Green - the term has taken on a whole new meaning in recent years. I read an article in BYU's horribly inept newspaper called the Daily Herald just yesterday about how BYU is trying to be more "green." That is, as a school, BYU is trying to recycle more - and they aren't doing a good job - it actually was a pretty pathetic article that showed just how inept organizations such as BYU, other universities, and businesses as a whole are at making real changes that can really reverse some of the negative effects that large businesses and establishments have on the environment.
In fact, many of the people, groups, products, and organizations that claim to be "green" or "eco-friendly" are anything but - the fact is, it has become a popular term of late and it is being exploited to make an extra buck in our intensely environmentally unfriendly capitalistic society.
What do LDS people think? Overwhelmingly, the response I get from people when I bring up issues such as pollution, recycling, or global warming is a resounding "meh....yawn...." I get sarcastic comments that comically approach the "ridiculous" topic of global warming (apparently the thought is that if Al Gore thinks it's a problem, then it is anything but - after all, the guy thinks he invented the internet, he's delusional.) They treat it like a big inside joke that I just haven't been let in on.
Others might admit that it is a problem and something we "probably should do something about," but, it inevitably takes a back seat to more "important" issues such as tax cuts, gay marriage, and.....this weekend's ball game. "After all," they might say, "the government wasn't meant to legislate the environment."
To top it off, many Utah politicians, individuals and organizations are openly anti-environmentalism (not to mention so many other candidates and organizations that we habitually support).
Apparently animal rights, holes in the ozone, and pollution levels are just not a concern. But is this an appropriate response for LDS citizens? Does our doctrine dictate an appropriate response? It is important to remember that LDS scripture has maintained as a core doctrine that human beings are to be stewards accountable before God for the use and care of His creations. D&C 59:18-20 does a great job of summing up this doctrine by saying:
"Yea, all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart; Yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul. And it pleaseth God that he hath given all these things unto man; for unto this end were they made to be used, with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion." - or in other words, the world and its inhabitants were created to aid and assist man in his quest towards God - but we are not to overuse these gifts, or extort them.
Excess and extortion - that is a unique pair of words - Webster says
extort: to obtain by force, intimidation, or undue or unlawful use of authority or power
excess: more than or above what is necessary, usual, or specified.
When I think of American meat industries, crowded freeways at rushhour, three cars used by families with as many drivers, steroid-induced molting mutant chickens, and the sheer mass of street polution, these two words, extortion and excess come quickly to mind.
"All things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth" - Moses 6:63
It is clear that we have a responsibility to take care of the earth and use it only for the purposes for which it was created. But we, as a people, I fear largely ignore that responsibility. Instead, we opt for a life of excess - a life of large houses, cars, satiation of all wants, and a staggering amount of "needs." Thus we help drive the capitalist market to produce more and more, which hurts the environment more and more. Lives of excess, as Hugh Nibley so frequently pointed out, is the opposite of lives of consecration, which we were commanded to live. Lives of excess are what is causing the almost insurmountable enviromental problems that the world is facing now.
We must start giving man's stewardship over the earth the place of importance in our political and social approaches that it deserves. We've been trying to do just this in many aspects of my life - from choosing to not drive a car, becoming vegetarian, eliminating leather from my diet, paying for recycling (because it's not free in Utah county), and not buying packaged foods. It has been intensly hard - whenever people hear about the changes Aileena and I have been making, they shake their head - I'm not sure if it's in resigned admiration, or disgust. Even though it's not easy, I'm convinced that it's necessary for each of us. Each of us could cut back on car uses, buy cage free, hormone free food, recycle, don't shop at places like Walmart, don't buy fast-food....there are literally thousands of small changes that we can individually make that will help be a little more "green" while also helping us fulfill that stewardship that we have been given. So...do you agree? Disagree? Are you doing anything that the rest of us might be able to implement? Do share.
P.S. Rachael, I purposely didn't make this topic about climate change, but about environmentalism as a whole. - you are still home free to do your planned topic :)
It's Not Easy Being Green....
Posted by Anonymous on 2/20/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Great post, Rick. Your dedication to the environmental cause in your personal life is highly admirable. Out of curiosity, are you a Green Party member, or have you ever voted Green?
It seems to me like our political system is not designed to reward innovators and the far-sighted; in other words, it's politically unpopular to work towards preventing problems. Instead, we wait 'til things hit full-blown disaster mode, and then get politicians promising to change and fix everything. Social Security is a great example of this. I think the sad fact is that environmental problems are just not bad enough (yet!) to the point where individuals are willing to support the expensive measures required to deal with the problems, whether it be through government spending or individual spending. The "small changes" you mention are actually pretty costly, as I'm sure you're aware, and as my wife and I can testify after our recent venture to Whole Foods. :) Of course, this lack of foresight will end up costing us massively more in the long run. All change starts, though, with getting the message out. So, kudos to you!
