Conan Going Green

Study: Global Warming Predictions are Overestimated

Interesting. But the I thought the case about global warming was closed?

Greatest Challenge

I would like someone who believes global warming is the greatest challenge
we face to explain to me why? I thought of this question after reading this
AP story. Here's an except:

Speaking to a panel of other ex-world leaders, Clinton said the real
issue is whether democracies can deliver after elections are over.

American and world leaders must return their focus to great
challenges like global warming once their fascination with the U.S.
presidential campaign ends, Clinton said.

I just don't get it. If you go to the EPA there is a section called past climate
change. The climate is going to change whether we like or not. Why obsess
over it while there are other crucial issues out there? There's poverty, genocide,
and diseases out there, why should climate change or global warming be the
top priority? We know for sure we can realistically do something about some
of the other issues. I know it's impossible to solve all the problems but there is
things that can be done to alleviate them. We can provide clean water wells to
poor villages. We can distribute medicine to people suffering from AIDS in Africa.
That's doable. I question if we can stop the ocean from receding is doable. I'm
not saying that we shouldn't care about the environment. My question is why
should it be a main focus when it comes to policy?

Pelosi: 'I'm Trying To Save the Planet"

Hey Nancy, how about worrying about just getting your legislative duties done
in the United States' Congress first, alright?

You Go First

Via Hugh Hewitt

Here's an interesting interview from a BBC July 1st podcast about India
and climate change:


BBC reporter: So does he think this is the right plan for India?

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri: I think so, absolutely, because you know, it has the
right level of ambition, it’s oriented towards what would be of benefit to
Indian society. At the same time, it tackles an important global challenge.
So I think overall, the trust is excellent.

BBC Reporter: You say you’re happy with the plan overall, but there is a
lack of specifics, isn’t there? There’s a lack of time frames, and there’s also
a lack of any kind of commitment to actually restrict or reduce India’s
emissions of carbon dioxide. Isn’t that all worrying?

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri: Well, not really. I mean, come to think of it. It’s a
country where 400 million people don’t have access to electricity or any
form of modern supply of energy. So you really can’t put in any
restrictions, particularly since the developed world has not
shown any major commitment to bring about a reduction. So
you know, I think one has to be realistic.

BBC Reporter: Well, I know, but that’s all very well from the sort
of moral justice point of view. But I mean, the fact is that energy
consumption in India is expected to quadruple, isn’t it, over the
next generation. And the fact is, probably that most of that electricity is
going to be generated from coal-fired power stations. So overall, global levels
of carbon dioxide are going to shoot up, even if many Indian villages don’t have
access.

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri: Undoubtedly so. Would one suggest that we
deprive India of the benefits of development and supply of energy,
which the rest of the world enjoys 20 times larger magnitude?

BBC Reporter: No, but then, how does one square the circle, sir? Because the
prime minister once again repeated his pledge that Indian emissions of carbon
dioxide per capita would not exceed those of developed countries. If there
are three billion Indians and Chinese people consuming the amount of energy
that Americans do at the moment, the planet is doomed, isn’t it?

Pachauri: Well, then, that’s precisely why you really need major reductions
in the developed countries.

So he's basically admitting we can't over regulate India because it will stifle growth
but developed countries can be regulated. I completely understand that India shouldn't
be denied resources. How about this: Let's not over regulate developing or developed
countries. We need vibrant economies in order to fund research and development
for green technologies and regulating greenhouse emissions isn't going to help.

The Global Warming War

Yes, the Global War on Terrorism is a bumper sticker slogan but global warming
should be attacked with full force. Here's the new cover of Time:

This is insulting. Environmental fanatics stop comparing global warming to
WWII. Changing some light bulbs, recycling, and buying a Prius is nothing
compared to what the world endured during WWII.

Join the Global Warming Cause, It's Like Stopping Fascism

We must stop global warming or climate change (I forget what they call it sometimes,
it changes everyday)! It's like when we stopping fascism in Europe during WWII,
don't you know:

An advertising campaign will equate the climate-change movement with
other grand historic endeavors, like stopping fascism in Europe during
World War II, overcoming segregation in the United States and putting
the first man on the moon.

I'm sorry but are we in such a search of a 'great cause' of our time that we need a
$300 million dollars advertising campaign to compare global warming to what The
Greatest Generation faced and also segregation. There's no comparison, what so
ever. Note to environmental fanatics: If it was such a historic cause than you probably
wouldn't have to spend a ridiculous amount of money to tell us that it is.

Here's Al Gore on 60 minutes:

Good News: Horrible Economy is Great For Mother Earth

I was just thinking about this a few days ago: How can the environment-
friendly Democratic candidates blast Republicans for high gas prices, shouldn't
it be their dream come true? Doesn't higher gas prices mean people will use
their cars less (like I'm doing) and possibly even using public transportation?
Isn't that exactly what environmentalists want!

So then I heard my exact thoughts expressed in a segment on CNN (hat tip:
Hot Air):



When we don't build more refineries or do oil exploration, high gas prices
is what we get.

