Gospel Grammar . . . T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore
Old adage: When you have nothing to say, be quiet.
My adage: When you have nothing to say, quote Eugene Peterson.
“The gospel pulls us into community. One of the immediate changes that the gospel makes is grammatical: we instead of I; our instead of my; us instead of me.”
- – - -
What’s happening? I heard T. Boone Pickens this morning on “The Today Show” saying that he’s in about 95% agreement with Al Gore.
Here’s what we know:
1. The environment is being effected. You don’t have to be a true-blue global warming person to agree with this. Pollution: bad.
2. Dependence on foreign oil can’t be good for the country.
3. Dependence on oil can’t ultimately be good for the country. You don’t have to be a true “Peak Oil” person (by the way, googling “Peak Oil” is not for the faint of heart) to agree here either. There is a limited amount of the stuff. It’s not like reforestation. You don’t take a barrel and plant a barrel. There is oil because of processes from millions of years ago. Everyone ultimately believes in “peak oil” (lower case to separate us from those who think WaterWorld is ahead). We know that it isn’t renewable. More drilling will not change this fact: there is a limited supply. This limited supply may be our problem or the problem of our great, great grandchildren.
Patrick Mead has an excellent post about T. Boone Pickens, oil prices and the environment.
Read it HERE.
Al Gore is a moron and I am glad people are finally publicly outing his theories. Al Gore is not an environmentalist, he is a capitalist. He found a market that hadn’t been tapped into and created a way to make A LOT of money. The planet isn’t getting warmer. It’s getting cooler. We should find an alternative energy source, but we also need to realize that humans aren’t a disease and CO2 isn’t a pollutant.
And I LOVED Patrick’s post. Thanks for reminding me about it Mike.
Thanks for the link, Jeff. Will check it out later.
Hmmm, Big Mike. Isn’t it possible that Al Gore is just wrong? Is he necessarily a moron? I keep reading that George Bush is a moron, that Barack Obama is a moron, that John McCain is a moron, etc. Either there are lots of morons; or we’ve just lost the ability to say that we disagree with someone’s conclusions.
I have never understood why folks think it has to be either/or where energy is concerned. It just makes total sense to me to drill now, everywhere possible AND let our creative, technical minds seriously create and test alternatives for the future.
You aren’t a moron for seeking to make money or for being wrong. But you are a selfish jerk when it comes at the expense of everyone else on the planet.
Food prices are sky rocketing because of the environmentalists agenda. Hungry people don’t get their bellies fed by breathing in cleaner air. A starving child doesn’t care if the last breath they took on this planet was cleaner. The most hungry of the world are doing without because of our energy greed and bio-fuels.
It just doesn’t have to be either/or. Not if you are truly trying to help people instead of forcing an agenda on a nation or world.
BTW: Love the Peterson quotes — especially the one on “Embarrassing Churches.” I re-posted that one on my site.
Yes, I am sorry about using that word. Moron is probably not the best word. Al Gore is probably actually a Genius for finding a way to make money off of this.
I guess I should say it is dumb to Force people to pay for their carbon credits…which is coming esp. if McCain is elected.
K is right…selfish jerk.
Oh, and I don’t know why I thought Mike posted Patrick’s post. Sorry Jeff.
If the whole carbon credit thing didn’t give away the agenda, nothing will. I’m astounded at what people will believe or do to make themselves feel better and more righteous, while filling up the pockets of someone who rants against the “rich”.
Anyone interested in contributing to an extended conversation about Peak Oil and its ethical implications on many fronts that bear (directly and indirectly) on Christian discipleship? qb’d be interested in your perspectives as he develops and refines an extended argument titled “The Growth Matrix” at qbsblog.wordpress.com.
Full disclosure: qb is an anthropogenic-global-warming skeptic, a Peak Oil adherent, a Reagan-Thatcher conservative, a committed zymurgist, and a fledgling postmodernist. Oh, and a Rockies fan.
qb
No, moron is not quite the right word. Watch this and see if you can come up with a better one!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESxvY1tQHTo
Wind, wind , wind ~ that is where it’s at!!
