Climate change a symptom of spiritual disorder says patriarch

87 thoughts on “Climate change a symptom of spiritual disorder says patriarch”

1. Patriarch Bartholomeos, should take the time and get his facts straight before embracing such environmentalist propaganda. A hierarch has a duty to discern truth both in matters of faith and life. The problem with “man is causing global warming” theory, is that the real cause of this warming has never been determined scientifically.

   “Yes, the Earth is warming, but human activity has nothing to do with it. The Earthâ??s climate has been growing warmer since the end of the last Ice Age, around 10,000 years ago, long before the internal combustion engine, Exxon, SUVs, Halliburton, Democrat congressmen, or other alleged human sources of so-called greenhouse gasses.

   The problem with the global warming fear-mongers is their utter lack of historical or geophysical perspective. Theyâ??re not unlike Charlie Brownâ??s sister Sally, who opened a Sunday school essay: â??In Church History, itâ??s important to start at the beginning. Our pastor was born in . . .â?? For the global warming crowd, the history of the Earthâ??s climate apparently began the day they were born and any deviation from their lifetimeâ??s experienced â??normâ?? is met with arm-waving, garment-rending, hair-on-fire hysterics. Every hurricane, heat wave, drought, or snow storm is loudly boomed as nature lashing out and striking back at industrial society.” (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10659)

   Several solid scientific experiments have hinted that sunspot activity may be responsible for a vast majority of the earth’s warming. “Furthermore, the proclaimed consensus for global warming is bogus: 1,500 scientists (of whom only 181 work in fields related to climatology) signed a pro-global warming petition in 1997, but 19,000 scientists signed a petition a year later opposing the U.N.â??s Kyoto Treaty Against Global Warming. (The petition states, “â?¦ The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climateâ?¦.”)” (http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller16.html)

2. Anyone interested in an accesible, well documented take on global warming and indeed many other of the “sky is falling” dilemma’s of our current age should read Michael Critchon’s book, State of Fear. He spent several years researching the book prior to writing it and initially began believing in the “man causes global warming” idea.

   The take of the book and especially his afterward will surprize you, I think. It is a novel written by an extremely popular mainstream writer, but he began his career as a medical doctor. When he writes about scientific themes, he tries to get his facts straight–always has.

   The real problem with the attitude of the global warming alarmists aside from the ones Christian mentions, is that they certainly do not have an Orthodox anthropology at the heart of their understanding as Patriarch Bartholomew should have.

3. Christian writes: ” . . . but 19,000 scientists signed a petition a year later opposing the U.N.â??s Kyoto Treaty Against Global Warming.”

   From the web site of the Union of Concerned Scientists:
   – – – – – – – –
   “In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet from the “Global Warming Petition Project,” including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed “Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth,” a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that “increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate,” a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide “would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”

   “The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz’s past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy’s Proceedings, which it was not. The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, “the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.”

   “The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor’s degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in an renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations.”
   http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?
   pageID=498
   – – – – – – – – –

   Being an Oregon resident of some decades, I also was surprised to hear of the “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.” I found their web site. The only location listed for the place is a post office box in the giant metropolis of Cave Junction, Oregon.

   If you want to find out more about the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, here’s an entry from Sourcewatch:

   http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?
   title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

   Other than the global warming issue, their main interests seem to be publishing information on how to survive a nuclear war, and home schooling. Apparently during Y2K they were also involved in something with Christian Reconstructionist nut job Gary North, but I’m not sure what the relationship was.

   Basically, the whole petition thing with “19,000 scientists” is one of these pieces of right-wing disinformation, in this case promulgated by a little group, working out of a sheet metal building seven miles from Cave Junction, Oregon, none of whom seemingly have any formal training in climatology. Nonetheless, I’m sure we’ll be hearing about the “19,000 scientists” for years to come. In fact, I think the “19,000 scientists” would be an excellent addition to a George Bush speech, or maybe it could be presented in a speech to the U.N. by the Secretary of State.

4. I second Michael’s recommendation for reading Crichton’s “State of Fear.” Chrichton has the attitude that scientists are supposed to have, but that many do not: a skeptical of view theory, and an even-handed approach to the data.

   Scientists have taken to the soapbox about political issues, and churchmen (and women) have done the same with science and technology. So it may be appropriate that a novelist should take on what is currently the number-one sacred cow of science: global warming.

   Read the book.

5. Having just read Patriarch Bartholemew’s insightful comments on how church and state can coexist, (“Teaching the world to sing in perfect symphonia”) on this web site and now his comments on protecting the environment I am more impressed than ever in the wisdom and towering intellect of this man.

   Like the tobacco companies 30 years ago who created phony research labs and think tanks to counter scientific evidence that cigarettes caused cancer, energy companies today are spending millions to diseminate the false propaganda that global warming is not real. I’m glad to see that Patriarch Bartholemew is not one of their gullible dupes.

   The United States Environmental Protection Agency confirms the link between the burning of fosssil fuels and global warming.

   “Why are greenhouse gas concentrations increasing? Scientists generally believe that the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities are the primary reason for the increased concentration of carbon dioxide. Plant respiration and the decomposition of organic matter release more than 10 times the CO2 released by human activities; but these releases have generally been in balance during the centuries leading up to the industrial revolution with carbon dioxide absorbed by terrestrial vegetation and the oceans.

   What has changed in the last few hundred years is the additional release of carbon dioxide by human activities. Fossil fuels burned to run cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses, and power factories are responsible for about 98% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, 24% of methane emissions, and 18% of nitrous oxide emissions. Increased agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production, and mining also contribute a significant share of emissions. In 1997, the United States emitted about one-fifth of total global greenhouse gases.”

   ..Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise 1-4.5°F (0.6-2.5°C) in the next fifty years, and 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) in the next century, with significant regional variation. Evaporation will increase as the climate warms, which will increase average global precipitation. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Sea level is likely to rise two feet along most of the U.S. coast.

   http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/Climate.html

   As Christians we have a moral duty to protect our environment, God’s creation, and resist the corporate proaganda spinnners who seek to confuse, obfuscate and confound the issues in order to protect their profits. The profits resulting from degradation to our planet today come at the expense of world our children will inherit tommorow. Let us remember that we worship the Cross of Christ and not a golden calf with a dollar sign on its back.

6. The Bush administration displayed only contempt for Patriarch Bartholomew’s call to action on global warming.

   Today’s NY Times editorial offers these observations: “For its part, the Bush administration deserves only censure. No one expected a miraculous conversion. But given the steadily mounting evidence of the present and potential consequences of climate change – disappearing glaciers, melting Arctic ice caps, dying coral reefs, threatened coastlines, increasingly violent hurricanes – one would surely have expected America’s negotiators to arrive in Montreal willing to discuss alternatives.

   They did not. Instead, the principal negotiators, Paula Dobriansky and Harlan Watson, continued to tout the benefits of an approach that combines voluntary reductions by individual companies with further research into “breakthrough” technologies.

   That will not work. While a few companies may decide to proceed on their own, the private sector as a whole will neither create new technologies nor broadly deploy them unless all countries are required to do their share under a regime that combines agreed-upon targets with strong financial incentives for reaching them. To believe that companies will spend heavily to reduce emissions while their competitors are not doing the same is to believe in the tooth fairy.”

   “America’s Shame in Montreal” http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/13/opinion/13tue1.html?hp

7. Looking at the Cuba visit and now the statement on global warming, a better question is who is advising the Patriarch? There are several major missteps here. Global warming is hardly settled science, thus his voice just joins the cacaphony of those who politicize science for other ends.

   This latest statement, like the bungled Cuba visit (orchestrated by the NCC, BTW), just diminishes his stature. You don’t see Pope Benedict issuing rash edicts like this.

   As for the NYT, would you expect otherwise?

8. Father,

   This makes me want to quit the Greek Archdiocese again, if possible. The Patriarch acts less like a world leader than a carping bishop of a small diocese. Which is, of course, exactly what he is. The spiritual leader of small, failing, oppressed minority. If he lost the ‘diaspora’ then he would be, quite literally, nothing on the world scene.

   I have no problem with protecting the environment. I have children, and pets, and I don’t want any of them getting poisoned. However, there is a big difference between heavy metals in drinking water or some other provable environmental issue, and ‘global warming.’

