Do you agree with environmental protest groups?

[ViaCrucis]

It’s basically saying that because God is in charge there is nothing we can do. Or worse; it’s the End Times some people seem unable to wait for which should not be stopped.

Any time someone looks to the supernatural to deal with actual problems is dangerous.

Rev. Tony Campolo once told a story about a time when he was invited as the guest speaker for a Presbyterian women's group. He said he was admittedly feeling kind of grumpy from jet lag, but before he started speaking the head of the group read out a letter they got from a missionary who said she needed some money to help get clean drinking water to the people they were working with. The leader of the women's group asked if Tony would pray that God would provide the money to the missionaries. Tony's response was "No!" and then he took out his wallet and removed all the cash and placed it on the pulpit, and told all the women in the sanctuary to do the same. A couple laughs later, the leader of the women's group said, "Okay, we get it", to which Tony responded, "No, you don't get it, my money is still on this pulpit but nobody else has done anything." And then one by one, each woman went up and begrudgingly took out the cash they had on them and laid it on the pulpit.

Finally an hour later the cash was counted up and they ended up having several times more than what was needed. At which point Tony finally decided to preach, saying, "The audacity of God's people to pray 'Lord provide, Lord provide' when He has already provided". God has already given the Church the means to help the poor, the needy, the hungry all around us and throughout the world--God has provided, we're the ones who are the problem.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't know who the group mentioned in the OP is. But, as a general principle I do support environmental activism, but I can't say I agree with the methods or means of a group that I don't know--it depends on what their activities actually are.

But it's plainly clear to me that we're screwing up the planet on a grand scale, and the people in power basically do nothing about it. And the ones who will suffer will be the most vulnerable. The rich and powerful will remain comfortable and can afford to be comfortable because they aren't the ones who will suffer from rising prices, resource shortages, or other negative impacts our rapidly changing climate will cause in the long run. Their grandchildren and great-grandchildren will suffer, but they themselves can live comfortable in their hoarded wealth.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Astrid]

I don't know who the group mentioned in the OP is. But, as a general principle I do support environmental activism, but I can't say I agree with the methods or means of a group that I don't know--it depends on what their activities actually are.

But it's plainly clear to me that we're screwing up the planet on a grand scale, and the people in power basically do nothing about it. And the ones who will suffer will be the most vulnerable. The rich and powerful will remain comfortable and can afford to be comfortable because they aren't the ones who will suffer from rising prices, resource shortages, or other negative impacts our rapidly changing climate will cause in the long run. Their grandchildren and great-grandchildren will suffer, but they themselves can live comfortable in their hoarded wealth.

-CryptoLutheran

What do you think I should do with
my so called "hoarded wealth"?

 

[ViaCrucis]

What do you think I should do with
my so called "hoarded wealth"?

I wasn't aware that you were a billionaire, a CEO in control of a major corporation, or someone in a position of significant political authority. But, okay, if any of those apply to you, then you should be devoting your time and resources to trying to help address the problems of environmental impact. Those with the highest means bear the heaviest weight of responsibility of action.

If you're just someone who is living off of your paycheck, then there's not much you can do. And that's kind of my point.

Joe or Jane Schmoe living paycheck to paycheck are functionally powerless.

Since I doubt you are a person of sizeable power, money, or influence on the global theater I don't know why you decided to make my post be about you.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why?

I'll be honest, I was a little flabbergasted that this was even asked. But then I remembered that different people do have entirely different moral frameworks.

I'm a Christian, as such I can't help but think as a Christian, which means I believe human beings bear a moral and social responsibility toward other human beings. And the teaching of Jesus Christ is that to whom much is given much is required. This is a consistent moral principle throughout the Christian Bible; that we bear responsibility toward the vulnerable and the marginalized in our midst. And there are dire warnings made against the wealthy and the powerful who do nothing to aid the vulnerable. According to the Prophet Ezekiel this was the reason behind the destruction of Sodom.

