I moved to Greensboro in 1989 to become Associate Pastor of Christ Community Church. At the time Christ Community met in a building at the corner of Lake Brandt Road and Lawndale Drive. Christ Community was a lively and growing community of Christians with a charismatic pastor with unusual gifts of relating well to ordinary folks.
During my time at Christ Community the membership and attendance grew consistently. There were two identical worship services and both were full. There was not adequate space for educational ministries. So a committee was looking hard at either expanding the facility or perhaps building elsewhere.
Around that same period of time – from about 1989 to 1992 – the city and state were formulating guidelines for protection of the local watersheds from which we get our drinking
water. If my memory serves me correctly there was much debate with pressure coming from developers to minimize the watershed regulations. Eventually a compromise set of rules was
established. These rules involved progressive tiers of protection for land at certain distances from the waterfront.
At the same time, and much to my own personal consternation, Lake Jeanette was excluded from such regulations because the lake itself and the land around the lake were privately
owned. As everyone knows Lake Jeanette feeds into Lake Townsend from which we get much of our water. The logic of excluding Lake Jeanette from the same watershed restrictions
as the other lakes which provided our drinking water baffled me. The difference had “developer” written all over it.
Christ Community’s property was included in the Lake Brandt watershed. It was in the farthest out “tier” but the regulations impacted what Christ Community could do with its property. Only a certain percentage of the average could be covered by building or asphalt for example. All this hindered greatly the prospect of expanding on the existing property.
I was of the opinion at the time that the Christ Community sanctuary had a unique warmth and charm that fit the personality both of the congregation and the pastor. I definitely wanted to see the expansion take place on site, and even proposed various ways of doing that within the boundaries of the restrictions. But it was going to be awkward and more expensive due to the regulations (which I supported).
Robbie Perkins was a member of Christ Community then, and was involved in the building matter in some way. I think he was a deacon but I am not sure. I do however remember clearly
a conversation we had about the watershed restrictions. We were sitting at the end of a table after a meeting. The meeting had had to do in part with the whole facility/watershed issue. So I was talking with Robbie about this. I do not consider that conversation privileged as pastor to parishioner conversations are. Nor was it part of any official meeting. It was small talk after a meeting with others around.
Despite my desire to see Christ Community stay in its facility and find a way to expand on that property, I was also an avid proponent of the watershed regulations. There was movement by some to appeal to the city or state for an exemption of some kind. I was not for that. I wanted to see us stay in that facility but not if it meant seeking exemption from the rules. To me churches of all places should be cooperative with such regulations and be good citizens in so doing.
I could be wrong but I think that the property got moved to the Lake Jeanette watershed since it was into Lake Jeanette that runoff from the property eventually flowed.
So I was talking to Robbie and he said to me something pretty close to “There is no proof that water runoff into a lake is harmful.”
I remember being quite taken back. My first thought was “I don’t think he really said that.” My second was “This guy went to Duke?” And the third was, “This sounds like a tobacco executive talking.” I knew at that point that further conversation was pointless.
It was not that much longer after that, as I remember, that Mr. Perkins made the local news for his opposition to tree ordinances in residential neighborhoods. He said they would raise the cost of the property and house and diminish demand and in effect depress the housing market. I personally have never met anyone that said they preferred that their new property have no trees, or that they wouldn’t be willing to pay a little more to keep the trees. And tree cover has such an overwhelming benefit to everyone it seemed only a developer could be against a reasonable tree ordinance.
My personal experience of conversations, along with the subsequent issue of the tree ordinance, combined with the more recent obvious conflict of interest regarding the incentives package has led me to think that most developers like Mr. Perkins, though otherwise fine people in every respect, bring a deeply ingrained set of values into these discussions that are formed by their work as developers. In other words, they see the world through a developer’s lens.
I think it is just a very bad idea that developers have such influence upon our local governments. But they do.
Government has certain key responsibilities. One is to provide protection to its citizens against aggression from outside and crime within. A second role is to help provide an infrastructure that allows its citizens the ability to work and move around in an equitable and effective manner. A third is to provide and promote the general health and safety of its citizens. The provision of a clean and safe water supply would be one of its primary obligations.
I think our watershed restrictions are way too lax. Not only that, but downriver from Lake Townsend the restrictions diminish greatly. We seem to forget that what we put into our water up here impacts everyone downstream, all the way to Lake Jordan and to the Cape Fear River. I think we owe it to our neighbors downstream to be watchful of the quality of the water we send their way.
How we get developers who serve on our town and county councils to support reasoned planning, ordinances which protect the health and safety of our citizens and the beauty of our shared environment is a question I wonder about all the time.
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Friday, June 20, 2008
Short Term, Medium Term, and Long Term, Energy That Is, Swimming Pools...
Earlier this week (or was it last?) Ed Cone noted one of the problems associated with the "pro-drilling" argument. No matter how fast we move it will take a long time before new oil from offshore sites, or oil shale, or from ANWR, to come online.
