Leading by example on climate change

Pro-environment groups are calling on the faith communities to come together and lead by example when it comes to taking action on climate change issues.

“The challenges our world faces in mitigating climate change now requires uniting with an unprecedented global-community mindset. Some soul-searching is in order for faith based organizations and houses of worship who are abdicating our moral responsibility to our most vulnerable neighbors in the developing world when we don’t lead by example and refuse to tolerate any less from our business and government leaders on climate change,” said Deborah Fikes, representative to the United Nations for World Evangelical Alliance and Clean Revolution Ambassador, in a statement.

“Sustainability for the ‘bottom billion’ is not an option, it is a lifeline that we have the ability and obligation to provide if we really believe in “loving our neighbors as ourselves.”

An upcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group III is expected to advocate a major global switch to renewable energy, part of an action-plan to address climate change concerns which were brought up by the “Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability,” Working Group II report, released at the end of March.

The extensive report warned that climate change impacts on both natural and human systems have reached all continents and oceans in the past few decades.

IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri summed up at a news conference: “Nobody on this planet is going to be untouched by the impacts of climate change.”

The NIPCC countered “alarmist” IPCC findings and suggested that marine and freshwater species will not be negatively impacted and human health will not worsen, among other things.

E. Calvin Beisner, founder and national spokesman for Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, told CP that Genesis 1:31 and 8:22 show that “an infinitely wise God designed, an infinitely powerful God created, and an infinitely faithful God sustains the earth. Scientific ‘conclusions’ change all the time; the Word of the Lord stands sure forever.”

A number of organizations continue speaking out about the urgent need to address climate change, however, with The Climate Group, which hosted the Climate Week conference in New York in September 2013, offering that a global transition to clean energy technology could both help the environment and provide the economy with a major boost.

The “Loving the Least of These” report states: “Yes, climate change is happening. While we debate the causes of climate change, people are dying from its effects. Do we ‘love our neighbor’ only if it costs us little or nothing, agrees with our politics, is convenient, and doesn’t interrupt our lives?”

Advertisements

60 thoughts on “Leading by example on climate change

  1. Regarding renewable energy, cutting emissions etc, much is already being achieved, particularly overseas. It’s a shame Australia isn’t in the forefront – it could be.

    Population numbers seem to be a big factor, and I noticed Senate candidates in the WA election who want to address that. Not by exterminating pensioners or enforcing birth control, though!

    Supported by Dick Smith. I have no connection with them – my allegiance is elsewhere.

    “The key objectives of the Sustainable Population Party are as follows:

    To stabilise Australia’s population as soon as practicably possible, aiming for a population of around 23-26 million through to 2050; and
    To provide leadership and support to other countries experiencing rapid population growth, so as to help them stabilise their populations, and thus help stabilise global population.”

    http://www.populationparty.org.au/

    Like

    • Are they REALLY talking about exterminating pensioners or enforcing birth control on them Strewth?
      Is that perhaps one of the things Joe Hockey has been ‘leaking’ hints about, along with all the other ‘necessary adjustments’?

      Like

      • Pay attention, Gladys! 😆
        ” Not by exterminating pensioners or enforcing birth control, though!”

        Like

      • Sorry. It must be the greenhouse vapours going to my head!
        So you’re saying they’re NOT going to enforce birth-control on pensioners then?

        Whew!….Just as well, because I hear the price of medical services and medications is going up too.

        Like

      • …..though it occurs to me that exterminating pensioners would be a sizeable saving on both counts. 😯

        Like

  2. So God’s going to take care of it all, is He? Doesn’t He work through His agents, His servants? Wasn’t humankind given a mandate to care for and nourish the Earth, which includes all His earthly creatures? Including ourselves? If we fail that’s too bad for us and our fellow creatures, but Earth will still be here, and God is capable of starting again – He has plenty of time.

    It’s not God failing, it’s us failing.

    Like

  3. It’s a shame that some on the conservative wing of the church aren’t able to accept climate change science. I wonder whether some are just suspicious of science in general (esp how it affects their view of the Bible) and aren’t able to accept the specifics?

    Like

    • …..fed by other religious concepts; and that’s where the problem lies.

