LDS environmentalists want their institution to address the Great Salt Lake’s collapse

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2023/3/17/23644786/great-salt-lake-water-level-gov-spencer-cox

I like Gov. Cox. I hope he is re-elected.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2023/3/17/23644786/great-salt-lake-water-level-gov-spencer-cox

I dislike that the messaging is about Joe Average watering the lawn. This is a trend in all environmentalism of putting the onus for dealing with problems on the individual household instead of the large corporations that have treated natural resources and a right to pollute as a birthright. Distracting everyone with the minimally effective individual responsibility has worked and the messaging needs to be that grassroots efforts will not be enough.

[Kenngo1969]

I don't want to derail the thread, nor to engage in, nor to countenance, doom and gloom, nor do I wish to be guilty of fomenting contention.  I considered giving this its own thread and linking to this one.  But, in connection with Governor Cox's "let's avoid doom and gloom" posture (which I appreciate),  here's one of the big problems (if, indeed, it is not the biggest problem) that I have with climate alarmism.  According to one source at the United Nations per the AP/Deseret News, two big problems (if they are not, indeed, the two biggest problems) facing the world today are: (1) climate change and (2) rising sea levels. 

Certainly, I'm no expert, (but I doubt that same status will prevent other non-experts from rising up to set me straight   ), but according to that same UN source (if the AP/Deseret News quotes him accurately, and if I am reading him accurately), even if, miraculously, we suddenly reverse (1) above, still, we must contend with (2) above.  And according to [at least one of] the alarmists, if (1) doesn't spell our doom, it is likely that (2) will anyway.  If the UN "expert" is right, if his take gets enough circulation and exposure, and if enough people are persuaded by it, then it would seem that Governor Cox (and remember, I agree with him) is simply "spitting into the wind" (or, as my esteemed colleague, the gentlelady from [fill-in-the-blank here], BlueDreams, says, "farting into the wind" ) 

Here's the article from the AP/Deseret News:

https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2023/2/15/23601033/united-nations-rising-sea-levels-death-sentence-countries-cities-climate-change?commentID=854833d8-6ff0-4f57-b7a6-ff73bbb6f1f5

And here's my comment:

 

Quote

 

From the Article: "The Tuesday warning, according to an Associated Press report, came at the Security Council’s first-ever meeting on the threat to international peace and security from rising sea levels, with the leader warning even if the course of climate change was 'miraculously' corrected, the risk remains."

 

If we don't do something about climate change, we're doomed. But even if we do something about climate change, still, we're doomed by rising sea levels anyway! Danged if we do, danged if we don't. And these people wonder why skeptics possibly can believe that climate alarmism is nothing more than an excuse to try to control the lives of skeptics and everyday people (by controlling what they eat, what they wear, what they drive, and so on, ad infinitum), all while the supposed Climate Illuminati excuse themselves to travel via private jet to the next "How We're Going to Save The World [Wink, Wink!]" Conference.

 

Pardon me, Sirs and Madams, your hypocrisy is showing.

 

 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't want to derail the thread, nor to engage in, nor to countenance, doom and gloom, nor do I wish to be guilty of fomenting contention.  I considered giving this its own thread and linking to this one.  But, in connection with Governor Cox's "let's avoid doom and gloom" posture (which I appreciate),  here's one of the big problems (if, indeed, it is not the biggest problem) that I have with climate alarmism.  According to one source at the United Nations per the AP/Deseret News, two big problems (if they are not, indeed, the two biggest problems) facing the world today are: (1) climate change and (2) rising sea levels. 

Certainly, I'm no expert, (but I doubt that same status will prevent other non-experts from rising up to set me straight   ), but according to that same UN source (if the AP/Deseret News quotes him accurately, and if I am reading him accurately), even if, miraculously, we suddenly reverse (1) above, still, we must contend with (2) above.  And according to [at least one of] the alarmists, if (1) doesn't spell our doom, it is likely that (2) will anyway.  If the UN "expert" is right, if his take gets enough circulation and exposure, and if enough people are persuaded by it, then it would seem that Governor Cox (and remember, I agree with him) is simply "spitting into the wind" (or, as my esteemed colleague, the gentlelady from [fill-in-the-blank here], BlueDreams, says, "farting into the wind" ) 

Here's the article from the AP/Deseret News:

https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2023/2/15/23601033/united-nations-rising-sea-levels-death-sentence-countries-cities-climate-change?commentID=854833d8-6ff0-4f57-b7a6-ff73bbb6f1f5

And here's my comment:

 

 

The problem is that you seem to jump to the conclusion that it must be an authoritarian grab for power if the projections are bad. We could have globally done a lot to mitigate this crisis. We didn’t. We can’t stop a lot of the problem now. We can still mitigate some of it and prepare for the stuff we can’t stop.