Algore is certainly not a moron as K points out. But he is a self righteous opportunist.
By the way, there is considerable research that oil may actually be a sustainable, renewable source of energy. It was predicted 20 or more years ago we were about to run out. That timetable has been bumped up and most likely will continue to be. Scientists also warned us in the 70′s we were about to enter an ice age.
How can I trust people who can’t even predict the weather tommorow with any consistency? Wake up people, you’re being scammed.
I don’t know what the answer is – but $4/gallon gas stinks – and this is one area I disagree with Barack about. Yes, I think we’ve all received the wake-up call – even you Dallasites with your goofy Hummers – but, let’s drill and re-think at the same time – it ain’t that hard to do both.
Don’t we all wish we’d invented those wind turbine thingies out in Trent?
gt, unless Thomas Gold and his Russian sympathizers – a true scientific minority – are shown to be correct, the only remaining question about Peak Oil is not whether it will occur, but rather when. Given that Hubbert nailed the U. S. peak within +/- 1 year according to the best data and technology available at the time, quibbling about a decade or two on the timing of the global peak strikes me as mildly pedantic.
Equating the “Peak Oil” theory to weather prediction is like comparing apples to pomegranates. The scientific premise behind Peak Oil is precisely the same as the premise behind the depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer, which is not in dispute: if you withdraw from a reservoir that is not being replenished at a comparable rate, sooner or later the spigot will run dry.
Gold’s hypothesis of abiotic oil is interesting and suggests that oil reservoirs ARE being replenished from deep in the crust or the mantle, where CO2 is being recycled into alkanes in the presence of microbes and naturally occurring metal catalysts; to my knowledge, that is the only scenario currently proposed that might cut Peak Oil off at the knees. But it’s far from proven. The smart money, for now, is betting that fossil fuels are being depleted.
The energy return on investment (EROI) for oil extraction used to be 80:1 or something like that. It’s going down as we extract oil from the most accessible reservoirs. Even these brilliant “new” finds – the Bakken in N. Dakota and Montana was discovered 50+ years ago – are going to be increasingly hard and energy-intensive to extract. They do add to our reserves, but only modestly.
And then there’s the hype: the marketing geniuses are saying that the Bakken has 500+ billion barrels of extractable oil; the USGS numbers come in at about 4-5 billion. Somebody’s not being realistic here. Two orders of magnitude?
On the other hand, the science of weather forecasting has a bajillion moving parts and parameters with massive error terms and inherently chaotic, nonlinear systems grinding away underneath it all. It should not surprise anyone that weather forecasting is an inexact art. (Give Jim Cantore a break!) That is a far cry from the simple Law of Conservation of Mass, which governs oil reservoirs and yields the Peak Oil corollary.
qb
Baron & qb,
I hate to burst your bubble, but Dr. Gold is WAY out in left field with his theory of renewable oil. As a working Petroleum Engineer who has actually worked Dr. Gold’s poster child field, Eugene Island 330, I can tell you that regeneration of oil fields does NOT occur in the thousands upon thousands of other fields around the world, including the most important Giant fields that truly matter for global oil supply. A much more important factor in global supply is the dramatic depletion of the giant Cantarell field in Mexico (well documented) and some of Saudi Arabia’s giant fields (not as well documented, but probably occuring).
The practical problem is that even if oil fields were re-charging, it would happen over GEOLOGIC time, as opposed to our “economic” time. We need oil now, not over the next 10 million years.
My advice: get used to limited oil supplies. Re-generating oil is fantasy.
If anything peak oil is occuring primarily due to political problems, not totally geologic problems. If national oil companies around the world (think Pemex) would allow the best companies to help them drill for new supplies, we could expand supply enough to keep folks happy. The question is, as Mike initially raised, do we want to keep everyone happy with cheap oil, or is our current economic climate a good time to make the transition to sustainable energy?
BTW, I like what K said earlier: it’s not an either/or choice. We need to increase supply AND decrease our demand. If we don’t, we will be sending MASSIVE wealth to people who hate us for decades to come.