This issue is one where I think we all have to compromise, and we all have to suffer together, and as much as possible question not only "special interests" and entrenched ideologies, but even in some cases to our own ideologies. I know, that's easy to say...
I just don't see us getting out of this energy mess from the left or the right.
I think we have to take a strong super short term, short term, medium term, and longer term approach, and everyone's special interest has to give - everyone's, yeah, even mine.
I don't think we will ever return to the days of cheap energy. I am not sure that is all bad. We have not been good stewards of cheap energy, and have wasted very precious resources we only get to use once. We can't simply blame that bad stewardship on the government or corporations. It's our collective fault. We'a culpa.
Now is our time, together, to have the wisdom to look not just a year ahead, or five or ten, but even twenty and fifty, yes, even one hundred years ahead. The well being of our children and their children depend on it. Our national security depends on it.
There is almost nothing "free" about the energy supply/demand "market." Both supply and demand are controlled and manipulated by powerful forces. And all the while real demand is growing as huge nations modernize. There is little we can do to stop that. There is little we should do. "Oh, India, we're sorry to inform you and your people but you have to stay poor while we use all the world's energy. It's for your own good." Yeah, right.
There is no short term fix that will take prices down to levels of a year ago. The best we can hope for is to decrease price increases. Perhaps changing the rules on how who gets to invest in oil futures, and how much "down" is required, would help. I try, but I do not understand this very well, and I don't think most Americans do, and it is hard for politicians and pundits to get this message across.
Leaning on suppliers to pump more, as Saudia Arabia seems willing to do, will marginally help. Perhaps opening up a portion of the strategic reserve would help a little.
I do not understand very well how the the value of the dollar, and thus Fed policy, impacts this issue, though lots of talking heads seem to think it does. They just disagree with each other on how and how much.
Somehow we are going to have to decrease consumption, increase domestic supply, all the while biding time for all the amazing and new forms of renewable energy awaiting us down the high tech highway.
But there are things we can do NOW however that, incrementally speaking, could lower our consumption and even if just slightly decrease the pressure our demand is placing on supply.
Of course, there are all the everyday ways that people can use less gas and electricity. The government could help by increasing incentives to replace low efficiency appliances, heating and cooling, electronic devices, etc. Perhaps there could be incentives for encouraging public transportation and carpooling.
We could also force all automakers who make OR sell cars and trucks in the US to increase efficiencies of their fleets. All of a sudden it's everybody's business what everybody drives, and it's in our national interest to force these changes.
Personally I would like to see us lower the highway speed limits to 55 or 60 again. This would have an immediate short term impact on our oil demand. Fuel efficiency of cars and trucks plummets as speeds increase above 55 or 60 mph. We did it once. We survived. We can do it again.
It costs money, and I am not sure where to get it, but it seems we have to start looking at a future with much more local and intermediate distance public transportation, which may mean a much increased investment in rail systems and such.
I'd go ahead with some, but not all, of the off shore drilling plans, as much as it pains me to say so. I have never supported offshore drilling, but the benefits as well as the weight of world wide evidence regarding the safety of offshore drilling forces me to conclude that we simply have to do this. It won't matter much today or tomorrow, but ten years from now our kids will thank us.
I'd stop the ethanol idiocy immediately. People need corn. Our air needs woods, not agricultural fields. This ethanol deal has been a political boondoggle and a human disaster. We need to stop it. People need that corn, period.
I can see designating a few out of the way places in the Rockies for oil shale. It ain't pretty, but it beats some of the options, especially if it can take some of the pressure off coal. The technology is there, and it's now financially realistic.
I cannot bring myself to support oil drilling in ANWR. I am not sure my opposition is fully rational as much as symbolic. I think we just need to leave ANWR alone.
Drilling for oil and natural gas will increase our domestic supply in the 8-25 year range, maybe longer. it's a stop gap.
I personally strongly advocate nuclear energy. Here we have a medium term (10-50 years) solution that would radically impact our energy independence. The more I read about the new generation of reactors in France and Japan the more encouraged I am about this option. Yes, there is the waste issue, but with a good breeder reactor system we can recycle a lot of the spent fuel. Other very environmentally conscious countries store the waste safely; I think we could too.
There is the huge advantage of cleaner air. There is also the advantage of reduction in need for more environmentally damaging energy sources, like coal. A new generation of nuclear reactors could gradually replace the need to burn as much coal, natural gas, and oil, clean up our air, and lower our carbon footprint at the same time.
But all of this is to bide time for our long term energy future, a future we cannot fully envision, but which will involve renewable energy sources like the sun, wind, chemical potential energy (new types of photovoltaic cells perhaps) , gravitational energy, and the mere energy of motion - whether lassoing the motion of a car as it slows down to recharge a battery, or that of the tides or rivers. We have just barely scratched the surface of alternative energy, and now that energy generally is more expensive, there is more and more incentive for the private sector to invest heavily in the next technology. This is the blessing of higher energy prices.
