Generational climate change

By Alexander Carpenter

From the Jamaica Gleaner:

Early on in the broadcast, Paulsen turned briefly to the camera for remarks meant largely to amend some of the church's older generations' opinions of young people.

"I'm more preaching - and I am preaching - to those who are watching. You need to make sure that you trust those who are young with responsibility. It is an indisputable fact that if you do not engage those who are young, they will walk away from the church."

Following a question on civil engagement, Paulsen said Christians should not only ask what they can contribute to the church, but also what they can contribute to the communities where they live. One way to impact society is to hold political office.

Or at least vote along the words of Jesus -- blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

Ah, it's great to see people listening and caring about the future for the next generation. Despite the dwindling number of global warming deniers TV-watching and Google-ing themselves into an opinion, the climate really is changing among the next generation of citizens.

From the Politico:

Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), once a skeptic of global warming, got a hint that the political winds might be shifting when a longtime supporter warned that he might vote against Inglis if he “didn’t clean up his act on the environment.”

The warning came from Inglis’ eldest son, Robert Jr., now 22.

His daughter was no less blunt about the congressman’s refusal to embrace the view that global warming was being caused by human actions and that a serious response is needed. “I have three more kids coming up — and they seem to share the same view,” Inglis said.

Family pressure worked. Inglis traveled to Antarctica and, most recently, to Greenland to witness the effects of rising CO2 levels and temperatures. He now believes the science behind global warming. And he believes the politics are equally conclusive: Republicans will “get hammered” if they do not reckon with the issue soon.

So will Christian morality. I'm proud that despite a know-nothing attitude among some, back in 1995, the Seventh-day Adventist Church ADCOM noted the human connection to climate change. And voted on it.

Unfortunately, that statement is outdated and should be debated, strengthened, and reissued publicly so that we can continue our prophetic witness on the need to care for creation. And with Jan Paulsen encouraging Adventist young people to "talk" and get involved in their community at the decision-making level, it would be great if the General Conference leadership turned talk to action and gave the next generation a say in shaping its future climate today. 

Comments

[Pat Travis]

Alex,

One comment only.

You certainly are entitled to your belief, as are others. It definitely is a political, social, economic, religious issue.

I believe all citizens should vote in our country and I believe individuals from all faiths have the right to run for office.

I think it wise to look at history and the church in politics and consider Peter Berger, notable church sociologist, thoughts.
No matter the political agenda of the religious left or right, there are times when the "political and cultural agenda is elevated to the status of the gospel . . . all such politicization is an act of implicit excommunication. But, in politicizing its message, the church is actually excommunicating itself!"

As I have previously noted, you and others are basically promoting the agenda of the United Nations in the booklet, "Earth and Faith", 2000.

That doesn't in itself make it wrong.

My point is that many feel it is so dangerous for the "religious right" to be so involved in politics in regards to "religious liberty." Why is it so acceptable for the "religious left?"

Regards,

pt

[Pat Travis]

PS.

In 1986, the study group effort was called, "The Environmental Sabbath."

It is now "Earth and Faith ,-A Book of Reflection for Action."

[Alexander]

Pat, in that litany, interestingly you didn't mention that climate change is also a scientific issue. Even if one disagrees, one should have some evidence.

Pat, from the "evidence" you've put forward from hack Oregon petitions to non-footnoted op-eds to uncritically citing oil and auto industry-supported scientists and a general lack of peer-review citations, where's the evidence for denial?

See the discussion here and here.

In fact, I haven't seen you interact with the evidence--if you're going to put forward opinions and ask that people take you seriously, you also need to show that you are open to seeing the other side.

Civilization stops if I ever stop thinking that I could be wrong. That's why with each piece of evidence you presented I checked it out. I would appreciate similar curtsy.

On your Berger point:

I agree. The deeper question is: what is that point? Unlike what Pat Robertson did yesterday in endorsing Guiliani, I would rather have the official religious voice stick to issues, not actual candidates.

