posted
Having been raised by what I, as an outdoors snob, would call a "real environment" ( to the rest of you) I guess I've always been biased towards environmental issues. Certainly becoming LDS (that should read "a LDS", but that just doesn't sound right!) wasn't the beginning of my belief in protecting the environment. However, as I continue to learn more about my religion I feel more and more concerned with the state of the Earth and what we are and can do to try and improve it. Though there are some specifically LDS teachings that help strengthen this (scripture that deals with the Earth as a living soul, aware of what's going on at the surface) the Bible isn't entirely silent on the issue either. I don't consider myself competent enough to comment on other religions (really I probably over-step my bounds just going beyond my denomination) but my imagination says that there's hardly a mainstream religion out there that is against environmental protection!
And yet I can't help but notice the incredibly high correlation between religious affiliation and a negative attitude towards environmental protection. My first thoughts are the unfortunate (to me) fact that environmentalism came down as a Left-backed issue when sides were being chosen and so ideological consistency lead to those backing the Right-conservative side to generally go against it. Not that I'm saying that this is anyone's specific reason, but rather that it created a general context in which political people established their ideas and beliefs.
Yet I don't know, is this really the case? I hear a lot of quoting of "to be used for the benefit of man" type stuff but it always struck me as more of an out of the potential religious blockade to those kinds of attitudes than a real religious reason for opposing environmentalism. Of course that's from my biased perspective of seeing this as a real, and religious need. Is there really a correlation between religion and anti-environmentalism*?
*I hate to use that phrase, it's like "anti-choice" or "anti-life", used to degrade and inaccurately reflects people that are not against either but support something different. I just couldn't come up with something else, so if anyone has a suggestion, let me know!
posted
Many political groups that are conservative are also pro-business and anti-regulation. When the social conservatives aligned themselves with the Republicans, they got "stuck" with being on the other side of environmental issues.
Also, in my opinion, care for the poor issues. Those are very religious, but get quashed when it comes to what conservatives want government to do.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks dkw. I assumed so, and some of my (very scarce) research showed it, nice to get it from someone I trust. I've reading somethings about "creation care" I found quite interesting actually. However, all this just adds to my confusion over the high correlation I see between religion and ... whatever the appropriate terms is.
quote:And yet I can't help but notice the incredibly high correlation between religious affiliation and a negative attitude towards environmental protection. My first thoughts are the unfortunate (to me) fact that environmentalism came down as a Left-backed issue when sides were being chosen and so ideological consistency lead to those backing the Right-conservative side to generally go against it.
I guess that's been my feeling but I've always felt that those are are religious and don't support environmentalism would be rather disagreeable to that idea...
posted
(ETA: replying to Hobbes) Yes, I would. I don't think being religious or not correlates to being pro- or anti-envirornmentalism, but certainly what "flavor" of religon you're affiliated with seems to. (Noting the overgeneralization, and the presence of exceptions on all sides.)
I also think the same thing is true of liberals on other issues. Dividing the world into "liberal" and "conservative" teams makes it harder for people to break with the team over particular issues, at least partially because the media they listen to and the sources they trust will tend to support the side that goes along with their package deal.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
``I think conservatives have fallen into a trap when it comes to the environment. For the last thirty years, the left has used the environment as an emotional tool to try and impose higher taxes, more litigation, and bigger government on the country. So the reaction from conservatives was simply to say “no.” But where was the free-market alternative? The lack of competing solutions branded conservatives as being against the environment.
I wrote A Contract with the Earth with Terry Maple to begin the development of a “green conservatism” that emphasizes free-market, entrepreneurial solutions to conserving the environment. If we can re-center our national dialogue about the environment toward shared values and competing solutions, the entire issue of anthropomorphic climate change will just become a sidebar to the larger conversation.''
posted
Of course there's such massive diversity in "Christianity" that it's almost impossible to define a consistent opinion on nearly any subject, let alone pin down the genesis of the opinion.
That being said, many fundamentalist Christian sects have a high degree of apocalypticism in their dogma. Check out the sales figures on the Left Behind series if you want an idea of how pervasive the idea is.
If one really believed that the destruction of the world was inevitable, quickly forthcoming, and a necessary step toward the second coming of Jesus, I can understand how they might view environmental legislation as futile, if not dangerously misguided.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think religion can be a convenient excuse not to have to think about certain hard questions. That's more likely to be a personal failing of religious people than a problem with religion, though.
(While I don't think religious speculative fiction popularity is necessarily a great indicator for the reach of actual religious beliefs, the Left Behind series does explicate one particular belief that might be used as an excuse not to worry about the environment, as Speed suggested.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hobbes, if you could control for the effects of the Bob Salter hi-jack of the Utah Republician Party,I think you would find that what you are picking up as LDS religious objections to some environmental initiatives is really a regional attitude not a religious one. If you come from a "reclaim the desert" tradition (and you all have to admit that a modest, well run farm or ranch is a lot pretter than a scraggley old desert) it's hard to get excited by some sopping wet back-easterner telling you how to use your water.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hobbes, I think you've nailed it when you say that it tends to be ideologically driven, if you agree that religious people are generally more conservative (generalistaion ) and environmentalists tend to be more liberal, and so religious people can find themselves stuck between what they think is important (looking after God's creation respectfully) and groups of people whose overall ideology they don't like. That's what I find happens to me: The Greens here (a political party who have had some significant political influence over the last 9 years) drive me nuts with much of their program (legalise marijuana, illegalise prostitution, criminalise parents using corporal punishment, even mild forms, on their children) to the point thta my kneejerk reaction to them is "Go away", even when fundamentally I am sympathetic to many of their environmental ideals. Not sure if you have read this, but Hugh Nibley had an excellent piece in a 1972 New Era, called Man's Dominion. It came out at a time when Environmentalism was really becoming important. Very interesting reading. http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=b7d118e7c379b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's my understanding that there's a growing "green" movement within Evangelical Christianity. And indeed some have said that younger Evangelicals moving "left" on some issues, even while remaining "right" on others, is part of what brought Obama into office.
