As people of faith we are called to care for God’s sacred creation and everything therein, which the Lord has described as “good.” We are charged with caring for the poor and vulnerable around the world through alleviation of global poverty. We are faced with a formidable challenge on both fronts – the effects of global warming.
As the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, noted in a recent statement, “The biggest challenge that faces us in terms of global policy at the moment is how we are to find ways of reducing and controlling climate change without eating into the economic aspirations, the proper aspirations of our poorest societies towards prosperity, respect and dignity.”
Dear Bishop,
In discussing Global Climate Change, it would be a nice change if, in the interest of Truth, you examined the growing body of scientific evidence and studies that state this is part of a natural cycle, and differentiate between climate change and environmental stewardship.
In Christ,
Jim Elliott <><
Now if one applies the usual Episcothink logic to the suggestion of His Grace from Iowa, the gift of dialog over an extended period may very well help shield us from the best misplaced intentions of the environmentalist wackos who would love to legislate and regulate us back to the stone age in the vain belief that puny man really has more influence over climate change than solar activity. I think I like this idea of dialog in this instance a whole lot. Let’s keep talking, but never doing, until the next ice age. Yeah!
The Anglican Communion is falling apart around his ears, and this bishop is preoccuppied with chicken little?
I think they ought to convene to discuss revisions to the National Electric Code. After all, they know just as much about applied electricity as they do the environment and the potential for pernicious mischief is far less discussing the NEC since no sane person will take seriously what these gibbering nannies have to say about it.
#4
Brilliant!
This is Iowa, so when the state government touts “renewable energy” it is really pushing ethanol and biofuels (made from Iowa crops), which actually require more net energy input to manufacture than you get by burning it. While increased biofuel production may put a dent into foreign oil demand, there is really no corresponding reduction of GHG emissions, and you get the unintended side effects of increased food prices, water consumption, fertilizer use, and soil runoff to boot.
i happen to be one of thoooose environmental wackos that like to breathe clean air and eat food without chemical residue. if that brings on the stone age then so be it. i don’t need to be a scientist to observe and read prominent scientists opinions about the devastating effects of spewing megatons of pollution into the atmosphere. thanks for posting this article.
[blockquote]i happen to be one of thoooose environmental wackos that like to breathe clean air and eat food without chemical residue. if that brings on the stone age then so be it.[/blockquote]
Then hold your breath, Mags, because the “pollutant” the good bishop wants to control is what you’re exhaling this very moment.
#7, sorry to have touched a nerve. Please understand even though I completely reject the Groeian theory of the extreme fragility of Gaia I hold no less a sense of responsibility and concern for the Earth piece of God’s creation than the EWs (environmentalist wackos) who disagree with me. I just believe that God made the Earth to be a part of his creation, not the center of it. I also believe God gave man dominion over the Earth. The Earth is ours for our wise use under God’s sovereignty. We should not be afraid to act with due discernment to use all of the Earth’s resources to our benefit for His glory.
For those who believe that carbon dioxide, which humans exhale and plants ingest, is a dangerous pollutant, here is a two-word solution: nuclear power. But wait! That’s not politically correct! Better to devastate the world economies, plunging millions of the poorest people even farther back towards the unhealthy past, to avoid more CO2.
I think it’s important for the Episcopal Church to support the latest version of the International Building Code, with appendices. Uniform standards are important for national safety.
Jeffersonian, put a bag over your head and you’ll soon discover it is a pollutant indeed. It’s naturally exhaled, but too much of it can kill you. Oh, but I guess I’m “insane” for believing what the majority of the scientific community has to say, that though warming cycles are natural (I don’t know a single scientist who doesn’t think so), massive human activity on this planet just may be contributing to this one. Way to elevate the political discourse.
[blockquote]Jeffersonian, put a bag over your head and you’ll soon discover it is a pollutant indeed. [/blockquote]
Do that with any gas, oxygen included, and you will die. Do we declare O2 to be a pollutant as well?
No one, #12, not even those claiming to be willing to return to an era where we squat in caves, is suggesting that atmospheric CO2 levels are approaching levels where they displace the O2 that we breathe. At less than 400 ppmv, it’s less than 0.04% of the atmosphere.