In fighting human trafficking and religious liberty Christians are also promoting the agenda of the UN. Do you see a problem with that?

Politics is merely a country's public forum. And people of faith should not shy away from speaking their values publicly.

To argue against that is also a political stance, one especially encouraged by corporations and the pure for-profit sector.

[Pat Travis]

Alex,

Perhaps an Analogy to close this discussion for the moment.

Many different specialist study the human body.They observe the many functions of the body and can usually accurately diagnose disease.

However, there is a differential diagnosis procedure that "sometimes" separates the specialist who all are sure their "science" is correct...and sometimes only an autopsy reveals all the observable facts and the exact/probable cause.

The IPCC majority does not constitute the final word.

pt

[arlyn]

"And people of faith should not shy away from speaking their values publicly."

speaking, amen!

Imposing on others through government, whoa.

[Daneen Akers]

I just gotta say I love the graphic!

[Alexander]

CAFE standards at 35 mph?

A renewable standard for utilities that requires 15 per cent of electricity to come from sun, wind, water?

These are parts of the current Energy Bill in Congress.

I guess I need to understand what the imposition is thus far on issues of sustainability and creation care.

Pat, of course. Unlike theology, no scientific finding constitutes the final word. But there is a thing called the best word at the moment. I've noticed that you haven't engaged any of the evidence (best we've got at the moment) to which I've linked.

Arguing that there is always more to know doesn't obviate what we know now. What do you know now?

[Alexander]

I'd also be curious to find out: Has anyone felt "imposed on" by the 1995 ADCOM vote on global warming?

[Audrey]

Our values are always spoken into reality. And the 'imposition' of those values goes both ways. Those of us in the US who wish to live in a world that can be sustained for our children's and grandchildren's generations have been imposed on for decades by a culture that denies us the basic civil opportunities other citizens have, such as comprehensive waste management systems, such as technology developed so we have the choice of efficient transportation, such as a collective commitment to green spaces in the public commons that let even the poor among us have open land to appreciate.

Some parts of our country offer these basic amenities: in Berkeley, California, you can put your compost out on the curb to be picked up along with trash and recycling; in parts of Illinois, you can even recycle styrofoam; in Oregon, urban growth boundaries limit how much land rich individuals can sequester away from common usage; finally, in recent years, hybrid cars have become available across the country.

But most of us are 'imposed on' by not having access to these advances: there are regions that don't even offer the choice of recycling to their citizens, let alone compost; there are cities that allow private property to trump the common good; electric car technology was stifled by the auto industry as soon as they saw how popular it was in California; and most hybrid automobile technology is effectively inaccessible to most people by virtue of its high cost.

Is this clear? Setting higher CAFE standards is thus less an imposition than not having CAFE standards: it might be 'imposing' on auto makers somewhat to have standards, but by NOT having those standards, it is imposing on the millions more people who do not and cannot make their own cars with the efficiency standards the climate crisis demands. If efficient technology does not even exist or is prohibitively expensive - when it is fully within human capacity to make that technology available - that is an imposition on the vast majority of the population. That is a choice.

When technology exists but is not available, we are being imposed on by a government that is not doing its job of serving citizens. When options are not researched, or when legislative action is not taken, when the research and action is well within our God-given capabilities as humans, the community of humans (let alone the non-human Earthly community) is being imposed on. When a civic community chooses NOT to act on the information they have, when they are the ones who have the power to make a change that can save lives, they are imposing their choice on their citizens.

[Charles Scriven]

On the question: If it is so dangerous for the "religious right" to be so involved in politics in regards to "religious liberty," why is it so acceptable for the "religious left?"

It is acceptable--desirable--for ANY Christian to express a perspective on current political issues. God pertains to...well...everything.

From whatever our persepctive, we should make sure, however, that we are not securing a Christian foothold for raw power. Christians are called to be witnesses. Our impact should be persuasive, not coercive.