      Climate-change has been a fact of life long before there WAS life. If fact, it was climate-change that permitted life to exist in the first place.
      And an integral ~ and unavoidable ~ facet of climate change has been death: extinction of countless creatures and species.

      Evolution’s answer was to invent death ~ which allowed for, on many levels, survival…..of the fittest. (We call it ‘natural selection’.)

      The point is that we cannot prevent climate-change.
      Adaptation is the only chance we, as a species, have to survive it. Maybe.

      The problem these days is that we’re actually pushing climate-change at a rate many times than our world has ever experienced in it’s 5-billion-year history. Our only hope is to slow down the rate of change (if it’s not already too late) and thus create enough time for adaptation to work its magic.
      (if it wants to: there are no guarantees ~ not even your gods can prevent the inevitable).

      And religion (beginning with Genesis) ~ aided and abetted by the natural survival-instinct and modern science ~ is what prevents us from taking the necessary steps; the first and most important of which is a dramatic reduction in the human population and the resources it squanders.
      …..and in the very squandering of which it adds to the generation of heat/’greenhouse-gases’.

      eg……Just yesterday I marveled at the sight of a 60-tonne low-loader trundling through town, belching diesel fumes and smoke…..and carrying a load I could have transported on the racks of my 1-tonne ute.
      …..and on the way to a construction-site where a 400-square-metre house was being built to house a single family of five people.
      (Though to be fair, the woman is pregnant….so there’ll be six of them soon.
      …………. to live in a house that’s (ALREADY!) used more resources/contributed more to climate-change than a whole tribe of blackfellas have used to house themselves in 100,000 years,

      Like

    • United Nations climate experts have published a new report warning that time is rapidly running out to avert global catastrophe.

      The study, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released Sunday to guide the climate and energy policies of nearly 200 countries, makes for scary reading.

      But it also offers hope: Tough action now to slash greenhouse gases doesn’t need to derail the global economy.

      Like

      • ….and would it matter if it DID derail the global economy??
        Economics is a moveable and indefinable feast at the best of times; for example:- would anyone care if the ‘global economy’ as it applies to the garbage-tip dwellers in the Philipines was ‘derailed’?

        Derailing the ‘global economies’ of, say, the US military-industrial oligarchies MIGHT be a cause for panic,
        ……..if you were a part of them, or dependent upon them,
        …….or part of the parasitic governments that leeched off them

        As far as I’m concerned crashing the ‘evil empire’ of globalisation generally would generate much more good than harm.

        And I speak as someone who has no personal axe to grind: nothing to gain or lose in either circumstance.

        Like

    • Has anyone been as badly maligned as Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?

      In December, the Sunday Telegraph carried a long and prominent feature written by Christopher Booker and Richard North, titled: Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri.

      The subtitle alleged that Pachauri has been “making a fortune from his links with ‘carbon trading’ companies”. The article maintained that the money made by Pachauri while working for other organisations “must run into millions of dollars”.

      It described his outside interests as “highly lucrative commercial jobs”. It proposed that these payments caused a “conflict of interest” with his IPCC role. It also complained that we don’t know “how much we all pay him” as chairman of the IPCC.

      The story (which has subsequently been removed from the Sunday Telegraph’s website) immediately travelled around the world. It was reproduced on hundreds of blogs. The allegations it contained were widely aired in the media and generally believed. For a while, no discussion of climate change or the IPCC appeared complete without reference to Pachauri’s “dodgy” business dealings and alleged conflicts of interest.

      There was just one problem: the story was untrue.

      It’s not just that Pachauri hadn’t been profiting from the help he has given to charities, businesses and institutions, his accounts show that he is scrupulous to the point of self-denial. After the Sunday Telegraph published its story, the organisation for which Pachauri works – a charity called The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) – asked the auditors KPMG to review his financial relationships. Today, for the first time, the Guardian is publishing KPMG’s report.

      KPMG studied all Pachauri’s financial records, accounts and tax returns, as well as TERI’s accounts, for the period 1 April 2008 – 31 December 2009. It found that any money paid as a result of the work that Pachauri had done for other organisations went not to him but to TERI. None of the money was paid back to him by TERI: he received only his annual salary, which is £45,000.