I would also be OK with a large investment of federal money into R&D, though recent calls for the nationalization of oil refineries make me nervous. But I think if we come up with strategic and efficient ways of incentivizing universities and other corporate research centers, then a large public investment in energy would be called for.
We're in a bind. For the long term, renewable energy is the only answer. But we can't get from here to there quickly. We don't even know what "there" is. Both for the sake of national security (and independence) and economic vitality we have to use the traditional means we have for the short and medium term as we prepare for a world most of us will never see.
I remind myself that it is those countries that are economically strong that have the means to be environmentally protective. If our economy tanks people will do what they have to, just as people everywhere do, to get by. And that usually is very bad for our fellow creatures, for clean air and water, and for protective habitats.
Perhaps this is the chief irony of environmentalism; to have a clean world that is good for people and which offers safe haven for all God's creatures takes economic vitality. And yet, at some level, obtaining that economic vitality has an environmental cost.
In the end it is a necessary cost for the good of mankind and the health of the earth; it's just hard for someone with a heart for the earth's good to pull the trigger on oil drilling or nuclear power or other traditional means of obtaining energy.
I just think we have to, if we want to get from here, where we don't want to be, to there, which we can't even see.
This issue is one where I think we all have to compromise, and we all have to suffer together, and as much as possible question not only "special interests" and entrenched ideologies, but even in some cases to our own ideologies. I know, that's easy to say...
I just don't see us getting out of this energy mess from the left or the right.
I think we have to take a strong super short term, short term, medium term, and longer term approach, and everyone's special interest has to give - everyone's, yeah, even mine.
I don't think we will ever return to the days of cheap energy. I am not sure that is all bad. We have not been good stewards of cheap energy, and have wasted very precious resources we only get to use once. We can't simply blame that bad stewardship on the government or corporations. It's our collective fault. We'a culpa.
Now is our time, together, to have the wisdom to look not just a year ahead, or five or ten, but even twenty and fifty, yes, even one hundred years ahead. The well being of our children and their children depend on it. Our national security depends on it.
There is almost nothing "free" about the energy supply/demand "market." Both supply and demand are controlled and manipulated by powerful forces. And all the while real demand is growing as huge nations modernize. There is little we can do to stop that. There is little we should do. "Oh, India, we're sorry to inform you and your people but you have to stay poor while we use all the world's energy. It's for your own good." Yeah, right.
There is no short term fix that will take prices down to levels of a year ago. The best we can hope for is to decrease price increases. Perhaps changing the rules on how who gets to invest in oil futures, and how much "down" is required, would help. I try, but I do not understand this very well, and I don't think most Americans do, and it is hard for politicians and pundits to get this message across.
Leaning on suppliers to pump more, as Saudia Arabia seems willing to do, will marginally help. Perhaps opening up a portion of the strategic reserve would help a little.
I do not understand very well how the the value of the dollar, and thus Fed policy, impacts this issue, though lots of talking heads seem to think it does. They just disagree with each other on how and how much.
Somehow we are going to have to decrease consumption, increase domestic supply, all the while biding time for all the amazing and new forms of renewable energy awaiting us down the high tech highway.
But there are things we can do NOW however that, incrementally speaking, could lower our consumption and even if just slightly decrease the pressure our demand is placing on supply.
Of course, there are all the everyday ways that people can use less gas and electricity. The government could help by increasing incentives to replace low efficiency appliances, heating and cooling, electronic devices, etc. Perhaps there could be incentives for encouraging public transportation and carpooling.
We could also force all automakers who make OR sell cars and trucks in the US to increase efficiencies of their fleets. All of a sudden it's everybody's business what everybody drives, and it's in our national interest to force these changes.
Personally I would like to see us lower the highway speed limits to 55 or 60 again. This would have an immediate short term impact on our oil demand. Fuel efficiency of cars and trucks plummets as speeds increase above 55 or 60 mph. We did it once. We survived. We can do it again.
It costs money, and I am not sure where to get it, but it seems we have to start looking at a future with much more local and intermediate distance public transportation, which may mean a much increased investment in rail systems and such.
I'd go ahead with some, but not all, of the off shore drilling plans, as much as it pains me to say so. I have never supported offshore drilling, but the benefits as well as the weight of world wide evidence regarding the safety of offshore drilling forces me to conclude that we simply have to do this. It won't matter much today or tomorrow, but ten years from now our kids will thank us.
I'd stop the ethanol idiocy immediately. People need corn. Our air needs woods, not agricultural fields. This ethanol deal has been a political boondoggle and a human disaster. We need to stop it. People need that corn, period.
I can see designating a few out of the way places in the Rockies for oil shale. It ain't pretty, but it beats some of the options, especially if it can take some of the pressure off coal. The technology is there, and it's now financially realistic.
I cannot bring myself to support oil drilling in ANWR. I am not sure my opposition is fully rational as much as symbolic. I think we just need to leave ANWR alone.