The skeptics insisted that climate change was a hoax and stalled action. Now that the scientists are saying it is going to be bad and even most of the skeptics have admitted climate is shifting somehow the world being in for rough times is also a hoax. Or the skeptics and former skeptics throw up their hands and say it is pointless. One wonders what would compel them to actual action or if they just want inaction and their views shift around to whatever justifies inaction at the moment.

I am not optimistic for the planet.

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The problem is that you seem to jump to the conclusion that it must be an authoritarian grab for power if the projections are bad.

I do?  (As usual, whatever the worth of your incisive, penetrating analysis, your mind-reading skills are deficient.)  Hint:  It's the hypocrisy, st***d. 

Yes, I admit, I have a problem with the Climate/Rising Seas Illuminati telling Joe Average to stop watering (or to tear out) his lawn, on the one hand, while telling us the world is doomed anyway, one way another (either by climate change, on the one hand, or by rising seas on the other) while they all jet off to the next "We're Going To Save The World [Wink, Wink!]" Conference.

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

We could have globally done a lot to mitigate this crisis.

Who's "we"?

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

We didn’t. We can’t stop a lot of the problem now. We can still mitigate some of it and prepare for the stuff we can’t stop.

Again, who's "we"?  Does "we" include India?  China?  Many African nations?Who else?  Again, I'm no expert (though, as usual, you are), but it would seem that without India and China on board, any effectual large-scale, long-term action on climate change and/or on rising sea levels would be difficult (to say the least).

According to the source(s) the AP quote(s), even if, somehow global warming/climate change were reversed miraculously, still, rising sea levels are likely to do us in anyway.  What do you make of that?  Do you have any recommendations?

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The skeptics insisted that climate change was a hoax and stalled action.

What do you make of the source quoted in the article, who contends that even if, somehow, climate change/global warming were reversed, rising sea levels would do us in anyway?  ("Excuse me/us.  I/we don't want to be late for the next 'Save The World [Wink, wink!] Conference.'")

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Now that the scientists are saying it is going to be bad and even most of the skeptics have admitted climate is shifting somehow the world being in for rough times is also a hoax. Or the skeptics and former skeptics throw up their hands and say it is pointless. One wonders what would compel them to actual action or if they just want inaction and their views shift around to whatever justifies inaction at the moment.

I am not optimistic for the planet.

It doesn't seem that you have read the source I linked to very carefully.  That's exactly the conclusion of the source(s) quoted.  But of course, that would destroy your fun of casting me as someone with whom you must disagree.

Edited March 19 by Kenngo1969

[The Nehor]

52 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Who's "we"?

Humanity in general.

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I do?  (As usual, whatever the worth of your incisive, penetrating analysis, your mind-reading skills are deficient.)  Hint:  It's the hypocrisy, st***d. 

Yes, I admit, I have a problem with the Climate/Rising Seas Illuminati telling Joe Average to stop watering (or to tear out) his lawn, on the one hand, while telling us the world is doomed anyway, one way another (either by climate change, on the one hand, or by rising seas on the other) while they all jet off to the next "We're Going To Save The World [Wink, Wink!]" Conference.

Who's "we"?

Again, who's "we"?  Does "we" include India?  China?  Many African nations?Who else?  Again, I'm no expert (though, as usual, you are), but it would seem that without India and China on board, any effectual large-scale, long-term action on climate change and/or on rising sea levels would be difficult (to say the least).

According to the source(s) the AP quote(s), even if, somehow global warming/climate change were reversed miraculously, still, rising sea levels are likely to do us in anyway.  What do you make of that?  Do you have any recommendations?