      His total additional income over the 20 months reviewed by KPMG amounted to the following:

      • A payment of 20,000 rupees (£278) from two national power commissions in India, on which he serves as director;

      • 35,880 rupees (£498) for articles he has written and lectures he has given;

      • A maximum of 100,000 rupees – or £1,389 – in the form of royalties from his books and awards.

      In other words, he made £45,000 as his salary at TERI, and a maximum of £2,174 in outside earnings. So much for Pachauri’s “highly lucrative commercial jobs” amounting to “millions of dollars”.

      Amazingly, the accounts also show that Pachauri transferred a lifetime achievement award he was given by the Environment Partnership Summit – 200,000 rupees – to TERI. In other words, he did not even keep money to which he was plainly entitled, let alone any money to which he was not.

      As for “how much we all pay him” as chairman of the IPCC, here is the full sum:

      £0.

      It wouldn’t have been difficult for the Sunday Telegraph to have discovered this. It’s well known that the IPCC does not pay its chairmen. His job at TERI is not a “sideline”, as many of his opponents maintain. It is his livelihood.

      This is a reflection of the lack of support given by governments to the IPCC. Its opponents like to create the impression that it’s an all-powerful body on the verge of creating a communist/fascist world government. In reality it’s a tiny, underfunded organisation which can’t even pay its own chairman.

      The Sunday Telegraph, in other words, maligned a scrupulously honest man.

      How could the newspaper have got it so wrong? Was it because neither the journalists, nor anyone else at the paper, contacted Pachauri to check their claims?

      Repeatedly stonewalled when he tried to clear his name, Pachauri found he had no option but to instruct a firm of libel lawyers. Now, after months of refusing to back down, the Sunday Telegraph accepted the KPMG finding that Pachauri has not made “millions of dollars” in recent years and has apologised to him.

      Like

    • Kathleen, did you notice that The Telegraph removed the false story and apologised to Pachauri ?. Nothing to say about that?

      The pseudo-science wattsupwiththat blog you linked to has been criticized for inaccuracy. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot described WUWT as “highly partisan and untrustworthy”
      Leo Hickman, at The Guardian’s Environment Blog, also criticized Watts’s blog, stating that Watts “risks polluting his legitimate scepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicised commentary.”

      “There are many credible sources of information, and they aren’t blog sites run by weathermen like Anthony Watts”, wrote David Suzuki.

      Cheers Tina

      Like

    • Study Serves Huge Blow to ‘Any Remaining Climate Change Deniers’

      Climate change deniers have been dealt a huge blow following the release of a study that says the natural warming hypothesis can be ruled out with 99% accuracy.

      Scientists at McGill University, Montreal, have said they can say with overwhelming confidence that climate change is the result of man-made emissions.

      Published in the journal Climate Dynamics, the researchers analysed temperature data since 1500. Their findings almost completely rule out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is a natural fluctuation in the planet’s climate.

      Shaun Lovejoy, research leader, said: “This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers. Their two most convincing arguments – that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong – are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it.”

      The authors examined historical data to work out if global warming was due to natural long-term variations, rather than using computer models to estimate the effects of greenhouse gas emission.

      They worked this out by applying a statistical methodology to work out how likely global warming since 1880 was due to natural variability. Their answer was no.

      Like

      • Joanne Nova (real name Joanne Codling) is an Australian writer, speaker, former TV host, anti-science presenter and a professional climate change denier.] She maintains a blog which regularly regurgitates debunked climate denial myths, making her the poor Aussie’s Ian Plimer or Andrew Bolt

        Like

      • Got it.

        Joanne Nova is an ‘anti’ scientist, scientist, but Pachauri, the Engineer, is the one to listen to.