Another thing - the Republican nomination of McCain makes it highly likely that global warming will be an issue for the next presidency (it's obviously important to Obama). Say what you will about the guy, but he seems pretty passionate about global warming, even though it costs him with his conservative base.
I wonder how much one's commitment to environmental issues depends on where one lives.
Maybe Utahns are, as a whole, less concerned about environmental regulation because you're surrounded by so much natural beauty in the form of national parks and empty undeveloped space. In that setting, it's easy to think that environmental concerns are not so pressing - the earth can take care of itself, right? Isn't there plenty to go around?
Out here in the Bos-NY-Wash corridor, which has been heavily populated and industrialized for a long time, the dangers of ignoring the environment are much closer at hand. Remember the toxic waste dump in "A Civil Action"? Just up the road from here - within my ward boundaries, actually. Global warming and rising sea levels also seem like more urgent concerns when you live at sea level.
Or perhaps members of the church tend not to get too fussed about the environment because the Second Coming may be near at hand. If Christ is about to come back and change the whole world order, who cares if we're using up all the oil? We won't need it for much longer, right?
That, of course, would be a short-sighted and selfish view. The scriptures you quote, Rick, are good indications that the Lord does not want us to take a disposable attitude to the earth, even if the Second Coming is near.
Thanks for a great post! Keep up the good work!
Excellent post, Rick. I have always thought that the assumption that the Second Coming is imminent is the primary reason for environmental apathy among Latter-Day Saints. I don't think any of us want to see the Earth destroyed, but perhaps for that reason it isn't very high on the priority list for a lot of people. Besides, you need a gas-guzzling 12-passenger van or a couple Suburbans if you have 10 children. :)
I have become much more environmentally aware in the last couple years, in many ways following the lead of my wife. I am not willing to give up meat or leather; I believe our loving Father in Heaven gave us cows for a very good reason, and it's not just for the pleasant noises and methane gas they produce. :)
As an aside, I find it hilarious to hear Ingrid Newkirk (PETA founder/zealot) rant about how "cattle emissions" (LOL) are the chief catalyst (I am the undisputed king of awful puns, BTW - can I get a rimshot?) of global warming.
I am a big recycling proponent - Rachel and I recycle quite a bit more than we throw away. One small change we both made is to use reusable aluminum water bottles and a reverse-osmosis system instead of buying water in plastic bottles - that has drastically reduced the amount of waste we produce. Rachel started using reusable shopping bags, as well - no more plastic bags will be sitting in landfills for eons because of our household.
With respect to cars, well, if you live in the suburbs of Phoenix you have to drive a car. It's unfortunate that I live 29 miles from work, and also unfortunate that I have to drive to get there. I would much rather take some form of public transportation, but that doesn't exist here (buses don't count - it would take me 2.5 hours - literally). And my car gets *gasp* only 22 mpg. But I couldn't handle a Prius - I'm too used to fabulous German cars that go fast and handle well. I don't consider it excessive at all - I paid less for my Bimmer than you paid for your hybrid, and I don't have to figure out how to dispose of all those toxic batteries. :)
I suppose I would consider myself a practical environmentalist - nothing over the top, but aware of the issues and willing to make small changes that add up to making a decent dent in my household's impact on the environment.
Yes, of course, LDS people should definitely be aware of using our resources efficiently and keeping the environment clean. But, my class this past Saturday at ASU is a perfect example of why LDS people might get frustrated by preachings about the environment.
I had a teacher completely mock everything I consider sacred and when she found out I was LDS, she continued to put me on the spot and made jokes at my expense. Then, she had the nerve to preach about how she demands respect in her class and if she hears one racial slur, bam! we are out of her class.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all about respecting the sacred word at ASU, "diversity", however, professors and others with liberal views tend to be very selective about who and what issues they will respect.
The way this relates to environmentalism is that there are many issues that are politically correct to care about- being green, being racially sensitive, giving women the right to choose whatever "makes them happy". However, in my experience in the "educated" setting, being morally clean is not respected and even mocked and expressing a vocal love of the country is absurd.
So, sure, if someone respects (not necessarily agrees with) the issues I care so deeply about and cares about keeping the environment clean- I can definitely appreciate that...but some tend to be hypocritical about respect.
Sorry, this is Tricia posting-not Chase.