Vatican lists "new sins," and polluting is one of them

First, I want to apologize for blogging late in the day. I didn't have internet
access this afternoon because of horrible weather we've been experiencing.
I forgot how scary thunderstorms are until one came my way suddenly while
I was driving to the doctor's office.

Speaking of weather and Mother Earth, the Vatican came out with a list of
'new sins' and pollution made it on the list:

Girotti, in an interview headlined "New Forms of Social Sin," also
listed "ecological" offences as modern evils.

In recent months, Pope Benedict has made several strong appeals
for the protection of the environment, saying issues such as climate
change had become gravely important for the entire human race.

Under Benedict and his predecessor John Paul, the Vatican has become
progressively "green."

Oh, and it's not just Vatican City taking on the issue:

Signaling a significant departure from the Southern Baptist Convention’s
official stance on global warming, 44 Southern Baptist leaders have decided
to back a declaration calling for more action on climate change, saying its
previous position on the issue was “too timid.”

The largest denomination in the United States after the Roman Catholic
Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, with more than 16 million
members, is politically and theologically conservative.

Yet its current president, the Rev. Frank Page, signed the initiative, “A
Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change.”
Two past presidents of the convention, the Rev. Jack Graham
and the Rev. James Merritt, also signed.

I'm so glad Christian communities are speaking out about pollution, global warming,
climate change, or whatever you choose to call environmental issues. I've said it
before but I'll say it again we don't need science (although it helps) to tell us to conserve
natural resources and take care of the our land. I believe it's more of a heart issue than
a policy problem. Therefore, having religious leaders tug on the heart strings of their
congregation helps.

I did a really quick Google search of what the Bible says about the environment and
found this article.

Enjoy this video I did a while back:

Schwarzenegger and Giuliani Endorsing McCain

However, they mostly talked about environmental
issues.

Bono Confesses His Sins Against Mother Earth

Heh. Maybe I wasn't that off track when I suggested that environmentalists
shold take a few cues from Christianity. Well, it looks like the environmentalists
might have found a priest (pay attention to the religious language):

Having climate campaigner Al Gore round to your house is to open
yourself to a self-flagellating guilt trip, Irish rock star Bono confessed
Thursday.

Sharing a stage with the former US vice president at the annual gathering
of world movers and shakers in the Swiss ski resort of Davos, the U2
frontman joked that their friendship was a source of pressure on the
domestic front.

"He's been round my house and it's like... here's the recycler Al, you
know... I've got a posh car, but it runs on ethanol Al," Bono said.

Acknowledging that a career in rock music was not always conducive
to a green lifestyle, Bono compared a conversation with Gore to an act
of religious contrition.

"It's like being with an Irish priest. You start to confess your sins," he
said. "Father Al, I am not just a noise polluter, I am a noise-polluting,
diesel-soaking, gulfstream-flying rock star.

"I'm going to kick the habit. I'm trying father Al, but oil has been very
good for me -- those convoys of articulated lorries, petrochemical products,
hair gel."

Talk about major guilt.

What the Environmentalists Can Learn from Christianity

I've heard some say there is a conflict between science and religion; the two don't
mix well. One is based on materialism and the other on dogma. However, earlier
this week I think one religious figure, Pope Benedict XVI, stood up for sound science
when it comes to global warming. Simon Caldwell of the Daily Mail writes:

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate
change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to
global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on
dubious ideology.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested
that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and
causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more
than scare-mongering.

Someone had to finally say it!

I believe there are certain criticisms attributed to Christianity that environmentalists
can learn from and apply when spreading their message. Here they are:

• Beware of prophesying about the 'end times.' Preaching doom and gloom
  on a regular basis might get you some converters but at the expense of tuning out
  the rest of the world. I've heard so many scenarios on how global warming can
  wipe out civilization such as the polar ice caps melting and drowning us all and
  world wars over scarce resources.
• Practice what you preach. Celebrities and politicians like Al Gore tell
  the American public to buy fuel efficient vehicles, yet, travel the globe in jets.
• Don't let the fanatics take center stage. Every religion has its zealots and
  just because the green movement is largely a secular cause doesn't mean it's without
  the wrongly indoctrinated.
• Stay out of politics! This year the Nobel Peace Prize went to former Vice-President
  Al Gore for spreading awareness of global warming. The U.N. is holding a climate
  conference right now in Indonesia. They will probably come up with certain policies
  governments can implement that will reduce carbon emissions. Environmentalists
  seem to believe the world's governments can solve the issue. However, I believe in
  order to get people to conserve resources a change of hearts and minds is needed
  and not more government regulations. To give Al Gore some credit in the video above
  he says that it's more of a "moral issue than a political one." I couldn't agree more.
  

To put it simply, I, an evangelical Christian, am telling a largely secular and science based
movement to stop being so dogmatic. I'll basically say what the Pope said but in a cool,
hip way, "Yo, stick to the science, alright."

Quote of the Day

"Quiet. A whale is in trouble, I have to go." - Al Gore
on '30 Rock' last night.

Headlines 10-12-2007

Oh so many headlines today with so many controversial
issues.