While I don't expect non-Christians to have a Christian moral sensibility, as they don't subscribe to the same moral authority as I do (Jesus Christ, the Bible, and the historic teachings of Christianity); I do tend to assume that most people recognize that in order for human society to function there needs to be a proportional distribution of responsibility and resources. The responsibility of a king is greater than the responsibility of a peasant, for example; because more is at stake by the decisions of the king. That what differentiates a good ruler from a bad ruler is how they manage their power and resources in the interest of the people. I would regard that as a kind of common sense approach, but perhaps I am mistaken.

So, I guess, point taken. The only reason why anyone should do anything that benefits someone other than themselves is out of a moral responsibility to do so; if someone doesn't believe in something like that then I guess they have no reason to do anything but sit in palaces and eat cake while the peasantry starve.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Astrid]

I wasn't aware that you were a billionaire, a CEO in control of a major corporation, or someone in a position of significant political authority. But, okay, if any of those apply to you, then you should be devoting your time and resources to trying to help address the problems of environmental impact. Those with the highest means bear the heaviest weight of responsibility of action.

If you're just someone who is living off of your paycheck, then there's not much you can do. And that's kind of my point.

Joe or Jane Schmoe living paycheck to paycheck are functionally powerless.

Since I doubt you are a person of sizeable power, money, or influence on the global theater I don't know why you decided to make my post be about you.

-CryptoLutheran

Only two kinds of people, the paycheck Joe,
and the world- stage billionaire?

No in between? I'm real sure there is.
You said the rich can afford higher
prices and stay comfortable. I'm solidly
in that class, the stay-very- comfortable,
So your post does address me.

At a very safe bet I could buy everything you
own, give it to the poor and only my bookkeeper
would notice a blip.
I dont get a "paycheck"

As for who "should" try to address the world's
problems-
1. Social engineers are always a disaster, but if
you want those nasty ceos to run things, arms
linked with govt, we'll, beware.
2. The number one issue globally is overpopulation
Are you helpless?
3. Saying its them rich people need to step up
gets nowhere except sidestep that is the mass of
humanity thats eating the planet.

I asked what you thought I should do
with my money. Simple.
To you that called for a snarky attack?

In the event, I don't actually need advice on
trying to do my part. Which at a quick assessment,
I'd guess I'm more able and better informed than
someone saying its the mega rich who need to take
the world on their shoulder. Like Atlas.

 

[Neutral Observer]

So, I guess, point taken.

No, you missed the point entirely.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How did plants get their CO2 before the invention of the automobile?

Don't you know green plants didn't exist before ~1900. Check the photographs. All "Black and White". No green plants.

 

[Astrid]

I'll be honest, I was a little flabbergasted that this was even asked. But then I remembered that different people do have entirely different moral frameworks.

I'm a Christian, as such I can't help but think as a Christian, which means I believe human beings bear a moral and social responsibility toward other human beings. And the teaching of Jesus Christ is that to whom much is given much is required. This is a consistent moral principle throughout the Christian Bible; that we bear responsibility toward the vulnerable and the marginalized in our midst. And there are dire warnings made against the wealthy and the powerful who do nothing to aid the vulnerable. According to the Prophet Ezekiel this was the reason behind the destruction of Sodom.

While I don't expect non-Christians to have a Christian moral sensibility, as they don't subscribe to the same moral authority as I do (Jesus Christ, the Bible, and the historic teachings of Christianity); I do tend to assume that most people recognize that in order for human society to function there needs to be a proportional distribution of responsibility and resources. The responsibility of a king is greater than the responsibility of a peasant, for example; because more is at stake by the decisions of the king. That what differentiates a good ruler from a bad ruler is how they manage their power and resources in the interest of the people. I would regard that as a kind of common sense approach, but perhaps I am mistaken.

So, I guess, point taken. The only reason why anyone should do anything that benefits someone other than themselves is out of a moral responsibility to do so; if someone doesn't believe in something like that then I guess they have no reason to do anything but sit in palaces and eat cake while the peasantry starve.

-CryptoLutheran

There is great inconsistency in the morality
modelled in the Bible.