6, you miss the real purpose of bio fuels. It is to reduce food stocks for the less affluent but more populace nations, thus reducing the number of Humans left in thes countries to polute our pristine forests and ski resorts.
God protect the poor from the help of the rich.
Seven of the tem worst polluting cities are in China. Maybe he would like to dialogue with them. The latest studies are showing that the ire predictions are overstated and not proven to be the result of the bad human race. What planet is this guy from?
What is really terrible is that people are ignoring the severe threat of Dihydrogen Monoxide, which causes untold deaths each year. Check it out at DMHO.org. http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html. Applying the Precautionary Principle, we need to ban the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide as soon as possible. I would add that the threat of Dihydrogen Monoxide contamination of shoreline areas is predicted by scientists to be exacerbated by Global Warming.
Jeffersonian, thank you, do throw facts at me, not demagoguery. If 02 was reaching dangerous levels (I suppose that is theoretically possible) then yes, we might just want to think about that. But the Bishop of Iowa isn’t necessarily saying (not in this piece anyway) that we should “control” anything (contrary to your #8) merely that they should meet to discuss energy solutions. My point is that dismissing global warming as some liberal fiction, some elitist conspiracy to destroy the world economy, is just as bad as the those (and there are many) who would completely dismiss your arguments as right wing nut jobbery, motivated by ignorance and greed. Neither assessment is correct.
Pb, it could be argued we should examine the log in our own eye before talking to the Chinese about the speck (or even the log) in theirs. And like it or not, the man is from Earth, where lots of intelligent people believe it is unreasonable to think the massive impact of human development is having no impact on the planet whatsoever.
[blockquote]Pb, it could be argued we should examine the log in our own eye before talking to the Chinese about the speck (or even the log) in theirs.[/blockquote]
This is completely uninformed talk. The US is a virtual garden compared with much of the world.
Jim the Puritan–I in fact own a “DHMO KILLS” T-shirt, which sometimes gets worried looks when I wear it on the weekends. DHMO is truly the most deadly substance known to mankind. Ban it I say, along with ending the terrible suffrage of women.
Hey kids, what’s the problem? Here we have a TEC bishop proposing a year of [i]dialogue[/i]. That’s a [b]guaranty[/b] that nothing will happen!
I rejoice that DOE has a whole area of focus renewable energies. I’ve watch the CalTech and MIT lecture series on energy. Federation of American Scientist have some excellent papers on the topic.
WHAT DOES THE BISHOP OF IOWA HAVE TO ADD TO THE DISCUSSION???!!!
Can the bishop tell me what is needed and is his technical expertise in the energy sector? Can the bishop get around the fact that solar is still $20 per kilo watt but coal is $4, does the bishop even know that? Does bishop Alan know that geothermal is under utilized? Has he converted his cathedral to a geothermal heat pump, placed solar hot water heater on the roof and given a token PV demonstrator system? If not than I do not think Bishop Alan has any room to criticize the US Administration in Bali.
#21 In my area, the environmentalists routinely fight exploration and development of [i]reliable[/i] alternative energy sources such as geothermal, because they know that it will fuel economic development.
Hey, the guy who invented the Super Soaker water gun has invented a solar-powered fuel cell that is supposed to be 50% more efficient.
But, as to the “speck” in China’s eye, my husband has been there repeatedly. The air pollution is appalling. The same is true in India, and I’ve seen it. And as to water contamination — don’t even think about drinking it, and don’t wade through the puddles when it rains. People in Mumbai die of disease by the hundreds every year when it floods, just because they waded through the streets. And how would you like to wash your clothes and dishes in a river loaded with human waste? Or how would you like to suffer or die from malaria that could have been prevented if the environmental extremists of decades ago hadn’t banned DDT instead of just preventing its overuse? All of these conditions could be dramatically improved, whereas the alleged threat from CO2, even if it is real, doesn’t have a cure within our reach. Even the Kyoto protocols, if fully implemented, would have only a slight effect, and this is by the calculations of Kyoto proponents. Let the Bishop of Iowa send the money for these discussions to a well-managed church relief organization where it will do some good.