   I prefer to panic over facts, not theories. I think this is when Constantinople should take its cue from Rome. At the same time, I think this points even more to the need of getting the Patriarchate out of Constantinople and into a city in which the Patriarchate could actually FEEL like he has some authority. Not only is the Bishop of Rome more circumspect, so is almost every other Orthodox Patriarch who actually has a national following. Having to live in the real world, rather than the Phanar, tends to exert discipline in such affairs.

9. In fact, just today Pope Benedict indirectly criticized the policies of the Bush administration regarding the use of torture and respect for international law.

   “Pope says war no excuse for human rights abuses

   VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – Pope Benedict said in an annual peace message on Tuesday that countries have a duty to respect international humanitarian law even if they are at war.

   In the first peace message of his pontificate, he also appealed for worldwide nuclear disarmament and said countries considering acquiring such weapons should “change their course.”

   In the message for the Church’s World Day of Peace, celebrated on January 1, he also strongly condemned terrorism but said the world community should look deeper into its political, social, cultural, religious and ideological motivations.

   In one part of the message, which is sent to heads of state and international organizations, the Pope said war could not be an excuse for disregarding international humanitarian law.

   ..In the 12-page message, called “In Truth, Peace,” he said the Holy See was convinced international humanitarian law had to be respected “even in the midst of war.

   ..In his message, the Pope called international humanitarian law one of the finest expressions of truth.

   “Precisely for this reason, respect for that law must be considered binding on all peoples,” he said.

   International humanitarian law “must be brought up to date by precise norms applicable to the changing scenarios of today’s armed conflicts and the use of ever newer and more sophisticated weapons,” he added.

   Washington says the Geneva Convention does not apply to foreign captives in its war on terrorism, but human rights activists say it is still bound by the 1984 U.N. Convention against Torture to which it is a signatory.”

   Asked if the Pope was singling out the United States for condemnation, Martino said: “The Holy Father states this and is not condemning anybody but is inviting them to observe the Geneva Convention.”

   http://au.news.yahoo.com/051213/15/x79h.html

10. The Patriarch’s comments on global warming are supported by, and reflect the findings, of such highly respected organizations as the US Rnvironmental Protection Agency, the National Academy of Science, and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Are we to believe that all these agencies have somehow become captive to some vast liberal conspiracy? I invite you to go to their web sites and read the information they provide on global warming, which all without exception treat as “settled science.” Unlike the works of Michael Crichton, thier science is not fiction.

    As early as 2001 the BBC reported: “US President George W Bush has been told by leading scientists that climate change is real and getting worse. Their White House-commissioned report is now being reviewed by the president as he prepares to face European leaders angered by his attack on the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

    A panel from the National Academy of Sciences said a leading cause is emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

    .. Temperatures are, in fact, rising,” the panel warned. “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise,” the report said.

    It warned that “national policy decisions made now and in the longer-term future will influence the extent of any damage suffered by vulnerable human populations and ecosystems later in this century”.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1375089.stm

    Before anyone acuses the Partriarch or any others sounding the alarm on global warming of wanting to “politicize science”, they should check their facts. If there is anyone being radical and ideological here it is those who seek to discredit and distort scientific findings that conflict with the doctrine of unrestrained free-market fundamentalism.

11. From the Wall Street Journal: “It may be the latest evidence of global warming: Polar bears are drowning.

    Scientists for the first time have documented multiple deaths of polar bears off Alaska, where they likely drowned after swimming long distances in the ocean amid the melting of the Arctic ice shelf. The bears spend most of their time hunting and raising their young on ice floes.

    In a quarter-century of aerial surveys of the Alaskan coastline before 2004, researchers from the U.S. Minerals Management Service said they typically spotted a lone polar bear swimming in the ocean far from ice about once every two years. Polar-bear drownings were so rare that they have never been documented in the surveys.

    But in September 2004, when the polar ice cap had retreated a record 160 miles north of the northern coast of Alaska, researchers counted 10 polar bears swimming as far as 60 miles offshore. Polar bears can swim long distances but have evolved to mainly swim between sheets of ice, scientists say.”

    December 14, 2005, Is Global Warming Killing the Polar Bears? By JIM CARLTON Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
    http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB113452435089621905-vnekw47PQGtDyf3iv5XEN71_o5I_20061214.html

    Okay ad-hominem attackers, are you going to acuse the WSJ of being part of the so-called liberal media as well?

    Maybe if we follow the Bush administration’s recommendations for dealing with global warming there might be a polar bear or two left to save in thirty or forty years when all their “additional research” and “further study” is complete.

12. That’s really depressing. What I don’t understand is how many (not all) conservatives are not conservative about the environment, especially Christian conservatives. Wouldn’t we want to play it safe with the one planet we have been entrusted to care for? “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof …”

13. Dean,

    The core issues of “global warming” are WHO and WHAT are causing it. The “official” propaganda blaming CO2 “polutant” and the US economy are not credible or realistic by any stretch of the imagination. With ice ages cycles running in 50,000 year increments and decades-wide mini-cycles (remember the “global cooling” scare in the 1970s?) of cooling and warming, the jury is still out on the exact causes of warming. Many scientists have shown that SUNSPOT activity and WATER VAPOR may account for close to 99% of the actual warming effect on the earth. This means that all of humanity has a negligible and rather miniscule effect on an atmospheric level. Even if we all disappeared of the face of the planet, the global warming and cooling cycles will continue regardless.

    “The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.”

    “For example, about 300 years ago, the Earth was experiencing the “Little Ice Age.” It had descended into this relatively cool period from a warm interval about 1,000 years ago known as the “Medieval Climate Optimum.” During the Medieval Climate Optimum, temperatures were warm enough to allow the colonization of Greenland. These colonies were abandoned after the onset of colder temperatures. For the past 300 years, global temperatures have been gradually recovering (11). They are still a little below the average for the past 3,000 years. The human historical record does not report “global warming” catastrophes, even though temperatures have been far higher during much of the last three millennia.”

    REALITY CHECK
    ==============
    CO2 represents only 0.0314% (http://www.pubquizhelp.34sp.com/sci/air.html) of the air on the planet. Human activity accounts for only 5% of that 0.0314%, nature contribute 95% of that CO2. So, if we’re to understand your “science”, particles that make up 0.00157% of the earth’s atmosphere are responsible for a planet-wide “warming” effect. This is absolutely impossible, especially since water vapor is known to cause a much more significant “warming” effect.

    Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many “facts and figures’ regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold. Multiple experiments have shown this to be correct. Even National Geographic did a story last month, confirming this.

    National Geographic online (11/10/2005) = “The latest villain on global warming’s most-wanted list is all wetâ??and a little surprising. Water vapor, experts say, is the culprit behind Europe’s rapidly rising temperatures.”
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html

    More resources:
    http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
    http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
    http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/causes12.jsp
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html

14. Note 14 Conservation is a natural for conservatives, environmentalism isn’t

    Juli. You are correct, conservation is a natural instinct for conservatives. Teddy Roosevelt was a leading conservationist and he created our wonderful national park sytem. Sensible people recognize the value of clean air, water and healthy soils. We all recognize the need of the human soul for the restoring effect of the beauties of nature. We have agreement there. I support reasonable regulations which are carefully designed to protect the health of people and animals.

    Environmentalism is different from conservationism. Environmentalism has lost a great deal of credibility over the last 40 years.
    Here are some of my criticisms of what passes for environmentalism.

    First, it environmentalists engage in hysterical moral posturing. Coming up with a workable solution for environmental problems is not easy. In the real world, we have to balance cost and benefits and workability of various solutions. Engaging in what I call “moral intimidation” to silence debate or to cut off debate does not help solve problems. Turn down the heat, engage in discussion with more respect of the opinions of others, stop demonizing people who have different proposals, and I will think more of environmentalists.