As for moral responsibility toward others etc.
when I came to the USA and was among Christians,
attended church and read the Bible. I wondered why
it needs a religion and lessons in church to learn
what we are taught at home.
It kinda doesn't impress well to hear how
Christianity invented morality and does it best.

Regardless of all that though, good for you that
take the teachings to heart and live them.
That's not so common.

 

[Larniavc]

Rev. Tony Campolo once told a story about a time when he was invited as the guest speaker for a Presbyterian women's group. He said he was admittedly feeling kind of grumpy from jet lag, but before he started speaking the head of the group read out a letter they got from a missionary who said she needed some money to help get clean drinking water to the people they were working with. The leader of the women's group asked if Tony would pray that God would provide the money to the missionaries. Tony's response was "No!" and then he took out his wallet and removed all the cash and placed it on the pulpit, and told all the women in the sanctuary to do the same. A couple laughs later, the leader of the women's group said, "Okay, we get it", to which Tony responded, "No, you don't get it, my money is still on this pulpit but nobody else has done anything." And then one by one, each woman went up and begrudgingly took out the cash they had on them and laid it on the pulpit.

Finally an hour later the cash was counted up and they ended up having several times more than what was needed. At which point Tony finally decided to preach, saying, "The audacity of God's people to pray 'Lord provide, Lord provide' when He has already provided". God has already given the Church the means to help the poor, the needy, the hungry all around us and throughout the world--God has provided, we're the ones who are the problem.

-CryptoLutheran

That’s nice and all but that example has no effect on the ‘in God’s hands’ crew. If Christians can’t police themselves THEY are complicit in ruining the world.

 

[Astrid]

That’s nice and all but that example has no effect on the ‘in God’s hands’ crew. If Christians can’t police themselves THEY are complicit in ruining the world.

The ones who take the attitude that it was all
made for them to "subdue" to their use, that
the earth is utterly corrupt anyway and soon will
be destroyed to be made anew and perfect, they
are worse than merely complicit.

 

[.Mikha'el.]

If they have all this extra time to "protest", they have time to get a job and make the world a better place by doing something that's actually productive.

 

[YeshuaFollower]

Thank you for confirming my impression that you don't know what you are talking about.

Oops. Scientists discover that higher carbon dioxide levels are COOLING many parts of the planet by increasing vegetation growth

Fascinating evidence has been published that shows the recent increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has caused some cooling over large areas of the planet, and significant and widespread increases in vegetation. This plant boost, which has...

www.sott.net

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oops. Scientists discover that higher carbon dioxide levels are COOLING many parts of the planet by increasing vegetation growth

Fascinating evidence has been published that shows the recent increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has caused some cooling over large areas of the planet, and significant and widespread increases in vegetation. This plant boost, which has...

www.sott.net

There you go again providing @Nithavela with more proof.

 

[Neutral Observer]

There you go again providing @Nithavela with more proof.

Unfortunately, I don't think that this refutes the climate change argument at all, it simply augments it. Under the climate change scenario one would expect there to be localized cooling, even to the point of having a mitigating effect, but not necessarily an eliminating effect on global warming. Alas, some people like to point to the outliers in order to deny the overall trend. A trend which if it continues, one would fully expect to eventually supersede and inevitably reverse any localized cooling.

But people see what they wanna see, and there ain't nothing wrong with that so long as we all embrace the concept of free and open discourse. You argue for what you believe and I'll argue for what I believe, and if we're as rational as we seem to think we are then we should be fine. If we're not, then we have nobody to blame but ourselves. Personally, I think that in any case nature can be a lot more resilient than we can be stupid.

 

[FireDragon76]

Anyone who thinks that there is anything man can do to destroy something God created has acquired the height of egotism.

The Bible says not to tempt God.

We live in an era called the Anthropocene because humans are having so much impact on the Earth's environment and ecosystem. What you are promoting here is akin to religion-based science denial, and it doesn't glorify God.

 

[FireDragon76]

Unfortunately, I don't think that this refutes the climate change argument at all, it simply augments it. Under the climate change scenario one would expect there to be localized cooling, even to the point of having a mitigating effect, but not necessarily an eliminating effect on global warming. Alas, some people like to point to the outliers in order to deny the overall trend. A trend which if it continues, one would fully expect to eventually supersede and inevitably reverse any localized cooling.