Al Gore gets Nobel Peace Prize- Last weekend I saw a speech
by Bjorn Lomborg about his book "Cool It" on Book TV (I know
I'm need to get a life). He argues global warming is indeed occurring
but there are other humanitarian issues that should be higher priorities
because they save people right now. I know I'm probably over simplifying
his arguments but I like to keep these headlines snappy. " In the AP article
you will notice that Lomborg is quoted as stating, "Awarding it to Al Gore
cannot be seen as anything other than a political statement. Awarding
it to the IPCC is well-founded." Agreed.
One in 5 pregnancies worldwide ends in abortion- "Of the 41.6 million abortions
worldwide, 35 million were in the developing countries, and 6.6 million in
developed countries." The WHO study also found the legal status doesn't
deter abortions from occurring.
Atheists radio show goes national- Because really we haven't heard enough
of the atheists' voices in our media. Not in the book publishing world (see
Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Julia
Sweeny). There's no atheist talk show pundit (um, Bill Maher). There's no
fictional character's that are atheists in television (see House and Bones).
Oh so underrepresented really.
Let the flip-flopping allegations begin!- And we haven't had a primary yet!

Who Killed the Electric Car?

Last night I wasn't feeling too well and I wanted
to lay down and watch some television. So on Encore
they aired the documentary,'Who Killed the Electric
Car?' and it was intriguing from the beginning.The
answer to the question is there were many factors
and motives to death of the electric. In the film they
show the cars being crushed into tiny pieces. This scene
also symbolized to me the crushing of people's hope in
finding innovative alternatives to the current gas fueled
cars.

To further embed the message of having fuel
efficient cars into my head, this morning one of my
favorite vloggers posted video of Hybridfest. Here
is Amanda talking hybrids.

America is richest country in the world and we should
be doing innovative things in this field. On just a design
note I thought the electric car had a nice, sleek look.

Save Planet Earth, Have an Extravaganza

Want to spread awareness of environmental conservation?
What is the best way to do that? Perhaps, spreading
environmental literature filled with scientific facts. No.
Maybe setting up a community program that plants trees
locally. No, that won't work. How about setting up a massive
global concert with musicians Ludacris, Shakira, and other
celebrities? Yes, that is the answer! Because nothing says
'I'm saving Planet Earth' like the sound of a guitar and
thousands of people gathered together cheering. But that
is what Live Earth is saying. I can hear the Earth being saved
as we speak! Or I think that is the sound of Mother Earth healing,
I can't tell with all the loud music.

Look I think the message of conservation is a great cause.
I just don't believe a huge concert with a bunch of jet setting
celebrities will do the trick.

The Green

Ok, two opinion articles caught my eye today. The first
is an article by Oliver Thomas, in which he challenges
Christians to take up the cause of global warming. I have
talked about this issue on my blog before. He writes:

"Despite all that, and the fact that 90% of us say we
believe in God, most Americans appear reluctant to
begin making the sacrifices necessary to address global
warming. Evangelical Christian leaders in particular seem
to be dragging their heels. So, why the hesitation? Why
aren't more Christians trading their SUVs for hybrids,
turning down the thermostat and writing letters to Congress?"

The second is titled "Falling behind Dad," and no author is
given. The article talks about men in their 30s not making
as much as their fathers at the same age. Here is a quote:

For generations, it has been an article of faith among American
parents that their children would be better off economically
than they were.

That may be changing. At least one group of Americans, men in their
30s, now are earning less than their fathers did at the same age.
In 1974, the U.S. median income for men in their 30s stood at
$40,210 in today's inflation-adjusted dollars. In 2004, median pay
in that age group stood at $35,010.

No suprise: Texas leads in carbon emissions

A refinery in Corpus Christi, TX (Courtesy of this website)

This morning when I read this headline "Texas
leads carbon emissions," I was not surprised.
According to this AP report, Texas, the leader in
emitting this (carbon) greenhouse gas, cranks out
more than the next two biggest producers combined,
California and Pennsylvania, which together have twice
Texas' population.

I've lived in this Texas almost my whole life. One thing
I have come to learn is that refineries are abundant
in the Lone Star State.

Not just the facts

There has been quite the chatter about the environment lately.
Senator Obama said today, "The age of oil must end in our time."
I agree with him on this issue.

I think the message of conservation is a noble one.But why isn't more
being done when it seems that most Americans believe it is a problem?
Something is not resonating.

I recently saw the HBO documentary Too Hot Not to Handle about
global warming. It was loaded with evidence for global warming. I was
convinced. But do I need to agree with the scientific facts to be
environmentally friendly?

I think many arguments for conservation come from a scientific
background, which is all well and good. However, where are the
moral arguments?

As humans we have a moral obligation not to be wasteful with our
resources. Remember when you were little and you were told to
respect yours and other people's property. It was a simple message.
I think the same premise could be applied to the environment. We
really don't need all the data about water and land pollution to be
brought to the green side because we should morally already be
there. The science should be the icing on an already well made cake.

Another mistake being done is using celebrities to send out the
message. I don't want to hear the message of conservation from an
overindulgent group of people.