Drilling for oil and natural gas will increase our domestic supply in the 8-25 year range, maybe longer. it's a stop gap.
I personally strongly advocate nuclear energy. Here we have a medium term (10-50 years) solution that would radically impact our energy independence. The more I read about the new generation of reactors in France and Japan the more encouraged I am about this option. Yes, there is the waste issue, but with a good breeder reactor system we can recycle a lot of the spent fuel. Other very environmentally conscious countries store the waste safely; I think we could too.
There is the huge advantage of cleaner air. There is also the advantage of reduction in need for more environmentally damaging energy sources, like coal. A new generation of nuclear reactors could gradually replace the need to burn as much coal, natural gas, and oil, clean up our air, and lower our carbon footprint at the same time.
But all of this is to bide time for our long term energy future, a future we cannot fully envision, but which will involve renewable energy sources like the sun, wind, chemical potential energy (new types of photovoltaic cells perhaps) , gravitational energy, and the mere energy of motion - whether lassoing the motion of a car as it slows down to recharge a battery, or that of the tides or rivers. We have just barely scratched the surface of alternative energy, and now that energy generally is more expensive, there is more and more incentive for the private sector to invest heavily in the next technology. This is the blessing of higher energy prices.
I would also be OK with a large investment of federal money into R&D, though recent calls for the nationalization of oil refineries make me nervous. But I think if we come up with strategic and efficient ways of incentivizing universities and other corporate research centers, then a large public investment in energy would be called for.
We're in a bind. For the long term, renewable energy is the only answer. But we can't get from here to there quickly. We don't even know what "there" is. Both for the sake of national security (and independence) and economic vitality we have to use the traditional means we have for the short and medium term as we prepare for a world most of us will never see.
I remind myself that it is those countries that are economically strong that have the means to be environmentally protective. If our economy tanks people will do what they have to, just as people everywhere do, to get by. And that usually is very bad for our fellow creatures, for clean air and water, and for protective habitats.
Perhaps this is the chief irony of environmentalism; to have a clean world that is good for people and which offers safe haven for all God's creatures takes economic vitality. And yet, at some level, obtaining that economic vitality has an environmental cost.
In the end it is a necessary cost for the good of mankind and the health of the earth; it's just hard for someone with a heart for the earth's good to pull the trigger on oil drilling or nuclear power or other traditional means of obtaining energy.
I just think we have to, if we want to get from here, where we don't want to be, to there, which we can't even see.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Evangelicals and the Environment
I wrote this as a reply to a piece on HumbleORadio. Check it out. It's a reflection about comments made about global warming and God's judgment by Rev. Richard Cizik, National Association of Evangelicals’ vice-president of governmental affairs.
Here's my comment:
It's hard anymore to define what "Evangelical" means. I have about given up trying. So many people have so many different associations with the word it almost just does not mean anything anymore. So, putting aside that rubric for a moment, there is in fact a growing sense amongst historic orthodox Christians (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) that concern for the glory of God and the good of man must include concern for the health of God's world. I am certainly one of those, being what many would call an evangelical Protestant. But I am uneasy about Cizik's position for several reasons. First, even assuming he is right on the science of global warming, how does he know America will face judgment from God if we don't attend to global warming? There are many sins, even environmental ones, that I think might be closer to the front of the line as to God's judgment. That's just empty talk. Just blather. He doesn't know that. The phrase "destroyers of the earth" in Revelation 11:18 could possibly be, but probably is not, a reference to environmental degradations. However, Israel's disregard for the land, their failure to give sabbath rest to the land, was one of the reasons for the time-length of their exile. God does care about his earth. Third, (and OK, I expect to get it here), as passionate an environmentalist as I am, I am not convinced as to the extent or causes of global warming, and I fear that many very real tangible environmental issues that involve public health - and the integrity and beauty of creation - are being put aside amidst all the global warming hoopla. Fourthly, Cizik speaks for himself. Certainly not for me.
We do have reason to believe as Christians that the "fall" included the fall of the whole of the created order. And yes, we also affirm and believe in a "new heaven and new earth." Until this earth is renewed by the events of those days, we have a responsibility to love God and love our neighbor, which means caring for God's creation motivated by both loves. And Cizik is right that evangelical Christian citizens should not care only about abortion and gay marriage. Many other issues matter in the ongoing role we have as lovers of God and neighbor, and even as we seek to present the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We cannot preach the gospel with integrity to our neighbor if we are killing him with our waste products. And pray tell, how many people do you know, when they need retreat, when they need to get away and pray and be with their God, prefer parking lots and freeways and such? We need special places, not only for the sake of God's glory (as their beauty reflect back to him) and for the sake of the creatures (which God declared to be "good" and which he blessed), but also for the sake of our own spirits as we seek to hear God amidst the din of this noisy and dirty world.