Rick, one thing I liked about living in London was the fact that, for the most part, people really didn't overeat. This relates to your post because we didn't have a car there and anything we bought from the grocery store we had to carry home on our back. The same goes for other Londoners. But Sainsbury's sold these heavy-duty almost vinyl-like grocery bags for a pound that were guaranteed not to rip open like regular plastic bags, and it was a life saver! I noticed people only bought what could fit in the bag...and it couldn't be too heavy since you had to carry it home. But it was a huge bag, I could fit milk, juice, bread, eggs, meat, veggies, etc inside of it. It was awesome. I loved it. I ended up bringing it home and it still works to this day. I wonder how many people in America would be willing to purchase a bag that didn't wear out to carry their groceries home in, even if they were driving?
Also, on global warming in general: I don't think that Americans alone can solve this problem. I think that if the USA in conjunction with China and India set some sort of standard and tried within a year to get emissions lessened that it would be interesting to many around the world to see what the result were. But simply fixing Americans output alone won't solve the problem, especially since those two countries in particular have such huge wastages themselves.
Also, I don't like it when people who are environment friendly act like they are so much better than people who don't think it is a problem. To me people's attitudes just make it harder to find reconciliation between the 2 opinions on whether global warming is a real issue. If people are too proud to work together than nothing will happen to change anything.
Well, you basically covered my topic anyway! This was, essentially, exactly what I was going to post. Just wanting a Mormon perspective on the topic of "environmentalism", specifically as it relates to our obligation of stewardship and the Word of Wisdom and its potential impact on the environment (I love it when things like "eat meat sparingly" turn out to be so spot-on, 150 years later, in ways we never imagined!)
Basically, from what I can tell according to the science, global warming/climate change is happening. It seems as though the science is pretty conclusive, although I am no scientist.
My point about climate change, and the mockery with which some people seem to approach it, is this: even, say hypothetically, it's not happening. It's total BS and just a big ploy for this election or whatever. Shouldn't we still, *particularly* as members of the church who are specifically commanded in these areas, be taking environmental concerns very seriously and doing what we can to school our passions, so to speak, and learn to moderate and control ourselves for the good of all creation.
I really, really do think that part of the lack of concern is that "well, the Second Coming is gonna be pretty soon anyway so we can limp along until then, right?" Or maybe even that this environmental chaos is part of the signs of the Second Coming, and thus to be not only not avoided, but welcomed in a way.
I guess this is one of the areas where I feel very satisfied in doing small things myself, and my family, and people that I Know, to make a difference. Because yes, it does make a difference. I don't know what the solution to abortion legislation should be, but I can raise my family the way I know feels right for us, the way I have been taught, and that's 3 little people right there who will hopefully grow up with good hearts. If everyone did that much, the world would be a much better place in a very short time.
Likewise, while I could really REALLY use some help from the government/big companies/powers that be in the environmental arena (ie schools recycling? Seriously, all they use is paper! How hard is that? Some schools around here don't recycle either and I almost fell off my chair when I found out. It IS free here, there is NO excuse). I could also use some people to really get on the horn and figure out how to make a good alternative fuel car (I'm going to need one bigger than the Prius in a few months, unfortunately!) because I bike where I can but it's really, really hard.
But you know, I buy my eggs from happy chickens and my milk from happy cows and I use my reuseable bags even though the cashiers at the health food store don't like them (yes, really!) and I cloth diaper my kids and I try to keep things local and that makes me feel good.
This is getting to be a veritable novel, but I will say that while I find it moderately unnerving that suddenly "green" is the new byword (or is that buy-word?) for everyone from GE to Clorox, this is one instance where hopefully the power of the market will sway things in a positive direction. It can't be bad for consumers to use the power of their dollar and put it toward companies and products that benefit us all! Yes, it feels kind of hollow at this point because it's still so new, but I'm really hoping it sticks and soon I'm not the only mom bringing her own utensils to the mall food court. :)
Also, Tricia - I totally hear you on the fact that Mormons are one of the last acceptable groups of people to categorically mock and dismiss. It's hard to be a liberal Mormon - no one really wants to claim you then! :) At least you fit in with other Mormons...
From where I sit (I work as an engineering and economics consultant in energy efficiency), I think the real problem environmentalism faces is that it is 90% religion mingled with science. You run into all the things people make fun of us for when they find out we're mormon - behavioral decisions based on quotes by celebrities or marketing efforts by the organic food distributors, lack of thinking in terms of what makes sense, unwillingness to listen if the truth about something is presented, and even the culture of judgment and self-righteousness.
Not to belittle the issues. There are a lot of problems we face as a society that I personally find both engaging and important. The point is, there are too many subtleties and too much calculation to make it possible for, as an example, Sheryl Crow, to tell us how to save the planet.
So I'd like to see less hype and less moralism and more rational thought, although that's something I'd like to see across the board, not just in "green" topics.
A few things that I think would merit some thought are:
nuclear power- the only real carbon-free replacement for coal
ethanol from corn - doesn't make sense
ethanol from cellulose - needs more research money
solar PV - mostly flash
solar thermal - needs research money
Black google screens - ridiculous
That's all for my crazy rant...
