Global Warming

[karen freeinchristman]

What should the Christian response be to mankinds destruction of the earth?

The Anglican Consultative Council has come up with the following "Five Marks of Mission", which were adopted by the bishops of the 1988 Lambeth Conference:

To proclaim the good news of the Kingdom
To teach, baptise and nurture new believers
To respond to human need by loving service
To seek to transform unjust structures of society
To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and to sustain the life of the earth

Take note of the 5th 'Mark'. I can remember 30 years or so ago lying awake at night worrying about the environment. 30 years later, things have gotten increasingly dire.

What should we be doing as the Church?

[Gwaihir]

Maybe a better question is...'What can we do?'. We can vote. We can talk to our friends and family. We can make choices in what we buy. We can life more simple lives without the materialism. But, for the most part...we are powerless in the face of powers greater than ourselves. Global warming may be a natural phenomina. If it is sure that nothing can be done. We can refuse to be frightened by the unknown and we can trust that God is on his throne. If he is in control, then I don't need to be. We are in God's hands.

[ContraMundum]

This whole topic stresses me out. I hate the heat. I want my kids to have agood lif,e yet some countries just spew junk into the air without seeming to care.

Then there's the other side of the coin- global dimming. Apparently, the pollution is good because its helping the ozone resist the sun's rays.

Lord, give us wisdom.

[Gwaihir]

This whole topic stresses me out. I hate the heat. I want my kids to have agood lif,e yet some countries just spew junk into the air without seeming to care.

Then there's the other side of the coin- global dimming. Apparently, the pollution is good because its helping the ozone resist the sun's rays.

Lord, give us wisdom.
I know what you mean. I don't have children, but my wife, brothers and sister do. The polution is the direct result of how we live. The easiest, but most unsatisfactory solution is to stop living. This is why I am not optimistic that things will change, unless we live without the things that we surround ourselves with. Also, nature creates CO2 and we could be in a natural warming trend. I wish there was more I could say...sorry.

[karen freeinchristman]

Also, nature creates CO2 and we could be in a natural warming trend.
I have heard the argument that it may be a natural trend, but it seems to be too rapid to be believed. I think it may be too late; we've buried our heads in the sand for too long. It could be a case of trying to slow it down as much as possible, though. I'm not being paranoid here, I personally am convinced that God will work out his purposes regardless of what we do to the earth, but I just think it is another thing we are doing as people that is a giant collective sin.

[AngCath]

Here is something simple and practical you can do. If your parish isn't already, get them on a recycling program.

[Gwaihir]

I have heard the argument that it may be a natural trend, but it seems to be too rapid to be believed. I think it may be too late; we've buried our heads in the sand for too long. It could be a case of trying to slow it down as much as possible, though. I'm not being paranoid here, I personally am convinced that God will work out his purposes regardless of what we do to the earth, but I just think it is another thing we are doing as people that is a giant collective sin.
I know that you're not paranoid. I really don't think that there was any way we could have avoided what has happened. Wheter natural or man-made. People don't mean to be destructive and we don't understand the ramifications of the little things that we do. Neither do I think that we are in control of things. But, why sit and watch Rome burn, there are things that we can do. People who believe in science as our salvation always surprise me. Because, we really know so little about how things work. Its like driving in a speeding car in unknown country and hoping that your head-lights (science) will let you see the ditch that you're headed for. But, its 100% correct after the fact.

[Gwaihir]

This really isn't the appropriate mood that I would like...but here goes. Happy Birthday Karen:clap: If more people were as concerned as you, we would have any problems.

[karen freeinchristman]

This really isn't the appropriate mood that I would like...but here goes. Happy Birthday Karen:clap: If more people were as concerned as you, we would have any problems.

:) Thank you!


(and welcome to Christian Forums, by the way) :wave:

[Finella]

Karen --

I know it's just a drop in the bucket, but my last parish was a leader in our diocese by initiating its Sustainibility Ministry; we sold energy-efficient lightbulbs at coffee hour and replaced the parish's lightbulbs with such efficient replacements as they burned out. We switched the parish's energy supplier to a greener producer (one that uses only renewable energy sources to produce electricity -- this is something that PA allows us to do, choose our energy supplier). We also encouraged parishioners to do the same. We also initiated recycling programs that went beyond the available municipal recycling initiatives, such as collecting computer hardware and old electronics and taking them to be recycled, collecting discarded cell phones and donating them to charities who could use them, and collecting used ink jet cartridges so they could be refilled and used by organizations and people that needed them. We also created a garden on the parish grounds using native plants to attract butterflies; its purpose was not only aesthetic, but also to increase awareness of the need to nurture native wildlife in the city.