What do you make of the source quoted in the article, who contends that even if, somehow, climate change/global warming were reversed, rising sea levels would do us in anyway?  ("Excuse me/us.  I/we don't want to be late for the next 'Save The World [Wink, wink!] Conference.'")

It doesn't seem that you have read the source I linked to very carefully.  That's exactly the conclusion of the source(s) quoted.  But of course, that would destroy your fun of casting me as someone with whom you must disagree.

I brought up climate change to my brother yesterday, big mistake. It's become so political and we're on opposite sides. I just wish he'd look at the facts. 

[pogi]

21 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't want to derail the thread, nor to engage in, nor to countenance, doom and gloom, nor do I wish to be guilty of fomenting contention.  I considered giving this its own thread and linking to this one.  But, in connection with Governor Cox's "let's avoid doom and gloom" posture (which I appreciate),  here's one of the big problems (if, indeed, it is not the biggest problem) that I have with climate alarmism.  According to one source at the United Nations per the AP/Deseret News, two big problems (if they are not, indeed, the two biggest problems) facing the world today are: (1) climate change and (2) rising sea levels. 

Certainly, I'm no expert, (but I doubt that same status will prevent other non-experts from rising up to set me straight   ), but according to that same UN source (if the AP/Deseret News quotes him accurately, and if I am reading him accurately), even if, miraculously, we suddenly reverse (1) above, still, we must contend with (2) above.  And according to [at least one of] the alarmists, if (1) doesn't spell our doom, it is likely that (2) will anyway.  If the UN "expert" is right, if his take gets enough circulation and exposure, and if enough people are persuaded by it, then it would seem that Governor Cox (and remember, I agree with him) is simply "spitting into the wind" (or, as my esteemed colleague, the gentlelady from [fill-in-the-blank here], BlueDreams, says, "farting into the wind" ) 

Here's the article from the AP/Deseret News:

https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2023/2/15/23601033/united-nations-rising-sea-levels-death-sentence-countries-cities-climate-change?commentID=854833d8-6ff0-4f57-b7a6-ff73bbb6f1f5

And here's my comment:

 

 

I think you are being a tad unfair and exaggerating (kind of ironic) what they actually said.  You are hyper-inflating their words to appear as if there is no hope for recourse.  Yes, they have noted that some small island countries may be affected regardless of what we do at this point and that we need to plan for that scenario now, but they also noted that we can prevent further sea level rise and other negative consequences of climate change.   
What they didn’t say is that we are all doomed regardless.  

[BlueDreams]

On 3/18/2023 at 7:17 AM, bsjkki said:

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2023/3/17/23644786/great-salt-lake-water-level-gov-spencer-cox

I was going to respond to this sunday, but kinda glad I didn't because this article popped up talking about optimism/pessimism in environmentalism. It's a good article overall, but I particularly liked this little diagram that notes the 4 attitudes that are pretty common around environmental issues: 

I can see that even in random places like a gardening FB group i'm in. When talking about the snow, some are trying to stay happy about a really heavy snow year, even as it disrupts plans, some are just annoyed by the snow and having a hard time hiding it, and a few are like "what are you all talking about, this is completely normal and now that we've had a normal year we can stop bagering about drought and water conservation" and the last group is genuinely happy that it's snowing while recognizing we'll still need to conserve and remember where we live/changing climate.

There's a fine balance in messaging that  I think Cox's message is a reaction to but I don't think it's likely all that fair of a critique to the broader room there. Those most doomsday-ish among the environmentalists are also often reacting and engaging with those most passively optimistic or in denial about the potential and current impacts of climate change.  And vice versa. Which means those more realistically optimistic can be mistaken as those in those that are seeking action but pessimistic because they often point to the same problems and facts. FTR, I see myself as top left and I think Cox probably would too (though to a different degree)...but I had a problem with Cox's prayer comment when it was made. Here's the OG comment:

“I’ve already asked all Utahns to conserve water by avoiding long showers, fixing leaky faucets, and planting water-wise landscapes. But I fear those efforts alone won’t be enough to protect us,” Gov. Cox said. “We need more rain and we need it now. We need some divine intervention. That’s why I’m asking Utahns of all faiths to join me in a weekend of prayer June 4 through the 6th.”