I understand that we’re talking apples and oranges and it was a bad comparison. The point was that theories seem to change every few years and for a layman like myself it’s hard to put much stock in anything that’s said.
“There is oil because of processes from millions of years ago.”
Mike,
A little off subject from most of the posts, but were you being literal or figurative when you said millions of years ago? I’m not trying to pick a fight over details, I’m just curious what your thoughts are. I believe the creation happened the way it is written in Genesis, but I don’t have a firm opinion on whether it was 7 literal days or figurative days that could have been millions of years. Sometimes I wonder if God did it in 7 days, but made it look like millions of years just as a practical joke on our little human minds. Either way, I am thankful that my salvation is not contingent on whether or not I figure out the creation.
LJL, reread…qb is not affirming Gold’s exotic theory. Proving that something COULD THEORETICALLY happen, and even showing that it HAS HAPPENED IN AN ISOLATED CASE, are a far cry from showing that it ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN. Simmons, Deffeyes, and Heinberg appear to have the evidence decidedly in their favor.
But it is an interesting hypothesis nonetheless.
qSPEb
There is simply no good reason for not reasonably conserving energy while drilling for more oil and encouraging new technology. I can’t imagine why dems and repubs can’t agree on this. That takes responsible care of the earth, the poor and the hungry all while making the economy click along so there are more resources to help the poor and the hungry, not to mention our own family budgets. This is simply a no brainer, unless you have an agenda. That’s the key here. Agenda driven so called ethics.
Interesting factoid. Just the mention that the President wants to drill brought down oil prices. Just the mention. Interesting.
gt, I can sympathize with that. Who is a guy to believe? Fortunately, in the case of Peak Oil, a few moments’ reflection and some common sense are all that are needed to get the basic idea. Every time you drink a malt from Braum’s using a straw, you act out the Peak Oil scenario; and the faster you try to drink, the less of the divine nectar you get out (until the whole thing melts, of course, which is where the withdrawal-rate part of the analogy breaks down).
Global climate change, on the other hand, does not yield to common sense so easily. So many interdependent systems, so many forcing functions, so many possible outcomes, so sparsely measured data (comparatively)…the scales just don’t tip so decisively. So Chicken Littles like Gore substitute certitude and shrillness where they wish they could insert incontrovertible evidence, and then the thing takes on a life of its own. That seems to be where we are today.
qb
Here is why I want to use less oil.
1. Pollution
2. Greed
3. Dependence
4. Systemic oppression
Oil should be looked on as a dirty, expensive, and regrettable last option. I hope for technology which will demote oil to such a place.
When we’ve tapped out on wind, solar, geothermal, hydrogen, and water power, then let’s give oil another look. Until then, let’s press for more renewable and clean energy.
Anthropogenic global warming is very real. Try looking at skeptic guides on New Scientist (good) or Grist (better), or try perusing Real Climate. If you work hard enough and long enough at understanding what scientists say versus what so-called skeptics say, then you will discover that this skepticism is really pseudo-scientific denialism like advocacy for creation science, HIV denial, homeopathy, WTC conspiracy, anti-vaccination, psychic powers, and renewable oil.
Concerning drilling for oil while trying to find other energy solutions: if you take the carbon out and don’t put it back, it enters the biosphere where it warms the biosphere and acidifies the oceans. It would be good to leave it in the ground.
But oil, frankly, is not going to be (and has not been) the chief AGW driver. EROI-worthy coal reserves far outweigh EROI-worthy oil reserves. Accessible coal is far more widespread than oil; a few regional wars could greatly depress oil extraction, while coal would continue to burn.
K, your view of the “environmentalists agenda” and its consequences doesn’t seem supported by the facts. Many people in the world are hungry because of first-world lending practices (through IMF and the World Bank); the breathability of their local air is not uniform and seems to have little to do with the cause of their hunger. Further, the bio-fuel craze is largely the doing of industrial agricultural companies, not environmentalists (at least in the recent past).
GT, you are confusing weather and climate. Try looking at the above link to Grist.