We also hosted speakers once a month after evensong (providing dinner as well) to speak about sustainability and stewardship of the earth. We had people come to talk about practical things we could do for our homes (insulation, using energy more efficiently) as well as policy and ways we could support environmental causes in our state. We were careful to not get too political about this, but I admit there were some who felt we were too "liberal" in our choice of speakers.

Our parish got recognition at the diocesan level, and through this we had some clout to make recommendations for recycling initiatives throughout the diocese, which I believe were adopted but I'm not sure. The people who attended our parish were dedicated advocates for the environment and lived exemplary lives by their choices in the way they lived. We really had a "Think globally, act locally" approach.

I suspect your question was more along the lines of the ACC as a whole, and I think there we can act only at the diplomatic level and try to encourage policymakers to reduce pollution and create more sustainable energy sources. I, too, feel that this is just not enough, given how dire things seem. But what I like about the local approach is that through individuals' choices we can affect change even on such large levels. If we use public transit more, if we drive more energy-efficient cars, if we use electricity more wisely, if we grow our own food, whatever we do -- I believe it has an impact, not only on the ones making the choices, but on those who witness the choices as they are made.

[Inside Edge]

I think opting for cleaner energy and fuels will help a lot. Burning fossil fuels is the big evil with this issue - and God/Creation has a pretty decent control mechanism: we have a limited supply. At some point, we'll have no choice but to stop.

And I may be wrong, but I recall studies showing that when conditions allow, the earth can heal itself - like ozone repair, etc.

So the question usually isn't "What can we do?" so much as "What can we do that won't seriously disrupt our civilization's way of life?"

If history is a teacher, then all I can say is that very little will be done until most people are directly and acutely affected by the negative phenomenon. As long as most people are able to manage their day to day lives, their priorities will be elsewhere.

[karen freeinchristman]

God has made it clear to us that he wants to redeem the world. This means the whole world, not just people.
We are being very self-centred to think that it only means us people.

This has been weighing heavy on my mind a lot lately.

I think our Christian attitude of witness and example in serving God by ushering in the Kingdom demands that we consider the aspect of mission that entails caring for the earth.

I appreciate that some of you feel the same, and have responded in this thread. But how is it that most of us can so often turn our backs on this issue?

I would like to see what kind of response there actually is out there. To those of you who have already replied, I would like to see now if there are any others who want to register the simple fact that they feel this issue matters. A simple :amen: will suffice!
I guess I could have attempted a poll, but didn't think of it at first.

[pmcleanj]

I think our Christian attitude of witness and example in serving God by ushering in the Kingdom demands that we consider the aspect of mission that entails caring for the earth...
Someone earlier said something to the effect that the easiest way not to harm the earth is not to live, and that that's not a legitimate choice. Of course it's not. But, neither can we sustain unlimited exponential growth in the numbers of humans on this earth. God's command to "go forth, multiply, and subdue the earth" must be understood as other than an absolute command to breed, if it is to be compatible with our role as stewards over creation acting to sustain and redeem creation.

In other words, we can rarely discuss responsible environmental stewardship without discussing using birth control to limit family size -- and that's a contentious discussion in Christian gatherings. I've had my share of debates on the subject, shaken my engineer's head at what seems to me the mathematical ignorance of those who argue in favour of unrestrained childbearing, and decided to trust to the populations that are "voting with their feet" as it were, by choosing smaller families (Italy, interestingly, has the world's lowest birthrate, 1.3 births per woman, despite religious leaders' official anti-birth-control pronouncements). Since without population restraint any other efforts to mitigate environmental damage are moot, I usually simply stop right there.

None the less, I am usually silently apalled by the assumption that "scientists will fix" our dependance on cheap fossil energy -- by coming up with some new source of supply for our energy greed. True, fossil fuels will run out. But wind power, tidal power, solar power, and so on are really viable only as supplements to a stable controllable energy source, and the environmental costs of developing new hydroelectric resources are phenomenal. The long-term future lies with "demand side management", I'm afraid -- which means finding ways for power consumers to consume less.

Often, responsible demand-side management involves making choices that have higher short-term cost and low short-term effect. For example, what we see as "increasing temperatures due to global warming" in my city can be demonstrated statistically to be more a matter of "decreasing citizen willingness to tolerate discomfort". On hot summer days (both of them) forty years ago, one opened all the windows and sat in the shade drinking water. Nowadays, you buy and install an air conditioner. But a better environmental choice would be to plant a row of shade trees to the south and west of your home, so that in fifteen years the sun won't be beating on your roof. Air conditioning is cheaper (in the short run) and shows results more quickly, than planting a dozen Columnar Ash.

