The Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune are both reporting that Al Gore is meeting with Church leaders today. It appears that Gore requested the meeting, perhaps after witnessing the Church participating in Earth Hour by turning off the lights at the Salt Lake Temple.
As for Earth Hour, where people are asked to turn off their lights for an hour as a show of respect for our environment, a way to act against global warming, and a way to raise awareness, I guess its not too bad an idea. I am all for reducing energy consumption, replacing old lightbulbs with CFLs, driving less, and the like, but I'm not sure sitting around in the dark for an hour is for me. But I was glad to see the Church participate with its most iconic temple as an indication that we are aware of the global warming problem, we think it is real and manmade, and we are willing to make that known publicly.
On top of that the Church is now working on building new LEED certified meetinghouses, which are green buildings that use less energy and are more environmentally friendly.
So now Utah's favorite politician, Al Gore, is requesting meetings with Church leadership. No one knows what they are going to discuss, but I imagine Gore is interested in prodding the Church to stick with this new lurch towards the left, environmentally speaking, and offering any support he can.
I think this is a tremendous step in the right direction, with or without the involvement of Gore (who I think is awesome, by the way, so throw your stones, I don't mind). I'm not saying it is necessarily the Church's responsibility to teach the members a sound environmental ethic as an extension of Church doctrine (though I believe it fits in nicely), but the fact that our spiritual leaders are beginning to lead by example shows that it is an issue that should be treated seriously by members and not just dismissed as left-wingers' attempts to take away our freedoms and comforts for a mere whim.
Now, if we can just stop using rain forest wood for decoration in our temples . . .
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
21 comments:
I think it would be great if the Church began to preach environmentalism.
My former stake president once visited my ward's Elders Quorum and told us that Utah had "enough oil for two millennia," and that when it came to voting, we shouldn't be persuaded otherwise. I have no idea what he was talking about, but his import was clear--that environmentalism was silly.
In a similar vein, I've heard numerous Latter-day Saints quote the D&C verse stating that the earth has "enough and to spare" as counterevidence to environmentalists' claims.
There are plenty of those types of Mormons, as well as the kind that are uninterested in environmentalism because, hey, it's the last days anyway so why bother? That is the attitude that bothers me the most.
First I wouldn't say there was and LDS/Gore allience. Sheesh. They briefly met.
Second, I really dislike how you frequently use "those kind of mormons" implying there are a bulk of us that are ignorant and stupid. Thats wrong. I feel you likely twist people's words and brief remaarks to feel your thinking is superior. I don't know a single person who thinks that the "enough and to spare" thing means we shouldn't take care of our enviornment. I believe most people think it is important and believe in conservationism to some degree. But you are also correct. Some don't believe that we should forbid use of God's creations for the sole intent of not destroying a single tree/wetland, etc. I was kind of disturbed thinking that you walked through the Draper Temple open house irritated at their use of building supplies. (though I don't know what you were exactly thinking, it seems implied). God DID create the earth so man could use it wisely. It is for our enjoyment, as well as for the usefulness of its products. So, just because I think drilling for oil in Vernal or building the Lecacy PArkway is fine, doesn't mean I believe I should have no stewardship over the earth.
The title was tongue-in-cheek, as was the comment about the temple. I just have this irrational distaste for emoticons or smiley faces or whatever they're called that might express sarcasm a little better.
I don't think I've ever used the phrase "those types of Mormons" before and I admit it was a poor choice of words. There are those that think that and, while I disagree, I don't think I'm smarter or superior. I just disagree and I want to express it.
I have never advocated a complete ban on using our natural resources to protect one tree or wetland. What I do advocate is more balance, where we can take some of our most precious land and natural resources and set them apart as untouchable to development and to preserve it for ourselves and future generations. I think we are able to scale our consumption way back in order to curtail our polluting and leave the world better than we found it.
My intention is not to offend, but to discuss the issues that I feel are important. But I do get a little more glib in the comments, that's definitely something I will admit.
One other thing about the temple, though. It was a tongue-in-cheek comment. But that doesn't mean I can't go through the temple and enjoy the experience, feel the Spirit, know it is a house of God, but still think importing wood from chronically over-cut rain forests is a bad idea. Its not like I was walking around with a scowl on my face and ramming my shoulder into the workers there that night. I just think some better choices might be in order. Why can't we make some effort to influence our leaders for what we think is the best while at the same time recognizing the good that they do? I don't see them as mutually exclusive.
Wow, Steve, great idea. Why should the church teach about the gospel when we could learn the ways of the mighty Gore? You sensed the sarcasm, right?