But people see what they wanna see, and there ain't nothing wrong with that so long as we all embrace the concept of free and open discourse. You argue for what you believe and I'll argue for what I believe, and if we're as rational as we seem to think we are then we should be fine. If we're not, then we have nobody to blame but ourselves. Personally, I think that in any case nature can be a lot more resilient than we can be stupid.

Fish washed up in peoples yards at my local church during the last big storm because flooding here was so endemic, several peoples apartments were flooded, in fact. Water completely breached the lakes downtown and actually flooded the downtown area. It's never flooded like that in Florida in all my 25+ years of living here.

The evidence is plain to see for anybody with eyes. It's only willfull ignorance at this point to remain in denial.

 

[Niels]

I think we're called to be caretakers of the planet, but I also think any actions we take should be based on solid evidence. There is some evidence, but the solutions proposed by protesters can be as bad or even worse than the problems that they're protesting. The law of unintended consequences tends to rear its ugly head when people react too quickly.

Electric cars that run on safe wireless energy sound a lot better to me, for instance, than churning vehicles that depend on our contemporary inefficient and toxic battery tech. Not to mention the pollutants that will be generated while beefing up the grid, or the time and money lost while switching over. We're not there yet technologically, but I'm optimistic that we'll get there eventually.

Pollution is a problem, and there does appear to be a correlation between the arrival of modern humans and climate change, but I don't think it's wise to capitulate to emotional displays and jump the gun. This is a problem for engineers to solve. Carefully. Over time.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think we're called to be caretakers of the planet, but I also think any actions we take should be based on solid evidence. There is some evidence, but the solutions proposed by protesters can be as bad or even worse than the problems that they're protesting. The law of unintended consequences tends to rear its ugly head when people react too quickly.

Electric cars that run on safe wireless energy sound a lot better to me, for instance, than churning vehicles that depend on our contemporary inefficient and toxic battery tech. Not to mention the pollutants that will be generated while beefing up the grid, or the time and money lost while switching over. We're not there yet technologically, but I'm optimistic that we'll get there eventually.

Pollution is a problem, and there does appear to be a correlation between the arrival of modern humans and climate change, but I don't think it's wise to capitulate to emotional displays and jump the gun. This is a problem for engineers to solve. Carefully. Over time.

Countries like the US will have to commit to changing their way of life, like living in massive suburban sprawl or having politics based on perpetual economic growth. It's doable but it's a question of shifting peoples consciousness away from narrow self-interest. This would have been better if we didn't have decades of petrochemical misinformation and propaganda, because the costs now will be greater than if we had started twenty years ago.

The good news is that we know no-growth economies aren't necessarily bad for people's well-being. Japan has been stagnant in economic growth in the past 30 years, but Japanese people have experienced a small increase in lifespan, increased quality of life, and decreased income disparities.

 

[Niels]

Countries like the US will have to commit to changing their way of life, like living in massive suburban sprawl or having politics based on perpetual economic growth. It's doable but it's a question of shifting peoples consciousness away from narrow self-interest. This would have been better if we didn't have decades of petrochemical misinformation and propaganda, because the costs now will be greater than if we had started twenty years ago.

The good news is that we know no-growth economies aren't necessarily bad for people's well-being. Japan has been stagnant in economic growth in the past 30 years, but Japanese people have experienced a small increase in lifespan, increased quality of life, and decreased income disparities.

In retrospect, it probably looks more like intentional propaganda than it was at the time. I highly doubt they were trying to turn downtown into a wasteland. We have more data today than we did in the 50s. Unfortunately, we don't have a time machine to go back and tell those city planners what would happen. And even if we did, why would they believe us?

Self-interest and sustainable options need to overlap in order to be viable. I don't know much about the Japanese economy, but from what I've read they're having a population crisis. The young are few in number and saddled with supporting an increasing percentage of elderly. Something which probably takes away from time that might otherwise be spent starting their own families. How long can this continue on its current trajectory?