"Sierra Club Endorses Obama for President"
hmmmmm,
Methinks someone has been kissing the
Blarney Stone!

Posted by: Lauretta | June 27, 2008 6:34 PM

Roger,
Don't forget to thank environmentalist left on behalf of the poor for $8 corn.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | June 27, 2008 6:43 PM

I was taught that the first commandment that God gave Adam was to name the animals, this is to be responsible for them. God also dedicated a fair amount of space in the Leviticus Law to the care and nurturing of the fields.

To think that we are not obliged to care for the planet is to say that God does not care for the sparrow or the lilies of the field. To be cavalier about the welfare of the planet is to place ourselves above God.

I am an eviromentalist because I am a guest on God's hand made world. I better take good care of it or the Landlord could evict me, I wouldn't like that. I don't like the alternative.

Posted by: Paul | June 27, 2008 7:17 PM

As an Alaskan I know all about drive-by environmentalists.
A few years ago a Sierra Club member filmed a wolf, in pain, caught in a leg-snare for 31/2 hours for propaganda purposes. In 1983 every creek in Anchorage was polluted and considered dead. Everyday people, and the big oil companies (oh my) and school kids etc. working together with the military cleaned them up. We now have salmon returning. There is even a Slammin Salmon Derby on Ship Creek that benefits a local soup kitchen. The Sierra club was not here.
Many villages here could use help cleaning up. The Oil
Companys have cleaned up their act. I've been to the
North Slope and seen it. On the other hand, my mother is buried where garbage, trailers and cars are left, because it is "native" land. The Sierra Club loves high profile cases. Brian McLaren's universalist views
are in danger of polluting Christianity. Why does he
feel the need to make Christians look so clueless and
everyone else coming to the rescue? There is more
to this picture then what is on the computer screen.
We have agate hunting relatives that clean up trash on
beaches while they walk along. They do not feel the need to join the Sierra club, and pay fees.

Posted by: | June 27, 2008 8:00 PM

I am a proud to say that for almost one year I have ridden my bike to work. I don't do this to "save the planet" I do this because gas (last summer) was a "bargain" at $3 a gallon and I also payed $40 bucks a month to park. I figure it was better to put that money somewhere else in the families budget. I live in Michigan. There were some cold mornings this last winter. Global warming is welcomed in my home.
I work in a legislative office in which I meet with a number of activist on a daily basis. A few times a year members of the Sierra Club entered my office. This last time they were advocating wind power. While advocating this clean energy they continually reminded me that "you better not put one of those turbines near my house." I was ticked, here comes some someone preaching to me about "saving the planet" when I have made more sacrifices, maybe for different reasons, than they ever will. They didn't want a wind turbine near their second home.
I guess I have the same reaction to many who are environmentalist as many non-believers have to Christians. They're a bunch of hypocrites. If Al Gore believes all this stuff then "buy a smaller house" and don't give me a bunch of garbage about carbon offsets.
That being said I appreciate the "greens" interest in living a simpler life. I believe a Biblical argument can be made about living a simpler life without telling us the icecaps are melting. I will try to read this pamphlet. It will be tough get past the fact that for the most part my experience with the Sierra Club is they like to preach and offer more government regulation as their solution to the world.

Posted by: Paul | June 27, 2008 10:10 PM

Yeah, well we're gonna shut down the TarSands and you'll be paying $12/gallon so quit whining.

And speaking of environmentalism, how about your Supreme Court kissing Exxon's affluent derriere and dropping the Exxon Valdez penalty by a billion-and-a-half or so. Whiz kids, those guys!

Posted by: canucklehead | June 28, 2008 1:31 AM

Roger,

Time for US citizens to show some self-discipline and regard for other life forms on the planet. We are still paying less for gas than most other countries. The rest of the world doesn't owe us a freer ride. Period. As a single mum of four, if I can do it, so can you. Gut up.

Posted by: freelyb | June 28, 2008 3:32 AM

Today in Britain our petrol (gas) is $9 per US gallon. it is creeping higher day by day. I believe that we who can still manage to cope with this should bear our part of the burden of depleting resources that are not renewable. We should be deeply concerned for the poor majority in the world, and use our vastly greater resources to help them, and to use our political options to favour them. I love America and many Americans, but I am deeply unhappy that so few Christians really are prepared to be Ordinary Radicals, and live simply and lovingly for the sake of others.I also think I should soon buy an even more economical vehicle to make sure I don't damage this planet which the Lord has given to us to care for.