Here's my comment:
It's hard anymore to define what "Evangelical" means. I have about given up trying. So many people have so many different associations with the word it almost just does not mean anything anymore. So, putting aside that rubric for a moment, there is in fact a growing sense amongst historic orthodox Christians (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) that concern for the glory of God and the good of man must include concern for the health of God's world. I am certainly one of those, being what many would call an evangelical Protestant. But I am uneasy about Cizik's position for several reasons. First, even assuming he is right on the science of global warming, how does he know America will face judgment from God if we don't attend to global warming? There are many sins, even environmental ones, that I think might be closer to the front of the line as to God's judgment. That's just empty talk. Just blather. He doesn't know that. The phrase "destroyers of the earth" in Revelation 11:18 could possibly be, but probably is not, a reference to environmental degradations. However, Israel's disregard for the land, their failure to give sabbath rest to the land, was one of the reasons for the time-length of their exile. God does care about his earth. Third, (and OK, I expect to get it here), as passionate an environmentalist as I am, I am not convinced as to the extent or causes of global warming, and I fear that many very real tangible environmental issues that involve public health - and the integrity and beauty of creation - are being put aside amidst all the global warming hoopla. Fourthly, Cizik speaks for himself. Certainly not for me.
We do have reason to believe as Christians that the "fall" included the fall of the whole of the created order. And yes, we also affirm and believe in a "new heaven and new earth." Until this earth is renewed by the events of those days, we have a responsibility to love God and love our neighbor, which means caring for God's creation motivated by both loves. And Cizik is right that evangelical Christian citizens should not care only about abortion and gay marriage. Many other issues matter in the ongoing role we have as lovers of God and neighbor, and even as we seek to present the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We cannot preach the gospel with integrity to our neighbor if we are killing him with our waste products. And pray tell, how many people do you know, when they need retreat, when they need to get away and pray and be with their God, prefer parking lots and freeways and such? We need special places, not only for the sake of God's glory (as their beauty reflect back to him) and for the sake of the creatures (which God declared to be "good" and which he blessed), but also for the sake of our own spirits as we seek to hear God amidst the din of this noisy and dirty world.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Mercury Rising
I am a pretty voracious reader, and a science geek. But one of my problems as a blogger is that I am not a good note keeper/bibliographer. So whenever I write what I am getting ready to write I am never ready for the inevitable replies.
These thoughts were stimulated by the article in the News and Record today about the Duke coal burning plant west of Charlotte, as well as an article I read in Wired yesterday about technology and the environment.
NC needs more energy. Duke has got to produce it somehow. Coal is abundant. It is cleaner than ever. Up until recently there had been a lot of attention given to the carbon footprint of this plant. Now the attention is more on the mercury emissions. The opponents seem desperate. But they're on to something actually more serious now.
I think the mercury emissions issue is WAY more important. We have to know the impact of that amount of mercury - where it ends up, how it effects plant and animal life, and ultimately humans. Mercury is nasty stuff.
Coal plants, though cleaner than a generation ago, also generate sulfur dioxide (think acid rain), nitrogen oxide (think smog and ground level ozone), carbon monoxide, various hydrocarbons, various generic small particles, mercury, lead, other heavy metals, and of course carbon dioxide.
I really am not concerned at all about the carbon dioxide because I don't think we have even come close to establishing the degree to which CO2 has any significant effect on global warming, but the rest of those emissions, well, they concern me a lot.
We waste time and money wrangling about CO2 emissions while we send tons and tons of really bad pollutants into the air and water, deforest the last great jungles of the world, destroy one habitat after another, and kill off some of the most wonderful creatures we could even imagine existing.
If I were the devil, and I wanted the earth to become as ugly and horrible and inhospitable as possible, I think I would invent the issue of global warming (and especially the idea of carbon footprint) to divert everyone's attention from the really terrible ways we are already rendering our earth home barren and ugly and a wasteland.
For today, we need to know more about that mercury.
I believe we need a Marshall Plan for alternative and clean energy. We need to incentivize the technical know how of our universities and major industries to solve some of these difficult energy problems together. No, I don't think technology can save the world. But I have come to realize that it is the more affluent countries that become, in time, the cleanest, and that come to care most about the quality of the environment. It only makes sense.
I think we have barely scratched the surface as to car fuel efficiency, solar and wind energy, fuel cells, geothermal, wave and river energy etc.
To me the global warming carbon footprint bug a boo is a distraction. Let's go back to saving our planet from we already know is killing it.
These thoughts were stimulated by the article in the News and Record today about the Duke coal burning plant west of Charlotte, as well as an article I read in Wired yesterday about technology and the environment.
NC needs more energy. Duke has got to produce it somehow. Coal is abundant. It is cleaner than ever. Up until recently there had been a lot of attention given to the carbon footprint of this plant. Now the attention is more on the mercury emissions. The opponents seem desperate. But they're on to something actually more serious now.
I think the mercury emissions issue is WAY more important. We have to know the impact of that amount of mercury - where it ends up, how it effects plant and animal life, and ultimately humans. Mercury is nasty stuff.