Tricia - I share your frustration with mainstream anti-Mormon sentiment, and I imagine that coupling that with the anti-conservative sentiment found on most college campuses is doubly difficult. I think you should write that professor's dean an e-mail and express your concerns. But I'm confrontational like that. :) Not all liberals sneer at conservatism, though; just as not all conservatives sneer at liberalism.
You and others have made a good point, though, about how preachiness and holier-than-thou attitudes about issues (including environmentalism) can cause people to reflexively turn away from that issue. I myself have certainly experienced this, with zealots on either side. Respect is needed.
Hear, hear, for nuclear power! My brother is smart, you guys, and I would seriously listen up. One of my biggest complaints about Democratic demagoguing on the energy situation in our country is that they refuse to talk about nuclear. Why is this? Can someone from the left explain why Hillary Clinton lists all manner of untested and premature alternative energy but will not touch "nuclear power" with a pole of any length?
More generally: As responsible citizens, I think we ought to support politicians who acknowledge there is a problem. Government can't do everything, but it is good for broad things like regulation of carbon emissions (or better yet the regulation of a market for carbon-credit trading! I can hear the hissing now...). But it's not too good with the details, and this is why I think business has to play a big part.
There are encouraging signs in the business world already. Earlier this month, hundreds of big-time investors pledged to the United Nations that they would invest $10 billion over the next two years in technologies that aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to pressure companies to disclose their risks associated with climate change (see the story here). I think business as a whole knows that a catastrophic failure of the planet is not good for business. I think we should also be grateful for increased demand for and supply of green products in the market, fake and exploitative though much of it is sure to be. As long as we live in a capitalist society (and I know you'd prefer we didn't, Rick :P), the fact of the matter is that saving the environment is not going to happen without big business getting on board, taking the lead, even. And what better way to do that than to give them a profit motive! So let's continue to make green trendy.
Yes, Kevin, I would prefer to not be in a capitolist society, but, as we are, I agree with your assesment of the situation.
I certianly hope my tone in posting wasn't preachi - it wasn't meant to be
Amy, that's how shopping was in Japan too - and we LOVED it - I am all about having what you need when you need it - sure, we can store stuff that is meant to be stored (wheat, etc) but having our cubboards look like the Nabisco isle at the grocery store is kind of rediculous.
Rachel, sorry - I thought you would talk about climate change - i didn't mean to take your topic:( In regard to your grocery bags, we do that to - and it is always entertaining to see the looks from the cashiers. All the stuff that you have been doing is a great example - that is the most important part about us each doing what we can - to set an example for others. I sometimes think I'm doing great with my shoes made from recycled materials, and my incessant biking, but I know that, just like anyone, there is much more I could do.
I kind of like the trendiness for all the reasons that you guys have mentioned. I don't think comparing it to a religion is bad - some people are just...religiously minded - we, as a persecuted religion (to some extent) just need to remember to be open minded and find truth wherever it exists, as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young so often exhorted.
Ah, the failed perusia - that is the term we use in Early Christian Studies for the fact that the Second Coming didn't happen. I mean, Jesus said that "this generation would not pass away" before he came again. Well, the generation came and went, as have hundreds since then, and...no second coming. The fact is, that religionists in every age have anxiously awaited the return of their Messiah and the ushering in of a millenial age- from Jewish, Christian, Zoroastria, Hindu, Mayan etc. And....it hasn't happened. Now I'm not saying it won't happen, but, for us to live like it is about to (when 6000 years of history tells us it's not likely) is irrisponsible. To live "like we are dying" is not good advice, no matter what the gentle swang of country lyrics might tell us.
We are here for the long haul! So, lets make sure the planet, rainforests and ozone are too.
I am a liberal that is very much in favor of nuclear power (not "nook-yoo-ler", Mr. President). This is one issue where I really break from the Democratic Party line. Why is it even a party line issue? As Kelly mentioned, nuclear is the only currently available method to produce electricity with zero greenhouse gas emissions. Not that the French are perfect, but their electricity is 80% nuclear.
Sure, there are security and safety concerns, and we need to figure out what to do with the waste, but those are very solvable problems. Corn-based ethanol is a joke, albeit a sure-fire way to win votes in Iowa. We need a practical solution to these problems, and I think nuclear power should be a large part of it.
Sorry, I misspoke (miswrote?). Nuclear isn't the only available method for producing electricity without greenhouse emissions, but it's the only viable one. Wind, solar, cellulose ethanol, etc. just aren't there yet.
I agree wholeheartedly on the need for more nuclear power stations and I too wonder why the Democrats haven't embraced the idea.
Maybe there's a generation gap on the nuclear issue. I wasn't politically aware when Chernobyl happened, and I wasn't even alive when Three Mile Island happened. But those were important formative events for the current generation of political leaders.