Posted by: Kenneth Mullis | June 28, 2008 7:49 AM

>Time for US citizens to show some self->discipline and regard for other life forms on >the planet. We are still paying less for gas >than most other countries. The rest of the world >doesn't owe us a freer ride. Period. As a single >mum of four, if I can do it, so can you. Gut up.

The U.S. doesn't get "a free ride." On the contrary, we give far, far more to the world than what we get. Well, scratch that. If you count unjustified hatred and rude ingratitude, it probably comes out about even.

Posted by: Brent | June 28, 2008 12:29 PM

Nathan (and others):

On the "Evangelical Rhetorical Accountability" thread, someone posted a link to a Wash. Post column written by Peter Wehner, a conservative evangelical. I suggest you read it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062702490.html

The topic of the column was James Dobson's attack on Barack Obama. But the case being made there applies to this issue as well.

The colummn ends with this statement:

"If Christian conservatives want to be taken seriously, they need to make serious arguments and speak with intellectual integrity."

Nathan, if you want to make a case against the ideas of environmentalists and their advocates (such as Al Gore), you likewise need to make serious arguments and speak with intellectual integrity. Ad hominem attacks such as calling them hypocrites and "secular Fundamenatlists" are not serious arguments. And you will not be taken seriously if that's all you can come up with.

You write as if you feel threatened by proposed lifestyle changes, and you want to blame the environmentalists. (As I pointed out in my little exercise in irony above, they are not to blame anyway, whether you want to believe that or not.) But those lifestyle changes are coming anyway, because world markets will be dictating those changes, like it or not. And we need to be prepared for them.

Don't worry about the size of Gore's house: Gore will be making changes himself, sooner or later, and you aren't responsible for him and his family anyway. Instead, plan how you and your family will make yourselves ready for the changes that are coming. Instead of cursing the darkness, why not light a few candles?

Peace,

Posted by: Don | June 28, 2008 4:54 PM

Jeff:

Why don't you try and come up with some serious arguments yourself?

First of all, here's what I wrote above (June 27, 2008 8:41 PM) re. ethanol:

"And the pork-barrel politicians who are buying votes in the corn belt by supporting the ethanol industry with taxpayer-funded subsidies for corn farmers aren't to blame for high food prices. As McClaren said, it's those 'D#@*$% environmentalists!'"

In other words, corn ethanol is a political gimmick, not a solution to the energy problem.

And FYI, most environmentalists aren't very keen on ethanol. It pollutes too--in some respects worse than gasoline--and as far as energy is concerned, corn ethanol is a zero-sum game; that is, it takes about as much energy to produce as it produces when burned. So don't go blaming environmentalists for ethanol's causing a spike in food prices.

Second, I didn't talk about refineries; I don't know anything about restrictions on refining. But restrictions on drilling do not effect the market price in any significant way. Don't take my word for it--oil economists have been saying the same thing. Take a listen:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91819077

If all restrictions on drilling were removed, the resulting production would make only a small impact on oil prices. Don't forget: petroleum is a world commodity, so even oil produced and consumed domestically is still subject to world market pricing.

But let's talk a bit more about drilling restrictions for a moment. Let's forget about the caribou and other environmental concerns for a moment and instead talk about saving some petroleum reserves for future generations. Our grandchildren might need it someday. Should we drill now just so we can continue wasting it on ourselves, or do we change our habits so we can leave a legacy for the future? Which scenario do you think represents better stewardship?

So let's not totally close the door on the possibility of drilling in currently restricted areas, but let's not begin drilling there until after we've really begun taking conservation seriously. Instead of pooh-poohing conservation like Dick Cheney did, let's find out how much we really can save by conserving.

Never forget that 'conservation' and 'conservative' both come from the same Latin root: conservere, to guard or protect. So advocating conservation and not gluttonous consumption is the real conservative position here.