Coal plants, though cleaner than a generation ago, also generate sulfur dioxide (think acid rain), nitrogen oxide (think smog and ground level ozone), carbon monoxide, various hydrocarbons, various generic small particles, mercury, lead, other heavy metals, and of course carbon dioxide.
I really am not concerned at all about the carbon dioxide because I don't think we have even come close to establishing the degree to which CO2 has any significant effect on global warming, but the rest of those emissions, well, they concern me a lot.
We waste time and money wrangling about CO2 emissions while we send tons and tons of really bad pollutants into the air and water, deforest the last great jungles of the world, destroy one habitat after another, and kill off some of the most wonderful creatures we could even imagine existing.
If I were the devil, and I wanted the earth to become as ugly and horrible and inhospitable as possible, I think I would invent the issue of global warming (and especially the idea of carbon footprint) to divert everyone's attention from the really terrible ways we are already rendering our earth home barren and ugly and a wasteland.
For today, we need to know more about that mercury.
I believe we need a Marshall Plan for alternative and clean energy. We need to incentivize the technical know how of our universities and major industries to solve some of these difficult energy problems together. No, I don't think technology can save the world. But I have come to realize that it is the more affluent countries that become, in time, the cleanest, and that come to care most about the quality of the environment. It only makes sense.
I think we have barely scratched the surface as to car fuel efficiency, solar and wind energy, fuel cells, geothermal, wave and river energy etc.
To me the global warming carbon footprint bug a boo is a distraction. Let's go back to saving our planet from we already know is killing it.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
No Free Environmental Lunch
Bubba over at Noteworthy wrote yesterday about the recent studies, discussed in the Wall Street Journal, that are making it clear that from a greenhouse gases standpoint the switch to ethanol is not what is often hoped for claimed. The Wall Street Journal article is based on two recent studies released in Science Magazine. NPR, MSNBC, and Forecast Earth have all run with the story as well.
Unfortunately this "revelation" comes after Congress's most recent energy bill. The fact is, people have been talking about this for a long time. It's not rocket science conceptually, just hard to model mathematically.
The prophet Amos wrote: "Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord! Why would you have the day of the Lord? It is darkness, and not light, as if a man fled from a lion, and a bear met him,
or went into the house and leaned his hand against the wall, and a serpent bit him."
We think that we have finally fled Big Oil, only to Find Big Agriculture is there to get us, and just we escape him, we run into Big Environment. The more politicized these important issues are, and the more driven by the hype of climate change doom, the more impacted by moneyed interests, the more likely we are to go from one bad idea to another.
Greenhouse emissions aren't the only concern of course. We also have a national security interest to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Ethanol can help with the latter, a little, eventually.
But do we really want to say goodbye to millions of acres of forest land, with the biodiversity contained therein (as well as the effective carbon storage) and say hello to millions of acres of finely manicured heavily fertilized biological deserts of corn (or even switch cane) fields. I don't.
It is right to be thinking all along about emissions and pollutants on the one hand, and lowering our dependence on non domestic energy on the other. We need to find solutions that serve both ends.
Ethanol gives us a false security that as demand rises supply will rise with it. But perhaps it is better to start thinking about reducing demand through greater efficiency and through sustainable energy sources that don't increase greenhouse gases as much. We have barely begun to invest what we need to invest in solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal energies. We have hardly gotten off the starting gate with regard to approving higher mileage standards for cars and trucks (Oh, did I mention Big Detroit).
And, in my view, we have not gotten serious enough about new nuclear plants. Nuclear is a safer and better option environmentally. Just do a search on "new generation nuclear power" and you will see what I am talking about. Plants are not only much safer, they use different cooling systems, and require less land and water resources. No, we can't run our cars on nuclear energy, but we can replace much domestic oil and coal use by nuclear and thus free up more oil for automobiles and other industries where oil is a key energy source.
But even better still would be fund a vast research and development effort ti find clean sustainable energy sources - like a Marshall Plan for energy. We can do this! Ethanol is not the answer.
And we need to get serious about higher efficiencies for cars, houses, appliances and many other day to day things that need energy. It's hard to change habits. We need incentives to do so.
Joel
Unfortunately this "revelation" comes after Congress's most recent energy bill. The fact is, people have been talking about this for a long time. It's not rocket science conceptually, just hard to model mathematically.
The prophet Amos wrote: "Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord! Why would you have the day of the Lord? It is darkness, and not light, as if a man fled from a lion, and a bear met him,
or went into the house and leaned his hand against the wall, and a serpent bit him."
We think that we have finally fled Big Oil, only to Find Big Agriculture is there to get us, and just we escape him, we run into Big Environment. The more politicized these important issues are, and the more driven by the hype of climate change doom, the more impacted by moneyed interests, the more likely we are to go from one bad idea to another.
Greenhouse emissions aren't the only concern of course. We also have a national security interest to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Ethanol can help with the latter, a little, eventually.