I suspect a religous mindset that views stewardship of Earth as "God's creation" is going to continue to become more prominent in the years to come.
It's a bit of a pity after all this time that Mr. Gingrich still seems to put the cart before the horse with regard to partisanship- viewing Democratic environmentalism as a means to achieve regulation, rather than the former requiring the latter in the Democratic view.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for personal statistics, I'm a liberal and generally vote Democratic. I'm very much an Obama supporter. And I'm in favor of smart environmentalism, but oppose some things that I think are bad technological decisions.
Low flow toilets are really just no flush toilets. They don't work. That was a big mistake. When they are implemented people just have to flush multiple times. They don't save water and they don't do their job.
100% electric cars don't prevent pollution. They just move some pollution from the car exhaust to the power plant where it's granted easier to scrub or otherwise handle. But the inefficiencies along the way are terrible. First of all, you lose 70% of the energy in waste heat at the power plant. There went your car heater, up in steam from the plant. You don't get one on your battery powered car. Ditto to transmission losses and so on. Electricity is like THE most expensive form of energy. Then batteries are very expensive and don't last. You have to spend several thousand for new batteries every few years in the life of the car. Think about how your laptop batteries are shot by the time you need a new laptop after 2 years. Car batteries for electric cars cost like $1500. And they're toxic as all get out. Even if the car company agrees to recycle them, that's not a waste free process. And the heavy metals they contain are some of the very worst kind of waste. I maintain that electric cars aren't good for the environment at all. Hybrids are somewhat better, but not much. It's nice that someone's working on the problem some, for when petroleum prices are just too high. But it's just not viable technology yet, and it's terrible for the environment.
Another issue is compact fluorescents. I love them and use them in every application they're appropriate. But they're big so some fixtures don't work with them. And they're inappropriate for dimming applications. And they're not appropriate where it's damp, or for outside applications. They don't last as long as they claim. I've been putting compact fluorescents in my house whenever an incandescent bulb burns out. They're supposed to last 7 years but I've only been here 6 years and I've already had to replace all the first ones at least once. And again the waste from them is much more toxic and troublesome than with incandescent bulbs. It's a bad idea to "phase out" incandescent bulbs. For some applications they'll always be better.
I think sometimes we legislate these solutions and they aren't really that wise.
Lastly, I believe nuclear power plants should have continued to be built all along, not gone through a 30 year hiatus after Three Mile Island. If they had been, we'd have emitted far less CO2 into the atmosphere over the last 30 years than we did. Nuclear power is clean and elegant. Fuel lasts 18 to 24 months before being reshuffled. Then is reshuffled an average of 3 cycles before being removed. I think it's great that we didn't dispose of our spent fuel in Yucca mountain, because only 5% of the energy is gone from it. We can reprocess it and use another 90% leaving waste that is toxic for much less time.
Anyway, I'm 100% in favor of us sustainably using the earth's resources. I believe the environmentalists have done a great service to our country, and gotten so much cleaned up. But sometimes the legislated solutions are a mess and aren't the smartest thing we could have done.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being a religious person and a conservative, I support environmentalism, generally speaking. My faith has helped me develop a greater appreciation for this world and all of its beauties. One of my biggest pet peeves is when people litter and sometimes I am really annoyed by all of the excess packaging that goes into our modern products.
At least in my own case, the difference between me being a liberal and being a conservative on environmental issues is not environmentalism vs. anti-environmentalism, but government regulation vs. non-government regulation. I am not saying I disagree with all regulation, just a lot of it. It bothers me how much of our progress in energy development has been delayed due to excessive environmental regulations.
On the other hand, I agree with an earlier poster in that the free market, because of our general attitude as a society, has not done its part to promote concern for the environment. I am seeing this happen more in the private sector in recent years, and nothing warms my heart more than a private organization promoting measures to preserve the earth, as long as that measure is reasonable.
I do believe that God has made us stewards over this earth, and I am not one who believes animals have rights, like humans do, but that God expects us to treat them humanely and to only use them for wise reasons. I believe many Native Americans treated the buffalo, for example, with this type of attitude. They did not refrain from ever killing any buffalo, but they only killed them when they were needed, and then they used every part of the animal that they could. They respedted these animals and understood their proper place in the world. I believe we should all approach the environment in this manner.
I don't like extremes on this issue. I don't like some conservative attitudes that say "to heck with the environment, it will take care of itself" and I don't like extreme environmental attitudes that say, "don't build a house there, a squirrel lived there" or "animals have rights just like humans do." Don't build recklessly, but also recognize that we as humans, have just as much a right to build our societies as does a beaver who makes a dam.