    Second, environmentalists frequently are absolutists. Life on this planet has changed over the millenia. Some species have prospered some have gone extinct. We know dinosaurs are now extinct. This occurred by a natural process. Environmentalists tend to take the position that every species must be saved at all costs. They tend to place animal life above human life. The DDT controversy is an example. DDT was found to harm some bird species. It was banned in many countries. DDT is now treated as a pariah. However, DDT is the cheapest, quickest and most effective way to kill mosquitoes. Mosquitos spread malaria. This remains a real problem in Africa. Today, millions of African children die because DDT has been banned. Personally, I prefer to suffer some loss of the bird population than suffer the death of children. Environmentalists ARE NEVER HELD ACCOUNTABLE for full consequences of their recommened policies.
    A solution to this problem, malarial deaths in Africa, may require that we accept some decline in the bird population. Adults understand that nearly everything has a cost and a benefit, and these have to be weighed to come up with the best decision. Environmentalists just want to engage in holier-than-thou posturing and impose absolutist and sometimes anti-human remedies.

    Here is a quote from John Stossel at realclearpolitics.com

    But fear campaigns kill people, too. DDT is a great pesticide. The amount was the reason for the DDT problems. We sprayed far more than is needed to prevent the spread of malaria. It’s sprayed on walls, and one spraying will keep mosquitoes at bay for half a year. It’s a very efficient malaria fighter. But today, DDT is rarely used. America’s demonization of it caused others to shun it. And while the U.S. government spends tax money fighting malaria in Africa, it refuses to put that money into DDT. It might save lives, but it might offend environmentalist zealots and create political fallout.

    DDT was banned in America after we started celebrating Earth Day. Environmentalists made a lot of claims then — I have an amusing clip of an environmentalist exclaiming, “You are breathing probably the last of the oxygen!” Soon after that the environmentalists mounted their campaign against DDT. The result? A huge resurgence of malaria, more than 50 million dead, mostly children.

    “If it’s a chemical, it must be bad,” said scientist Amir Attaran. “If it’s DDT, it must be awful. And that’s fine if you’re a rich, white environmentalist. It’s not so fine if you’re a poor black kid who is about to lose his life from malaria.”

    Attaran is leading a campaign of hundreds of scientists urging the use of DDT to combat malaria. It’s needed especially in Africa, he says, because malaria kills thousands there every day. “If I were to characterize what USAID does on malaria,” he said, “I’d call it medical malpractice, I would call it murderous.”

15. Dean,

    Pope Benedict’s statement concerning human rights is completely on-point and within his rights to speak about. Why? Because he is a moral leader, and the subject of torture is, at heart, a question of morality. I would support any Orthodox leader making the same comments.

    However, the science of global warming is far from proven. As Christian pointed out, there is substantial debate over whether or not the current warming trend is anything other than the natural cycle of the Earth. The Earth has been warmer than it is now. It has also been a lot colder than it is now. I can advocate taking drastic steps on the idea that maybe, just maybe, they will have some effect on the climate.

    Juli – a great number of ‘Christians’ reject the sacramentality of matter. They simply don’t care about God’s Creation because they consider it transitory. All matter is corrupt, and so the sooner Jesus will return to burn the whole thing down the better. One ‘Christian’ who posts a lot on right-wing sites has a tag line on his message, “Spotted owls taste just like chicken.” That’s just plain sick. But since matter is irrelevent, the world is corrupt, and the Apacolypse is nigh, many conservative Christians have nothing good to say about the environment.

    Obviously, Orthodox and Roman Catholic thinkers will not see eye-to-eye with this view. But even many of them are silent because of the way the enviro-crazies have co-opted environmentalism for their own agenda. I’d love to help preserve the Earth, but am I really going to feel welcome at a pro-environmental rally along with the Wiccans, the socialists, etc. Doubt it.

    Does that excuse silence? No, it doesn’t. I should speak out for the truth, even though it puts me on a side of the fence that I don’t feel comfortable with because of the neighbors. I have a duty to offer, as well, more free-market oriented proposals for protecting the environment, rather than ignoring the whole issue. It’s tough, however, given the political nature of this subject.

16. Christian: Read your own article (from National Geographic) a little closer. The article you cited makes clear that the change in weather patterns is neither random or cyclical but driven by the increase in greenhouse gases, “from car exhaust, industrial emissions, and other sources.” Yes there is more water vapor in the atmosphere, as you say, but the article adds, “greenhouse gases, put more water vapor into the atmosphere.”

    “‘It is an experiment that clearly shows which factors are driving the higher temperatures. It is not the clouds, not the sun, not the aerosols. It is the increased greenhouse gases and the strong water vapor impact,’ Philipona said.

    ‘We believe strongly that we are observing increased greenhouse effect,’ said Philipona, whose results were published this week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

    An increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, from car exhaust, industrial emissions, and other sources, has been observed throughout the planet since about 1960, Philipona said.

    This research indicates that small changes in temperature, driven by greenhouse gases, put more water vapor into the atmosphere, which drives up the temperature more,” said Thompson, who studies ice cores and glacier retreat in the tropics.

    Under normal conditions, much of the heat that is emitted from the Earth’s surface, called long-wave radiation, goes into the atmosphere and back out to space. But water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb some of that heat, Thompson said.”

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html

17. Let’s focus on that economic argument. Consider the tremendous boost it would give to our economy, if the United States became the leader in the development of alternative energy sources and energy conserving products, instead of a follower.

    Think of the resurgence our auto industry would enjoy if, for once, we could catch the Japanese flat-footed instead of the other way around, by developing affordable automobiles with hydrogen-fuel cell and hybrid technology. I heard a Wall Street analyst on a business show remark last week that GM and Ford, through their marketing strategy, have taught US consumers to buy American if they want pick-up trucks and SUVs and buy Japanese if they want fuel-efficient cars.

    Think of the positive impact on our trade balance if we could produce most of our electricty using solar and wind-powered sources, rather than having to import foreign petroleum. Today the Commerce department reported the largest trade deficit in US history, an imbalance that is financed through borrowing from foreign lenders and whose repayment will someday place a tremendous drag on our economy.

    Think of the jobs that would be created if America became the leader in the manufacturing solar panels, mass transportation systems, and appliances that use less electricity. Why can’t large barren stretches in Nevada and Southern California be blanketed with solar panels? Why can’t the wind swept plains be covered with windmills? Why can’t we learn to build suburbs around light-rail transit lines into urban hubs and business districts, so that Americans don’t have to waste 2 houers and a tank of gasoline in the automotive stop-and-go conga-line every day?

    Conservative economists tell us we are not supposed to think about alternative energy and energy conserving products or expect our government to do anything to hasten their development. We have to wait for private industry to get around to it. Private industry as we have seen run by CEOs focused on the the next quarterly profit statement and it’s impact on their stock options and bonuses. They can’t see any further than that. Which is why if America waits for private industry to get around to developing alternative energy and energy conserving products our country will lose out again.

18. NOte 19 Dean, why do you think the U.S is a follower?

    Recent statistics show that the United States has a better record than Canada on air pollution. Our air quality has improved more than has Canada’s over the last 30 years. Our particulate emmissions are lower by every measure than Canada.

19. Note 18 Dean, what do you know about the production of electricity?

    Dean, I am a degreed electrical engineer and I actually know something about how electricity is produced. Electric power generated by coal fired or hydroelectric plants is very clean. Electric power generated by nuclear powered plants is also clean, but, it presents the problem of long term disposal of radioactive material. Given that we in America have a 300 year supply of coal within our own borders, we can rely on coal and not even use nuclear. Here is why electric power from coal and hydroelectric power plants is POLLUTION FREE.

    Power plants have three senstive points where pollution is controlled. First, any particulates emitted from the smokestack from coal buring are SCREENED and prevented from being emitted into the environment. There is virtually NO PARTICULATE pollution from modern electric power generating plants. Second, the hot air emitted from the smokestake is cooled through a series of baffles before it is released to the environment. Consequently, the air from the combustion of coal is particulate free and at the same temperature as the ambient air. Lastly, water used to cool machinery inside the plant is also circulated through cooling baffles before it is released to the environment. This means that COAL FIRED PLANTS produce electricity at low cost with VIRTUALLY NO POLLUTION. You wouldn’t know that talking to an “environmentalist” would you.

    The people who call themselves “environmentalists” are frequently just those people whose knowledge of science is the thinnest and weakest.