Also, responsible environmental choices often involve making unfashionable choices. Elegant modern homes in this city are built on the "open plan" with large airy rooms flowing into each other. Of course, that means you have to heat or cool the whole space as a block, but small rooms separated by doors are considered claustrophobic. Children are expected to have separate rooms, and chosing to set up a nursery where the children sleep in the same room is looked upon as, almost "creepy" -- despite the energy cost of providing and heating houses with an extra three or four hundred feet to accomodate the modern emphasis on (what seems to me as) excessive privacy. And, of course, choices about the physical shape of your home aren't something you can implement five years later when you gradually become convicted with a sense of environmental responsibility. Often, you're stuck with the consequences of choices you made when you were less experienced.

[Simon_Templar]

I would feel remiss if I did not point out that science really has no idea what is causing global warming and the most likely suggestion from the evidence currently available would probably be that it is simply the result of long term weather patterns.

The environmentalist claims that global warming is caused by human agents is largely without merit and is not born up by observation of actual natural phenomenon.

Thus, I think it highly presumptuous to suggest that global warming is humans destroying the earth. The evidence available seems to suggest that there is a natural cycle of warmer and colder climate changes that spans hundreds, even thousands of years.

If you want to talk about stewardship of what God has created, thats cool, but most "environmental science" is not really backed up by anything solid and is just used as scare tactics to raise money and push a political agenda.

[higgs2]

God has made it clear to us that he wants to redeem the world. This means the whole world, not just people.
We are being very self-centred to think that it only means us people.

This has been weighing heavy on my mind a lot lately.

I think our Christian attitude of witness and example in serving God by ushering in the Kingdom demands that we consider the aspect of mission that entails caring for the earth.

I appreciate that some of you feel the same, and have responded in this thread. But how is it that most of us can so often turn our backs on this issue?

I would like to see what kind of response there actually is out there. To those of you who have already replied, I would like to see now if there are any others who want to register the simple fact that they feel this issue matters. A simple :amen: will suffice!
I guess I could have attempted a poll, but didn't think of it at first.

:amen: :amen: :amen:

[Wiffey]

What can one person do? Here's what we do at my house:
1. Recycle
2. Be aware of consumption and try not to be wasteful
3. Limit or eliminate meat consumption (it takes far less resources to produce grains & veggies than it does to grow beef cattle)
4. Buy organic when available & affordable. Pesticides are bad for us and for the earth.
5. Don't use commercial pesticides or synthetic plant foods in the garden, as the runoff pollutes the water table.
6. Kiss a tree!;)


(Also, having only one child eases the burden on an overpopulated planet...nature loves a tubal ligation!)

[karen freeinchristman]

I would feel remiss if I did not point out that science really has no idea what is causing global warming and the most likely suggestion from the evidence currently available would probably be that it is simply the result of long term weather patterns.


Granted, we don't have a complete picture of the whole thing, and how much humans are responsible. But common sense tells me that when you wipe out the rainforests in South America to attempt farming or whatever, it is a human cause of destruction that probably has dire consequences.

[gtsecc]

Prayers for the Natural Order

40. For Knowledge of God’s Creation

Almighty and everlasting God, you made the universe with
all its marvelous order, its atoms, worlds, and galaxies, and
the infinite complexity of living creatures: Grant that, as we
probe the mysteries of your creation, we may come to know
you more truly, and more surely fulfill our role in your
eternal purpose; in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

41. For the Conservation of Natural Resources

See also Various Occasions no. 19.

Almighty God, in giving us dominion over things on earth,
you made us fellow workers in your creation: Give us wisdom
and reverence so to use the resources of nature, that no one
may suffer from our abuse of them, and that generations yet
to come may continue to praise you for your bounty; through
Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

42. For the Harvest of Lands and Waters

O gracious Father, who openest thine hand and fillest all
things living with plenteousness: Bless the lands and waters,
and multiply the harvests of the world; let thy Spirit go
forth, that it may renew the face of the earth; show thy
loving‑kindness, that our land may give her increase; and
save us from selfish use of what thou givest, that men and
women everywhere may give thee thanks; through Christ
our Lord. Amen.

43. For Rain

O God, heavenly Father, who by thy Son Jesus Christ
hast promised to all those who seek thy kingdom and its
righteousness all things necessary to sustain their life: Send
us, we entreat thee, in this time of need, such moderate rain
and showers, that we may receive the fruits of the earth, to
our comfort and to thy honor; through Jesus Christ our
Lord. Amen.