        Like

      • Really Kathleen, you are comparing apples with oranges here..
        Rajendra Pachauri has been serving as the chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 2002, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 during his tenure. He has also been the director general of TERI, a research and policy organization in India, and chancellor of TERI University; besides being the chairman of the governing council of the National Agro Foundation (NAF), as well as the chairman of the board of Columbia University’s International Research Institute for Climate and Society..He was a part-time advisor to the United Nations Development Programme (1994—1999) in the fields of Energy and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources. In July 2001, Dr Pachauri was appointed Member, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India He has been Senior Adviser to Yale Climate and Energy Institute (YCEI) from July 2012 prior to which he was the Founding Director of YCEI (July 2009 – June 2012).
        In November 2009, Pachauri received the ‘Order of the Rising Sun – Gold and Silver Star’ in recognition of his contribution to the enhancement of Japan’s policy towards climate change. He was bestowed with the decoration by Emperor Akihito.
        In November 2009, Pachauri was rated fifth in the list of “Top 100 Global thinkers” by Foreign Policy magazine, for “ending the debate over whether climate change matters.”
        In February 2010, Pachauri was conferred with Order of the White Rose of Finland from the President of Finland in recognition of his work in promoting international cooperation on climate change and sustainable development.
        The French government has awarded him the ‘Officer of the Legion of Honour’]
        HEC Paris appointed Pachauri Professor Honoris Causa in October 2009.
        University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne appointed Pachauri Professor Honoris Causa in September 2012.
        In July 2013, he was conferred with the Pico della Mirandola Prize by the Foundation Cassa di Risparmio di Mirandola

        Like

      • Tina, I’ve been reading about this for quite a while now. I could be reading for a full year straight – the two sides to the story (because there are two sides) – and I don’t believe the world is coming to an end. I’m a denier! 🙂

        I do think that we should very slowly and gradually, look to alternatives (when they work to the capacity needed), never be wasteful, avoid toxins, learn about sustainability etc. – but I don’t believe that man is warming the world to a cataclysmic level.

        Besides Joanne Nova, another site I used to read was the Air Vent. Not as skeptic, more borderline. The main contributor believes that man can be contributing to change but not at the levels other alarmists suggest. http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/

        Also, Watts Up With That .

        Like

      • Why do you deny the climate change evidence. Do you think you know better than 99% of the world’s scientists? You won’t learn the truth from Bolt, Nova and Watts.

        Like

      • Are you saying that an overwhelming majority of scientists don’t believe in man-made climate change?

        Like

      • Andrew, if someone asked you ‘if you add a drop of water to a pool would that body of water be increased?’ – would you have a consensus that there would be a change to the size or would there be a consensus on the effect and severity of that change?

        Like

      • Actually…”the two sides to the story (because there are two sides) ” there are at least three.

        As with god and all that stuff “– and I don’t believe the world is coming to an end. I’m a denier! :)” …..what you “believe” is irrelevant. It’s what you can demonstrate that matters.

        …….and, just for the record, the world IS coming to an end.
        Eventually. 😉

        Like

    • I left a comment on her site, but didn’t point out that global-warming is only an issue of conceived importance (pro or con) because of homosaps’ overwhelming, overweening, and ridiculous assessment of it’s own value.

      We’ve even invented a herd of gods to confirm that view.
      Ever heard of a god that assigned us a status down among the flu-virus or thereabouts? 😆

      I’ll lay long odds that no pus-producing bacteria gives a stuff about global-warming regardless of how it’s caused ~ or likely to end.

      In the big scheme of things we’re no more important than such beasties.
      Our arrogance knows no bounds.

      Like

      • …..perhaps that’s what Jesus was on about when he was preaching the need for humility? 😉

        Like

    • Really Kathleen, you are comparing apples with oranges here..
      Rajendra Pachauri has been serving as the chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 2002, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 during his tenure. He has also been the director general of TERI, a research and policy organization in India, and chancellor of TERI University; besides being the chairman of the governing council of the National Agro Foundation (NAF), as well as the chairman of the board of Columbia University’s International Research Institute for Climate and Society..He was a part-time advisor to the United Nations Development Programme (1994—1999) in the fields of Energy and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources. In July 2001, Dr Pachauri was appointed Member, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India He has been Senior Adviser to Yale Climate and Energy Institute (YCEI) from July 2012 prior to which he was the Founding Director of YCEI (July 2009 – June 2012).
      In November 2009, Pachauri received the ‘Order of the Rising Sun – Gold and Silver Star’ in recognition of his contribution to the enhancement of Japan’s policy towards climate change. He was bestowed with the decoration by Emperor Akihito.
      In November 2009, Pachauri was rated fifth in the list of “Top 100 Global thinkers” by Foreign Policy magazine, for “ending the debate over whether climate change matters.”
      In February 2010, Pachauri was conferred with Order of the White Rose of Finland from the President of Finland in recognition of his work in promoting international cooperation on climate change and sustainable development.
      The French government has awarded him the ‘Officer of the Legion of Honour’]
      HEC Paris appointed Pachauri Professor Honoris Causa in October 2009.
      University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne appointed Pachauri Professor Honoris Causa in September 2012.
      In July 2013, he was conferred with the Pico della Mirandola Prize by the Foundation Cassa di Risparmio di Mirandola