    Solar and wind power. A great deal of work is being done on solar and wind power and it shows promise. A leading engineer just wrote an anlysis of the current state of wind power generation in the Tau Beta Pi journal. This is a leading engineering honor society journal, read by everybody in the profession. He was able to demonstrate that as of today, there are some very severe limitations on the capacity of wind power to produce the kind of energy we need to keep this economy going. However, no one I know in the scientific community opposes funding for continued research.

    Dean, you have just demonstrated why conservatives like me, who naturally favor conservation of natural resources and the promotion of human health, have had it with the “environmentalists.” Too many environmentalists couldn’t find hydrogen on the periodic table if their lives depended on it. Have you noticed the inverse correlation between “environmentalism” and scientific acumen.

20. Note 19 Dean, do you keep up with the publications of the Power Society of the IEEE?

    Dean, since you are an environmentalist who is qualified to evaluate energy systems, you must be familiar with the Power Society of the IEEE. As you well know the IEEE is the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. You also know that the Power Society is the sub-group of electrical engineers that build power generating plants. If you would spend some time reading their literature you would realize that EE’s who build power plants spend at least 25% of their planning time, buildling environmental protections into the designs of their plants. I am sure that you keep up with this publicly available literature, don’t you?

21. Note Mental Haze blocks rational discourse, hurts America, hurts the environment

    As I explained, there are three points on a coal burning electric power plant where pollution (heat and particulates) can be stopped, screened and eliminated BEFORE it enters the environment. This means that coal burning plants are virtually POLLUTION FREE. However, the “environmentalists,” that collection of scientific geniuses, have convinced the public that COAL IS BAD.

    Has anyone ever tried to discuss an issue with an environmentalist? The same person who is telling the United States that it should not acquire energy independence by using its 300 year supply of coal, is the person who thinks that crystals heal disease. This is the person who thinks that soy will cure cancer. YET, these are the people that we have allowed to influence our public policy.

    Again, if you spent 5 minutes reading the literature of the Power Society of the IEEE,a group of people who actually know whereof they speak, you would see that they devote a great deal of their time to environmental protection. However, reading their literature does require some LINEAR THOUGHT not approved of by the CRYSTALS and SHAMAN crowd.

    Driving the anti-science and anti-rationalist group out of the debate about the environment would improve our chances of finding good solutions to our problems. They exist if we stop assuming an “hollier-than-thou” attitude and actuall come to grips with the real choices that face us.

    Again, the anti-scientific and the “holier-than-thou” group blocks rational discourse and intelligent public decision making.

22. Note 18, Dean have your heard of FERC or EPA?

    The suggestion that anyone thinks that industry alone should determine environmental protection standards is absurd. There is the EPA and FERC. FERC stands for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Energy companies are very heavily regulated and have been for decades. Really, Dean, where have you been for the last 30 years? The Clean Air Act and many other pieces of federal and state legislation impose heavy environmental review requirements on every electric company in the country. Not only do electric companies have to satisfy environmental standards when they open a new plant, they have to satisfy environmental standards when they modify a plant.

    Although work remains to be done, American air quality has IMPROVED since 1970’s. American air quality exceeds that of MANY OTHER COUNTRIES.

    You are demonstrating an almost total lack of REAL INFORMATION about the issue of air pollution and energy production. You again demonstrate that you believe your country is worst place in the world. You really think that the rest of the world is leading ahead of use, when that factually is simply NOT TRUE.

23. Quiz for Dean

    Since you are qualified to opine on energy policy, please tell me what the technological sticking point is with wind energy? When engineers work on wind power problems what is the BIGGEST technological problem that they encounter? What is blocking greater use of wind power?

    Come on, you can tell us? You are on top of energy pollution issues aren’t you? What’s the sticking point?
    Why isn’t it currently used more? WARNING, simple physics here. A bright high school student could figure this out if he thought about it for a while.

    You have 24 hours, Dean. Tick, tick, and tick.

24. Why Environmentalists Have Litlte Credibility with the Public

    Here is a citation to an ENTIRE ISSUE OF A POWER SOCIETY magazine devoted to wind power.
    http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pes/public/2005/nov/index.html

    Yet, if you gave credence to Dean, you would think that the “evil” power industry is blocking the study of wind power? Funny, there are pages and pages of detailed and indepth research on the matter. Not only that the world’s largest association of power engineers posted it on the web for ANYBODY to read.

    No, not for the environmentalists, that would be too much effort. Too much linear thought. They have to get back to healing arthritis with soy and buildling their drums and puppets for their next big march “against the evil power industry.”

25. Missorian: If coal-fired electrical power plants are so clean why is Acid Rain such a major problem in mid-eastern states where most of these plants are located? The Smoky Mountain National Park and other wilderness areas in the eastern states are literally dying because of acid rain resulting from power plant pollutants.

    “KNOXVILLE, Tenn. – Scientists plan to study soil this spring in high elevations of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park â?? the area most affected by acid rain and other environmental problems, officials say.

    The Smokies’ suffer from some of the worst acid rain problems in the U.S., especially after major rains or snow melts when streams and rainwater in the higher elevations become more acidic than normal.

    Acid rain results when sulfur and nitrogen byproducts from fossil fuel-burning plants, industries and motorized vehicles combine with water vapor to form weak acid.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051206/ap_on_sc/smokies_acid_rain_1

26. Note 26. Dean, read your article.

    Dean asks: BEGIN QUOTE FROM DEAN
    If coal-fired electrical power plants are so clean why is acid rain such a major problem in the mid-eastern states where most of these plants are located.? END QUOTE FROM DEAN.

    Missourian answers: Read your article: which states as follows: BEGIN QUOTE FROM ARTICLE
    Acid rain results when sulfur and nitrogen byproducts from fossil fuel-burning plants, industries and motorized vehicles combine with water vapor to form weak acid. END QUOTE FROM ARTICLE

    Altlernative sources of pollution are noted in your article, coal-burning industries and automobiles, probably like the one you’re driving unless you are driving an electric car. WAIT, an electric car!!! Gosh, you might need ELECTRIC POWER for your ELECTRIC CAR.
    ZOTS!!! DEAN, you are foiled again. Electric is clean.

    Your comments show a total ignorance of the extremely tight controls exercised over the power industry by EPA and FERC.

    I do agree that the power industry DOES qualify as a LEFTIST VILLAIN. Firstly, the power industry supplies a needed good to America. This means they are PRODUCTIVE. Productive segments of the economy MUST be demonized, shamed and condemned. Non-productive people must be honored and supported for they are the true victims. Second, the American power industry has consistently produced widely available very cheap electric power. Something that we are enjoying now. Compared to nearly every other country in the world American electric power is cheap, both as a relative share of average income and as measured absolutely. This readily available form of power MUST BE CONDEMNED because it has FUELED ECONOMIC GROWTH and JOBS. We must condemn economic growth. Wealth and jobs for people ARE BAD. The righteous poverty of the Communist world (by the way, Communist Russia and today’s China are among the very worst polluters in the world.)is preferable.

27. Note 26, Dean are you still contending that nobody is studying wind?

    Have you figured our my wind power puzzle yet? Keep working on it, it will come to you. Do you still contend that “nobody is studying windpower?” Hmm, I live near “wind central” guess you Californians with your horrendous car based pollution know less about wind power. Why don’t you contact the IEEE Power Society and get them to give a talk at your local community group. Might actually learn something about where power comes from. Hint, the copper coil turns around inside the magnet: go from there. For bonus points, what is the name of the famous physicist who described the laws of physics which generate power when copper coils turn inside magents?

28. Coal fired power plants not only damage the environment but also harm human health. Five US power plants alone are responsible for emitting 650 million tons of carbon dioxide each year, 10 percent of the country’s carbon dioxide. These power plants also emit thousands of tons of sulfur dioxide and mercury into the atmosphere as well. Thousands of human deaths have been linked to poluution emitted by coal fired power plants.

    “Deadly power plants? Study fuels debate; Thousands of early deaths tied to emissions.

    WASHINGTON – Health problems linked to aging coal-fired power plants shorten nearly 24,000 lives a year, including 2,800 from lung cancer, and nearly all those early deaths could be prevented if the U.S. government adopted stricter rules, according to a study released Wednesday.