The fact of the matter is, I don't believe the government can solve all of our environmental problems if a large portion of society just doesn't care. If many people don't care, then the private sector also won't produce individuals that promote healthy measures through their businesses. For me, when it comes down to it, we (as a nation, not referring to Hatrack) need to become more educated and less emotional regarding this issue. We, as individuals, should think more and react less regarding how we use resources around us. I include myself in this, because there are still times when I use resources without thought for the consequences, but I find myself becoming more responsible on this issue the older I get.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: 100% electric cars don't prevent pollution. They just move some pollution from the car exhaust to the power plant where it's granted easier to scrub or otherwise handle ...
Out of curiosity, would your opinion about this change in a jurisdiction where the power for the electric cars would mainly come from nuclear or hydroelectric?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe many Native Americans treated the buffalo, for example, with this type of attitude. They did not refrain from ever killing any buffalo, but they only killed them when they were needed, and then they used every part of the animal that they could. They respedted these animals and understood their proper place in the world. I believe we should all approach the environment in this manner.
Just a tangent, but how sure are you about this? I realize this is a popular belief but I'm not sure how much justification there is for it. I would not quibble that the descendants of European colonists are mainly responsible for the near extinction of the American bison, but I think that could be true even if there wasn't deliberate conservation on the part of the Native Americans. They might not have seen/shared the profit motive that led to wholesale slaughter of bison. They might not have figured out a way to kill a lot of them at once. etc.
As I saw someone else point out recently, there have been wildlife extinctions in North America prior to the bison, that were probably due to overhunting by Native Americans.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump is a buffalo jump located where the foothills of the Rocky Mountains begin to rise from the prairie 18 km northwest of Fort Macleod, Alberta, Canada on highway 785. It is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and home of a museum of Blackfoot culture. ... The buffalo jump was used for 5,500 years by the indigenous peoples of the plains to kill buffalo, by driving them off the 10 metre high cliff. The Blackfoot drove the buffalo from a grazing area in the Porcupine Hills about 3 kilometres west of the site to the "drive lanes," lined by hundreds of cairns, then at full gallop over a cliff, breaking their legs, rendering them immobile. The cliff itself is about 300 metres long, and at its highest point drops 10 metres into the valley below. The site was in use at least 6,000 years ago, and the bone deposits are 10 metres deep. After falling off the cliff, the buffalo carcasses were processed at a nearby camp.
posted
Interesting. I think Marlozhan allowed for the possibility that not *all* Native Americans would have reverence for their food supply, so I wonder if there are any counter examples that show a an explicit cultural expectation to show restraint in killing bison or other prey (outside of the vague portrayals in pop culture which I simply don't trust).
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: 100% electric cars don't prevent pollution. They just move some pollution from the car exhaust to the power plant where it's granted easier to scrub or otherwise handle ...
Out of curiosity, would your opinion about this change in a jurisdiction where the power for the electric cars would mainly come from nuclear or hydroelectric?
The technology is still not there for electric cars to be a mainstream option. We just had a briefing at this at work on Wednesday (I work in energy markets) as a sort of "is this an up & coming issue we need to be aware of?" The answer was no. At roughly current gas, electricity, and technology prices, it takes about 17 to 20 years for the higher cost of the 100% electric car to be made up in savings. At $4 gas, it's still somewhere in the 7 year range.
The only car company taking the idea of an 100% electric car before 2020 anywhere close to seriously is GM - and that's because they're grasping for anything.
Edit: our transportation expert (from the transportation section of the company) put the 2020 market penetration of a plug-in electric vehicle (like GM's Volt) at a possible (not probable) 1% IF the battery durability problem is resolved.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jhai: Depressing, but good to know. Still, it will be interesting to see if that is indeed how it will play out, especially overseas.
Edit to add: In particular, I wonder if a combination of higher gas taxes in Ontario, more nuclear and hydro in the proportion of power used, the spreading use of time-of-use meters allowing for cheap off-peak power, along with innovation such as that at BYD may push special cases like Ontario to or above 1% before 2020.
quote: Mr. Wang says BYD's batteries use a new technology that makes them safer than other lithium-ion models. He also says cheap abundant labor helps keeps his costs down, another factor that could sway consumers. In China, the F3DM is priced at 150,000 yuan, or $22,000, and BYD expects it to sell for a similar amount in the U.S. The Chevrolet Volt, by contrast, may be priced at $40,000 or more when it hits the market in late 2010.
Another potential BYD edge: more than a decade of experience specializing in making batteries. Mr. Wang started the company in 1995, borrowing $300,000 from a cousin, and making batteries for cellphones. Today, BYD is the world's second-biggest producer of lithium-ion batteries. The company made 21.2 billion yuan ($3.1 billion) in revenue last year and has a work force of 130,000. Last September, MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., an Iowa-based energy producer, invested $230 million in BYD for a 10% stake. Mr. Buffett is majority owner of MidAmerican. ... The first of BYD's electric cars, the F3DM, is more of a purely electric car than the gasoline-electric hybrids on the road today. It can go about 50 to 60 miles exclusively on electricity when fully charged.