44. For the Future of the Human Race

O God our heavenly Father, you have blessed us and given us
dominion over all the earth: Increase our reverence before
the mystery of life; and give us new insight into your purposes
for the human race, and new wisdom and determination in
making provision for its future in accordance with your will;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

[pmcleanj]

What can one person do? Here's what we do at my house:
1. Recycle
2. Be aware of consumption and try not to be wasteful
3. Limit or eliminate meat consumption (it takes far less resources to produce grains & veggies than it does to grow beef cattle)
4. Buy organic when available & affordable. Pesticides are bad for us and for the earth.
5. Don't use commercial pesticides or synthetic plant foods in the garden, as the runoff pollutes the water table.
6. Kiss a tree!;):thumbsup:

7. Gardeners and homeowners, plan your plantings using native and native-compatible plants. In Alberta that means sericulture -- planting drought-tolerant plants instead of using the city water resources to maintain high-water-use plants.
8. Buy the smallest and least (whatever) you can get away with, rather than the largest. You can always rent a truck, or twenty place-settings for a big dinner, or take your sleeping-bags to the laundromat; if for 360 days of the year what you really need is a commuter vehicle, four plates, and an apartment-size washer. Renting means that the energy and resource costs of production are shared across dozens of users instead of just one.
9. At the same time, buy the best quality available: one pair of shoes that lasts 15 years is less onerous on the environment than 15 cheap pairs that last one year each. The small flat-panel display uses less energy than the large plasma screen (let alone CRT). And so on.
10. Commute by bus or bicycle. In North America private vehicles re overwhelmingly the largest contributor to air pollution.
11. Read (library books) instead of watching TV, movies, or playing video games -- zero energy cost except for the calorie or two it takes to turn pages, with better entertainment value.

[Wiffey]

gtsecc, thanks for posting those prayers...they are terrific! I often get caught up praying for human loved ones and forget my obligation to pray for all of God's creation.

[Simon_Templar]

Another note,

over population concerns are vastly over blown and based on false models of population growth. The exponential growth of the earths population in the recent era was due to advances in technology that allowed greater production of food world wide, and most recently to the advances of medical technology which have dramaticly increased the life expectancy of humans.

population projection models which showed unlimited exponential growth continuing ad infinitum into the future were once again, scare tactics based on completely unrealistic assumptions and lacking reasonable methodology.

Virtually every scientificly prepared model of the earths population showed the population growth leveling off within the next decade or so and then actually going into decline in the next three decades or so, once the death rate, which has been 'artificially' supressed in the current generation (baby boomers) because of the advances of medical technology etc, which have increased the average life span, catches back up.

current statistics are beginning to reflect those models and the population growth is leveling off fast.
In fact, most of the industialized world is already on the verge of a negative population growth crisis. Few people have yet realized that this is actually a crisis of epic proportions. Almost all of the industrialized nations have negative natural population growth right now and their population growth is only sustained by increasing immagration.
This is the main reason that several european countries are nearing 50% muslim population. Because their native population growth can't sustain the national economy and they are required to import population or face a huge economic colapse.

Japan and the US are facing the same problem, Japan sooner, but the US within the next 10 years.

Further, the idea that the earth can become significantly over populated is fairly illogical and not valid when compared with what we know from history and nature. Its a simple fact that the earth has natural limits on how many people it can support. Realisticly in the modern era we don't know how many people that is simply because we have come no where near tapping the full potential of the earth because of political troubles and the problems of human nature.
Historically, however, regions have reached their limit on supportable population (given the technology of their time) but no area has ever surpassed its ability to support population, because it is impossible to do so. At most the population could surge momentarily past the supportable limit but would within a short time it would be reduced by the natural limiting factors back within what can be supported by the eco system.

[artrx]

:amen: :amen:

Immediately Pierre Teilhard de Chardin comes to my mind as a priest, theologian, scientist, mystic, entrenched in a love for God and his creatures/creation. Hymn of the Universe with it's "Mass on the World" , and "The Spiritual Power of Matter" is a wonderful meditation.

[karen freeinchristman]

gtsecc, thanks for posting those prayers...they are terrific!

I second that! :thumbsup:

[Finella]

Another note,

over population concerns are vastly over blown and based on false models of population growth. The exponential growth of the earths population in the recent era was due to advances in technology that allowed greater production of food world wide, and most recently to the advances of medical technology which have dramaticly increased the life expectancy of humans.

population projection models which showed unlimited exponential growth continuing ad infinitum into the future were once again, scare tactics based on completely unrealistic assumptions and lacking reasonable methodology.

Virtually every scientificly prepared model of the earths population showed the population growth leveling off within the next decade or so and then actually going into decline in the next three decades or so, once the death rate, which has been 'artificially' supressed in the current generation (baby boomers) because of the advances of medical technology etc, which have increased the average life span, catches back up.

current statistics are beginning to reflect those models and the population growth is leveling off fast.
In fact, most of the industialized world is already on the verge of a negative population growth crisis. Few people have yet realized that this is actually a crisis of epic proportions. Almost all of the industrialized nations have negative natural population growth right now and their population growth is only sustained by increasing immagration.
This is the main reason that several european countries are nearing 50% muslim population. Because their native population growth can't sustain the national economy and they are required to import population or face a huge economic colapse.