    ..report also found that:

    – People dying prematurely from problems associated with exposure to fine particle pollution, or soot, lost an average of 14 years.
    – Power plant pollution is responsible for 38,200 nonfatal heart attacks and 554,000 asthma attacks each year.
    – Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida had the highest overall mortality rates each year, and West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee â?? states with a large number of coal-fired plants â?? had the highest per capita mortality risk.

    In a separate but related study, University of Maryland scientists reported Wednesday that the skies became dramatically cleaner when power plants had to shut down during the August 2003 blackout that hit the Northeast.

    Measurements found a 90 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide, a gas that leads to haze and acid rain, and a 50 percent reduction in smog, or ground-level ozone. The amount of light-scattering particles in the air dropped by 70 percent and visibility increased by some 20 miles.

    ‘In addition, skies cleared up far from some power plants. “The improvement in air quality provides evidence that transported emission from power plants hundreds of kilometers upwind play a dominant role in regional haze’ and smog, the scientists write in a paper appearing in the next issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

    ‘What surprised us was not so much the observation of improved air quality during the blackout, but the magnitude of the observed improvement,” lead author Lackson Marufu said in a statement. ‘The improvement in air quality was so great that you could not only measure it, but could actually see it as a much clearer, less hazy sky.'”

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/

29. Dean, again, read your article.

    Health problems linked to aging coal-fired power plants shorten nearly 24,000 lives a year, including 2,800 from lung cancer, and nearly all those early deaths could be prevented if the U.S. government adopted stricter rules, according to a study released Wednesday.

    The key word here is “aging.” This article refers to plants which were built prior to the passage of the Clean Air Act in the 1970’s. Plants which are BUILT TODAY are very clean, because they incorporate
    “single-point” pollution from the onset. The eastern United States has more OLD power plants. Both the EPA and FERC have applied modified rules to plants that were built before 1970 because they cannot be modified to screen pollutants as well as plants which were DESIGNED FROM THE BEGINNING to screen pollutants. Since the community depends on the power for industries and jobs, EPA and FERC, have set standards which were adjusted to reflect the age and condition of the plants.

    As to the “deaths” attributed to the power plants, there is no true evidence tying a particular death to a particular plant. The comments about the haze are anecdotal. The “deaths” figure is epidemiological, this means that someone has decided that a certain quantum of pollutant causes a certain increase in deaths in a large geographical area BY COMPLICATING existing conditions such as lung cancer. This is why it is called “epimediological.” What epidemiological data CANNOT tell you is how actual potential pollutants from a particular plant are DIFFUSED ACROSS large areas, because it depends on local geographical and metereological data. BUT GOSH YOU KNEW THAT!!!

30. Missourian writes: “Given that we in America have a 300 year supply of coal within our own borders, we can rely on coal and not even use nuclear.”

    The problem is that we don’t have a 300 year supply of coal. The “300 years” always refers to the estimated amount of coal based on current levels of consumption. If you look at the increase in the rate of consumption the last 50 years, we went from around 400 million tons a year in 1950 to over 1 billion tons a year in 2000. At that rate consumption will double every 36 years, leaving us with around a 98-year supply. Of course, this assumes that the rate of coal production does not increase due to shortages of natural gas or petroleum products. Bump the rate of increase in consumption up a quarter of a percent and the coal lasts 85 years. Bump it up a full percent and it lasts 77 years.

    But let’s say that we’ve underestimated the supply of coal, and that we really have a “600 year” supply. That’s great, but that only actually buys us an additional 31 years, even at the current increase in the rate of consumption. As the energy gurus point out, when you have exponential growth in the consumption of a finite resource, the starting quantity of the resource doesn’t matter very much.

31. Block new electric power plants, and add to pollution.

    Environmentalists all over America work to block the building of new power plants. BUT, it is precisely those NEW power plants that are CLEANER, MORE EFFICIENT and MORE EFFECTIVE than the old power plants built with pre-WWII technology. If we have no new power plants, we have to rely on the existing older, dirtier plants.Again, “environmentalists” block TRUE PROGRESS, but in terms of better health and in economic terms.

    Just like well-fed “environmentalists” who live in malaria free countries PREACH to the Third World. Don’t use DDT, you might damage a bird species, RATHER, let your children die of malaria, it is the environmentally correct thing to do.

    Hint, I describe people with rational concerns about pollution as “conservationists.” Conservationists understand that there is a cost and a benefit to everything and they seek to use science and reason to come up with good solutions. Environmentalists are a religious cult that WORSHIPS NATURE and HATES THE FUTURE.

32. Note 28, O.K. Jim, let’s say its just 31 years

    O.K., Jim lets just say that my estimate is off, and we have only 31 years of coal. Thirty-one years is plenty of time to find new technologies and to break the strangle-hold of the Saudi Islamo-fascists.

33. How much would you pay to save lives?

    Dean, is in high dudgeon that emissions from power plants may contribute to deaths. Note, that nobody dies from emissions, rather, people WHO ALREADY SUFFER from lung problems have their conditions worsened and their deaths hastened. This is important but it is not the same as say, car accidents. In a car accident, you are just plain, instantaneously dead.

    O.K., we have 50,000 deaths a year that are CLEARLY the direct result of car accidents. If we all spent an additional $3,000 per year on our cars, we could reduce that by a factor of 50%? We could add the armour to our cars that would protect us from collisions. We don’t do that because Americans don’t want to spend the money. We could also reduce traffic deaths by 50% if we raised the minimum driving age to 21? Teenagers cause far more traffic accidents than any other age group. They are truly a hazard. Anyone who studies traffic safety knows this. Legislators know this. We don’t act to SAVE LIVES by RAISING THE DRIVING AGE because America wants its teenagers to drive. It is convenient to not have drive our children around.

    Dean, this shows that Americans are not ABSOLUTISTS, we will not PAY ANY PRICE to SAVE LIVES. So when you apply this rationale to the power industry, which is building very clean NEW PLANTS, you are discriminating against a very useful industry. But, remember as a good Leftist you must continue to attack and demonize the PRODUCTIVE. Good job.

34. Dean, EPA dismisses the report upon which you rely

    Dean, you just have to get into the habit of READING the articles you site in support of your positions. The article that makes the claims about air pollution deaths is NOT ACCEPTED by the EPA.

    BEGIN ARTICLE QUOTE:
    The EPA said the report â??doesnâ??t look at the whole picture,â?? and pointed to a suite of related rules limiting diesel and smog emissions that will have a cumulative impact.Together, the rules â??will bring nearly every community in America into attainment under our new, more protective health based air quality standards,â?? the agency said in a statement.
    END ARTICLE QUOTE:

    The EPA says that looking at all possible sources of pollution, the new rules will protect health. But, we have to ignore this, don’t we. We need to attack the sources of material productivity and the power industry just creates and supports TOO MUCH economic activity.

    You still have to reply to my factual assertion that NEW POWER PLANTS are clean. If environmentalists DO ANYTHING they complain about the CURRENT USE OF ENERGY while OPPOSING THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW SOURCES OF ENERGY. Caribou in the high arctic is more important that freeing our country from Saudi dependency. Bird species are more important than African children dying from malaria. Most of the cultural Left are actually something one author called “enemies of the future.” They are nostalgic for the time before the Industrial Revolution, when people worked by hand from dawn to dusk, all this industrial labor saving stuff is just too much for them.

35. Missourian writes: “Thirty-one years is plenty of time to find new technologies and to break the strangle-hold of the Saudi Islamo-fascists.”

    Well, I think it will be longer than 31 years for coal, but the U.S. already hit peak oil production in the early 70s.

    But we have a HUGE problem coming down the pipeline, and as far as I can tell the administration is doing little or nothing about it. There is a finite and rapidly declining worldwide stock of oil, natural gas, and coal. Along with that there is exponential growth in the consumption of all of these. On top of that is the increased demand for energy coming from the emerging Asian economies.

    Not too many years hence — and perhaps even starting now — you’re going to see a “perfect storm” as all of these factors converge on each other. The Bush administration solution for the problem of energy shortage is to produce more . . . . which is like saying if you’re running out of food the solution is to eat up the remaining food even faster. For example, the famous oil reserves in the arctic wilderness would supply us with oil for about six months.