It follows with comments from the gov website about the drought negatively effecting agribusiness and wildlife. From what I could read the emergency was more about individual recommendations for individuals/households that weren't enforced in any way. Along with that being fairly weak, it completely ignores that how we do agribusiness is a major concern and the primary use of UT water. If that can't be looked at an actually addressed then I think effectively means the actions are more like an ineffective optimism, because it doesn't fully acknowledge the scope of the problem, what needed to fix it, and effective steps to begin to address it. Which, yes, will irritate the pessimists, but it'll also irritate the more realistic optimists as well. 

 

With luv,

BD 

       

[BlueDreams]

On 3/18/2023 at 12:23 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't want to derail the thread, nor to engage in, nor to countenance, doom and gloom, nor do I wish to be guilty of fomenting contention.  I considered giving this its own thread and linking to this one.  But, in connection with Governor Cox's "let's avoid doom and gloom" posture (which I appreciate),  here's one of the big problems (if, indeed, it is not the biggest problem) that I have with climate alarmism.  According to one source at the United Nations per the AP/Deseret News, two big problems (if they are not, indeed, the two biggest problems) facing the world today are: (1) climate change and (2) rising sea levels. 

Certainly, I'm no expert, (but I doubt that same status will prevent other non-experts from rising up to set me straight   ), but according to that same UN source (if the AP/Deseret News quotes him accurately, and if I am reading him accurately), even if, miraculously, we suddenly reverse (1) above, still, we must contend with (2) above.  And according to [at least one of] the alarmists, if (1) doesn't spell our doom, it is likely that (2) will anyway.  If the UN "expert" is right, if his take gets enough circulation and exposure, and if enough people are persuaded by it, then it would seem that Governor Cox (and remember, I agree with him) is simply "spitting into the wind" (or, as my esteemed colleague, the gentlelady from [fill-in-the-blank here], BlueDreams, says, "farting into the wind" ) 

Lol, Well I'd note, if I my dog farts, there's no wind on earth powerful enough for you to not experience it to some degree. Stuff is lethal. I would recommed also looking to my response to bsjkki. It applies to this. These discussions aren't split between alarmists and skeptics. That's the view only from those that are in the unchangeable optimist perspective, where any view that points out we're facing serious challenges and need to change on several fronts is equally alarmist because it points out that things won't be okay just as we are.... 

On 3/18/2023 at 12:23 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

Here's the article from the AP/Deseret News:

https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2023/2/15/23601033/united-nations-rising-sea-levels-death-sentence-countries-cities-climate-change?commentID=854833d8-6ff0-4f57-b7a6-ff73bbb6f1f5

And here's my comment:

From the Article: "The Tuesday warning, according to an Associated Press report, came at the Security Council’s first-ever meeting on the threat to international peace and security from rising sea levels, with the leader warning even if the course of climate change was 'miraculously' corrected, the risk remains."

 

If we don't do something about climate change, we're doomed. But even if we do something about climate change, still, we're doomed by rising sea levels anyway! Danged if we do, danged if we don't. And these people wonder why skeptics possibly can believe that climate alarmism is nothing more than an excuse to try to control the lives of skeptics and everyday people (by controlling what they eat, what they wear, what they drive, and so on, ad infinitum), all while the supposed Climate Illuminati excuse themselves to travel via private jet to the next "How We're Going to Save The World [Wink, Wink!]" Conference.

 

Pardon me, Sirs and Madams, your hypocrisy is showing.

 

To live in the area where one is both optimistic and working towards change doesn't mean recognizing we face serious problems...some of which we won't be able to shift quickly enough to reverse trends. BUT  rather that there are things we can do to lessen its effects, both in human devestation and scope of loss in infrastructure and environments and working towards those in the methods that we can. It also would mean accepting that in the short term we'll have to balance out personal interests and concerns, recognizing that we can't entirely shift our lives to what we would hope for in 2100. I deeply accept the concerns found in scientific consensus that point to us facing serious problems and that we'll need to work to manage to reduce based on policies, personal changes in lifestyle and culture. I've made or maintained several changes and will work to make more changes  in the future. I'm also going to get on a plane and fly to a beach (as well as peru and europe) at some point in the near future. There is also a problem with the proverbial skeptic who scrutinizes each environmentalist's actions as a form of a purity test. If an environmentalist actually lived up to what they were "supposed" to do, a strong skeptic would likely find them crazy and dismiss them on grounds of being "too extreme" and not "living in reality." 