By contrast, Toyota Motor Corp.'s Prius is essentially a gasoline-fueled car with an electric engine that propels the car at low speeds and assists the gasoline engine when accelerating. The F3DM is similar in design to General Motors Corp.'s Chevy Volt. But it is being launched two years earlier than the Volt and one year ahead of Toyota's plug-in hybrid, which is due out for late 2009. ... In China, BYD is already one of the fastest-growing independent auto makers. Demand for its traditional small cars, the F3 and the F0, is growing despite weakening car sales in China, allowing it to close in on Chery Automobile Co. and Geely Holding Group, the two biggest independent Chinese auto brands. The F3 was one of China's best-selling models during the last quarter of 2008. "BYD is probably the closest...to becoming the first Chinese auto maker to crack the Western auto markets," says Wolfgang Bernhart, a senior researcher for the German consulting firm Roland Burger.
By late 2009, BYD plans to mark another milestone by launching in China the BYD e6, an all-electric car capable of going 180 miles on a single full charge of its battery.
posted
Those specifics might make a plug-in more viable. We did talk about the possibility of fleets of vehicles used by a city government or in a share-ride approach like Zipcar in major cities (where you get the most out of an electric car), and I could see that being implemented in Ontario. And technology breakthroughs can change the game at any time. However, cost to the consumer is a big one to overcome - it's a pretty accepted rule that the majority of people will only consider purchasing a cost-saving technology if they recoup their upfront costs within three years - and then market penetration falls away drastically. At seven years out, you're looking at around 4 to 5 %. A combination of taxes, subsidies, and regulation requirements can shift those costs around, but it's not politically possible to change costs too much via regulation.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Low flow toilets are really just no flush toilets. They don't work. That was a big mistake. When they are implemented people just have to flush multiple times. They don't save water and they don't do their job.
I would amend that to say "some low flow toilets". There are low water use toilets available that work very well, sometimes better than the huge tank toilets we had in my home when I was a kid.
The problem is that most low flow toilets in the US are simply very poorly designed. I'm not sure why the US is so far behind on toilet technology. I'm living in a developing country, but even here toilet technology is way ahead of the US. The toilets in my home have tanks that are half the size of the typical toilet tanks in the US and yet I never have to flush more than once. In addition, the toilets never "run" because the flapper didn't close properly because there is no flapper. The flush operates on a siphoning mechanism. When you depress the flush handle, it pulls a diaphram that sucks water up and over the top of the siphoning tube and the water in the tank then drains out into the bowl. Once the tank is empty, the siphon is automatically broken and water flow from tank to bowl stops every single time. There are also differences in the design of the bowl so that stuff gets flushed out more easily with less water. And these are toilets in a 3rd world country. (I'm not saying we don't have more than our share of plumbing problems, but I'll spare you that rant for now)
The toilets in Germany are even better. Most of them have the option for a half flush and a full flush.
All too often people assume that because certain resource saving devices perform badly that it just isn't possible to get good performance without using more resources. In many cases like the US low flow toilets, we are just talking about really poorly designed systems and a well designed system could give both better performance and lower resource use.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"In many cases like the US low flow toilets, we are just talking about really poorly designed systems and a well designed system could give both better performance and lower resource use."
I agree with you.
In men's rooms around here, the low flow toilets are a real joke. Since they are in men's rooms, the sit down models are ONLY used when an effective flush is needed, and two flushes is the norm. It'd be better to simply use older models, but better yet to find a water conserving model that can still flush effectively.
In homes and women's rooms, I think the occasional double flush is probably outweighed by the more numerous No1 uses for which a single flush still suffices, but public men's rooms with poorly designed low flow thrones are probably using MORE water than they did with older toilets.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm completely with Hobbes on this one. It has completely baffled me for years why so many conservative religious people oppose environmental protection.
I've got a number of hypotheses on it but I think mostly what it boils down to is this. In western thought the idea that ethics should encompass how we treat non-human things is fairly new and a fairly radical idea. Counter-culture elements that have rejected traditional religious views on morality were among the first to embrace this radical idea that how we treat nature is an ethical issue. It's sort of a guilt by association issue. Conservative religious people associate "environmentalism" with "new morality" and other threats to traditional religious sentiments and so they oppose it. Its not at all rational but then people are rarely are.
It is interesting that most environmental legislation in the US has been linked to human impact. The justification for clean air and clean water is primarily that pollution has a negative impact on people. Much of wilderness legislation is tied to preservation of watershed -- once again linked to human health. Wetlands preservation is linked to flooding of human property. National Parks are preserved for the enjoyment of humans.
The one big exception to this has been the the Endangered Species Act, which has been continually controversial. Even here, its worth noting that while the Endangered Species Act has been a powerful tool for protecting ecosystems the justification has been to preserve "species" and never that ecosystems themselves are of value and deserve preservation on their own right.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is interesting that most environmental legislation in the US has been linked to human impact. The justification for clean air and clean water is primarily that pollution has a negative impact on people. Much of wilderness legislation is tied to preservation of watershed -- once again linked to human health. Wetlands preservation is linked to flooding of human property. National Parks are preserved for the enjoyment of humans.
The one big exception to this has been the the Endangered Species Act, which has been continually controversial. Even here, its worth noting that while the Endangered Species Act has been a powerful tool for protecting ecosystems the justification has been to preserve "species" and never that ecosystems themselves are of value and deserve preservation on their own right.