    And speaking of food, as many have noted, modern agriculture is basically a way of turning oil into food. Agriculture is heavily dependent on petrochemical products. In addition petroleum is used in the manufacture of all sorts of products without which life would quickly become very difficult. And on top of that the whole structure of our cities — big houses, the suburbs, the commute — is based on cheap and available energy.

    So if technology is going to help us, it better be a hell of a technology. Vegetable-based fuels such as alcohol and biodiesel are frequently mentioned, but again, they themselves take petro-agriculture to produce, and in the quantities we would need would require more land than we currently have in all kinds of agricultural production. Everyone talks about hydrogen, but hydrogen is a battery — it isn’t an energy source. (In other words, it takes more energy to produce hydrogen than what we get out of it.)

    As far as I can tell, that leaves nuclear. Given that whatever can go wrong will go wrong, and given the existing history of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, that’s hardly a comforting option. So the clock is running, and at this point I don’t see any magic technology on the horizon.

36. Jim Holman, Note 31

    See my note number 3. My intent has been to refute the hysterical proposition that COAL IS BAD.

    I have noted that I fully support research into alternative energy sources.

    I fully support research into public health issues.

    I agree that we have IMMENSE energy challenges. All the more reason to use one of our energy strengths: coal used in new, well-designed electric power plants. These NEW and CLEAN plants can supply ELECTRICITY for a new fleet of NEW and CLEAN CARS. They are also go a long way in freeing us from slavery to the Islamo-fascists.

    People who are trying to call attention to the energy issues are performing a public service, as long as those people as really looking for rational solutions and will discuss the matter in good faith. Many of those people who call themselves “environmentalists” have acted in ways that lead a rational person to distrust them. I do now. I formerly trusted them, not any more.

37. You guys have drifted off topic (pun intended). In my opinion the patriarch’s statements are wholly Orthodox for at least two reasons.

    1. As Orthodox we believe that God is ‘present in all places and filling all things’. If He is then we have a responsibility to not only conserve but be environmentally conscience of our planet since the gradual destruction of the environment is analogous to us not believing that God really is present in all places and filling all things.
    2. The patriarch says a key phrase in his speech, “excesses in the demands of our lifestyle”. It is a traditional Orthodox position to rail against this topic. It doesn’t take a scientist to see that the majority of our environmental damage stems from our (selfish) lifestyles. The size and number of cars we drive, our insatiable need for more electricity, our increasing demand for disposable products etc. Do you see how environmental concerns can be directly linked to morality? (Note 15)

    Also, I admit that the global warming data has two interpretations, one for human induced climate change and another for a cyclical or “natural” effect. BUT, that does not change the fact that we are polluting our environment with our waste. Logic says that waste that wasn’t there before especially on the scale that it is now will have an effect on the planet. Maybe global warming, maybe not, but some effect. Anyone who tries to dismiss this point is denying the truth.

38. Note 39 Generalities Not Helpful, Driving Car is Not Selfish

    George states:It doesn’t take a scientist to see that the majority of our environmental damage stems from our (selfish) lifestyles

    SELFISH LIFESTYLES AND AIR POLLUTION:
    O.K. George let’s look at one major pollution problem: air quality. Our biggest source of air pollution is America is the automobile followed by industry.

    We need to switch from gas powered cars to electric powered cars. Electric powered cars are already being produced and they are quite nice and servicable. All we need are the recharging stations which would be comparable to gas stations. We have coal and we have the technology to prevent the burning of coal at power plants from polluting the environment.

    As to industrial plants, we have the technology to prevent emission from these plants from entering the environment. It is called “single point emissions control.” As an engineering matter, it is relataively easy and the technology exists. Single point emissions control systems are built into EVERY NEW FACTORY in America. It takes more money to refit older factories.

    What, may I ask does “selfish lifestyles” have to do with this. Moralizing problems like this is distinctly counter-productive. If you want to go back to a time before most people drove cars then just state that, but, generalized moralizing is not only nonsense but COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE.

39. Note 38: Of all the posters on the environment, I was the only one offering real solutions

    George, no one was “dismissing” the issue of environmental pollution. As I noted in several posts, every sane person wants clean air, clean water and clean soil. The vast majority of Americans are concerned and willing to discuss rational policies to control or eliminate pollution.

    Of all the posters, I was the only one who actually could discuss concrete SOLUTIONS to environmental problems. The tendency among “environmentalists” as opposed to “conservationists” is to DEMONIZE a technology instead of taking an objective look at it. I have amply demonstrated that coal can be used in an environmentally safe manner, that it can produce electricity safely and cheaply and that that very electricity can be used to power our cars. This is just one problem, but, it does directly relate the the current concerns about over global warming.

    Again, your moralizing in a vacuum of knowledge is not helpful.

40. Georege, Is Living in a 19th Century pre-industrial society less selfish?

    As a woman, I am NOT overwhelmed with nostalgia for pre-industrial living. Women’s lives were filled with eternal work producing cloth, sewing clothes by hand, cooking over fires, washing clothes in streams. Dawn to dust, then you collapsed in a heap for sleep. Men, of course, didn’t have it very good either. Men had to do back-breaking hard labor, labor that made a 40 year old man, an old man. Men had to do dangerous in coal mines, on the high seas and in the blacksmithing shops.

    With such much time consumed with survival based manual labor, there wasn’t much time for “quality time” with family. People died young from what are now preventable diseases. There weren’t those wonderful ambulances available to take injured people to modern emergency rooms. Women died young in childbirth.We didn’t have networks of public libraries and schools available to nearly anyone. There weren’t networks of emergency people to help after a storm or a flood. There was NO ELECTRICITY and you had to sleep after sundown. There was no good way to travel across country and you never got to leave your village and see the rest of the world. There was no good water and sewer system and you had to live pretty close to your own waste. BOY, life was really UNSELFISH then.

    So much time was consumed with working for mere survival, that few people had the luxury of time to read books for pleasure, play a musical instrument, compose poetry or paint a picture for the sheer pleasure of it.

    Thanks, George, but unless you define what you consider to be selfish living, you don’t have much support for me. Are you suggesting returning to the 19th Century? Fine, give me your car, I could use another one.

41. Missourian,

    You seem to have a very argumentative and sarcastic tone in your responses to my comment. Did I offend you with my post? If you wanted a definition of selfish living, you could just ask instead of launching into a diatribe.

    My main point was that the patriarch was arguing from an Orthodox point of view (which you did not engage). Do you really think we don’t live a selfish lifestyle as a culture? Do we all need 2 cars (with v8 motors)? Do we all need to use incandescent light bulbs instead of compact florescents? Do we need to watch TV as much as we do? Do we need to eat as much food as we do? It’s not just the cars that cause environmental damage and green house gas emissions, its also in power generation, and industry, both of which are working to make things for you and me because we want them.

    If its environmental alternatives you are looking for, one major change we could easily implement would be to start producing biodiesel to power our vehicles. This would greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions since it would be a carbon neutral system. We could also distribute power generation to smaller stations and spread them out among major cities and towns. This would reduce the line loss that is currently incurred by long distance transmission.

42. Note 42. George, wear fewer shoes, use less paper

    IS THERE A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN SOCIETY WIDE CONSUMPTION LEVELS AND POLLUTION?
    Actually there is no guarantee that a society wide, lower standard of living (lower consumption) would reduce pollution. In the 19th century, paper companies used a production method that resulted in dumping chemicals into streams. Technology has allowed us to find better and non-polluting ways to produce paper. We could develop this technology because we, as a country, were rich enough to have research universities working on such problems. Another example is the older method of tanning leather which also produced water pollution. Should we blamed SELFISH people of the 19th century for using paper and wearing shoes? What if the selfish people of the 19th century just used fewer shoes and less paper? Wouldn’t they be much holier? Not, in my opinion. There were also many 19th Century instances of rivers and streams being overfished, killing off fish populations. Should people have eaten less fish? I don’t think there was much overconsumption of food in the 19th century. Most people just got enough to get by.

    Mere consumption is not the cause of pollution, bad technology is the cause of pollution. The answer is good technology. Moral condemnation muddies the issues and makes arriving a solutions more difficult.