I mentioned above that our lifetsyles will be changing whether we do anything about this or not, and the reason is quite simple: our current lifestyles are unsustainable. Something's going to break sooner or later. Current gasoline prices are only a small token of what we can expect in the future. We need to be ready.

Finally, you wrote: Next you'll tell us...

Please don't try to read my mind. You'll probably get it wrong.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | June 28, 2008 9:45 PM

Don,
My comments were directed at this quote from you, "You write as if you feel threatened by proposed lifestyle changes, and you want to blame the environmentalists. (As I pointed out in my little exercise in irony above, they are not to blame anyway, whether you want to believe that or not.)

Reread your post in response, you do a fine job of backtracking.
No mind reading done in the previous post, reread that also.

Another nonymous,
My DDT/malaria post is relevant to the discussion of environmental activism. Some activist went overboard and it cost people their lives.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | June 28, 2008 11:25 PM

Jeff -

These were your words:

"Instead of demeaning or insulting those who disagree with you, how about gracious conversation. You immediately took the discussion done that path and Don quickly joined you. The point of the article was how should we engage each other on issues we disagree on. High path, low path, your choice."

Now I happen to agree with Don that environmentalists are not to blame for oil prices or $8 corn, but, like the malaria issue, these are complex questions - if you've read Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," which touched off the movement to ban DDT, you may have some idea how complex.

Implying that Don's sincere and honest comments make him guilty by association for the deaths of malaria victims, when who knows how many people DDT killed and how many birth defects it caused, is not gracious conversation.

Posted by: Another nonymous | June 29, 2008 12:04 AM

Woops, I inadvertently attributed Nathan's comments to Jeff. My apologies, Jeff.

Posted by: canucklehead | June 29, 2008 1:24 AM

"How rich! The environmentalists alone are responsible for high fuel prices and high corn prices. "

We are discussing fuel and corn, but you begin your argument with straw. Shortsigheted environmentalism brought us the ethanol hoax, the SUV boom and millions of human deaths from malaria. Your condescension is unwarranted.

Explain what you want to do, and why it will work. Let the peanut gallery have at YOUR ideas for a change, if you have any.

" Should we drill now just so we can continue wasting it on ourselves, or do we change our habits so we can leave a legacy for the future? "

I think we should drill now. We are at the precipice of new technologies that will ameliorate our present crisis, but they are probably several years off. However, if we do not reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil in the interim, we might not live to see that day.

How would you answer the question?

"Why don't you try and come up with some serious arguments yourself?"

Serious arguments are good. Have at them.

"Please don't try to read my mind. You'll probably get it wrong."

Honestly, I find you as predictable as church bells. You can probably say the same for me, but I make no claims to spontaneity. So here's how you break the cycle.

Say what you think should be done about the issue. If you are aware of criticism of your plan, cite it and address it. This being God's Politics, you might want to address why it would be Godless to reject your argument, but that's an extra credit thing.

Posted by: kevin s. | June 29, 2008 3:16 AM

Jeff the low blow is the Sierra Club and an attempt to ridicule those here for their opinions by the elitist view I am right , now prove I'm wrong . .
The Sierra Club has in the past pressed for "a moratorium on the planting of all genetically engineered crops and genetically engineered organisms." Although GEOs hold out numerous environmental advantages (including the potential for farmers to grow more food on less land and cut down on pesticide use), the Sierra Club contends that "genetic engineering solutions should never be used to divert attention from the solutions to the problem of hunger that carry less biological risk (

Over the years, the Sierra Club has dropped all pretense of being non-partisan. In June 2004, it published a "fact-sheet" alleging that the "Bush administration is weakening proven clean air protections and threatening the progress we have made over the last 30 years." A similar warning was voiced by Sierra Club President Larry Fahn, who gave Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry his organization's official endorsement.
The Sierra Club also publishes its own blog, called "Field Notes." Authored by Carl Pope, the blog focuses heavily on the alleged environmental transgressions of the Bush administration.

In 2002, the Sierra Club reported $23,619,830 in revenues, and disclosed $107,733,974 worth of assets to the IRS.
The Sierra Club has endorsed a document called the Earth Charter, which blames capitalism for many of the world's environmental, social, and economic problems.

The organization co-sponsored the April 25, 2004 "March for Women's Lives" which advocated unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.

