with longevity and efficiency making dramatic improvements over the years, even with only a tiny fraction of investment in the market as compared to oil.  I only expect that to get better.  

Also improving are techniques in recycling panels.  One company makes panels that are 90% reusable/recyclable.  They actually recycle their own products.   Imagine what might be possible if the money that was in oil was in solar?

We talk of all the economic pay-offs with oil, but I don't see why the same pay-offs wouldn't/couldn't happen with solar.  The only difference is that the money/power would be switching industries.   And that is exactly why we see so much resistance from those who currently hold the money/power, including the politicians who are owned by those companies.  I don't see why green energy could not be just as economically beneficial, honestly.  Not to mention more sustainable.  Oil is not limitless.  

[Danzo]

On 8/27/2022 at 2:42 PM, bluebell said:

Agree.  It's horrible.  I'm really really surprised, with as environmentally conscience as Canada is, that they allowed it.

They still drive cars in Canada, someone had to dig up the oil.   It doesn't just magically come out of the gas station.  Producing oil, just like producing meat can be a messy process. 

[bluebell]

Just now, Danzo said:

They still drive cars in Canada, someone had to dig up the oil.   It doesn't just magically come out of the gas station.  Producing oil, just like producing meat can be a messy process. 

My entire family has worked in the oil industry for generations and my husband works in it as well (though in a different side of things).  I worked in the oil field in college at a natural gas transfer station, and again for a natural gas company after my mission.  I understand a lot about the process of getting oil and natural gas out of the ground, storing it, transporting it, and refining it.  

Almost 100% of the time, it doesn't need to be messy.  Being invasive and being messy are too different things.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

Those are certainly all downsides to wind.   Solar panels last around 25-30 years with longevity and efficiency making dramatic improvements over the years, even with only a tiny fraction of investment in the market as compared to oil.  I only expect that to get better.  

Also improving are techniques in recycling panels.  One company makes panels that are 90% reusable/recyclable.  They actually recycle their own products.   Imagine what might be possible if the money that was in oil was in solar?

We talk of all the economic pay-offs with oil, but I don't see why the same pay-offs wouldn't/couldn't happen with solar.  The only difference is that the money/power would be switching industries.   And that is exactly why we see so much resistance from those who currently hold the money/power, including the politicians who are owned by those companies.  I don't see why green energy could not be just as economically beneficial, honestly.  Not to mention more sustainable.  Oil is not limitless.  

Interesting stuff.  Hopefully there will be improvements in those areas. Diversification of energy sources just makes sense.

As for the economics of it, probably the hardest thing to reproduce would be the benefit to the state or country.  The reason that countries (or states for the US and Canada) make so much money off of the oil industry is because they often own the land that it's coming from.  That means taxes, leases, and income from the sale of the product itself.

For example, Wyoming funds its public school system off of just the taxes that it makes from oil, natural gas, and coal because it almost all comes from BLM land.  Because of this Wyoming can spend over $16,000 on each student per school year.  In comparison, Utah spends around $6500 last I checked.   

And this doesn't account for the thousands of jobs that the industry creates in that state, which almost all pay really well (over $75,000 a year well for jobs that most don't need a college degree).  I was making $18 an hour as unskilled labor as a 21 year old back in 1999.

You can tax solar and wind (and they do!) but whether or not the taxes will generate the same income is still way up in the air.  Part of the reason that oil and gas companies can pay so much (both in taxes and to their employees) is because they make so much from their product.  Solar and wind would need to be making the same level of profit to be able to produce the same economic impact, and that is doubtful. 

But not out of the realm of possibility.

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My entire family has worked in the oil industry for generations and my husband works in it as well (though in a different side of things).  I worked in the oil field in college at a natural gas transfer station, and again for a natural gas company after my mission.  I understand a lot about the process of getting oil and natural gas out of the ground, storing it, transporting it, and refining it.  

Almost 100% of the time, it doesn't need to be messy.  Being invasive and being messy are too different things.

I used to work in the oil industry. One rule of thumb is that, as supplies of easily obtained oil dwindle, the more cost-feasible it is to go after the more difficult stuff. Thus, deep-sea drilling becomes profitable only when oil is at a certain price level. Of course, fracking has made it much easier to extract oil that wasn't readily extractable before, which explains much higher US production and lower relative prices. Tar sand bitumen is difficult to extract without being "invasive and messy" and is also very poor quality oil (that is, it requires a lot more refinement than lighter grades because it is, quite literally, tar/bitumen). Solar and wind energy are still early on in their development, but it ought to be obvious that, in the long term, they are more promising than hydrocarbons because they produce fewer emissions and are theoretically infinite in supply.

[Teancum]

On 8/24/2022 at 8:52 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

Speaking very broadly, here is the problem [or, here is at least one problem] with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attempting to adopt more of an environmental conscientiousness: Too often (and perhaps not wholly without warrant) some dismiss the Church of Jesus Christ as "just an American [United States] religion," and, moreover, "just a primarily-Western-U.S. religion," at that.  In my view, rightly, in much of the world, environmental problems are seen very much as a First-World kind of problem.*  If the Church of Jesus Christ were to attempt to persuade Third-World countries to adopt First-World solutions to environmental problems, the notion that the Church and its leaders are out of touch with the genuine problems of those whom they attempt to help and to serve would be greatly exacerbated.

________________________

*Hey, as it is now, even members in the United States complain about how "Salt Lake" is attempting to impose some measure or another onto members of the Church of Jesus Christ who are "in the mission field" without sufficient regard to how Church conditions differ in Salt Lake [or in Utah, or in the so-called "Mormon Corridor" (sic)] as opposed to the rest of the country.  Can one imagine how that complaint would be magnified if the Church of Jesus Christ attempted to implement a First-World environmental "solution" in, say, Ghana?

What is a first world environmental solution?