    CAN AN INDIVIDUAL MAKE CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL GOODS AN IDOL?
    Sure, a person can become so consumed (pardon the pun) in buying and owning that they make material wealth an idol. This can happen in any society, at any stage of social development. We see examples of it all through history all over the world. Society will always have within it forces which tempt individuals to make material wealth an idol. It is an individual matter. If you remember the Romans didn’t have TV or mass communications but there were many examples of misers, wealth worshippersand gluttons in Roman society.

    AS TO AIR POLLUTION, THE SOLUTION IS IN OUR HANDS TODAY
    Electric power can be produced in coal burning plants with virtually NO POLLUTION. Given that there is a KNOWN SOLUTION which has actually been put into place in the NEW plants. Given that a solution exists, I think the proper response is to implement it. Since we already have efficient and attractive hybrid cars, the most sensible route with automobiles is to promote electric cars. All we need for electric cars is a network of recharging stations. This is something that is very doable.

    SO FAR BIO-FUELS NOT EFFICIENT
    I have done some reading about “bio-fuels” and right now they are not efficient. The reason being that growing any green plant using today’s agricultural methods requires the consumption of carbon based fuels. By this, I mean that they take a great deal of energy to produce and you don’t come out with a net advantage. Again, why bother, when today, you can built a squeaky clean coal burning electric plants. You don’t even have to send humans down into the mines any more. Hybrid cars are being produced today and their cost will come down as more are produced. Within a decade we can almost entirely eliminate industrial and automobile air pollution. America will in fact, be shwon, to be in the lead on this. I have no objection to funding research along this line, I just think we are fairly close to a very good solution to air pollution and don’t need to keep trying to find a way to make bio-fuels work.

    VOLUNTEER MORAL POLICE
    BACKGROUND. George, I am a degreed electrical engineer and although my specialty is computer architecture, my engineering friends are the constant target of volunteer moral police who decide that the honest work of producing electric power is MORALLY TAINTED. It ain’t. It is good productive work. Yes, I am exasperated with it. I should hire Michael as my spokesman. The whole anti-technology nonsense brings to mind the middle class kids of the 1960’s who decided that living like 19th century farmers was morally purer. it isn’t, They were very tiresome.

    WEALTH IS A TOOL
    Wealth is a tool. As a society we can invest in schools, libraries and hospitals BECAUSE we are economically productive. We have the loweest unemployment rate of any developed nation. We lead the world in medical research. Our population is VERY GENEROUS in private charitable giving. Sure, there is always room for improvement, but, pollution problems were not caused by “consumption” and they won’t be cured reducing consumption unless we all become Shakers and just disappear off the face of the Earth. Pollution problems will be solved, as they have been solved in the past, by hard working people coming up with better technology.

43. So much time was consumed with working for mere survival, that few people had the luxury of time to read books for pleasure, play a musical instrument, compose poetry or paint a picture for the sheer pleasure of it.

    Whereas nowadays people spend so much of their leisure time playing instruments, writing poetry, painting pictures – the artistic productivity of the American middle class is nothing short of amazing.

    OK, sarcasm mode off … Missourian is right that we ought to have much more time for these things. Isn’t it sad how most of us really do spend our “free time”?

44. Missourian (note 43),

    You still haven’t engaged my initial point about the Orthodox nature of the patriarch’s comments. Maybe you are not Orthodox (no offense, I don’t know) so you can’t comment.

    For the record I like technology, I am also an electrical engineer, coincidentally also in the computer industry, so I know all about the benefits of technology, and that is not what I am arguing. I agree with you that technology makes our lives better, if used properly. My statements are not a thinly veiled disguise about how much better we would be if we were all Amish.

    “there is no guarantee that a society wide, lower standard of living (lower consumption) would reduce pollution”. There is no guarantee about much in life except death and taxes. I find it hard to argue though that a lower standard of living or more succinctly, a lowering of a society’s ecological footprint would not reduce pollution. If we as a society demand less how could we not but produce less? People in other time periods are not to be considered selfish because they used more primitive technology and hence created more pollution. You are confusing the issue.

    “Most people just got enough to get by”. Exactly! This is my point. Back then people had just enough, we have too much. Look around your house and tell me if there are not at least 5 things that you haven’t used in so long that you could probably do without. I’m not trying to say that YOU have a selfish lifestyle, but that as a society we promote a selfish lifestyle and I don’t just mean America, I am Canadian and its the same here too. Listen closely to TV and radio commercials and you hear the words “you deserve” and “you need” all the time. Advertising is trying to sell us something we don’t need, cause if we needed it we wouldn’t need to be told about it, and their success is directly linked with increased consumption.

    “Mere consumption is not the cause of pollution, bad technology is the cause of pollution. The answer is good technology. Moral condemnation muddies the issues and makes arriving a solutions more difficult.” The solution must be reached by not only by using better technology, but also reducing our rate of consumption. You are using technology as an antidote to mask the real issue, that of consumption, and consumption is the moral link to the impact on the environment. Consumption involves us making the choice on whether we need something or want something. Its when we want more than we need that we have the moral problem and the increase in industry to make the items we want which in turn creates the pollution we don’t want.

    “Sure, a person can become so consumed (pardon the pun) in buying and owning that they make material wealth an idol.” And in our society of decreasing Judeo-Christian values do you not think that more and more people are making this an idol? So if more and more people want to buy more stuff than they need and hence make an idol of money and “stuff” does this not point to a moral issue with over consumption?

    “All we need for electric cars is a network of recharging stations. This is something that is very doable.” Sure in about 20 years. The technology exists, but how long do you think it will take goverments, the auto industry, the fossil fuel companies and the average consumer to adopt such a sweeping measure?

    “The reason being that growing any green plant using today’s agricultural methods requires the consumption of carbon based fuels. By this, I mean that they take a great deal of energy to produce and you don’t come out with a net advantage.” Huh? You can use the bio-diesel that you harvest to help with tending the crops. I’m sure any farmer would make money hand over fist if they were allowed to use their farm to grow bio-diesel. They made bio-diesel during WWII using sugar beets for powering their tractors because of the gasoline rationing, so I don’t think its as un-economical as you suggest. Also what about the thousands of farmers that are paid to not grow crops because of the imbalance their excess crops cause to the price of corn and other products?

    Wealth is a tool, yes. One I think best used by giving it to the poor.

45. Note 45. No one is arguing the Patriarch should not speak out on the environment. The complaint is that the Patriarch jumped into the global warming fray as if the argument was settled, which it clearly is not.

    Moreover, releasing his statement through the WCC (a decidely leftist organization, note the implicit support for the Kyoto Protocol), places Orthodox Christianity on one side of this politicized debate — not a good place for the Patriarch to be.

    My question is still pertinent: who is advising the Patriarch? He is receiving poor political advice.

    These are political questions that won’t be answered by reiterating that we have a moral responsibility towards the environment. Of course we do. How that reponsibility is applied is the question here.

    BTW, “wealth” is not a tool. Capital is. (Capital creates wealth.)

46. Missourian, and all: A significant difficulty we Christians face with regard to opining and acting on social/political/economic policy is that the more specific we become, the more we risk corrupting the Christian message to fit our own political/social bias. No where can it be more clearly seen than in the responses and posts on this topic.

    To really have a â??Christianâ?? approach to any issue one must first understand what the Christian principals are and work down from there, not try and stuff a particular ideology into Christianity.

    To be valid, IMO, any approach to the environment must first be founded on the Biblical command to dress and keep the earth. The Old Testament understanding of land use and property is neither socialistic nor capitalistic (since neither had been articulated at that time), but more based on tribal mores (as one might expect). Such ideas as the jubilee which mandated re-apportionment of land every seven years among other things as well as debt forgiveness are founded on the idea of a people living under God, united by His Covenant. Of course, we must not forget Christâ??s words to lend without expecting anything in return (that includes the principal back by the way, not just interest). Since the world economy and most of our own private participation in said economy is founded on debt, capitalism as practiced today is not compatible with Christianity. From a Christian perspective (both in theory and reality) debt is a form of slavery.

    With the expansion of debt and the reduction in use of money, we have an economic system that continues to devalue everything, property and people. The classic definition of money is â??A store of value and a medium of exchangeâ??. Do we really have anything that is a â??store of valueâ?? any more? Money has been reduced to a medium of exchange. Debt instruments are used as such a medium for instance. So we have the paradoxical situation of enormous â??wealthâ??, but no value. The only value anything has is measured in the immediate cost of replacing that object if it is destroyed or becomes defective. Such criteria are applied to human beings, the land, and all other property. Value can only come from the recognition of the scared in ourselves and the rest of creation. We will then be compelled to use all of the property we have as icons, and to treat others with whom we intereact as saints.