Japan and the US are facing the same problem, Japan sooner, but the US within the next 10 years.

Further, the idea that the earth can become significantly over populated is fairly illogical and not valid when compared with what we know from history and nature. Its a simple fact that the earth has natural limits on how many people it can support. Realisticly in the modern era we don't know how many people that is simply because we have come no where near tapping the full potential of the earth because of political troubles and the problems of human nature.
Historically, however, regions have reached their limit on supportable population (given the technology of their time) but no area has ever surpassed its ability to support population, because it is impossible to do so. At most the population could surge momentarily past the supportable limit but would within a short time it would be reduced by the natural limiting factors back within what can be supported by the eco system.
So, Simon_Templar, even if what you wrote in your last post is the case, does that mean we have no reason to worry about how humanity is treating the earth?

[Simon_Templar]

So, Simon_Templar, even if what you wrote in your last post is the case, does that mean we have no reason to worry about how humanity is treating the earth?


Finella,

No it doesn't mean that. I'm a fan (in the FANatical sense) of J.R.R. Tolkien and I don't think its possible to truly love tolkien without loving nature and the raw natural world.

We do need to recognize some things though before we just swallow, hook, line, and sinker, views that people are trying to sell us.

I love nature and I believe that we have responsability to God to be good stewards. I also believe that nature was created for us to use and to have dominion over. Much of environmental philosophy is pantheistic in nature, or materialistic and holds a view that things like trees and rocks have rights on similar par to those of people.

Environmentalism is a great example of where the tolerance of the tolerant comes to an abrupt end... because the same people who would say that we can't judge other people's beliefs, and we can't try to enforce our beliefs on other people, demand adherence to their beliefs about our role in the environment.
If I believe we should treat creation one way, do I have the right to demand that people agree, and force them to agree in practice?
Thats precisely what much of environmentalism is predicated upon.



We are told that there is a problem which is going to ruin the world... some of the causes are deforestation of the rain forests, emissions of gases, CFC's, etc etc.

So what are we supposed to do.. stop producing CFC's, lower emissions of harmful gasses, stop deforestation... so how do we do those things.. well the world has gone to great lengths to stop the use and production of CFC's.. The price tag for this has been literally in the hundreds of billions of dollars world wide. May getting close to the trillions by now.

but there is significant evidence that the scare over CFC's was largely false. So what happened? Government agencies, environmental scientists, and believe it or not big industry, made BILLIONS of dollars in funding for the agencies and environmental researchers, and sales due to the required change over of the entire cooling/refrigerant industry.
Has it done anything positive? no. It has had no measurable effect on any of the issues for which it was originally implented.. probably because there was very little or no real connection to begin with.

What about deforestation.. well there is a significant decrease of rain forest area mainly in brazil and to a smaller degree in africa... world wide forestation levels have remained fairly constant, and in the US in particular, forestation has actually increased significantly over the last century.

So what are we supposed to do?? well the problem is that peasants and politically disenfranchised native tribes etc, in brazil and africa have no economic recourse for survival other than slash and burn farming.

We are told that what is necessary is regulation by the UN, giving the UN supranational power to regulate the actions of people when it comes to trying to make a living, things like that.

Slash and burn farming is done because the soil is poor and can only support one or two seasons of crops, and because the drasticly poor farmers have neither the knowledge nor the materiel necesary to replenish the land and use it responsibly... so rather than making a bunch of regulations that give a foreign power the ability to come and interfere.. why don't we send people with knowledge to train the farmers, equipment and materiel necessary to make the land they have productive.. set up funds to help poor people buy land so they don't have to claim it from the rain forest...

The main impediment to doing the above is political. Many 3rd world governments are unstable and opressive and have created the very problems we're looking at because they are actively persecuting a group of people...

So we can't seem to get in to help the people... but we're going to try and stop them from farming... isn't this just going to deprive them of their only survival income? Aren't we just making it harder on the poor and making it easier for oppresive governments to starve out people groups they don't like?

Why are we doing all this?? based on "science" produced by people making lots of money off creating fear.


If you want to help the poor of brazil and give them the means to live without slash and burn farming.. I'm all for it. I just don't think we should act out of fear and allow ourselves to be manipulated into giving undue power to government and supernational organizations.


I think the church should teach on man's place in nature and our responsability of stewardship. The church should teach on appreciating creation, and the wonder of Creation, the visibility of God's truth in creation and so on.