Whether you believe in Peak Oil or in peak oil, you should be able to see that expensive oil is likely to cause catastrophic suffering in the not-too-distant future. I don’t see a way to avoid it (Don’t get me wrong: I would love to see things pan out otherwise; I’m just a pessimist). What is the way of Christ through such an ordeal? If it lies in identifying with the poor, then the church’s calling will grow increasingly painful — and we wealthy Christians aren’t too good at identifying with the poor in “easy” times. Perhaps the wealthy won’t be able to contain the coming suffering to the present poor; then, perhaps, identifying with the poor won’t be a choice, and our real challenge will be to persist in faith amidst ubiquitous pain.
Have a cheerful weekend, everybody!
Jeff W
Fajita,
“Oil is not filthy, it is not dirty, and it is not in and of itself a pollutant. It is the fuel of the engine of freedom, pure and simple. Oil is not the enemy. But those who would keep us from it, are.
For the foreseeable future, oil is the cheapest,the most abundant, the most efficient fuel source we have. It is the life-blood of the United States and of the free world. But because a free market’s percolating, from this hotbed of American genius will spring alternative fuel sources. It may not be for fifty years, but it will happen when we need it…if we stay free.” Rush Limbaugh
I like Steven Colberts solution to the crisis. “We should start shootin at our food and up will a come bubblin crude; oil that is…”
Worked for Jed should work for US.
I heard on the news tonight about Algore’s big speech on global warming in Washington. He urged everyone to take public transportation or ride their bikes to the event. His entourage consisted of two Lincoln town cars plus a Suburban SUV. One of the cars was left running for 20 minutes with the A/C on, waiting for his wife and daughter.
And so we needlessly split down partisan lines once again.
Whoopty-flippin-doo.
I can see no good reason for any Christian not to be an environmentalist, but it seems many refuse to make any effort in that direction because so-and-so does it, but he’s from the political party that I hate, so it’s not even on the table for me. Here it is in a math equation (dedicated to mom):
Al Gore says we need to take care of the Earth + I hate Al Gore = I don’t need to take care of the Earth
Makes loads of sense, doesn’t it?
Folks, getting past all the partisan bickering, the Right’s scientist and the Left’s scientists, and pot-shots at the activists who live in glass houses — God entrusted his Creation to us. Intuition should tell us that billions of cars on the roads isn’t helping the air we breathe … that deforestation and reckless drilling are destroying living habitats … that energy (in all forms) is not inherently renewable, but finite … that thoughtless waste is sinful…
Regardless of what you think of Al Gore, we don’t need Al Gore to tell us this.
This should lead us to live differently. Consumerism is a huge problem for our Earth. The more stuff we buy and accumulate, the more resources we harvest from a world that is already stretched thin. (not to mention the stress that our consumerism puts on the poor of the world) Christians should corner the market on the whole “simple living” thing, since that’s one of our oldest traditions. Not to mention the fact that living simpler and more deliberately (sharing cars, for instance) actually builds community and combats this pesky little American individualism bug we’ve got going on.
(Everyone here should now go watch Annie Leonard’s 20-minute flash video called “The Story of Stuff.”)
But I digress.
Big Mike, Baron, qb, Dan, other GW skeptics, et al — what are your theological (not political) views regarding “Creation care?” Do you believe this falls under a Christian’s “job description”? If so, what are some ways Christians can begin to live differently, take up less space on the planet, and act upon the reality that all of Creation (including animals, plants, trees, and rocks, for cryin’ out loud) groans for redemption (Romans 8)?
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts. Peace.
qb’ll bite, Steve Jr. But in the meantime, one hopes you are aware that you yourself have caricatured those with whom you disagree. (Not that I mind, but folks in glass houses…)
Of course environmental stewardship is part of the creation mandate; I was taught that “rule” in Genesis 1 means “be responsible for,” not “lord it over,” and certainly not, “systemically abuse.”
But there are competing claims, as your very own lifestyle, I am sure, makes abundantly clear…unless you are the modern-day equivalent of a hunter/gatherer, which your presence here calls into doubt.