Posted by: Nathan | June 29, 2008 5:58 AM

The Wikipedia article on DDT makes interesting reading. It is full of citations to medical journals, most of which do not support the ideas that seem to be taken for granted by Nathan and Jeff.

It appears that the connection between the DDT ban and the growth of malaria deaths is what is known as a canard. There is no evidence of a direct link, and every reason to believe that *excessive* use of DDT for agriculture in malaria-prone countries led to DDT-resistant mosquitoes, making attempts to control them and the disease ineffective.

Gotta go to church.

Posted by: Another nonymous | June 29, 2008 8:53 AM

I do, justintime. Christ has given us hope.

Posted by: Eric | June 29, 2008 4:52 PM

Ahhhh, where shall I begin? Let's see--

Kevin S: You asked me what we should do. I think I made myself quite clear in earlier posts. Until the time that alternative energy sources are made viable and accessible, conservation is the only reasonable option. Drilling in restricted areas will not make the USA energy independent. There isn't enough petroleum in those restricted zones to meet our demand or even to replace our declining domestic production. Oil experts have been saying that for a long time. Better to save those currently restricted reserves for future generations and learn how to do with less--and at higher prices--in the meantime, rather than gobble them up now to continue feeding our excessive consumption. In the meantime, we might even develop more environmentally sensitive methods of exploring and extracting that oil, so that saving the caribou herds might not even be an issue like it is now.

Higher fuel prices are an opportunity, not a curse. These kinds of apparent hardship situations feed the fires of the entrepreneurial spirit. Let's give folks gifted in that area the opportunity to innovate.

And by the way, my comments about sound arguments were directed in response to Nathan's use of .

Kevin and Jeff:
Regarding DDT and malaria, Another nonymous already answered that (although references to peer-reviewed science journals probably won't convince some people). But Kevin, I'm not sure how Jeff's "next you'll tell us..." comment refers to my "predictability." I never said anything on this forum about DDT and malaria before.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | June 29, 2008 7:58 PM

For people interested in the truth about DDT and malaria, here are two more links to follow:

http://kenethmiles.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_kenethmiles_archive.html#107570569615970184

http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm

Posted by: Another nonymous | June 29, 2008 8:27 PM

Another nonymous wrote:

For people interested in the truth about DDT and malaria, here are two more links to follow:

Interesting comments! I learned a lot. I thought this section (from the first of the two links provided) was particularly relevant for this discussion:

"The manufacture and use of DDT was banned in the US in 1972, on the advice of the US Environmental Protection Agency. The use of DDT has since been banned in most other developed nations, but it is not banned for public health use in most areas of the world where malaria is endemic. Indeed, DDT was recently exempted from a proposed worldwide ban on organophosphate chemicals.

"DDT usage for malaria control involves spraying the walls and backs of furniture, so as to kill and repel adult mosquitoes that may carry the malaria parasite. Other chemicals are available for this purpose, but DDT is cheap and persistent and is often a very effective indoor insecticide which is still used in many parts of the world.

"DDT is not used for outdoor mosquito control, partly because scientific studies have demonstrated toxicity to wildlife, but mainly because its persistence in the environment rapidly leads to the development of resistance to the insecticide in mosquito populations. There are now much more effective and acceptable insecticides, such as Bacillus thuringiensis, to kill larval mosquitoes outdoors." (emphasis mine)

Peace,

Posted by: Don | June 29, 2008 9:00 PM

Kevin doesn't think we need a road map.
He has ultimate faith the free market will save the planet.
But he forgets it was free market religion that got us into this mess in the first place
So it's unlikely Kevin will be able to contribute any usable ideas for stabilizing the global disaster.
Does Kevin even understand how lost we really are?

Posted by: justintime | June 30, 2008 1:00 AM

Armed2Win

I agree with your view of how this McClaren used his essay to give little information but show quite the disingenious understanding of concerns with this extremist organization . I was given a statement by a person I believe is the self appointed monitor here stating "Conservative Christians to be taken seriously have to etc etc ." Did the position I took that of a Conservative Christian ? Wind Mills , Solar Energy , Renewable Energy sources being aggressively explored with government support , drilling for oil , nuclear energy , are all part of the answer . This is basic common sense , did not consider it religious .
The Sierra Club I see as an organization that stops many of the needed options we need to agressively pursue energy independence , leading to cleaner energy . and economic stability .