The government has a right to regulate air and water pollution and has done a good job of doing so. A major problem with environmentalism is that it has been and is being used to destroy people's property rights. The right to own property is the basis of freedom. The government has a right to regulate air and water pollution precisely because of property rights. Pollution is almost always a form of trespass. If you pollute the air, the water, even things like noise polution, and it affects my enjoyment and use of my property, then it is a trespass on my property. The result is that pollution is almost always a form of trespass and thus almost always illegal (even before it was regulated).


I don't like it when land near my house is developed, but at the same time I have to recognize that the owners of that land have right to use it as they see fit, so long as they don't trespass on me and my land.

I'm all in favor of developing cleaner technology and preserving wilderness, but don't trample freedom in the process.

[ebia]

So what are we supposed to do?? well the problem is that peasants and politically disenfranchised native tribes etc, in brazil and africa have no economic recourse for survival other than slash and burn farming.

We are told that what is necessary is regulation by the UN, giving the UN supranational power to regulate the actions of people when it comes to trying to make a living, things like that.

Slash and burn farming is done because the soil is poor and can only support one or two seasons of crops, and because the drasticly poor farmers have neither the knowledge nor the materiel necesary to replenish the land and use it responsibly... so rather than making a bunch of regulations that give a foreign power the ability to come and interfere.. why don't we send people with knowledge to train the farmers, equipment and materiel necessary to make the land they have productive.. set up funds to help poor people buy land so they don't have to claim it from the rain forest...
:amen:

The government has a right to regulate air and water pollution and has done a good job of doing so. A major problem with environmentalism is that it has been and is being used to destroy people's property rights. The right to own property is the basis of freedom.
I can't say I agree with this. Property might be intrinsically tied to our culture's concept of freedom, but free societies have existed without, and goverment has always regulated what you are and are not allowed to do with your property.

[Simon_Templar]

Ebia,

can you give any example of a free society that has existed without property rights?

And yes, government does regulate what you can do with your property, like the polution example, because many of the things people do or try to do affect the property of others around them negatively. The government has the duty to protect the rights of other people from being infringed by you or me.

[Finella]

Native American culture never had the concept of property rights. Whether you would call that a "free society" or not, I don't know. But their culture was one of deep respect for the environment.

I disagree, as well, Simon, about your comment re: environmentalism and property rights. When a chemical company spills (or dumps) waste on their land, but eventually flows downriver and affects my property and drinking water, then we have serious health issues.

I'd also like to see sources regarding your other assertions that CFCs have nothing to do with harming the environment -- not because I disbelieve you, but rather this is the first I've heard of it and I am curious about your source.

Additionally, I agree that the situation with the rainforest is complex and is as political as it is social and environmental. Do you have a suggestion for how we can help preserve the rainforests in the Amazon without impeding the peoples' ways of earning a livelihood? Surely allowing the rainforest to disappear, even though the North American forests are doing well, is not a viable option -- a rainforest is a very different kind of ecosystem than a North American forest. Because the earth's ecosystems are so complex, I think it would be unwise to dismiss the loss of such a significant ecosystem and figure there would be minimal impact.

[ebia]

Ebia,

can you give any example of a free society that has existed without property rights?

And yes, government does regulate what you can do with your property, like the polution example, because many of the things people do or try to do affect the property of others around them negatively. The government has the duty to protect the rights of other people from being infringed by you or me.
And goverments also say "you can't destroy/change/damage that because it is historical/of scientific significance/etc" or "you can't build on that land because that's a green-belt/wedge" etc, etc. Quite rightly. No-one has the right to cut down the last Huon Pine in the world, just because they happen to have given someone some money in return for the bit of land it happens to grow on.

[Simon_Templar]

Finella,

As with all other rights, any person's property rights end, where other people's begin.. In other words, if an action you take on your property affects the property of others (even something like sound you make, or smells let alone toxic waste) it can be considered tresspass. This is where pretty much all zoning regulations and the like draw their legal foundation from.

On CFC's.
The chemisty behind the CFC depletion theory is theoreticaly sound. If everything worked as they guessed and predicted CFC's in the stratosphere could suppress the formation of Ozone. Ozone is created by solar radiation, thus the ozone layer can't really be destroyed. However ozone is constantly breaking apart and reforming, thus the introduction of cholorine (from CFC's) could theoreticaly inhibit this process temporarily causing a decrease in the amount of ozone present in the layer.

However, the models of the ozone layer, upon which depletion theory and all its supporting measurements are based has been proven to be false. Prior to 1994-95 scientists assumed that the ozone layer was a homogenous layer around the earth that was thicker around the equater and thinner around the poles (due to the differing amounts of direct sunlight recieved)

The depletion theory was developed because scientists noticed an apparent decrease in the average ozone concentrations world wide, and they also noticed a "hole" over the antarctic pole.