Your post seems to suggest that being a Christian environmentalist need not involve shades of gray, that the choices are eminently straightforward. qb denies it. Michael Frost (_Exiles_) thinks we should drink locally produced microbrews, for example, as if that were an obviously green choice. Hardly. Although I agree that *I* ought to drink locally produced microbrews – because they are better tasting and more satisfying than mass-produced swill – there may be few products in the world that are less energy-efficient than taking irrigated, cultivated barley, growing it partially, steeping out the starches, converting them to sugars, dissolving them in water, boiling the wort, and fermenting the wort into a beverage. It is even less efficient at a small scale, as many industrial processes are; that’s why we have the term, “economies of scale.”
That Frost does not simply tell us to drink self-harvested rainwater in a locally thrown clay jar is a telling development: there are aesthetic, practical, and – yes – justice-oriented correctives that must be thoughtfully applied to our environmental sensibilities in order to make our discipleship to Jesus comprehensive and coherent. The United States, and advanced economies more generally, really do feed the world. Shall we cease to do that? But that is precisely what would happen if we decided today that intensive agriculture were inherently evil, as many on the left claim.
(BTW, qb’s skepticism is directed at the *anthropogenic* aspect of the global climate-change hypothesis, not climate change per se. Clearly we are moving vast quantities of carbon from the lithosphere to the biosphere; that is even a banal observation. But the net effects of that are very disputable, Gore’s hypocritical blathering notwithstanding.)
Our eco-ethics should be deeply thoughtful and nuanced, not cartoonishly hypersimplified. One supposes that we should all be driving Priuses…not considering, perhaps, all of the unseen (and therefore ignored) footprint that is associated with mining the vast quantities of high-grade, depletable, nickel and cadmium ores and processing them into batteries to build those Priuses.
A couple of years ago, I had a private breakfast with William Rees, the father of the “ecological footprint” concept and Mathis Wackernagel’s major professor. (Wackernagel is the brains behind the Global Footprint Network or some such.) We were staying in a B&B outside Ames, IA. He’s a really nice guy and gave me some great ideas for future research. Imagine my surprise when he (a) sat down to enjoy a plate of store-bought, industrially produced bacon and eggs (b) in his last meal before heading to the airport to help 200 of his closest friends pump pounds and pounds of VOCs into the troposphere en route back home to Vancouver. I don’t consider him a hypocrite, necessarily. It’s just that the issues before us are terribly complex, and we’ve got to be intelligent about how we proceed. (Gore is not helping us with that; he is, to borrow George Will’s felicitous phrase, subtracting from our public understanding.)
So we ought to dispense with the idea that “creation care” is identically equal to “primitive hunter/gatherer societies.” And there is a stewardship theology in the Scriptures. It has to be laid up alongside the other parochial theologies (economic justice, for one) and applied coherently with them.
qb
qb:
I really appreciate the intelligent approach to your posts. You have the ability to express what many of us are thinking but we lack the ability to express ourselves as you do.
rcorum,
I second that.
For me it’s just so stinking simple, unless you have an agenda. Which is why it frustrates me so. When being an environmentalists makes us be less of a “people-ists” there’s a problem. When eco solutions harm people, it’s just wrong. Remember the charge to us regarding the earth was to care for it, not save it. That’s God’s job and folks in reality He has no intention of saving it in the end. He’s in the business of saving PEOPLE not planets. Remember also that we are told in God’s word (not mine) that caring for widows and orphans is pure religion. Some environmentalists would have us believe carrying re-usable shopping bags and buying organic food is the purest form of religion.
IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE EITHER OR. Here’s a wild and unusual concept! Let the common sense God put in our brains rule the process! I know, I know, shocking idea.
qb, your 3rd person kind language is well it is odd. But you make good points in third person.
All fine points, but the issue at hand in 2008 is we still use alot of gas. The odds of light rail coming to east or west Texas or Oklahoma or Kansas are zilch.
I heard yesterday a hydrogen cell powered car won’t be ready for ANYONE until 2018. Not sure what they do up in Detroit, but quick production is not one of them. We need lower gas today, we can figure out how to drive a wind-powered car tomorrow.