    Unfortunately, we have an economic system that requires the wholesale denial of the scared. It is based rather on a refined system of social Darwinism. Our system cannot properly be called capitalism any longer as the definition of money I gave is intrinsic to capitalism. Capitalism is industrial in nature, we are post-industrial and therefore our economy is post-capitalistic. Patriarch Bartholomew and George are quite right when they say that our environmental problems stem from our sin. That is an elemental Christian understanding, i.e., we live in a fallen world, therefore everything we do is tainted by that falleness. Our separation from God leaves the earth groaning in travail (Romans Ch 1). The land will only be healed when we turn back to God. â??If the people, which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.â?? II Chronicles 7:14. Such an understanding is not moralizing (although it can become so), but a prophetic call to repentance.

    First, Christians have ceased being a people in any meaningful sense. We are at each otherâ??s throats, theologically as well as economically. We, just the same as everyone else, deny the sacred in our economic dealings. We allow the materialism of both capitalism, which unchecked makes everything into capital to be exploited in the economic system, and socialism, which turns everything into part of the state. Christians cannot be enthusiastic supporters of or participants in either system. Second, we tend to consider any attempt by the Church to give direction on how and why we should spend our time and our “wealth” as an unjustified interference. Fasting and aceticism is for the monks who are really just funny folk who can’t really deal with the real world after all. We know best what we and our families need.

    As both George and Patriarch Bartholomew rightly point out, asceticism is an important part of dealing with the effect of our sins. Christianity is an ascetic faith. We are called again and again to deny ourselves, take up our Cross daily and follow our Lord. We are called to consider others before ourselves, to rejoice in all things no matter how trying, uncomfortable, or dangerous. In our Liturgy, we offer our whole life to God and to one another several times, as well as offering the sacrifice of praise. Many joyfully make these commitments on Sunday then go out do just the opposite the rest of our lives. Buying the latest electronic do-dad, depsite the fact that it could well have been made by slave labor.

    Finally, tacit in all that I have been saying is that the Christian understanding of the place of man in the creation must be fundamental to any policies on the environment. Unfortunately, I know of none that do. The liberal policies tend to de-emphasize or eliminate manâ??s central role as steward and recoil in horror at the Biblical idea that we have dominion over the earth. The non-liberal policies tend to twist the idea of dominion into tyranny, which allows us to do anything we want for our own gain.

    When Patriarch Bartholomew comes out and mistakenly supports the liberal ideas, he is in fact denying much of what he believes. He is destroying the foundation that allows for authentic, effective Christian action. Instead of the voice of one crying in the wilderness, he becomes just another â??me-tooâ?? pipsqueak.

    Does this mean that we must return to a pre-industrialized society, no, we cannot and should not. Christ demands that we live a life pleasing to him in whatever circumstances surround us. We must, however, be obedient to Him and not the world. We cannot serve both. Most of us, I fear, give lip service to our Lord and heart service to the world. We build up treasure here while ignoring treasure in heaven.

    I have always found it interesting that a fundamental component of our economy is consumption. In the old days, the word consumption meant the disease tuberculosis, a disease of the lungs primarilyâ??a victimâ??s ability to breathe was gradually consumed. Our current economic system does the same to us, it gradually consumes our ability to respond to one another and to the Creation in anything but a materialistic manner. Our awareness of and appreciation for the scared is drowned. We say Lord, Lord, but do not the works of the Lord. We are as the steward who buried his gift in the ground or worse. Like the servant who did not forgive a debt after his had been forgiven and the stewards of the vineyard who refuse to give to God what is his, we will be cast out.

    We must ruthlessly critique all political/economic policies that do not reflect, at some level, recognition of the sacred and manâ??s stewardship role. We must avoid identifying or supporting any ideologically motivated policy line such as the last NCC statement on the environment and social justice. The call to renewed personal asceticism is both appropriate and necessary, but it must be done within the context of a call to return to Christ and His Church. Otherwise, asceticism becomes just another materialistic self-satisfaction rather than a weapon against the passions and our falleness.

47. This has been an interesting thread. I think Father Hans’s comment is the most objective and pertinent:

    “No one is arguing the Patriarch should not speak out on the environment. The complaint is that the Patriarch jumped into the global warming fray as if the argument was settled, which it clearly is not.”

    Beyond that, the thread has some personal resonance for me — a recovering environmentalist and returning Christian. Here are a few observations.

    Observation 1. I regret having based some of my actions and political energy on early and silly enviro-babble. As a result, I’ve become disrespectful of half-baked environmental pieties in the popular culture. With a smile. Did anyone out there read The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich back in the 70s? Did anyone else limit their family size because of the arguments in that book? I did, and I regret it. I also regret having supported organizations that lobbied for the banning of DDT, now that I understand the number of people who die each year because this pesticide is not available.

    Observation 2. Much of the material in this thread is not about the environment. It is about using people’s concern about the environment to gain political mileage. I especially liked Dean’s comment: “The Bush administration displayed only contempt for Patriarch Bartholomew’s call to action on global warming. Yes Dean, if environmental scare tactics are not enough, try to get people to take religious offense in addition.

    Observation 3. It’s not just politics. There is something deeper. I think people have an innate tendency to push other people around and to feel superior to them. I assume this has something to do with our fallen nature and with the sin of pride. In any case, environmental pieties and rituals can help people cultivate this vice. (You do separate your garbage into recycle and non-recycle don’t you? You don’t? … [accusing silence].) This is not a minor human tendency, and its consequences are not minor. When I first read the novel 1984, well before the year 1984, I understood the details, but I could not understand the psychological basis for what was happening. After a lifetime of seeing people motivated by the thrill of bossing others around and by the satisfaction feeling superior to them — some of it seen in a mirror — I think I understand.

    I don’t want to ruin the environment for posterity. At the same time, I don’t want to be taken in by environmental con artists.

48. Well said Michael and Augie.

    Father Jacobse (note 45),
    I can definitely agree with you that aligning himself with a politically motivated and decidely liberal organization such as the WCC doesn’t gain the Patriarch (or any of the Orthodox jurisdictions or Protestant denominations involved) much credibility within small-o orthodox Christianity.

    BUT, even if our pollution is not the main cause of global warming, the argument is settled that we are a contributor. If our pollution is contributing to global warming, even if its as little as 1% (for argument’s sake), should we not accept our God given responsibility and attempt to rectify our volume of pollution?

    So while the Patriarch has thrown his lot in with the Kyoto Protocol supportors, he is at least actively campaigning to raise our awareness that as Christians we have a moral responsibility to the environment. How many Christians of international importance do you see holding the same vision? We have agreed that we all want to preserve and better the environment, should we not have a spokesman to give this issue a Christian face on the world stage?

    I see too many people fault Patriarch Bartholomew on getting involved in politics. Tell me honestly, is there any issue that can be championed on the world stage that will not be interpreted as political? Is there an alternative that the Patriarch can align himself with environmentally that won’t look political? Should he only say, “reduce your pollution level” and then we would all be happy? There is nothing wrong with the Kyoto Protocol in and of itself. As you say, the argument on whether we are the main contributor has not been settled, but the Kyoto Protocol can still be followed even if we are not the main contributors because it is the environmentally responsible thing to do. And if not Kyoto then some target should be identified instead of just leaving it to the whim of each country to decide what is an acceptable level of pollution.

    In my eyes the Patriarch’s fault is not his cause, but the mouthpiece he used to present it.

49. George writes: “I can definitely agree with you that aligning himself with a politically motivated and decidely liberal organization such as the WCC doesn’t gain the Patriarch (or any of the Orthodox jurisdictions or Protestant denominations involved) much credibility within small-o orthodox Christianity.”

    With whom is he supposed to align himself on this issue? The Heritage Foundation? The Wall Street Journal? The Republican party?

50. Jim,

    You question is very pertinent. I don’t have an answer since I don’t know of any international conservative organization that champions environmental issues or more specifically supports Kyoto.

Comments are closed.