But do we really want to say goodbye to millions of acres of forest land, with the biodiversity contained therein (as well as the effective carbon storage) and say hello to millions of acres of finely manicured heavily fertilized biological deserts of corn (or even switch cane) fields. I don't.
It is right to be thinking all along about emissions and pollutants on the one hand, and lowering our dependence on non domestic energy on the other. We need to find solutions that serve both ends.
Ethanol gives us a false security that as demand rises supply will rise with it. But perhaps it is better to start thinking about reducing demand through greater efficiency and through sustainable energy sources that don't increase greenhouse gases as much. We have barely begun to invest what we need to invest in solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal energies. We have hardly gotten off the starting gate with regard to approving higher mileage standards for cars and trucks (Oh, did I mention Big Detroit).
And, in my view, we have not gotten serious enough about new nuclear plants. Nuclear is a safer and better option environmentally. Just do a search on "new generation nuclear power" and you will see what I am talking about. Plants are not only much safer, they use different cooling systems, and require less land and water resources. No, we can't run our cars on nuclear energy, but we can replace much domestic oil and coal use by nuclear and thus free up more oil for automobiles and other industries where oil is a key energy source.
But even better still would be fund a vast research and development effort ti find clean sustainable energy sources - like a Marshall Plan for energy. We can do this! Ethanol is not the answer.
And we need to get serious about higher efficiencies for cars, houses, appliances and many other day to day things that need energy. It's hard to change habits. We need incentives to do so.
Joel
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Twenty Ways to Leave More Water
1. Put bricks or a filled gallon milk container inside the back of your toilet.
2. Don’t shave if it requires water to do so. Those of us who shave in sink or shower, let’s all agree not to shave until the drought is over! How about a united “body hair is good” declaration. Eventually we’ll go back to normal.
3. If you have two toilets, have a “pee pot” and a “poop pot.” The pee pot can be flushed once or twice a day. the other you may want to flush more often.
4. Don’t run the water whole you’re brushing your teeth. In fact, do a dry brushing until the rinse stage. You can even get used to the no rinse effect if you try.
5. Just let the car be dirty. Even if you normally take it in to the car wash, that uses a lot of water. Make a game out of how many dumb things you can write in the dust on your car while you wait for rain. Just don't write "wash this car please;" that is lame.
6. Wear jeans and other heavier clothes that can be worn for a week or so without washing. If we all smell like Europeans for a while, so what?
7. Have some of those important work clothes dry cleaned instead of laundered. You won’t get starch that way but it still beats cleaning at home, and uses no water.
8. Buy drinking water that is bottled somewhere not in the south.
9. Take shorter showers. Period. You can do it. Your teenage daughter can do it. Your teenage son can do it. Give the teen age kids a timer, and if it goes off before they're done, turn off the water (or at least the hot water :-). That will teach them to hurry.
10. Just let the grass die. We have to re-seed it anyway so who cares really.
11. Collect the water that runs while you wait for it to heat up for use on your plants. For that matter, use some of that mildly dirty water from the shower or bath or sink to water your plants as well. They can handle it.
12. Make sure you have a low flow shower head and a low flow toilet – you may as well do this now since it’s a good idea for the long haul anyway.
13. "Just say no" to the garbage disposal – throw the food bits in the trash can or put them in a compost heap. It takes a lot of water to use a disposal.
14. It will rain eventually. Get a rain barrel for capturing water from your down pipes for when that happens. That may seem extreme, but it's kind if cool. Use the water as soon as possible on your plants to avoid mosquitos from laying eggs in your rain barrel.
15. If you have the money, buy water saving appliances, as in low flow dishwashers, front end washing machines, etc.
16. Drain the pool. Just do it. You can survive a season without your heated pool.
17. If you have a just a few dishes to wash, wash them in the sink with just a tad of water, running the faucet only to rinse.
18. Some landscape plants are worth saving. Use water as gathered above, or, if you must, use a drip hose, and add lots of mulch around the most important plants.
19. Don’t hose off anything. Brooms and wipe cloths work pretty well.
20. Whatever boneheaded local officials managed to leave us with a lake full of water with no way to treat it, vote them out of office.
2. Don’t shave if it requires water to do so. Those of us who shave in sink or shower, let’s all agree not to shave until the drought is over! How about a united “body hair is good” declaration. Eventually we’ll go back to normal.
3. If you have two toilets, have a “pee pot” and a “poop pot.” The pee pot can be flushed once or twice a day. the other you may want to flush more often.
4. Don’t run the water whole you’re brushing your teeth. In fact, do a dry brushing until the rinse stage. You can even get used to the no rinse effect if you try.
5. Just let the car be dirty. Even if you normally take it in to the car wash, that uses a lot of water. Make a game out of how many dumb things you can write in the dust on your car while you wait for rain. Just don't write "wash this car please;" that is lame.
6. Wear jeans and other heavier clothes that can be worn for a week or so without washing. If we all smell like Europeans for a while, so what?