Spare me the global warming crap, it seems when there is a bandwagon people tend to jump on.
Love the thought provoking post. There are many, many scientists who do not agree with Al Gore, but in the scientific community you are placing your neck on the chopping block if you disagree. Thankfully, some still are. Unfortunately theories today are accepted as fact. We really even don’t know how oil is created, the millions of years thing is just what we’ve theorized in absence of other information. Actually, there are other theories that oil is a somewhat renewable resource. I’m not sure how valid they are. For now, peak oil does seem to be a reality.
Unfortunately, many out there want us to increase our dependence on foreign oil. It won’t be long until we’re paying global taxes and penalized for carbon credits, which will only make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Thankfully, the US has not ratified/signed on the Kyoto Treaty/Protocol. We almost certain will if a democratic president is elected and we will be unfortunately praised for doing so in the media.
Sounds like a New World Order is coming, riding on the heels of environmentalism and peace. The end of the nation-State is approaching. Hope nobody evil rises to power over a one world governmental sysem. Nah, that could never happen.
qb –
I, too, appreciate your intellectual and kind responses on this blog. I also appreciate your appreciation for local micro-brews. I, too, don’t believe that drinking them is any sort of environmental mandate (though, I suppose you could make the case for local economies being environmentally conscious), but more of a godly mandate (“eat, drink, and be merry”). I already think we’re arriving on the same page…
I must say, I agree with the rest of your post! We do live in the 21st century, with 21st century technologies and habits, and we’re not going back to hunter-gatherer societies in the West. Everyone knows this. Any changes we make are, in the long run, small for us but compounded across millions of Americans, can make a big difference. The plastic bag example K brought up (I’ll get to you in a minute, K…) is a good one to illustrate this.
The “green movement” has actually been more of an embarrassment over the last few years than not. Companies are cashing in on it, turning everything “green,” and even encouraging rampant consumerism in the process. (trade in your gas-guzzler for the Prius, for example) This defeats the purpose. Check out Bill McKibben’s book, “Deep Economy” for what I feel is the best prescription for how we move forward as a society. In short, his points are “more ? better” and “live more neighborly.” He’s a sane voice in the conversation, I think, who realizes that while we’ve got some environmental problems on our hands that we need to deal with, this just might be the perfect chance for us to begin living like communities again. Again, it’s a great book and I’ve recommended it dozens of times.
So you can see that I’m not for the glitzy, surface-level environmentalism that yuppies across America seem to dig. I’m for living closer together — both physically and figuratively — so as to own less, share more of what we have, make conscious decisions as consumers, and generally take up less space. We should realize that the world’s population is 6+ billion and growing, while the Earth remains the same size. That kind of scenario doesn’t end well.
Which brings me to K’s comment:
I’m going to disagree strongly with you here.
I, too, grew up thinking the Earth was going to burn up whenever Jesus returned. That God’s redemptive work extends only to human hearts.
Well, this is simply not a biblical concept. It’s sort of fit neatly into our post-Lutheran Evangelical theology of salvation, but it’s not gospel. Revelation 21 declares that there will indeed be “life after life after death” (I’m stealing that phrase from N.T. Wright, who has done the best work in this area), a “new heaven and a new earth.” The language of Revelation 21 is earthly language. Take a minute to go read it. It’s clearly talking about Heaven coming down to Earth to bring its final perfection and our final communion with God.
I believe the rest of Scripture reflects this, and we read a great deal about God’s non-human creation in the Bible. That it actually worships God (Psalm 19). That lions and lambs will lie down with each other in the “new heavens and new earth.” (Isaiah 65:17-25) That all of creation groans for the redemption that God is bringing about. (Romans
Of course people are of the utmost importance to God. But God is reclaiming all Creation as His own and has invited us to join us in that work.
As a social studies/geography teacher who once lived in Jacksonville, Florida, a description of population at the time was very surprising. If each person on earth were to be given 2 square feet on which to stand, almost all 6 billion could be accommodated in Duval County. I never checked the math, being a social studies teacher…
Who’s to say God didn’t create oil for us to use for fuel?