I understand, as well as anyone, our responsibilities to this earth. In fact, I would venture to say that I do more for the environment than a good majority of so-called enviornmentalists. I refuse to believe, though, that God would allow us to destroy this earth. I live by my own standard of environmentalism, "do your best." However, I do have a sticker on my truck that says "Green people suck...drill, baby, drill." Does that mean, if the Church needs to teach envioronmentalism, that I need to be ex'ed?
Oh, Illiana, drilling in Vernal is not only fine, but I consider it necessary. If our country wants to become the stronghold that it once was, we need to end our dependency on the Middle East - and stop kissing their butts, too. Estimates are that there is more oil in that basin than in the entire Middle East, combined.
There are a few problems with the oil in the Vernal area, though. First, it is not economically feasible, as the cost of prodcution from shale is so high. Second, our "green" ways, although completely factually incorrect, are keeping us from ANY real domestic production.
All I ever hear from greenies about oil/gas fields is that they are ugly and that they are a danger to the animal life. Ugly is a perspective. The same greenies are all for putting up huge, inefficient, skyline-blocking windmills, but are against oil/gas pads in the middle of nowhere. As for the claim about the threat to animal life, it is bogus. In fact the presence of the oil/gas pads and workers help small wildlife like cottontail rabbits and chipmunks raise their young without the danger of predators that stay away from the humans. I look out the window on my location right now to see two pairs of bluebirds nesting in an old piece of equipment, a huge white-tailed jackrabbit that loves to jump out from under the stairs just as I am about to walk up them to try to give me a heart attack, and the ever-present ravens looking for a chance to crap on me when I do my pump checks every hour. On top of all of those really long sentences, the oil companies are GREAT for the communities they work in. Pinedale, WY is a little snooty about the workers there, but the money they get from the gasfield here has given them top-of-the-line stuff. Wyoming, as a whole, is one of only 2 or 3 states that currently have a surplus. It comes from a lot of places (including their frugality), but mostly from monies paid by oil, gas, and coal companies. Imagine the jobs and the money that Utah could have.
While you are correct that we should not just wholesale end oil and gas drilling in America, domestic production will never be enough to even sustain a tiny fraction of our current consumption. We cannot drill ourselves out of the problem. America has just a sliver of the world reserves, and oil shale will never make up for that lack. Even if we were to extract all that oil from the shale (at an unimaginable environmental cost) we would still end up woefully short. The only longterm answer is conservation (that means less consumption) and renewable sources, maybe even nuclear if we can find a way to more safely transport and store the waste.
As for you claim that drilling platforms, new roads, pipelines, and traffic are actually good the environment, I respectfully scoff. It may be good for the odd jackrabbit or sparrow, but for the health of the environment as a whole, the entire ecosystem and food chain, it is clearly a net negative. That doesn't mean we stop all drilling, but it does mean we need to limit it (for environmental reasons and the reasons I noted in the paragraph above). How ugly the platforms are probably rate somewhere around number ten in terms of why environmentalists want to limit future drilling.
Finally, yes, you will get quite a few sanctimonious conservationists like myself. Just like you get sanctimonious anti-conservationists (Green people suck, anyone? I laughed when I saw that and thought you you driving around with it on your truck). Of course we need to find common ground, which I think is closer than we think.
Your facts are extremely wrong Jake. A report from 2006, indicated over a trillion barrels of oil in the US resevoirs. The facts are that there is more oil here than in the ME and Venezuela combined. As for scoffing, please give me your experience with the damages caused by drilling. What are the environmental hazards you speak of. Do you realize how many of the people that talk about those environmental problems are city dwellers that never even use BLM land and have never even seen an oilfield in person? When was the last time you went out to the gasfield to see all of the harm it has done? Come on up to Wyoming, and I'll get you a tour, if you like.
I agree that our environmental views are probably closer than either of us knows, but I work in this field. I understand it a little bit.
Lastly, I do get a few funny looks for my window sticker. My dad actually made them, and gave a few out. One guy actually had the tailgate on his truck bashed in, and my uncle was chased down and nearly run off of the freeway in Seattle for that sticker. Nothing enforces an environmentalists views like vandalism. It's all in fun for me, though. Most of what I do is to get a rise out of folks, just ask my poor wife.
You are right that reports show large estimates of oil from shale. The problems are many, though, which make development unlikely. It takes about 3 units of energy to create one unit of energy from oil shale, which is a woefully low ratio. It takes huge amounts of water, about three barrels to create one barrel of oil, which in the west is a scarce resource in itself. And other things I know you are aware of, all besides the tremendous environment damage. It just isn't ever going to be feasible.