Obviously if you stop drilling and other options , you lessen our ability to work out of this problem we face . How that is not seen as something to address is quite remarkable by people speaking about being taken seriously .

Love In Christ , NAT

Posted by: Nathan | June 30, 2008 7:05 AM

If we're addicted to oil, and that's the way President Bush described it (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060131-10.html), then does it really make sense to drill for more and thus feed the additction? Shouldn't the effort be directed at reducing the dependency?

If we're addicted to oil, then drilling for oil seems roughly equivalent to giving a bottle to an alcoholic and then telling him to get sober.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | June 30, 2008 8:44 AM

justintime,
I don't have a "roadmap", whatever that is. I also don't see $4-6/gallon gasonline as a particularly large problem. Other countries live with $10/gallon gasoline as a way of life and they haven't self-destructed.

As Don said, it's actually more of an opportunity for alternatives to take hold. While there might be a some pain in the beginning as people adjust, their behavior will change over time. As the price of oil goes up, alternatives will become more attractive, people will conserve more, they'll buy smaller cars, take fewer trips, support for public transportation will go up, etc. We can get over this. It's not the hopeless situation you think it is.

Posted by: Eric | June 30, 2008 10:19 AM

Anti-science conservatives must be stopped
By Joseph Romm
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/30/climate_act/print.html

Americans must not allow global warming deniers to block the policies needed to avert catastrophic climate change. Our future is at stake.

Jun. 30, 2008 | Conservatives put on a spectacular display of scientific ignorance this month in the U.S. Senate. During the debate on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which would regulate carbon dioxide by setting a cap on emissions and allowing emitters to trade carbon allowances, most Republican senators questioned the reality of human-caused climate change or ignored the climate threat entirely and repeated the talking point that the bill would raise gasoline and electricity prices. It was as if they had been locked in an isolation booth for the past decade. Let's go to the highlights.

# Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.: "The vast majority of scientists do not believe that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are a major contributor to climate change."
# Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: This bill means "people must turn off air-conditioning in the summer."
# Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.: "This bill will attack citizens at the pump" and "increase job losses."
# Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.: This bill will "leave us less competitive in the world marketplace."
# Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.: This bill "could bankrupt U.S. air carriers."
# Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo.: "Nobody in their right mind" believes we can get half our power from wind and solar or drive a "fleet of golf carts."
# Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo.: "It's unclear as to what the long-range trend is as far as the temperature of the Earth is concerned."

Conservatives sure are good at staying on message, even one that has no basis in fact. None of their scientific or technological claims is true and most of the economic claims are a wild exaggeration based on studies funded by fossil fuel companies. This may be a defining moment for humanity according to the world's increasingly desperate climate scientists, but to many conservatives it's apparently just another moment to score political points at the expense of future generations.

It's a terrifying thought. If the science of the last few years and the painful reality of a changing climate haven't persuaded the conservative movement of the dire nature of human-caused global warming, I can't imagine what chain of catastrophes would. We've already had record-breaking droughts, heat waves, wildfires, deluges, super storms and flooding at home and abroad -- just as climate science predicted. And we've had far more loss of ice from Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic Sea than anyone expected.

A National Journal poll in June found that only 26 percent of GOP Congress members believe "it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the earth is warming because of man-made pollution." That matches their constituents -- only 27 percent of Republicans say the earth is warming because of human activity. Needless to say, if you don't believe humans are the cause of global warming, you're not going to believe that humans are the solution to global warming.

Posted by: justintime | June 30, 2008 10:56 AM

A road map is a plan.

Posted by: justintime | June 30, 2008 11:04 AM

I think the best solution, and you can call this a plan if you want, is to allow energy prices to continue to go up. As I said, as they go up alternatives to fossil fuels will become more attractive, people will conserve, whole industries will change to meet new consumer demands that didn't exist before, people will drive less, support for public transportation will go up, etc.

A good point was made by Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post a month or so ago. The increase in gasoline prices over the past six months has done much more than anything else to change the behavior of American consumers. Directly increasing prices is the most efficient way to change behavior. Politicians from both parties are scared to do this artificially through direct taxes however. So they invent inefficient, complicated, corruption-prone schemes like CAFE standards and cap and trade instead of just raising gas and carbon taxes across the board.