Nuclear technology has come a long way since then, but maybe our parents' generation have already formed a negative gut reaction to nuclear power. We might need to wait a decade or two until nukes are embraced as a real option again.
good point Doug. I was wondering if perhaps the political leaders only look at nuclear power plants as potential targets for terrorist activity. I suppose that a nuclear target is worse than a bridge, building, etc because the radiation will affect the groundwater and neighboring areas for generations.
BUT I think that with proper precautions using the Maybe, Might Happen argument isn't really a good excuse. There have got to be ways to make this work to everyone's benefit with minimal risks.
I am with Dave - I am basically for nuclear power as well - but the discussion that is going on about it is a good discussion - I think the reasons stated are good reasons to be cautious with it, but,I still think it's still leaps ahead of any other form of energy.
Alright, here's the crazy conservative. I don't think global warming exists, and I am terrified that legislation on a hypothetical situation will take away way too many freedoms that I enjoy.
Here's my line of thinking from some looking into the issue. Global warming may be occuring to some miniscule facet, and IF it is, then it is a natural trend. Ice age ring any bells? So you raise the question of how much of it is caused by humans? And I am sure it fits into your hatred of big business and over-glutoned american spoiled brats to assume that we are causing it. The FACT is though, that 99.999% of greenhouse gases are naturally accuring, 95% of that being water vapors. Look it up. I looked at it a while back and am speaking from memory, so I am not gonna give you a reference. The point is that to think that after all the earth has been through, and has yet to go through including being celestialized, to think that we can have any part as a human population, in "killing" the planet is amazingly haughty of us.
The amount of damage, particularly to the automotive industry, that has been done by legislation controlling what makers can and cannot produce is astronomical in contemplation. Think about if engineers had been able to explore more avenues of energy production instead of having to try and meet harder and harder regulations and trying to stay afloat regarding one limited avenue...think of where we would be. For example: CFC's, have been heavily regulated for years, particularly heavily again in the car industry due to air conditioning. It was just discovered that the reaction that takes place in the atmosphere, regarding CFC's becoming a greenhouse gas, completely doesn't exist to the degree they previously thought (.0001% or something like that, of what they previously thought.) Yet for the last 20 years alarmists have won in legislating to that effect, and my air in my car isn't as cold as it could have been...grrrr. (Not to give you anti-big business people ammo, but some say Dupont was the benefactor in the conversion from R-12 to R-134a.)
I am sure you all hate me by now, and think I am delutional and glutonous, but I hope I am not too late to get some good responses. On that, though, consider moderation in all things, and not taking things to extremes. I am NOT saying pollution is good, nor am I saying that we ought not to be good stewards, I am saying we need to do what we can without neglecting what is more important.
I ask you this before I have to go. Is it possible that those with monetary agendas, cue mocking, have hyped this up where they have something to gain? May it then be picked up by researchers who don't get funding unless it is doom and gloom material? And finally how much more technology is there for us to discover in the hundreds of years worth of oil reserves that we have left? Maybe it is all possible and likely to have been the case. Maybe oil isn't the demon it is made out to be, cause without it, the gospel wouldn't have been able to spread so quickley, and we would be living in a primitive farming society. Technology has made it possible for this many people on earth to live together, and that is the real pupose why the Lord gave it to us. Some abuse it, but we can't legislate against sin (glutony,) we can only protect our right to use modern technology, and that is the opposite of what you are talking about, unless I am mistaken.
Here is one reference I found in .2 seconds.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Atleast consider it! I ask myself if I am being decieved, I expect the same, or else these blogs are affronts to truth and learning.
Jar First off, to say that Global warming doesn't exist is like saying garbage dumps don't exist - the fact is, it does - it's factual, not hypothetical. The only question is, how much will it effect our planet. NExt, that's an interesting web-site - however, no one has ever said water vapor (that is...fog - - ) is harmful. Not all greenhouse gasses are harmful - but the ones that are - we produce. Therefore, If we weren't producing them, then the earth would continue on it's NATURAL progression, as opposed to the unnatural state that it currently is - in fact, realizing how much (.28%) comes from humans, in the grand scheme of things, is quite disconcerting. Escpecially when you consider the fact that the natural factors that God has put in place to deal with those gasses is being depleated at an alarming rate (the rainforests - the depletion of the rainforests is NOT a myth). The natural stuff, the earth is used to dealing with - it is the unnatural stuff that freaks it out - tips the scale, if you will, and causes problems. So, even though it's a little, we could refer to it as the straw that broke the camel's back.
My biggest worry with your approach is this: "after all the earth has been through, and has yet to go through including being celestialized, to think that we can have any part as a human population, in "killing" the planet is amazingly haughty of us." Cause that mindset throws stewardship out the window.