The hole is not actually a hole per say, it is rather an area where the layer becomes thinner than normal, or the concentration of ozone is lower than normal. The hole appears every year in the antarctic spring months and disappears in the summer.

Some had theorized that the "ozone hole" was simply a cyclical product of wind patterns in the winter to spring seasonal change, but scientists also noticed that the levels of chlorine in the atmosphere appeared to be rising, and they attributed the decrease of ozone concentration to the rise of chlorine. Thus the depletion theory.

However, in the mid 1990's a group of german scientists launched a new satalite array designed to study gasses in the upper atmosphere. This new satalite system allowed a level of visual representation and data collection which was impossible before that.

What they were able to see with the new information was that the "ozone layer" is nothing like the previously theorized homogenous "blanket" but instead looks like a constantly changing patchwork. Ozone is actually moving in what appear to be weather patterns thus the level of ozone in any given location is constantly changing with wind currents etc.

The Ozone hole, in particular, appears to be largely due to the fact that as winter transitions to spring the weather patterns over the pole create a huge vortex that sucks vast amounts of gasses up from the lower atmosphere into the stratosphere, thus thinning out the ozone concentration.

This largely invalidates all the previous theories and measurements based on averaged ozone values because these values are based on the premiss that the ozone levels in a given location should be fairly constant. In fact they aren't and are constantly shifting.

This of course hasn't stopped the UN and US scientific beaurocratic agencies that deal with such issues from propagating the same old information to support their regulatory authority and funding.

The scientific group running the satalite and data from the above originated from the german university of Uppertal (sp) and, if memory serves, is known as the cristo-spas project.

The question of rain forests (which do exist in the US btw) in the 3rd world (and other natural resources) really depends on how far you're willing to go in the effectiveness vs. right action balance... The right thing to do in cases like that is try and aid the people with knowledge and resources to better themselves to the point where such destructive practices are no longer necessary.. but that may not be very effective in practical terms.. The only way to totaly ensure the protection of such resources really is to own them and have them under your own control. So where on the spectrum between those two points do you draw the line?



Ebia, there is something provided for in our constitution known legally as "eminent domain". This is a principle by which the government can take property for the public use. This means that they can take property from a private citizen as long as it is for the public use. Of course the private citizen must be compensated for the fair market value of the property.

The problem when dealing with eminent domain is what is really "public use". In recent years eminent domain has been used by municipal governments to seize land from private citizens and give to developers to build stadiums and condo's, mini malls etc. The argument being that those things produce more tax income.. this is a blatant misuse, despite the fact that it has been upheld by the supreme court (which provided alot of support for the outcry against judicial activism).

Public use is supposed to mean something that every citizen can come and use. Not a private enterprise which may produce more money for the government. Eminent domain was meant for things like national parks, government buildings, city parks, and so on.

The government can reasonably use eminent domain in the cases of historic monuments and endangered tree species, with the provision that the land seized be open to use by the public, just as our national and city parks are.


This really reveals one of the problems with the environmental movement (its also true in areas like "hate speech") the laws which already exist are sufficient to deal with all these situations if they would simply be enforced reasonably. Making things MORE illegal, or giving the government MORE power to seize land isn't necessary and in the end just ends up chipping away at the foundations of our freedom bit by bit.

[Finella]

Simon,

I agree in regard to your description of property rights. So this then begs the question of why you brought it up as an issue in the first place: I don't see how this would be a conflict of freedom of citizens to enforce environmental laws whenever one's actions affect another's property. Or am I missing something about your argument? (I did read your response to Ebia, but I don't understand how eminent domain is pro-environmentalist and anti-"freedom".)

Thank you for your explanation of the ozone stuff. I'd still like a citation, a source, for your info. I'm a researcher, so I like to read the original sources when I can. Besides, I wonder how it is that one group of scientists has apparently debunked the ozone hole idea while all the other scientists haven't followed it. Smacks of conspiracy theory to me, which I would investigate before believing it. So orginal sources would be very helpful for your case. Thank you.

Re: rainforests (whose size in the US is tiny compared to those in the 3rd world) -- I have a funny story. Last week I was approached by an "independent distributor" of herbal products manufactured by indigenous peoples of the Amazon rainforest. This guy wanted me to become a distributor like him, selling products so that the indigenous peoples could make a living off the natural bounty of the rainforest and not be tempted to do slash-and-burn practices to make a living. Unfortunately, the more I learned about the company, the more it seemed to be a typical multi-level-marketing scheme (like Amway) and that if I joined I'd be "under" another guy who was "under" this guy who approached me. I couldn't understand how having this structure would possibly leave any money left over for the people down in the Amazon, but he insisted that 50% of the money made would go directly to them. And I'd earn a residual income! Hooray!