There's my plan. It relies on market forces to get people to change their behavior with minimal government intervention and virtually no opportunity for politicians to reward their favored regions or industries. Users pay directly.

Posted by: Eric | June 30, 2008 11:16 AM

For Eric, on Krauthammer:

In his column on the Lieberman-Warner bill, Charles Krauthammer warned that on the basis of "speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation … that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat."

Note to Krauthammer: Have you ever met a scientist? "Compliant" is the last word anyone would use to describe them.

Without a trace of self-awareness, Krauthammer continues: "There's no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society."

Krauthammer and the conservatives have it backward. The solution to global warming doesn't require rationing energy or anything else. It requires a government-industry partnership to accelerate existing and near-term clean energy technologies into the market. That strategy preserves the energy abundance that has made modern civilization and sustained economic development possible.

But if we hold off today on government action, we will almost guarantee the need for extreme and intrusive government action in the future. Only Big Government can relocate tens of millions of citizens, build massive levees and mandate harsh and rapid reductions in certain kinds of energy. Peak oil prices, which we haven't prepared for, will make today's gas prices look like a Costco bargain. On a planet reeling from global warming and desertification, we will have billions more people to feed. We will be rationing food, all right. And water. And arable land. Most of our meaningless national political fights will be replaced by a very meaningful global fight for survival.

Conservatives can't stop the impending catastrophe with anti-government rhetoric. But they can prevent progressives and moderates from stopping it by blocking aggressive climate legislation. Progressives and moderates will need all their political skill and tenacity to overcome the obstructionism of the anti-science, anti-technology conservatives. This is unlike any previous political fight; it is a fight to save the health and well-being of the next 50 generations, a fight to preserve our way of life. Losing is not an option.

Posted by: justintime | June 30, 2008 11:53 AM

justintime,
I think you missed my point. I recognize that if we don't do something now to change our behavior it will be a lot more painful to do so later. I propose that the government slowly artificially increase the cost of energy through a direct carbon or gasoline tax so that people will change their behavior. This is a much better solution than the ideas proposed by current politicians such as increasing CAFE standards and cap and trade, for the reasons I mentioned above. Politicians from both parties are too concerned with re-election to actually propose this though.

While a government-industry partnership might bring clean energy to the market, it will also be subject to political favoritism and large inefficiencies (corn-based ethanol is a perfect example). Raising energy prices will bring clean energy alternatives to market without the drawbacks of a government-industry partnership.

Posted by: Eric | June 30, 2008 12:12 PM

Don,

In this respect, you and I are more conservative than the so called conservatives who frequent this site.
I would call most of them radical fundamentalists -- true believers in purist free market religion.

Eric,

I missed your argument that CAFE standards and 'cap and trade' are counterproductive strategies. Please explain why.

Energy prices are rising without government intervention and will continue to rise.
But this in itself will not solve the energy problem.
And it's irresponsible to think we can survive the global climate change catastrophe without government-industry partnerships.
Yes, ethanol was counterproductive.
And no doubt there will be more counterproductive efforts to solve the energy problem.
But this is no reason to abandon government-industry partnerships for solving real world problems.

Posted by: justintime | June 30, 2008 1:10 PM

Thanks , I knew of the the Sierra Club demanding "a moratorium on the planting of all genetically engineered crops and the release of all GEOs [genetically engineered organisms] into the environment, including those now approved." This technophobic stance falls right in line with former Sierra Club executive director David Brower's creed: "All technology should be assumed guilty until proven innocent."

Posted by: Nathan | June 30, 2008 3:26 PM

Justintime,
Sorry I didn’t go into detail on CAFÉ and cap and trade. At least as far as cap and trade goes, I thought that since this debate has been going on for years that someone who reads as much as you do would have be aware of it. Go to this website for more on why a carbon tax is more efficient than cap and trade. Six main reasons are on the front page here:
www dot carbontax dot org/issues/carbon-taxes-vs-cap-and-trade/

As for CAFÉ, here’s the Krauthammer column I alluded to above:
www dot washingtonpost dot com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060503434.html
The gist is that people are starting to do right now, because of higher prices, the very things that complicated CAFÉ regimes have put off for years down the road. If we had implemented a higher gas tax like many European countries have we could have encouraged this behavior years ago.