Hmm. I think the only sensible reason to protect ecosystems or other species, when it incurs a short term human cost, is long term benefit to humans. An ecosystem might have some independent intrinsic value to you, but the only way you'll get me to vote for protecting it is if I see some long term benefit to humanity (well, actually I think fear of unintended consequences counts too, but for the same reason).
In practice I'm against wanton destruction without benefit to people, and against most other destruction if I think there's a chance it'll harm us in the long run. But I would not place much value on any ecosystem outside of long term benefit to humans. (That benefit can include living in a lush, varied, and valued ecosystem, but it requires humans to value it.)
As a separate matter I think it's wrong to cause pain and suffering in other creatures (but not so wrong that it can't be outweighed by benefit to humans).
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:100% electric cars don't prevent pollution. They just move some pollution from the car exhaust to the power plant where it's granted easier to scrub or otherwise handle.
That's only situationally true. If someone with an electric car were to charge up their car at 4pm, then yes, all they'd be doing is moving the pollution from the exhaust to the smokestack of a coal fired plant most likely, which, like you mentioned, makes it easier to control. But, what if they charge their car at night? There's enough excess offpeak power being generated in the United States right now to replace well over half the light duty vehicle fleet with electric cars with no additional power generation since they plants run 24 hrs a day but aren't needed. So, imagine taking half the cars off the road but not turning on any additional power plants. That's a drastic reduction in pollution.
quote:But the inefficiencies along the way are terrible. First of all, you lose 70% of the energy in waste heat at the power plant. Ditto to transmission losses and so on.
Yeah, that's a problem. I think we're finally doing something about it, especially when it comes to more efficient T&D in the power grid, but we'll see how much money actually gets spent on low transmission loss technology in the next decade. The technology is there, and is being adapted six ways from Sunday in Europe.
quote:Then batteries are very expensive and don't last. You have to spend several thousand for new batteries every few years in the life of the car. Think about how your laptop batteries are shot by the time you need a new laptop after 2 years. Car batteries for electric cars cost like $1500. And they're toxic as all get out. Even if the car company agrees to recycle them, that's not a waste free process. And the heavy metals they contain are some of the very worst kind of waste.
I'm curious, but what electric cars are you referring to? Near as I can tell, it's been ten years since a fully electric car was on the market, and even that one was in pretty small numbers. Well actually I take that back, the Tesla Roadster is on the market, but hasn't been around anywhere near long enough to judge it on any of your battery related criticisms. In other words, you're complaining about the last generation, and I use that term loosely, of electric car batteries, not the next one. I think there are still some problems to be worked out, but companies are finally spending the money to get some real and meaningful R&D done on battery technology to make it a viable seller in the 21st century. As far as replacing these batteries go, they're considered in need of replacement when they fall below 80% of their original charge capacity, which means they still have a LOT of life left in them. There's a lot of talk about a huge potential resale market for the batteries, especially in relation to renewable energy. I don't know if it'll end up being feasible or not, but it sounds like a great way to solve a couple problems at once.
quote:I maintain that electric cars aren't good for the environment at all. Hybrids are somewhat better, but not much. It's nice that someone's working on the problem some, for when petroleum prices are just too high. But it's just not viable technology yet, and it's terrible for the environment.
Fully electric and that's all? Yeah, I'd agree that we're not there yet. I don't think we'll be there until they make it easy to charge a car in 20 minutes, otherwise people will never be able to go long distances with them, and they'll never buy them. But for something like the Volt, which is fully electric but with a small engine for on board energy generation, I think we're just about there, and I think it's going to be great for the environment. It remains to be seen whether or not GM will be able to price it well enough, but they'll get some help there.
On incandescent light bulbs and CFLs -
Newer CFLs do have dimmer capabilities, as well as three way switches, and you can buy ones that aren't massively huge or in that spiral shape. They make ones that look exactly like incandescents. But I agree that they have their limitations and drawbacks, just like their predecessors do. I wouldn't worry too much about it though, CFLs are a stopgap measure until a couple of new technologies become commercial in a couple of years. HEIs and LEDs are going to replace CFLs as the green lighting source of choice in the next decades. LEDs are approaching competitive pricing for commercial lighting applications, and are already being adopted in commercial buildings. HEIs are still in development, but there are a couple companies, I want to say GE and Phillips off the top of my head, that say it's something they'll have ready to go at the start of the next decade. There are even more lighting technologies being worked on for the next big thing, but I think CFLs are at their zenith right now, and by the time congressional legislation that eliminates many incandescent bulbs really takes effect, you'll have a lot more lighting options than CFLs to rely on.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally I've always given religious folks the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the sides they often fall on in issues like the environment and poverty. When I see a self-professed religious community on the Right attacking social programs aimed to help the poor, I don't think they are unChristian and hate the poor, I just assume that they want to help the poor at the local level, through community organizing and charity work. My finger only starts to wag when I don't see any of their professed solutions materializing on a meaningful level.
And as far as environmentalism goes, I just think, like many others have said, that they fell in with the wrong crowd. Republicans for a long time have constructed the argument that being pro-environment was automatically anti-business, because it was business that suffered from the regulatory laws passed to help protect the environment. I think that's both true and untrue, it really depends on what situation specifically, but at the end of the day, while these things might not be best for business, I think most of them are net positives for society as a whole. Yes, it costs more for a business to clean up their toxic sludge or pollutants from being spewed into the air, but is anyone seriously going to argue that the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act weren't net positives for society?