Joking aside, I'm sure there's enterprising people (in the Amazon itself, as well as outside of the area) who could come up with ways to productively use the land without depleting it. Without knowing all the ins and outs of the situation, I'm not prepared to create that solution. But I do want to stay apprised of the problem and support people who are doing something rather than just sit back and claim that the problem isn't as severe as we thought it was. Because such problems are outside the scope of my local parish, this where I think our global communion can help educate us about the nature of the problems and help us collaborate on solutions.
::wrestles the post back on topic::

[ebia]

Joking aside, I'm sure there's enterprising people (in the Amazon itself, as well as outside of the area) who could come up with ways to productively use the land without depleting it.This is from memory - so apologies for any inaccuracies and lack of detail, but unfortunately the great trading blocks (US and EU) sometimes work against this. I'm particularly thinking of EU rules that worked to prevent the importation of wild Brazil havested from the rainforest.

[Finella]

This is from memory - so apologies for any inaccuracies and lack of detail, but unfortunately the great trading blocks (US and EU) sometimes work against this. I'm particularly thinking of EU rules that worked to prevent the importation of wild Brazil havested from the rainforest.
Ebia -- then that's precisely the kind of policy work that the Anglican communion could address, right? (If, after investigating the concept, it seemed to benefit the environment and the people as well.)

[ebia]

Yes, in theory, but I doubt the Anglican communion has much sway in the European beaucracies.

[Finella]

Heh, you're probably right.

Hrm. Where does it have sway, then? I admit I'm naive in these areas. :D

[artrx]

So what are we supposed to do?? well the problem is that peasants and politically disenfranchised native tribes etc, in brazil and africa have no economic recourse for survival other than slash and burn farming.

We are told that what is necessary is regulation by the UN, giving the UN supranational power to regulate the actions of people when it comes to trying to make a living, things like that.

Slash and burn farming is done because the soil is poor and can only support one or two seasons of crops, and because the drasticly poor farmers have neither the knowledge nor the materiel necesary to replenish the land and use it responsibly... so rather than making a bunch of regulations that give a foreign power the ability to come and interfere.. why don't we send people with knowledge to train the farmers, equipment and materiel necessary to make the land they have productive.. set up funds to help poor people buy land so they don't have to claim it from the rain forest...

The main impediment to doing the above is political. Many 3rd world governments are unstable and opressive and have created the very problems we're looking at because they are actively persecuting a group of people...

If you want to help the poor of brazil and give them the means to live without slash and burn farming..

I'm just going to add my two cents- Working to "save the rainforest" is very complicated for alot of the reasons stated above and more. The developing world needs education and the finacial resources to make huge changes in thier economic, political and social structures in order to be "environmentally sensitive". Not only have thier governments been greedy with natural resources, the developed world has drained these countries of thier most precious resources for centuries and historically has never given a care to the lives of the indigenous peoples.To the poor farmer working in the rainforests or the high jungles of Bolivia, the choice is slash and burn farming or growing coca so that he can feed his family & maybe educate his children. Or he can grow an "environmentally safe" crop and earn even less, putting his and his families lives at risk.

I believe we in the developed countries have a duty to invest what is necessary into less developed countries, with respect to the social/economic needs if we want the environmental message to be acted on. Also, most agricultural societies have a greater inate respect for the land than we do, but the realities of thier survival have forced them to "abuse" the land. Though they may not understand it that way.Thay have a well-founded suspicion of Westerners' ideas. Only time and experience working with those who come to educate and enpower them to solve thier own problems while respecting thier culture will enable them to see the bigger picture, the part they play in the world's survival. Political change must happen as well but it's not going to change if it's forced from the top down only(especially by foreign powers that have helped cause the problem). The force for change needs to come from the bottom up as well.

There are established non-profits working hard for this to happen and even larger organizations, though bureaucracy often complicates things a bit. I'm not very knowledgeable about the political side, but the church can do a great job of supporting established organizations with a good track record, like Catholic Relief Services, Mennonite Ecomonic Develpment Associates and others. Even the Interamerican Develpment Bank in DC, which is a large organization focusing on Latin America has project which are partially supported by religious organizations. The Episcopal Church has its own relief and develpment organization. Often a number of organizations will work together to fund a project. Now I'm rambling...

(Maybe that was more like 5 cents...)

[karen freeinchristman]

I just heard last night on a news programme that Brazil is leading the world in substitute fuels (other than petroleum-based) - with ethanol. 30% of their cars now run on ethanol fuel. Its much cleaner.

It is made from sugar cane. I was wondering though if they have to cut any rainforests down to grow the sugar cane... :scratch: the programme didn't say.