      Like

      • I don’t think you understand the science of climate change Kathleen. You just won’t accept the overwhelming evidence and I suppose we’ll have to leave it there.

        Like

      • We will have to leave it there Tina, because I’m also listening to Scientists who clearly do not believe the world is coming to an end either.

        Like

      • I also “do not believe ‘the world’ is coming to an end”. (Not in any forseeable timeframe anyway.)
        But I do believe our time as a species is.
        We won’t have the time to adapt/mutate/etc.
        And given our more and more ’embedded’ reliance on technology, we may well have surrendered the genetic capacity to adapt/mutate/etc. in any case.

        That should please all you christians and others anxiously looking for the Second Coming.
        One door shuts another (Pearly) door opens, hey?

        In either case I, for one, will make a point of not being here! 🙂

        Like

    • Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:

      •NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
      •National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
      •Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
      •National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
      •State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) – http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
      •Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
      •The Royal Society of the UK (RS) – http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
      •American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
      •American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
      •American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
      •National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
      •American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
      •Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

      Like

      • What’s the difference :- “negligible or catastrophic.”
        ie, what does ‘catastrophic’ mean in the context.
        ‘Bad’ for one group will mean ‘good’ for another(s)…can that be called catastrophic?

        Like

  4. The debate today isn’t so much can man have an affect, it’s how much of an affect that is being disputed. Is it negligible or catastrophic.

    Here is Prof. Tim Ball, from the dept of Climatology and others who also seem to be ‘Deniers’.

    Like

    • Tim Ball was a “scientific advisor” to the oil industry funded Friends of Science. He has never been in a “department of climatology”. He was in the geography department and is now retired.

      Like

    • Kathleen, even if the 99% were wrong, surely it’s better to work towards a healthy and sustainable future, where too the economy benefits? As for waiting until alternatives are viable, that only happens where there IS urgency, as happens in war time.

      Yes, we may yet find other knowledge, such as the role of mycorrhizal fungi. The soil stores three to four times as much carbon as the atmosphere, and all this microorganism activity also releases some of that carbon into the air, to a tune of 10 times the amount of carbon into the atmosphere as humans release through emissions.

      “It’s a huge flux of carbon into the atmosphere, and fungi are the engines,” said Jennifer Talbot, a postdoctoral research fellow in Peay’s lab and first author on the study. “But we do not know how much diversity matters in maintaining the carbon cycle. Are all fungi doing the same thing? Can you kill half the species on Earth and still have the same amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, carbon stored on land and nutrients recycled?”

      Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-04-biologists-fungi-mysteries.html#jCp

      Kathleen, we are custodians of the Earth, we need to be alert, do what we can, in God.

      Like

  5. You’re not talking about another of those ‘mass-prayer’ schemes, are you?
    (“Pro-environment groups are calling on the faith communities to come together… “)

    Could it be the extra heating is due to a greater presence in the world by Satan?
    In which case people-power-prayer just might be the go!

    Like

    • …..and would that mean the ‘deniers’ are working for Old Nick??
      (Keep in mind that Our Kathleeen IS a catholic) 😯 !

      Like

      • My prayers will be for the doom sayers to wake up and realise they are being hoodwinked into handing over freedoms and quite a lot of money (funny that). It’s the Rainmaker come to get ya.

        Like

      • “It’s unthinkable. Big Government has spent $79 billion on the climate industry,
        3000 times more than Big-oil. Leading climate scientists won’t debate in public
        and won’t provide their data. What do they hide? When faced with legal requests
        they say they’ve “lost” the original global temperature records
        .
        Thousands of scientists are rising in protest against the scare campaign. Meanwhile $126 billion turned over in carbon markets in 2008 and bankers get set to make billions”

        http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh2/the_skeptics_handbook_IIj-sml.pdf

        You’d think with all the money spent so far, they would have saved the world – but it seems they need more money and actually they need to control those free and independent people who are too rich for their own good and buy too much stuff. Not good.