And yes, I have been to several oil and gas wells, as well as hardrock mining facilities. I have in the course of my job, which requires it. No one seriously contends that development of oil and gas isn't harmful to the environment. Species aren't going endangered and extinct because we aren't drilling enough. Habitat loss is a serious problem. The wellheads and platforms themselves are of course smaller and have smaller negative effects. But it is the road building, pipe laying, and traffic that cause the problems. We can debate the extent of the environmental damage, but that they have negative effects is not debatable.
Jake,
You are right. Love the spirit, hate the materials. Fine with me. And you are also right that your comments are the more racy party of your writing. Your posts really are direct and factual and I enjoy them. It is usually your comments that get me bugged :). I did a smiley face just for you .
"I was glad to see the Church participate with its most iconic temple as an indication that we are aware of the global warming problem, we think it is real and manmade, and we are willing to make that known publicly."
You came to this conclusion all from the lights being turned out? Wow...
Jake's comments get a little more abrasive than his posts because he has an abrasive old college room mate that likes to ruffle his feathers.
Still, Jake, not a shred of evidence that any species are being hurt. Not a shred of evidence that the environment is being irreversibly damaged. Prove your point to me. You see, I live it, I don't need to prove my own point. I defy you to find a Wyoming species that is in peril due to the traffic, drilling, or building here. You know what species are in danger, the elk and moose. Not from oil or gas production, but from "greenie" interference. They are in danger due to the introduction of the Canadian Grey Wolf (notice I didn't say REintroduction). Animal life is in more danger due to idiots and the idiotic ESA than any oilfield could ever put them in. Do you want to save the world? Leave it alone, Mother Nature has a way of taking care of her own.
Anonymous,
Yes I did come to that conclusion from the lights being turned out. What other conclusion can you come to? That they just wanted to save on the utility bill? That they just happen to turn out the lights at the same time as Earth Hour? That it was meant to be sarcastic? Earth Hour is a program specifically enacted to raise awareness for global warming, that is the only purpose and point. The Church specifically and publicly participated by turning off the lights at the SL Temple. And you came to the conclusion that this had nothing to do with the Church's stance on global warming? Wow. . .
Alright, Josh, this is my last comment on this point. Part of my job is to assist oil, gas, and mining companies in as they obtain and maintain federal permits for their use of public lands. A HUGE chunk of that work is the EIS, which I am sure you are familiar with. Every EIS I have ever seen on every project on public lands goes into lengthy scientific discussions of the effects the project will have on species in the area. I don't have the scientific information at my fingertips, but every oil, gas, and mining permit on federal lands has extensive mitigation measures to reduce its impacts on animal and plant species. They would not be required to mitigate if there wasn't a negative effect in the first place. These are objective, honest documents that are agreed to by the government, the company, and the public. No one in the industry argues whether or not there are effects, only how great the effects are.
I could have predicted your opinion about the REintroduction of wolves to the very word. Suffice it to say, we have a big disagreement there that I have no interest in getting into today. Someday though we should have that discussion.
Ah, thank you Jacob S., now I know why I own a hybrid, why I replaced my lights with cfl's, and why I'm looking into solar panels. All this time I thought global warming at the very least was blown out of proportion, and at the very worst a complete and utter lie. And as far as temples go, I suspect what materials are used is left up to the contractor....so I guess if you want to make change there, contact your local temple builders :)
Oh Jake, don't quit now. I am having so much fun. You have just agreed with me. The oil and mining companies spend unholy amounts of money to ensure minimal environmental impacts. That is all I am saying.
As for the wolves, we may disagree on the reintroduction, but my opinions would surely surprise you. That being said, the minute a tag is available, I'll be in the hills trying to help CONTROL their numbers.
'I refuse to believe, though, that God would allow us to destroy this earth.'
Comments like this make me think nobody has ever actually read Revelation.
Oh, I see. You are that guy. The guy that makes me cringe every time I have to go to Elders' Quorum, becuase he understands the scriptures and how they fit life better. Please, scripture master, show me where it says that the world will be destroyed by Global Warming, is it is cooling now, no, it's definitely warming again.
All I will say about this is that God is clearly willing to let us idiot humans do whatever we want and reap the consequences. We're talking the holocaust, Jeffrey Dahmer, slavery, Britney Spears, etc. The scope of our agency is only matched by the scope of the consequences, and destroying the earth through our polluting is, I believe, certainly on the table.
I don't know that Rev. 8 mentions global warming specifically, but it certainly sounds like John saw pollution and other environmental ills in various shapes and forms:
7 The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.
8 And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;
9 And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.
10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;
11 And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.
12 And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.
You claimed God wouldn't let us destroy the earth. My point is he's been prophesying exactly that for a long time. Now, I don't know that I'd teach a lesson on this (I currently serve as eq pres in my ward), but I think it's a valid reading.
Post a Comment