Any time someone says “there’s a consensus among scientists,” you know you’re being fed a pile. When is there EVER a consensus among scientists on anything, especially since science is based on educated guesses? After all, there used to be a consensus that the Earth was flat.
But if we must look at some of the problems, let’s not inappropriately place blame. As K mentioned before, the second Bush said the word “drill” the cost of crude oil plummeted. If we are going to look at anyone using too much oil, we should be looking at China and India for having government-subsidized oil to promote faster business growth and relaxed controls on emissions and air quality. The worst air I’ve ever encountered was when I was in China. Also, by ridiculously limiting controlled cutting in our forests (especially in the NW) we’re actually contributing to more overgrown forests, allowing for MORE out of control forest fires which release far more “carbon emissions” into the air than entire cities full of cars. This doesn’t even account for volcanoes, which we have no control over.
Or let’s look at these links:
Kyoto signatories GHG emissions up 21.1% US: 6.6%
Government taxes = 15%, Oil Company Profits = 4% … who is to blame?
All this to say, if we want to make a change, stop using so much gas YOURSELF, instead of looking at governments to do so. Install solar power panels to the roof of your house. Drive LESS. Put the temperature of your house up one or two degrees. Wash your clothes in cold water or take colder showers. Read a book instead of watching TV. Move closer to work, or work closer to home. But please know that gas with ethanol gets WORSE gas mileage than regular gas, so there’s really no point there since you end up having to use MORE of it. Remember: electric cars get their electricity from BURNING COAL.
I have an idea. We should hook up generators to the bikes at all fitness centers to generate electricity.
That’s all I’ve got for now. Does anyone else find it odd that in this “Global Warming” we had snow in April in Oregon in the Willamette Valley and Portland area? Anyone else notice that the term has now conveniently been changed to “Global Climate Change”, since they’re finding out now that their science is flawed and inaccurate, yet they won’t admit it?
New Climate Model Now Predicts Global Cooling?
Oh, and if God is coming to redeem the world along with people, He’ll make it the way HE wants it, not the way we think it should be, whether or not you believe in Global Warming™. A NEW heaven and NEW earth. That sounds like He’ll need to make some changes either way. Our efforts should go toward the redemption of people if that’s what Jesus showed us to do.
My other, much longer comment didn’t post. Must be the Global Warming™ people trying to keep me quiet.
Thank you, Tim Lewis!
Great piece in the most recent issue of Christianity Today called “Second Coming Ecology” by the editor-in-chief David Neff.
Check it out.
My opposition to the Global Warming Alarmists has nothing to do with my political leanings. It has everything to do with the science I invested my time in reading about the past several years. I ain’t diggin’ Gore’s theory because it ain’t true and he’s a hypocrite.
Theologically, I am an environmentalist in I don’t throw away recyclables, I don’t burn trees, I turn my lights off when not in use, etc. Telling me to become Amish isn’t the answer. Big Environment (that’s right, they use Big Oil as an insult, I turn it back on them) are the ones controlling this “climate crisis”.
You can go to my other blog http://www.independentsunite.blogspot.com and find my label called Global WarmingTM and see all the links and articles I have been reading that show the other side of the coin we don’t tend to hear about.
Big Mike:
Thank you for that link.
BML –
I, too, thank you for linking to your other blog. Thank goodness we finally have some independents uniting around their late Pope, Ronald Reagan. =) Independent that he was…
Seriously, though, I’m perusing your GlobalWarmingTM tag as we speak, and it appears you’ve set out to find articles that seems to support the view you already had about the issue. I mean, anyone can go out and find articles to support their view, and almost any article that mentions the weather (I see you have collected many) can be used to defend both sides of the debate.
Look, its dangerous to listen to either pole on any issue. And judging from your blogroll, it looks like that’s primarily what you do. (Bill Maher next to Ann Coulter) Maher and Coulter’s resounding declaration is, “I’m right and you’re stupid.” They and others like them are inflammatory and set out to cause division, and unfortunately, those who follow them often follow suit.