Sorry, got into a tangent there. I think it's hard for religious Republicans who are pro-environment to vote because Republicans, until very, very recently, have never attempted to rationalize environmentalism with being pro-business and small government. They've been too successful in the past at winning by calling liberals tree huggers back when environmentalism wasn't as big a campaign issue that it's a knee jerk response now.
The loser is as much the religious voter who has to pick between diametrically opposed extremes when he or she would prefer some gray candidates as it is the environment itself.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, This may be true for many religious conservatives, but for some religious conservatives the opposition to environmentalism goes much deeper than just association with other republican ideals.
Several years back, my husband and I both gave testimony at a public hearing on a wilderness issue. In his testimony, my husband quoted a short passage of scripture which was then reported in the local newspaper. We were very surprised when his rather benign comment provoked a firestorm of letters to the editor from conservative Christians . My husband was called everything from the Anti-Christ to Satan worshiper by outraged Christians who appeared to have been mortally wounded by the mere suggestions that anything in the Bible might indicate that wanton destruction of the planet was immoral. I'm not exaggerating here. The fire raged on for at least two weeks.
I've seen similar though less extreme reactions in much of my work on environmental issues so I am convinced that at least some conservative Christians see environmentalism as immoral. The only explanation I've been able to find for this is a sort of guilt by associations. Simply put counter-culture groups (Hippies, Pagans, etc) are in favor of "sex and drugs and rock and roll", along with environmentalism and world peace. Conservative Christians think "sex and drugs and rock and roll" are of satan, so environmental protection and world peace must be devilish as well.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have a valid point, scifibum, and I admit that the example of the buffalo was just an example to explain the type of attitude that I would like to see more of. I certainly did recognize that it may only apply to certain Native American people, but now that you mention it, it would be interesting to see if this popular notion did apply to any of the Native Americans. Given that there were so many thousands of different tribes, statistics suggests that at least some of them had this type of attitude, at least some of the time.
At any rate, whether or not this is the case, the type of ideology represented by the example is more healthy than either blatant disregard of the environment, or treating the environment as a museum artifact that cannot be disturbed.
And as with any discussion regarding two opposing groups of people, the individuals within those two groups are never as polarized as is often portrayed. I have met religious folk, from a wide variety of religions; I have met hundreds of spiritual people who believe in something greater, but are not religious; and I have met people that are agnostic, atheist, and everything in between. The plain fact of the matter is that every one of these individuals do not fit into the broad stereotypes that are portrayed on a national level. In other words, some of the most ignorant and prejudice people I have met have been devout religious people, while some of the very best people have also been devout religious people. The same dynamic applies to individuals who are not religious.
I know that is an obvious point, but I felt like saying it anyway.
As an afterthought, I have often theorized as to the fundamental difference between religious folk who are very defensive and rigid, and religious folk who are confident, but open minded, strictly principled, but always trying to improve those principles. One thing I am certain of is that those differences cannot always be determined by denominational differences. I am LDS, and there are plenty of LDS people who fall into both categories, as well as with people from other faiths. I wonder if it has more to do with how confident you are in your own beliefs.
In other words, if you are a person who is, deep down, afraid that your faith might be wrong, you would be more likely to reject any opposing notions, get defensive easily, make big generalizations, etc. If you have a deep belief that has come through your own experiences or prayers, and not just from blind obedience, you would not be threatened by others with opposing beliefs, and you would always be open to learning more truth and revising your current biases when appropriate.
Of course, this theory kind of puts religious people into two distinct categories, which I was just arguing against, but I don't view them as distinct categories; rather as a continuum. At any rate, just my thoughts. What do you all think?
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Hobbes here, and it has always baffled me. As far as I've figured out, I think it's a product of the two-party system. Everyone in my conservative little hometown, and especially the Mormons in my conservative little hometown, tend to be die-hard Republicans. But I think that comes from wanting to pick the party with social conservative values (anti-abortion, etc) and then the tendency to "pick sides" made all the other issues follow suit.
I also think this is why a lot of conservative, religious people, tend to be big-business, free-capitalist types. I think if they examined their Christian beliefs a little more closely they'd realize that they're not so in-step with the party lines. But when you've got the cultural good guys/bad guys mindset, I think you're easily talked into supporting a lot of issues that weren't really what you originally signed up for.
A good illustration of this, I think, is a conversation I had once with my mom. I was telling her how much I admired the way Japan handles its trash - mandatory recycling and separating trash everywhere, even at fast-food restaurants. And everyone goes to the extra trouble simply because the don't-waste ethic is a social expectation. She was getting uncomfortable, though, as I said this, and she answered with "Yes, but Japan also has some really terrible problems with pornography."
I was baffled. What did this have to do with recycling? But I think she often tenses up when I talk politics around her because some of the views I took up when I went to college convinced her that I'd "turned liberal" - that I'd switched teams. I don't know how to convince her that I'm on the recycling team, but I'm also on the anti-pornography and that this isn't a moral contradiction for me at all.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I've seen similar though less extreme reactions in much of my work on environmental issues so I am convinced that at least some conservative Christians see environmentalism as immoral. The only explanation I've been able to find for this is a sort of guilt by associations. Simply put counter-culture groups (Hippies, Pagans, etc) are in favor of "sex and drugs and rock and roll", along with environmentalism and world peace. Conservative Christians think "sex and drugs and rock and roll" are of satan, so environmental protection and world peace must be devilish as well.