And you’re right that rising prices without government intervention “will not solve the energy problem.” That’s why I said we should artificially increase the cost of energy using gas and carbon taxes. This is government intervention. I get the feeling you don’t read my posts thoroughly.

I just don’t think your specific plan for government intervention, particularly as ambiguous as it is (does yours even count as a “roadmap”, it’s more like a piece of paper with some lines on it?), is as effective or efficient as the one I’ve mentioned.

Posted by: Eric | June 30, 2008 4:56 PM

Another nonymous,
"Implying that Don's sincere and honest comments make him guilty by association for the deaths of malaria victims, when who knows how many people DDT killed and how many birth defects it caused, is not gracious conversation."

Are you out of your mind. Never implied any guilt by association. False accusation on your part. Keep trying, I guess.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | June 30, 2008 6:18 PM

It appears Nathan has been exposed to toxic levels of delusional nonsense from the self righteous right.

It also appears that Nathan is a plagiarist. The last half of his latest post (June 30, 2008 3:55 PM) was lifted word for word from the following site without crediting the source:

http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=147

The last line made me laugh. In the original, it read, "Until then, they are simply in no position to lecture ExxonMobil or anyone else about ethics or social responsibility." Nathan changed it to, "Until then, you Don or they are simply in no position..."

I also think we've met Nathan before, under another guise. Take a look at the punctuation in the posts he wrote himself, especially in his response to Armed2Win (June 30, 2008 7:05 AM). The extra space before periods and commas was characteristic of another some here might remember.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | June 30, 2008 8:08 PM

Oops! My comment (first sentence) should have read:

"His latest post (June 30, 2008 3:55 PM) was lifted word for word from the last half of the following site...", NOT "The last half of his latest post was lifted..."

D

Posted by: Don | June 30, 2008 8:16 PM

Justintime:

Not Donny. If I named him here, Beliefnet would not post my comment. I believe he was banned for violating Beliefnet posting guidelines.

Search the archive beginning around January, and I think you'll find him. Look for the characteristic punctuation.

D

Posted by: Don | June 30, 2008 8:31 PM

If someone has been ostracized from God's politics, is it then forbidden to utter that person's name?

What did Mick Sheldon have to say to merit his punishment?

Posted by: justintime | June 30, 2008 10:47 PM

justintime,
I never said that cap and trade or CAFE were counterproductive, so I don’t know why I should have to show that they are. What I said was that carbon/gas taxes are a much better solution. You asked for a “roadmap” and I gave you my ideal roadmap. Cap and trade and cafe may work, but they aren’t the best option. It achieves the desired results of reducing carbon emissions and changing people’s behavior without all the messy government intervention, inefficiencies, and opportunity for fraud that exists when politicians and bureaucrats (who don’t always have the best interests of the country at heart) start handing out credits.

Your point about cap and trade being called a tax by its opponents is true. But I think that only buttresses my argument for a direct tax. Regardless of whether cap and trade or a carbon tax is advocated, it’ll get called a tax by its opponents. Why not go for a true, efficient, direct tax then in the first place instead of a complicated scheme of emissions caps and trading? Right now, as you pointed out, Congress isn’t going to implement either of these proposals anyway.

Also, I think I get your ironic joke about expecting me to write things out in my own words instead of taking the easier route of posting from another source. Hee hee…

Posted by: Eric | July 1, 2008 8:49 AM

Bit Late re DDT - It is not an organophosphate insecticide, just a good old persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon relatively safe chemical where the cancer rates in the factories were actually lower than for an equivalent population. However it does bio-accumulate.

Interestingly, when it was suspended in South Asia from wide spread use, there were about 250,000 poisonings reported from the OP's which were used after it was removed. At the time it was estimated that about 500 mill people were protected from malaria by its use.

Current use exploits it low acute toxicity and long persistence. It is sprayed on the walls of houses / huts where it provides a long lasting effective control of those insects in the house. By only treating the walls of homes, the pressure for resistance development is greatly reduced, compared with its use as a broadacre insecticide in the past. There is little contamination of the local environment and wild life. It is quite cheap- long out of patent.