 

with luv,

BD

Edited March 22 by BlueDreams

[ksfisher]

Water for Wildlife

Dire consequences of a shrinking Great Salt Lake

https://www.deseret.com/interactive/2023/04/18/water-for-wildlife-consequences-shrinking-great-salt-lake

 

[Bernard Gui]

On 3/18/2023 at 6:51 PM, The Nehor said:

The problem is that you seem to jump to the conclusion that it must be an authoritarian grab for power if the projections are bad. We could have globally done a lot to mitigate this crisis. We didn’t. We can’t stop a lot of the problem now. We can still mitigate some of it and prepare for the stuff we can’t stop.

The skeptics insisted that climate change was a hoax and stalled action. Now that the scientists are saying it is going to be bad and even most of the skeptics have admitted climate is shifting somehow the world being in for rough times is also a hoax. Or the skeptics and former skeptics throw up their hands and say it is pointless. One wonders what would compel them to actual action or if they just want inaction and their views shift around to whatever justifies inaction at the moment.

I am not optimistic for the planet.

“The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.

“If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions – remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions – it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.”

And the fate of the world, if it is truly in peril, will be determined by that 65%.

Edited April 20 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

Covid really showed what can happen if we get gas fueled vehicles off the roads and other things that happened when we were not commuting to work much, it was amazing in many countries how clear the air was. Also, the power companies are offering incentives to buy electric lawn mowers and other electric tools for the yard instead of gas powered. I had no idea how much pollution these cause.

[BlueDreams]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

“The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.

“If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions – remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions – it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.”

And the fate of the world, if it is truly in peril, will be determined by that 65%.

Though I don't disagree nehor or this quote, I would point out that it's not an either or thing. There will need to be changes in just about all sectors of living period. The wealthy nations, the developing nations, corporations, and individual lives and cultural expectations/values. 

The quote you give is fairly well known in environmental circles. It's usually balanced out with the other facts like that historically, industrial nations still hold the lion's share of CO2 that has led to the current warming and that per capita it's still wealthier nations leading the pack on emissions. 

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Covid really showed what can happen if we get gas fueled vehicles off the roads and other things that happened when we were not commuting to work much, it was amazing in many countries how clear the air was. Also, the power companies are offering incentives to buy electric lawn mowers and other electric tools for the yard instead of gas powered. I had no idea how much pollution these cause.

I was at awe at how far I could see in the valleys. It was really beautiful. 

With luv,

BD

 

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Though I don't disagree nehor or this quote, I would point out that it's not an either or thing. There will need to be changes in just about all sectors of living period. The wealthy nations, the developing nations, corporations, and individual lives and cultural expectations/values. 

The quote you give is fairly well known in environmental circles. It's usually balanced out with the other facts like that historically, industrial nations still hold the lion's share of CO2 that has led to the current warming and that per capita it's still wealthier nations leading the pack on emissions. 

I was at awe at how far I could see in the valleys. It was really beautiful. 

With luv,

BD

 

Do you think the world is prepared for that kind of radical upheaval?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you think the world is prepared for that kind of radical upheaval?

Success is better than failure, but failure is better than doing nothing - never knowing if success might have been possible.  Let’s work at getting their minds prepared.

Edited April 21 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Success is better than failure, but failure is better than doing nothing - never knowing if success might have been possible.  Let’s work at getting their minds prepared.

How do you propose to do that in Africa, India, China, and Latin America?

John Kerry says that even if all industrialized countries reduced industrial emissions to zero, it would not be enough. Do you think he is wrong?

How will spent batteries be disposed of?

What will be the cost to replace 13 million diesel trucks with hydrogen and electric powered trucks? How many charging stations will be required to service them? How many charging stations will be required to service them?

What would be the monetary, societal, psychological, and cost for making it enough?

Serious questions for which I seek answers.

 

Edited April 22 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

51 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

How do you propose to do that in Africa, India, China, and Latin America?

John Kerry says that even if all industrialized countries reduced industrial emissions to zero, it would not be enough. Do you think he is wrong? How many charging stations will be required to service them?