What's faithless is the claim or even the hint, that a particular Christian viewpoint EVER coincides with a particular nation's self-interest.

Jesus had more impact than any emperor. But never was, nor ever aspired to be, in a seat of coercive power.

[Pat Travis]

Chuck,

Amen. And, I never recall him seeking the help of Rome for any of his deeds.
Neither do I see Paul requesting help from the state for the spreading of the gospel.

The state IS NOT bad.We must have "limited government". It just shouldn't be the modus operandi for the religious left or right's agenda.

regards,

pt

pt

[Wondering]

1. Timothy was exhorted to "let no man despise thy youth".

That would be appropriate even today.

. Please explain why we should be distrustful of "gas and oil-supported" scientists but put complete (some say religious)faith in government and a Sierra Club-supported ones?

What does any of that have to do with the science itself?

Just like the guy's rationale.

3. He was skeptical and now changed his mind after a threat, a change in the political winds, and a trip to Greenland (of dubious value to say the least)?

What does any of that have to do with the science? At all>

[Alexander]

When making theological arguments it is important to pay attention to history.

You'll notice that Jesus or Paul don't fly in planes either.

There is a significant difference in the distribution of power in the autocracy of Rome and the American democracy. While we're not as free as we should be, we at least have structures that were founded to allow every citizen to have his or her say. To shirk the chance to share an ethical voice in the public sphere is also a political move.

I don't like weak-minded politicians telling me what to do, but I appreciate the processes that our founding fathers created for protecting the sustainability of our country. This includes an informed, public setting of community goals, which is one of the benefits of a representative democracy.

Just because the Bible doesn't record Jesus voting or petitioning, doesn't mean that we should not. The problem with the folks on the religious right was not that they cared, it it that their leaders manipulated average folks for their own gain. See Pat Robertson's endorsement of Guiliani.

[Wondering]

About CAFE.

Are there any "modernists" left at all?

What is this number based on?

Are there still those who have so much faith in the power of government that they think that the government can legislate technology/technological advances?

Is it simply possible because we can make a law about it?

CAFE is nonsense.

It forces people to buy cars they do not want at prices they cannot afford.

Everyone knows that the way to approach energy use control is to tax the life out of gas.

That would also cost the offender their place in Congress (not to mention be ill-suited to the American landscape; something that people who aspire for wholesale European policies to be transplanted here never take into consideration).

Of course it's much more therapeutic to beat-up on corporations.

(P.S. You may not have heard the argument that taxing energy is a roundabout way to effect total social/governmental control of the economy/means of production--a longtime goal of you-know-who.).

[Pat Travis]

Chuck,

Sorry if this is a double post somewhere.

Where did Paul or Christ ever use Rome as a modus operandi for "Christian social programs."

Government is not Bad. We could not do without "limited government."

I personally don't know of any laws hopefully that don't have a "moral idea" and are not invasive to someone.

Government has the power to prosecute...that's why perhaps the church should go it alone.

pt

[Wondering]

Csaba Csere has lots to say onthe topic of CAFE including this:

"4. CAFE laws put the entire burden of fuel and carbon conservation on cars and ignore industry sources, home energy use, airlines, agriculture, trucking, locomotives, etc. Yes, cars and trucks do consume a great deal of energy, but of America’s total energy consumption of about 100 quadrillion BTUs (in 2005), the vehicles affected by CAFE only account for some 18 percent of that total. That’s not much more than the 14 percent of our energy that is generated by nuclear and renewable sources. Doesn’t the CO2 produced by the other 68 percent also cause global warming? Why should SUVs be demonized when Al Gore, in the largest of his three homes, uses 20 times as much electricity as I do in my not-insubstantial house? Meanwhile, other energy-conservation advocates jet around in Gulfstream 5s that burn 17 times as much fuel as an Escalade does getting from Los Angeles to San Francisco."

I have a theory about this that I only ever heard one other person mention. But that's a whole 'nother thing

[Wondering]

One of my recent (five minutes ago) posts is missing.