Anyways, I've considered it :) thanks for the thought provocation. You're a pal:)
I feel like you've missed my point entirely. I am disputing A.) the "FACT" that global warming does exist, and B.) the issue of whether or not it is human caused. And all you've done is said that it is a fact, and is human caused.
Give me a premise on which you think Global Warming exists. Example: ice caps melting. I would say that the ice caps melting doesn't prove it is occuring at all. It only proves that they are changing and going through, most likely, natural cycles, and may re-freeze in the future. It could be due to ocean currents changing, or the way that the earth tilted a fraction of a degree when that huge tsunami hit over off of india.
I am saying that there are just as many scientists who have evidence against Global Warming as there are who have evidence for global warming. And the fact that Gore had to lie out of his gourd, to prove his points in his movie, to me, says that he couldn't find any real evidence.
The second issue I have stated involving "climate change," is whether or not it is affected by our presence and the things we do as a human race. You picked up on this one a little more, but if our .28% of green house gases that we influence compared to the 99.82% we cannot influence causes an effect that breaks the camels back and kills the earth....
Correct me if I am wrong but global warming is supposed to be caused by greenhouse gases, but if greenhouse gases are 99.82% naturally occuring wouldn't that mean that global warming is a naturally occuring change that the earth is going to go through despite our .28% contribution. Therefore assuming that our contribution tipped the scale or that we were the straw that broke the camels back is like saying that since I was the last signature on a petition, I should get all the credit for getting the law passed into action, I was the one that mattered most. When in reality, it is the one that mattered least. Surely, the other signatures as a whole matter infinitely more than the one. That is where the haughtiness comes from.
As far as the rain forest depletion goes, in all that I have read I haven't found any evidence that it is contributing to any greenhouse gas suppression. I don't see how the presence of trees would lessen the effect, actually I have heard it argued to the contrary. Although miniscule and inconsequential the effect would be, I have heard it said that more trees would actually propogate the greenhouse gas effect, because they would hold in more heat closer to the earth causing more evaporation.
You said that what I have said throws stewardship out the window, but I don't see how that relates, unless you assume that I hate the earth and want it's destruction, and that I don't appreciate the beauties of it, or the purposes for which it was created. If you don't assume those things, then you must be assuming that stewardship means not driving a car, or not eating animals or using animal products, or not using anything that will end up in a dump, or shopping at big stores instead of small ones, and if that is the case then maybe you are right. I don't want anyone to dictate to me what kind of car I can drive just like you don't want someone to tell you that you have to drive a car. I don't want someone to tell me I cannot eat meat just as you don't want anyone to say that you have to eat meat. I will not allow someone to limit my freedoms, just as you won't allow someone to tell you how you have to live.
I am not saying that the issue for "climate change" is about stewardship, only that calling someone out on stewardship is a cop out, it is finger pointing. We don't hold non-members of the church responsible for living the laws that WE have gained testimonies of. If climate change exists and is our fault and will result in bad things, I will take responsibility for a corresponding stewardship. The evidence thus far is, to me, that it is not the problem you believe it to be. The biggest problem is our perceptions and sources.
You can't assume that because people say the ice caps are melting that global warming is happening or that humans have caused it. Here's another good site dedicated to finding the truth about global warming.
http://www.globalwarming.org/primer/scienceFAQs
At the very least we should excersize restraint, especially legislatively, until we can further determine the truth. Remember the whole innocent until proven guilty theory, it is better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be set to prison. WE WILL PAY DEARLY if laws are passed to limit our freedoms as they are already beginning to be. California wants power over it's citizens thermostats in their homes. The incandescent light bulb has been banned by 2010. I just think we need to slow down a lot to figure this one out.
Jar, have you seen the movie that Gore apperantly "lied out of his gourd" in? If not, I recommend it. You know, I find it ironic that one could win a Nobel Peace Prize for lying out of his gourd. Something that this website has taught me is that life is nothing if not a continuing display of pre-conceived notions. When one runs up against someone else' pre-conceived notions, there isn't much that one can do to change those notions, so I'm not going to try. I'll say this, If you haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth," well, it's a good place to start. I'd ask, however, what does he gain by lying?
If you can't bring yourself to be subjected to his arrogant lies, then I suggest this official government website.http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html
You said the other day that, "to think that we can have any part as a human population, in "killing" the planet is amazingly haughty of us." Take a little e.coli bacteria - they are so tiny and insignficant when proportionally compared to the massive planetary human being. Sure, they are a poison to the human being - they are something that the human being was never created to deal with, and, if, per chance, the human being's natural defense against the poison of this bacteria were eradicated, then what would happen. Surely, the e.coli would not consider that it might be able to have some hand in "killing" the human being. But, alas, "Through small and simple things, great things come to pass." In this case, the death of the human is a great - and terrible - thing. We are a bacteria - or a virus - that is destroying the planet with pollutants and waste. To honestly think otherwise is incredibly negligent and perfunctory of us.