Actually, a MAJORITY of scientists do NOT support that human activity are adding to the effects of natural climate change beyond perhaps a .001% influence. The majority of those published in support of the IPCC seem to support this, but even then, many of the scientists who signed this document have stated publically that the only parts they agree with are the parts they personally worked on, and not the entire document. Some have even sued to have their names removed!
More and more scientists are coming out in support of natural cycle. 100 scientists from all fields wrote a letter to the recent UN confrence in Fiji, which the media largely ignored, and another 400 scientists added their names to this document later on.
In short, there is no consensus as to whether or not human activity is contributing to global warming and if so, there is disagreement on how much!
Time must hang heavily in Iowa now that the caucus is over.
The environmental problem really has two parts: the waste and waste products that cultures like ours produce, and overpopulation. The first cannot be dealt with as if the second did not exist.Humans have always favored overconsumption and we have always be wasteful: The Amerinds, whom the leftwing idolizes as the perfect environmentalists, were nothing of the sort. The evidence here is very clear. But there were so few, that massive damage was not an overwhelming byproduct. Not so any more.
Will the bishop of Iowa speak about a solution to overpopulation? His words do not, I submit, indicate a real dedication to cleansing the earth. He is hewing to the TEC line as Schori has spelled it out. When he addresses seriously the issue of overpopulation, then I will listen. LM
What overpopulation? while stats show that the population is rising in third world countries, it has been decreasing in developed nations for the past decade or more. Even in America, the population is worrying about ‘the graying of America’ and not having enough children around to care for the aging population. Most of the growth in Developed Nations is due to — immigration!
Type in [i]myth of overpopulation[/i] in a search engine and you will find statistics such as:
According to UN Population Division Director Joseph Chamie, current population projections assume the earth is moving toward an average fertility level of 1.85 children per woman. Considering that a 2.1 level is needed to sustain a population, the planet’s population would peak at 7.5 billion by 2050 and fall to 5.3 billion by 2150.
The populations of several Soviet-bloc nations already are falling because of declining birth rates and emigration. Japan is expecting its population to peak in 2006 and then drop by 14% (almost 20 million people) by 2050. Germany expects a similar decline, while Italy and Hungary may lose 25% of their populations and Russia a third.
So, another “scientific” hysteria argument bites the dust.
Yeah, true…the globe has been getting warmer since oh…about THE LAST ICE AGE.
Do you know why it is so darn windy here in the midwest? Because Iowa sucks. Anyway….”pave the planet”.
Just for the record, concerning China, I was eating lunch with a friend today when he received a long-distance cell call from another friend who is currently in Beijing. The intrepid traveller, when asked about the weather, said he thought it was rather foggy in Beijing, until he happened to inhale and realized it was good old vintage smog, the likes of which he had not encountered here in SoCal in decades.
An interesting point in a recent report was that CO2 from uncontrolled mine fires in China and India exceed the total US vehicle CO2.
What about if TEC make Al GORE a Episcopal Bishop. It would help them to spread the GREEN NEW THING GOSPEL.
Actually, the biggest challenge that faces us in terms of global policy at the moment is how to defeat the Moslem terrorists.
Part of the answer to this lies not with Dr. Rowan Williams, but with Dr. [url=http://www.rigzone.com/data/rig_detail.asp?rig_id=943]Rowan Gorilla[/url] .
“Do you know why it is so darn windy here in the midwest? Because Iowa sucks. ”
Aw, come on – we’re the best kept secret in the U.S. Go ahead, think we grow potatoes – go ahead and call us the Buckeye State, east of the Mississippi – first lines of an old poem we had to learn in 8th grade: “My home is in Iowa, towards the setting sun. Just between two mighty rivers, where the flowing waters run. We have towns, we have cities, we have many noble names, we have 99 counties, and now we’ll say their names.” You don’t want to hear the rest……
Katherine is right. The Green Folks want to control climate as the best means to deal with present problems. I read about preventing the spread of malaria from global warming. There has to be an easier way to fight malaria.
There is: mosquito eradication. We have the money and the pesticides to do this now. Unfortunately, the most effective pesticides, malathion and DDT are not allowed to be used, due to reports on ‘environmental hazards’, which are now being questioned!
Seven of the ten worst polluting cities are in China
Producing consumer goods for Americans…