It's the one where I questioned why we should believe environmentalist and government-backed scientists and not "oil and gas-backed" ones.

Was there a reason for this?

[Alexander]

It's difficult to have a logical discussion with some who uses the term "nonsense."

I see your post and it suffers from false equivalence. Of course everyone has bias. The question is: how transparent is the science and those who are doing it? If you want to believe scientists paid by the tobacco company -- rather than the AMA -- feel free. But don't buy the equivalence argument when one is biased toward healthy lungs and the other is biased toward profit.

A Car and Driver columnist, really? And not a single citation. Someone who clearly doesn't understand the principle of volume. Let's think: how many Gulfstreams are being used? How many SUVs? I guess we show something by what we demand of our information.

For those who really want to examine the pros and cons of American Energy policy, feel free to check out the Union of Concerned Scientists' National Academies National Research Council Report on: Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards

I met their director yesterday. Good conversation, even with the din from their black helicopters.

[Pat Travis]

pt

[Pat Travis]

Wondering...had the same thing happen to one oof my post.

Now alex or someone or somethig removed his most recent post...hope it is technology and not selective screening

pt

[Graeme Sharrock]

The Myth of Global Warming

We are in the unusual position today of watching the development of a new myth. As true as climate change may be as a fact of nature, as culture it is species of myth in the sense of being a new overarching paradigm of belief. What I find fascinating is the relative roles of science, media, public opinion, religion, politics and global corporations in the rapid evolution of this myth. The last significant myth like this, I think was the also apocalyptic scenario of possible global nuclear war. I hope it changes the way we see the world and act from day to day, and is in that sense, a "good myth"...but it is a myth nontheless.

[Pat Travis]

Alex,

In the spirit of fairness, I would like to know what happened to "wonderings" post and an earlier post of mine and your last post...now gone that stated "it's hard to reason with foolishness."

One of the things we "paranoid" political conservatives fear is that someones vast intelligence overrules other opinions right to be expressed.
I hope your last post and ours reappear after technical difficulties are solved.

Regards,

pt

[Pat Travis]

m

[Wondering]

So now there's "good" and "bad" bias?

Then you quoted the Union of Concerned Scientists sin the next breath.

This cannot work.

Again, the science is either bad or it is not. Incidentally, the example you picked about the tobacco companies may not be the best.
A little snooping around would demonstrate to you that the verdict about secondhand smoke may very well validate what they were saying all along:

http://www.skeptic.com/

Check the current issue of this magazine (and that is not the only place I have seen it).

[Alexander]

Everything is contingent, therefore everything is biased.

However, a good bias is one that works to reveal itself, hence the value of the scientific method.

A bad bias is one that obscures itself, in the case of the fossil fuel-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute which supports the global warming skeptic community.

What's wrong with the Union of Concerned Scientists, again?

There seems to be a creeping misunderstanding of subjectivity percolating down from cable news these days. Just pointing out that a side has a bias doesn't obviate its argument or somehow cancel out both sides of the issue. Awareness of bias just means that thoughtful individuals have to construct frameworks for evaluating evidence and it messengers.

I just want to point out the depths to which the misunderstanding of the always present nature of doubt in the scientific method can take someone.

Wondering has now come out supporting tobacco company arguments about the harmlessness of second hand smoke. At least he is consistent in his approach to the scientific method. The fact is, that the same "god of the gaps" arguments used against evolution, global warming and tobacco can be used against all scientific thinking. Why? Precisely because the method works opposite common human thought.

THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT: Science cannot prove anything, it can only fail to disprove a hypothesis.

Here's a helpful fact sheet from the American Lung Association. Yes, I'm biased toward large amounts of aggregated research and my lungs.

My question for you, Wondering: Did you actually read the articles in Skeptic that you pointed us to? Or did you just find a headline that supported your thesis without even reading the arguments and evaluating the evidence in the articles?