        Like

      • Scripture reports of another time when people did not heed the warning of coming catastrophe. I wonder this time if, instead of an Ark, God will give specifications for a space ship for a select few?

        Perhaps not in your time Kathleen, but you have descendants, no?

        Like

      • I’M NOT HANDING OVER ‘FREEDOMS’ (whatever THEY are?) TO ANYBODY!
        Every day I gird my loins (go on! I dare you! 🙂 ) to stave of the infringements and impositions of those who would encroach on ‘me’.

        But of course I’m not a camp-following tramp who votes and pays taxes and upholds all the institutions from the CWA to the New World Order,
        …..least of all the religious ones.

        Even on this topic you ‘get-with-the-strength-because-it’s-anonymously-safe’ lot can’t resist picking sides and defending them to the last full-stop.
        But no further than that. That’d be too much of a risk, wouldn’t it?

        The whole world ~ including the religious one ~ is in a pissing contest about whose ‘authorities’ are the most ‘acceptable’….whilst never realising there is NO WALL against which to take measurements.
        We’re all in the same lifeboat. Drilling holes in it to sink the ‘opposition’ is, I suspect, the basis for benchmarking the ‘average IQ’.

        Heard on a some sitcom the other night: “Wisdom: the difference between knowledge and experience”.
        Try it sometime.

        ………is it Sunday already??

        Like

      • It just occurs to me that non-godbotherers see ‘Believers’ as ” the doom sayers (who need) to wake up and realise they are being hoodwinked into handing over freedoms and quite a lot of money (funny that).”
        I ….er ‘believe’ the term is ‘tithing’ (among others ~ like ‘Bingo’, etc.)

        ….and yep! ~ it IS funny!

        Like

  6. Haggling over the dollar-‘values’ is about as stupid as thinking tax-breaks for churches will expedite the Second Coming. Dollars are a psychological manipulator that can be printed by the trillions whenever required. They are, in fact (sorry for the foul language!) worth nothing.

    The bottom line is that there CAN BE NO EFFECT WITHOUT A CAUSE.
    Conversely:- Any cause MUST create an effect.
    The burgeoning human population and consequent spiralling consumption, provided by exponentially-increasing industrialisation MUST create an effect.

    I see on the news last night that 20% (and rising) of China’s agricultural land has been contaminated by lethal heavy metals and other things.
    ……wonder where they came from??

    ps. recently I posed the question, Kathleen, about where the energy/heat from your morning scratch and toast came from ~ and where you supposed it went.
    The silence was deafening.
    Every breath you take, every fart you make, adds to the problem. (assuming it IS a problem ~ personally I couldn’t care less.)
    Multiply that by …..what (?) 7 or 8 BILLION? Add the actual (resource) cost of feeding those billions (apart from all the other ‘essentials’ they consume)….and then explain where the heat, the byproducts ( eg ‘shit’ literally and virtually) and the catalysers go.

    Perhaps god’s garbage truck picks them up every Tuesday and zips them off to some ‘transfer station’ in another galaxy…or dimension?
    (Or is that service only available to catholics, since I understand their shit doesn’t stink?
    I doubt god would contaminate the rest of existence with ‘humanity’ and its by-products.)

    Like

    • “I see on the news last night that 20% (and rising) of China’s agricultural land has been contaminated by lethal heavy metals and other things.
      ……wonder where they came from??”
      I understood the contamination was more in the line of fertilising the fields with human excrement, but I haven’t looked into it.

      Like

      • Yeah, they did use that for years, but the main risk from poop is organic: parasites, microbial antigens, antibiotics and such.

        But the segment about industrial pollution, and was making the point that it was the heavy-metals that are the by-products of industrial processes that were doing the damage.

        Little wonder they’re buying up what they can of Oz in the interests of food-security ~ which appears to present a real risk with a single generation.

        Time to start learning to use chopsticks?

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s