Huh, I guess I was giving them way too much credit then.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, for a look-see at the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America)social statements of belief -- across many areas, including environmental:
quote:Hobbes, if you could control for the effects of the Bob Salter hi-jack of the Utah Republician Party,I think you would find that what you are picking up as LDS religious objections to some environmental initiatives is really a regional attitude not a religious one. If you come from a "reclaim the desert" tradition (and you all have to admit that a modest, well run farm or ranch is a lot pretter than a scraggley old desert) it's hard to get excited by some sopping wet back-easterner telling you how to use your water.
I'm not sure I fully understand this. Partly it's because I'm from Colorado, I just finished college in Indiana and I'm currently going to grad school in Austin, TX. Are you saying that this regional attitude has spilled over into the culture and thus gone across the country, or were you just assuming I'm in Utah? I don't ask the latter to antagonize, it's not a bad assumption I suppose for someone whose LDS: I'm just curious.
quote:Being a religious person and a conservative, I support environmentalism, generally speaking. My faith has helped me develop a greater appreciation for this world and all of its beauties. One of my biggest pet peeves is when people litter and sometimes I am really annoyed by all of the excess packaging that goes into our modern products.
Yes, this is what I mean when I say that it appears to me that Christian religion should lead to environmentalism, thank-you!
quote:I don't like extremes on this issue. I don't like some conservative attitudes that say "to heck with the environment, it will take care of itself" and I don't like extreme environmental attitudes that say, "don't build a house there, a squirrel lived there" or "animals have rights just like humans do." Don't build recklessly, but also recognize that we as humans, have just as much a right to build our societies as does a beaver who makes a dam.
The fact of the matter is, I don't believe the government can solve all of our environmental problems if a large portion of society just doesn't care. If many people don't care, then the private sector also won't produce individuals that promote healthy measures through their businesses. For me, when it comes down to it, we (as a nation, not referring to Hatrack) need to become more educated and less emotional regarding this issue. We, as individuals, should think more and react less regarding how we use resources around us. I include myself in this, because there are still times when I use resources without thought for the consequences, but I find myself becoming more responsible on this issue the older I get.
So maybe a lot of the negative reaction is just spill-over from outrage at the extremes and policy differences amount more to the means than the end? I think that could definitely be a piece of the puzzle. At least it resonates with me as being true for some specific examples I have in mind.
quote: In western thought the idea that ethics should encompass how we treat non-human things is fairly new and a fairly radical idea. Counter-culture elements that have rejected traditional religious views on morality were among the first to embrace this radical idea that how we treat nature is an ethical issue. It's sort of a guilt by association issue. Conservative religious people associate "environmentalism" with "new morality" and other threats to traditional religious sentiments and so they oppose it. Its not at all rational but then people are rarely are.
Do you think there will be a generational solution then? That we just wait for the next generation and much of those accumulated biases will pass on with those who first gathered them? I often worry that time, a lot of time, is the only real solution. Are there other realistic solutions to that problem? All I can see is that we all do what we can, maybe some advertisement: but even then ideas entrenched in this way aren't given up easily. Perhaps make a more serious effort to approach things in a way that's pleasing to the economic and moral outlook of conservatism would get those who already agree with the goal like Artemisia Tridentata on board and give those others who are more rabid about the ideas themselves a way of bowing-out gracefully? I don't know, I didn't really start this thread to try and solve the world's environment problems, but I guess it does make me curious as to if there is a way to move it along!
quote:I am convinced that at least some conservative Christians see environmentalism as immoral.
My experience certainly agrees with that. Obviously I interact more with LDS than other Christians, but I've received that same impression from at least one person of just about every major denomination.
posted
In Gospel Principles class the other day, we covered the creation of the earth and the concept of stewardship. The teacher asked the class what we thought this meant, and I said that it means the earth is given to us in trust and we need to take care of it.
This apparently had a wiff of environmentalism to it, because another guy in the class raised his hand and went one for three minutes on how the Earth is like cookie ingredients and they are there so we can make cookies. (Paraphrase, but that was basically it.) It was a little unpleasant and confrontational, but I had confronted the same guy the week before when it had been his turn to teach (He was presenting some ad absurdam conclusions as doctrine - to new members, no less! - so I objected, and he backpedaled, but neither he nor his wife were happy.), so I let it go. But I was surprised by the passion of his objection to my comment.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's what got me to start this thread Kat, the feeling like there's real anger behind this. The sense that being against the environmentalist movement is some how morally superior. I just don't understand the intense emotions and convictions when it appears to rise from something I can only imagine would point you in the other direction. Very strange.
As a side note on your story, does anyone besides me ever get the feeling of smug satisfaction when someone on the opposing side of a debate from you proves to everyone around just how foolish their reasoning is? I suppose that's one of those "natural man" aspects of me I should really work on...
quote:In Gospel Principles class the other day, we covered the creation of the earth and the concept of stewardship. The teacher asked the class what we thought this meant, and I said that it means the earth is given to us in trust and we need to take care of it.
I think this take is pretty spot on, especially when compared to the other things that we are said to have stewardship over - family, children, other members (depending on your calling), etc.
quote:As a side note on your story, does anyone besides me ever get the feeling of smug satisfaction when someone on the opposing side of a debate from you proves to everyone around just how foolish their reasoning is?