How will spent batteries be disposed of?

What will be the cost to replace 13 million diesel trucks with hydrogen and electric powered trucks?

What would be the monetary, societal, psychological, and cost for making it enough?

Serious questions for which I seek answers.

 

I don’t have all the answers, but I will use my voice and influence and vote where I can.  
The alternative is to do nothing, which is the worst of the above options.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I don’t have all the answers, but I will use my voice and influence and vote where I can.  
The alternative is to do nothing, which is the worst of the above options.

For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you think the world is prepared for that kind of radical upheaval?

In many ways we don't have a choice. We can choose to continue as is and ignore the upheaval doing so is already causing and will continue to cause as environments get worse and certain areas of the world become uninhabitable, other areas become more and more volatile in shifting weather patterns, and the hidden costs to fossil fuels become less and less hidden and more and more burdensome. It's an "upheaval" with far less blatantly negative consequence to it. 

In terms of technological, national, and cultural shifts...the last century or so has been one long string of upheavals. The world of my namesake g-gma is basically unrecognizable to the world I inhabit now. We've been both ready and sorely unprepared for these changes depending. Many we've learned to adapt to. Others we're now course correcting or need to. I assume in terms of radical shifts and our preparedness for it, this will be no different.

 

with luv,

BD  

 

Edited April 22 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

So you do you choose to live by the rule of avoiding anything that would cause people to mock you?  If so, why are you a member of the Church?

[Rain]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

Context is important.

Luke 14:25 And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, 26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. 27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. 28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? 29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, 30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish. 31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? 32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace. 33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. 34 ¶ Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned? 35 It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

[Bernard Gui]

26 minutes ago, Rain said:

Context is important.

Luke 14:25 And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, 26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. 27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. 28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? 29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, 30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish. 31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? 32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace. 33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. 34 ¶ Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned? 35 It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

Not sure how context changes the plain and obvious meaning of the parable: it is foolish to begin a massive project without knowing the end from the beginning.

If we are going to remake the energy systems of the entire world, we should at least have a basic idea of the myriad costs involved. For example, how do we replace the heating and cooling equipment of millions and millions of structures. Who wants a nuclear reactor next door?

Transportation is a major barrier. For example if we retool all the global auto and truck manufacturers to build electric vehicles, radically modify travel energy infrastructures and then realize batteries are more damaging to the environment than we thought, or that hydrogen is a better source of power, then we have only kicked the can down the road and irrevocably caused even more damage. Replace airplanes? How?

I have asked a few sincere basic questions. How do you answer them?

Edited April 22 by Bernard Gui
. I

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

So you do you choose to live by the rule of avoiding anything that would cause people to mock you?  If so, why are you a member of the Church?

What rule are you referring to? I remember the “freeway to nowhere” in Tacoma that stood unfinished and suspended in mid-air for decades until it was it was given a ridiculous gerry-built second life. It was rightfully mocked. And the Satsop nuclear reactors that were stopped mid-construction because they ran out of money. It was nicknamed “Whoops” and cost the state billions of dollars. The king did not count the costs.

Fools mock, but they shall mourn.

See above reply to Rain.

Edited April 22 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

In many ways we don't have a choice. We can choose to continue as is and ignore the upheaval doing so is already causing and will continue to cause as environments get worse and certain areas of the world become uninhabitable, other areas become more and more volatile in shifting weather patterns, and the hidden costs to fossil fuels become less and less hidden and more and more burdensome. It's an "upheaval" with far less blatantly negative consequence to it. 

In terms of technological, national, and cultural shifts...the last century or so has been one long string of upheavals. The world of my namesake g-gma is basically unrecognizable to the world I inhabit now. We've been both ready and sorely unprepared for these changes depending. Many we've learned to adapt to. Others we're now course correcting or need to. I assume in terms of radical shifts and our preparedness for it, this will be no different.

 

with luv,

BD  

 

Of course we have a choice. The economic, social, and psychological ramifications (among others ) of this shift are astronomical and may result in even more severe damage and chaos. Before doing that, pause and count the cost and compare it with other solutions.

I have asked just a few sincere basic questions. How do you answer them?

 

 

Edited April 22 by Bernard Gui