7. Have some of those important work clothes dry cleaned instead of laundered. You won’t get starch that way but it still beats cleaning at home, and uses no water.
8. Buy drinking water that is bottled somewhere not in the south.
9. Take shorter showers. Period. You can do it. Your teenage daughter can do it. Your teenage son can do it. Give the teen age kids a timer, and if it goes off before they're done, turn off the water (or at least the hot water :-). That will teach them to hurry.
10. Just let the grass die. We have to re-seed it anyway so who cares really.
11. Collect the water that runs while you wait for it to heat up for use on your plants. For that matter, use some of that mildly dirty water from the shower or bath or sink to water your plants as well. They can handle it.
12. Make sure you have a low flow shower head and a low flow toilet – you may as well do this now since it’s a good idea for the long haul anyway.
13. "Just say no" to the garbage disposal – throw the food bits in the trash can or put them in a compost heap. It takes a lot of water to use a disposal.
14. It will rain eventually. Get a rain barrel for capturing water from your down pipes for when that happens. That may seem extreme, but it's kind if cool. Use the water as soon as possible on your plants to avoid mosquitos from laying eggs in your rain barrel.
15. If you have the money, buy water saving appliances, as in low flow dishwashers, front end washing machines, etc.
16. Drain the pool. Just do it. You can survive a season without your heated pool.
17. If you have a just a few dishes to wash, wash them in the sink with just a tad of water, running the faucet only to rinse.
18. Some landscape plants are worth saving. Use water as gathered above, or, if you must, use a drip hose, and add lots of mulch around the most important plants.
19. Don’t hose off anything. Brooms and wipe cloths work pretty well.
20. Whatever boneheaded local officials managed to leave us with a lake full of water with no way to treat it, vote them out of office.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Global Warming
A friend of mine recently sent to me an article about the television documentary in Great Britain that challenged conventional wisdom on global warming. He asked me for my take.
I have long written publicly that I am a skeptic about global warming - about how much there actually is, about what the causes of it are, and, if CO2 is a cause, how much of the increase of CO2 is due to human activity. I've read over the course of time too much research that contradicts the mandatory opinion. And too many actual climatologists are unconvinced about it for me to be convinced about it.
My view is that if we 1) take serious extra measures to clean up our air (for ten other good reasons than global warming), and 2) radically reduce our use of hydrocarbon fuels, then we will have done that which is both environmentally and geopolitically sound, and will have reduced greenhouse gases as a result. I am also an advocate of building more nuclear power plants, now that that technology is so much safer and cleaner. Taking this view of course makes me anathema to some fellow environmentalists. So be it.
I think that over the next six months the tide will swing; more and more scientists will feel emboldened to buck the system and say what they really believe about global warming.
Which gets me to the hoopla about John Edward's and Al Gore's respective houses. I think buying carbon offsets is a wussy way to rationalize excessive lifestyles. We don't even know if that approach is effective for reducing CO2. And since we don't really even know that CO2 is the main culprit vis a vis global warming, it's silly at that level too. To make matters worse the energy plants used to provide power for these respective houses are not just spewing out CO2. They are also spewing out all sorts of other nasty pollutants that foul our air and impact the health of forests, animals, and people too. And all that power may well be using up nonrenewable resources such as coal or oil or natural gas.
People like to point to religious folk like me and cry "hypocrite." But there are few folks more hypocritical than globe trotting environmentalist celebrities.
Joel
I have long written publicly that I am a skeptic about global warming - about how much there actually is, about what the causes of it are, and, if CO2 is a cause, how much of the increase of CO2 is due to human activity. I've read over the course of time too much research that contradicts the mandatory opinion. And too many actual climatologists are unconvinced about it for me to be convinced about it.
My view is that if we 1) take serious extra measures to clean up our air (for ten other good reasons than global warming), and 2) radically reduce our use of hydrocarbon fuels, then we will have done that which is both environmentally and geopolitically sound, and will have reduced greenhouse gases as a result. I am also an advocate of building more nuclear power plants, now that that technology is so much safer and cleaner. Taking this view of course makes me anathema to some fellow environmentalists. So be it.
I think that over the next six months the tide will swing; more and more scientists will feel emboldened to buck the system and say what they really believe about global warming.
Which gets me to the hoopla about John Edward's and Al Gore's respective houses. I think buying carbon offsets is a wussy way to rationalize excessive lifestyles. We don't even know if that approach is effective for reducing CO2. And since we don't really even know that CO2 is the main culprit vis a vis global warming, it's silly at that level too. To make matters worse the energy plants used to provide power for these respective houses are not just spewing out CO2. They are also spewing out all sorts of other nasty pollutants that foul our air and impact the health of forests, animals, and people too. And all that power may well be using up nonrenewable resources such as coal or oil or natural gas.
People like to point to religious folk like me and cry "hypocrite." But there are few folks more hypocritical than globe trotting environmentalist celebrities.
Joel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