Absolutely! But that is usually tempered with an uneasy suspicion that someone else is taking them seriously.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everyone needs faith or at the very least something to believe in. The modern environmentalist movement, especially in the global warming or climate change area behave as fanatically as the most dedicated evangelical. The problem with the left is, they are a coalition of extremely dedicated and committed groups. Environmentalists, gays, women, this race or that, gun control, separation of church and staters, etc, etc. One issue voters. There are many environmentally concious conservatives and religious people. But religious people and conservatives wont disregard other important matters for the environmental movement and throw in with a party that opposes other issues. One issue people, a group of fanatics. The "perception" is artaficial. The perception that religious people are non-environmental is a bill of goods that has been sold to you. A tactic that has proven effective in other areas, like race. If you're conservative, if you believe in strong borders or oppose affirmative action you are a racist. If you are opposed to gay marriage you are a homophobe. Don't believe the hype. I know many gun wielding, hunting, christian, loggers that are great stewards of the environment.
quote:The problem with the left is, they are a coalition of extremely dedicated and committed groups. Environmentalists, gays, women, this race or that, gun control, separation of church and staters, etc, etc. One issue voters.
Actually, as any political strategist will tell you, the problem with the Left is that this is not true. Conservatives are far, far more likely to be single-issue voters, and are considerably easier to herd. Trying to organize the Left is a major challenge, not least because many "leftist" causes are diametrically opposed to each other. Anyone that tells you the Left is made of single-issue voters is revealing his ignorance.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re electric cars(and Jhai's comment that only GM has any real plans for full scale production of electric cars before 2020 and that only because they're desperate):
Just saw an extended item on Top Gear (UK car show) about the Honda Clarity which one of the show's presenters, James May, is touting as the most significant car for 100 years, and given the show's skepticism and generally negative attitude to electric cars in general, with the heavily qualified exception of the Tesla, that's some statement. He makes the point that it's the car of the future because it runs just like a car of today.
The Clarity doesn't rely on batteries in th same way as other electric cars, producing its electricity from liquid hydrogen, and has only one moving part in its engine.
The only real problem is separating hydrogen from whatever other molecules (that's according to my pretty unscientific understanding of what he said anyway ) it's attached to, but they say that will be at least as easy/difficult as drilling oil from under the sea. The cost of hydrogen at the moment is around the same as the cost of gas.
It takes 3 minutes to fill it up at a hydrogen filling station.
From wikipedia: "The Honda FCX Clarity is a hydrogen fuel cell automobile manufactured by Honda. The design is based on the 2006 Honda FCX Concept.
"Limited marketing of a fuel cell vehicle based on the concept model began in 19 June 2008 in United States and it was introduced in Japan in November 2008.[1] Honda believes it could start mass producing vehicles based on the FCX concept by the year 2018.[2]
"Specifications The vehicle is powered by a 57-litre, 100kW Honda Vertical Flow (V Flow) hydrogen fuel cell stack. Electricity is stored in a 288V lithium ion battery.
"The electric motor is based on the motor in the EV Plus, rated at 134 horsepower (100 kW) and 189 lb·ft (256 N·m) torque @0-3056 rpm. The range on a full hydrogen tank (4.1 kg @ 5000psi) is 280 miles (~450 km), with fuel efficiency of 77/67/72 miles per kilogram of hydrogen in city/highway/combined driving.
"Production Honda planned to produce 200 vehicles within 3 years."
quote:The problem with the left is, they are a coalition of extremely dedicated and committed groups. Environmentalists, gays, women, this race or that, gun control, separation of church and staters, etc, etc. One issue voters.
Actually, as any political strategist will tell you, the problem with the Left is that this is not true. Conservatives are far, far more likely to be single-issue voters, and are considerably easier to herd. Trying to organize the Left is a major challenge, not least because many "leftist" causes are diametrically opposed to each other. Anyone that tells you the Left is made of single-issue voters is revealing his ignorance.
This man speaks the truth.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Liquid hydrogen? Is it in some sort of suspension? Because if not, I can't imagine the fireball that'd make in an accident.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that for some religious people, any hint that we can't do anything we want to with the earth and all that is on it threatens the idea that we are the pinnacle and purpose of Creation. These people tend to cling defensively to "dominion" rather than "stewardship". "Stewardship" carries the implication that we do not own Creation.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
The toilets in Germany are even better. Most of them have the option for a half flush and a full flush. [/QB]
This is mandatory in Australia. And I think our full flush is still light compared to most American toilets (9L - 4.5L is half flush). And I've never, ever had to double flush.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
to the rest of you) I guess I've always been biased towards environmental issues. Certainly becoming LDS (that should read "a LDS", but that just doesn't sound right!) wasn't the beginning of my belief in protecting the environment. However, as I continue to learn more about my religion I feel more and more concerned with the state of the Earth and what we are and can do to try and improve it. Though there are some specifically LDS teachings that help strengthen this (scripture that deals with the Earth as a living soul, aware of what's going on at the surface) the Bible isn't entirely silent on the issue either. I don't consider myself competent enough to comment on other religions (really I probably over-step my bounds just going beyond my denomination) but my imagination says that there's hardly a mainstream religion out there that is against environmental protection!![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
I suppose that's one of those "natural man" aspects of me I should really work on...![[Wink]](wink.gif)