Consider the extremes on the GW issue:
GW = boldface lie ….Middle Ground?….GW = impending apocalypse
Could there possibly be some middle ground on this issue? I mean, I’m as opposed to alarmism and fear tactics on this issue as you are … just because the alarmists probably aren’t 100% correct, does that mean that we shouldn’t be taking any steps to care for our environment?
Let’s not throw the baby seal out with the brackish, oil-streaked water here… (sorry, I had to…)
How old are you anyway, Big Mike? 3?
Steve Jr., I think Mike is simply showing the other side of the story that we NEVER see from the MSM (Main Stream Media). Somebody has to do it.
It’s about time somebody did it.
Thanks for your thoughts, Baron. I really do appreciate it.
“Taking up less space” was a poor choice of words. I really didn’t mean literal space, but an attitude and lifestyle of simplicity. Maybe this is more of a spiritual discipline than prescription for environmental care, but I do believe it has implications for how we as Christians treat the planet.
We’re definitely on the same page with not wanting the politicos to tell us how to live — either on the Right or on the Left. Christians are informed first and foremost by God’s Word, both written and revelatory. I believe that God’s Word is pretty clear on how we are to interface with the rest of Creation, namely that He’s redeeming it all, and our attitude should certainly not be, “It’s gonna burn up, so let’s not sweat it.” (not your view, I know, but the view of many Western Evangelicals)
You may be surprised to hear that I think the government is one of the last entities I want regulating this kind of ecological behavior. Consistent with my understanding that God’s people are the primary avenue through which God works out his rescue operation on Earth, I think that placing much (or any) hope in empires — especially capitalist ones — to tend to the Earth is unrealistic and naïve. This is primarily the task of the people of God, and begins with folks making personal commitments to environmental justice in their consumption and daily impact. Certainly, however, I’m not going to poo-poo the larger-scale regulatory measures that governments take to clean up, only the propensity for some folks to place the primary responsibility for all environmental care in the hands of elected officials.
So, let’s:
- Plant some trees
- Start/join some community gardens
- Buy locally first
- Support local agriculture projects
- Reduce what we buy (99% of it is in the trash in 6 months)
- Bike more, drive less
- Monitor our household energy usage
I recommend the links above to address issues such as (1) planetary warming elsewhere in the solar system, (2) carbon dioxide as a non-pollutant, (3) carbon dioxide released from fossil fuels (and other past sinks) in relation to the rest of the biosphere’s carbon-dioxide economy, (4) the known effects of increased biospheric carbon dioxide, and (5) the consensus of climate scientists on these matters (especially at RealClimate.org).
Denigrating Al Gore and (caricatures of) “environmentalists” does not constitute reasonable, adult consideration of this issue. Growing up means not settling for easy, self-congratulatory, self-justifying answers to hard questions. If you cannot discipline yourself enough to avoid the most egregious varieties of delusion supported by such settling, then you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that you should be leading anyone in deciding or exploring the hard questions.
An example concerning world population: the carrying capcity of Jacksonville is quite small. Even those who live there now depend on mining, agriculture, water supplies, and manufacture that reach far beyond the city. Dwelling on how many people can stand on the ground within the city limits is, to me, shockingly fatuous.
That indictment sounds very harsh. I’m sure that some will find it ungracious. I cannot express how flabbergastingly disheartening I find the apparent lack of mental effort by the commenters.
And one final word. Rush Limbaugh is a wicked man who lies and peddles hateful rhetoric on behalf of empire. He hates me for my love of Jesus Christ and is dead set against the increase of God’s rule. His work is a hellish abomination and is not allowed in my home. I would appreciate it if commenters would avoid giving him exposure here.
Jeff W
Does this mean that all scientists are on RealClimate.org? Several of us have shown that “consensus” to be flawed and completely false.
RealClimate.org is a wicked website that lies and peddles hateful rhetoric on behalf of empire. It hates me for my love of Jesus Christ and is dead set against the increase of God’s rule. Its work is a hellish abomination and is not allowed in my home. I would appreciate it if commenters would avoid giving this website exposure here.