You also said that we have a "right to use modern technology." What is this right? I was unaware that this was one of our inaleable rights. "life liberty and..the use of modern technology." Nope, doesn't flow as well. We assume that we have rights, just cause stuff is available to us. I might have a right to stick my head up a cow's a$$ but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it....wait, never mind. My point is - sure, maybe the government shouldn't legislate it (in an ideal world) - but, if we truly want no legislation, then we should show that we don't NEED it - and with the gluttonous and wasteful approach to the world that we currently have, I maintain that we, as a society and as a species have shown that we can't handle the gifts that God has given us - either natural or technological.
We've been arguing about the word steward - here's what I think it means to be a good steward. To approach life with this mindset, "God has given me a precious gift (be it a body, family, children, or the earth). I love that gift and am grateful for that gift. it is my responsibility to always do what is in the best interest for the gift that I've been given. I won't do anything to harm that gift, if I can at all help it." That is what it means to be a good steward in my opinion. Can any of us say that we have done that? Now I don't really care weather global warming is a farce or not (catch the pun?) Because if we really accept that stewardship, we will always make the most environmentally conscious decision possible.
One more point.
The rain forests, by the way, convert CO2 to O2. therefore, if the rain forests are destroyed, then there is more CO2, but no natural way to reduce it - hence CO2 levels (that is the bad greenhouse gasses) go up exponentially. There is a direct correlation.
I guess that it's imnpossible that the whole global warming thing is an international conspiracy of astronomical proportions that was designed to get Al Gore in the White House in 2012. But I highly doubt it. Ask yourselves this - what is the whole deal about "earthquakes in diverse places" and "the moon turning to blood" and all that stuff that we call the signs of the times - they are, in their essence, weather changes. Will the end come? Will God hold us responsible for our part in ushering in the end? If you answered no to the latter question, then it would be like saying, "well, we know there will be wars and rumors of wars, so it's obviously not problematic for me to start a few wars of my own."
That's about all the time I have for this - so just put "global warming" aside (because, again, this is not what my post was about - it was about stewardship in the first place). My call initially was for us to make the changes in our own lives to be good stewards of the earth that God has given us. - Not just enjoy it's beauty and disregard it's care. peace - Rick
first of all-I make some amazing bananas foster. Okay-secondly, I definately agree that we are stewards of this earth. Hello-my maiden name is stewart so I've always understood the meaning of the word. Apart from all the "this or that is or isn't going to happen" is irrelevant to me. The most important thing is the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. and the earth has a spirit so it's definately an "other" it's also our neighbor. I think the least we can pay as rent to such a beautiful mansion/landlord is to take care of it.
Ricardo, I'm not trying to gang up on you but I just have to address some issues.
Yes, the globe has warmed. Is it because of us? The answer is still largely up for debate. The latest studies are actually showing more ice on earth now than at any time since the 60's.
Mr Gore... If you look at recent Nobel Peace Prize winners they don't exactly have anything to do with peace. They are given to the person that is politically correct. In my view, giving Gore the Nobel prize was an absolute waste.
What did he have to gain by lying? I think the better question is what didn't he have to gain? Look at where he has gotten with this issue. This is a total "feel good" issue that democrats love to play on because it gets votes.
Don't think I hate the environment. I don't hate it at all. I hate when people litter, I turn off lights, recycle and do the things I can to contribute, but like Jar said, until we know for certain the effects, let's not get to hasty just because it P.C.
I would suggest you read an "Inconvenient Book" so you can better understand the graphs that Gore so beautifully skewed.
Here is a great quote from Stephen Schneider, lead 2007 UN IPCC report author. "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest."
This is the same guy that wrote a report that led to the global-cooling scare of the 70's.
Rick - Sorry that I’m so late on this. Life has been busy. Here are my thoughts.
First, I’m all for recycling. My bins are literally overflowing every week. I think that we recycle about as much as we trash. I’m opposed to littering. I get paper bags at the grocery store. I’m not going to buy my own grocery bags. Too inconvenient for my tastes. I am changing all my lights to CFLs. I’m not throwing away perfectly good incandescent, but when they burn out, I switch. I’m also going to take issue with a few of your “calls to action”.
I agree that we should consolidate car trips to save fuel and cut emissions. However, I’m not going to sacrifice the performance of my vehicle and my comfort and all that goes with it to have a fuel efficient car. I need a big car. I want a big engine. There are no options for fuel efficient big cars. There is the new Tahoe, which they modified so much to get better mileage that it is only a shadow of its former self. So I’ll be getting a big car with a big engine and low gas mileage.