Re ethanol, there was a story doing the rounds in Australia 12 months ago that upping the ethanol production was part of making some provision for oil flow interruptions if Iran was attached. Interesting some were suggesting that oil would reach $200 in such a scenario – we are nearly there with out an other war.

If that is not the cause of the shortage of grains, just look at the lack of R&D in much of the third world, the destruction of agricultural systems through the EU, Japanese and USA export subsidies on grains, plus the increase in the middle class in India and China. The gains of the green revolution have been eaten.

Personally, I would suggest that the increase in ethanol is much more to do with support for farm lobby groups. It is a less politically obvious way to support your friends with taxpayers funds.

Ethanol should be made from non food cellulose etc - wood chips, stubbles, and other plant based carbon sources. The use of algae seems to be a much more efficient way to capture sunlight for fuel.

I note that the level of obeying the command ‘Love the Lord with all your Heart, Mind and Soul’ is being sadly neglected in the level of debates about the way we fulfil the concept of stewarding creation. Who is your neighbour?

Posted by: JohnH | July 1, 2008 9:16 AM

Making Gasoline from Bacteria

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=biofuels&id=19128&a=

LS9, a company based in San Carlos, CA, and founded by geneticist George Church, of Harvard Medical School, and plant biologist Chris Somerville, of Stanford University, had previously said that it was working on what it calls "renewable petroleum." But at a Society for Industrial Microbiology conference on Monday, the company began speaking more openly about what it has accomplished: it has genetically engineered various bacteria, including E. coli, to custom-produce hydrocarbon chains.

To do this, the company is employing tools from the field of synthetic biology to modify the genetic pathways that bacteria, plants, and animals use to make fatty acids, one of the main ways that organisms store energy. Fatty acids are chains of carbon and hydrogen atoms strung together in a particular arrangement, with a carboxylic acid group made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen attached at one end. Take away the acid, and you're left with a hydrocarbon that can be made into fuel.

Although burning renewable biofuels doesn't do much for global climate change, it would make sense to use renewable petroleum as a feedstock for manufacturing plastics, which is becoming the material basis of human civilization.

Posted by: justintime | July 1, 2008 12:09 PM

Eric: "Also, I think I get your ironic joke about expecting me to write things out in my own words instead of taking the easier route of posting from another source. Hee hee…"

Eric,

Whenever you make sweeping statements in authoritative tone, you should be prepared to explain what you're saying and why.
Offhand comments like "If you're so smart, why don't you already know this", "go google it" or "hee hee" won't cut it in a real debate.

It is best if you can use your own words.
This demonstrates you know what you're talking about.
But if you can find a better, clearer explanation of your point, judges will accept that too.

So go ahead a make a sweeping statement if you know you can explain it and back it up.

Posted by: justintime | July 1, 2008 3:19 PM

Canucklehead,

Brian Schweitzer is a very cool guy.
Butch Otter is not the brightest bulb on the tree.

Schweitzer developed a national energy plan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TxRxipXI_w

His plan includes coal gasification (Montana has a lot of coal, as Alberta has oilsands.) with 'carbon sequestration'.
This could figure into a transition strategy, maybe not a good long term option for energy independance.

Posted by: justintime | July 1, 2008 10:14 PM

I suggest you watch the news for how the carbon tax recently imposed in British Columbia works to reduce emissions. It's a carbon tax, so it increases the price of gas, but it's revenue neutral, in that people get a reduction in income tax. The intention is to change behavior, and I believe it will work. Already more people are using bicycles and their feet to get around.
Also, there are advantages given on highways when you travel with others--you get a special lane. These people may not be leaving their cars at home, but if they travel together, there are still fewer cars out there.
Yes, some people yell about it, but many people don't. What I find so depressing about the Republicans cited above is that they objected to various proposals because they were worried about angering their constituents. Have they never heard about leadership? Making changes to reduce emissions is the right thing to do. All they need to do is pay attention to what bad things are reduced and what good things result--and tell their constituents that. Some may continue to yell, but many others will see that it works. Too bad so many politicians are so gutless.

Posted by: bren | July 4, 2008 12:30 AM