I’m also not going to buy cage free, hormone free food. My major issue with this is it is just WAY more expensive than “regular” food. I also don’t have a problem with artificially jacking up an animal’s food production via hormones. I am also not opposed to eating something that lived in a cage its whole life. It just doesn’t hurt my feelings. Sorry.
Walmart and fast food. I don’t shop at Wally world anymore. I shop at Meijer. Same thing but less evil. Bottom line: They have what I want at a price I’m willing to pay. I don’t see the problem at all. Fast food is cheap and convenient. It isn’t my favorite thing to eat, but there are times when nothing in the world will do but a Burger King cheeseburger or some McDonald’s nuggets. If that’s what I want, why the heck not?
The bottom line is that I don’t think that individual changes make that much of a difference in reality. Because for every one there is like you, there are 100 that don’t care a lick and waste and waste and pollute and throw away aluminum cans and drink bottled water (another thing I don’t do). I’m happy with where I’m at, and I’m willing to do more if it’s easy. I recently made the switch to paper bags b/c I decided that they are miles better for the environment than plastic. But I’m not sacrificing my lifestyle when it won’t matter.
Here's an article from LDS Living that relates to the subject of this post: It IS easy being green
Great article - we've definitely got our work cut out for us. There are several blogs and groups that have popped up recently to address this very issue. Hopefully we can all play a positive role in helping things to change.
gma - could you drop me some of the blog addresses? I'd love to link to them.
I found it interesting that NPR reported that the oceans temperature has not warmed AT ALL but actually cooled a bit. Silly guys...they reported that the scientists either misread the data or the "global warming" issues is just taking a breather. Never did they think to mention that maybe the earth is just going though natural cycles or that the whole global warming issue isn't really that big of an issue.
Rick,
Here you go:
LDS Earth Stewardship
http://lds.earth.stewardship.googlepages.com/
Latter-day Sustainability
http://ldsustainability.blogspot.com/
Green Mormon Architect
http://greenmormonarchitect.blogspot.com/
Matt,
Independent of global warming, we are not being good stewards of this earth from the amount of waste and pollution alone.
GMA, would you be so proactive about the environment if global warming never were an issue? I think it is great to be concerned about the environment and doing things to be good stewards (recycle, ride bikes etc) but I feel there are far more important issues to be so "gung ho" about. How about teaching people to be self reliant and not depend on the government. Maybe then more people would care about the environment.
Telling people to be environmentalists is like me telling someone that they they shouldn't drink caffine because it is bad for their "spiritual environment". Both are small personal matters. I think most of us have the common sense to know what we should or shouldn't do. We need to incorporate all aspects of Gospel teachings, not just one because it is P.C.
Matt,
I can’t really say since that is not the world we live in, but the scriptures and prophets have been very clear about our stewardship with this earth. For LDS, this began back in the mid-1800’s and had nothing to do with technology, politics, or global warming. I think there is a direct correlation between how we treat the earth and how we treat others, both in our attitudes and actions. To me, both are moral issues.
Who do you personally know that is not self-reliant and is bumming off the government? I have never met such a person. But I have met many people who, by doing their best, do not make enough to pay for food and housing. Zion and the Law of Consecration involves a willingness to help these people who have less than us.
I also don’t believe that the earth is a small personal matter. We are all on this planet together, and your actions affect me as much as my actions affect you. So it is not a personal thing, but a community issue. We should be seeking to build better communities. Unfortunately most people’s common sense has led to huge amounts of irresponsible behaviors that are not sustainable for any significant period of time.
My employee and his girlfriend are not self reliant. They live in a hotel day to day. Thank goodness they are not bumming off the government though. They are however supported by me! I have loaned him money numerous times. Once it started, it has never stopped. I do it because I care and want to help him get back on his feet, but I can only do so much. He has to decide that he wants to change. They have made stupid decisions and don't want to pay for them.
Most people who "do their best but cant make it" usually aren't living within their means.
When I say it's a small personal matter I mean that I will be blessed/damned the same for leaving the lights on as I am for drinking caffine. I agree it contributes to an overall larger effect but we have to start small and keep it small for it to work. People are scared off by the oober-environmentalist.
ok, I know this post & comment thread is long since over, but I thought this was interesting: here in CA all the grocery stores are hinting that they are going to start offering non-recycle bags for people to buy once and then reuse each time they go grocery shopping as a way to cut back on plastic usage. They are going to start charging people who get plastic bags (which means I'm going to have to start using real garbage liners since I use my plastic grocery bags to line my small garbages at home)
But all in all I'm excited about this. Small things like this make a difference. And people didn't always have plastic bags to take their purchases home in, that was just a by-product of the late 20th century. So somehow, we'll all survive.
Post a Comment