Sentences like this are the reason I love Frank McIntyre. Also, he turned me on to the Raconteurs.

Sadly, \”South\” countries do not have the resources to begin developing or even utilizing those alternative energy sources (yet, maybe alternative energy will soon become cheaper than gas…! We can hope). The infrastructure and social problems in many of these nations make it next to impossible to finance or install alternative greener energy sources. Every developed nation has had to go through a type of industrial age (look at the U.S. and the UK) before it reached developed status. I believe that many of those third-world nations will have to go through the same process.

But that doesn\’t mean that we can\’t attempt to find solutions that would make it possible to skip or circumvent that stage. Developing alternative energy sources will not increase the poverty or social instability of these nations. In fact, it will probably improve the political situation in countries where oil has been the cause of political strife and war (think parts of Africa and in recent news, Georgia).

I believe that the stewardship of caring for God\’s creations is enough to make alternative, greener energy a goal (regardless of global warming, pollution has been linked to deteriorating health). And if stewardship isn\’t enough, shouldn\’t the commandment to improve and increase our intelligence include this worthy endeavor?

By the way…I\’m new to reading this blog and love it! Good work…very thought-provoking discussions.

While there are limited cases where it’s arguably apt to say the there’s literal worship of the natural world (perhaps, for example, Wicca), I think it’s also a pretty easy but poor leap to conflate the somewhat fuzzy space surrounding true worship with the wider circles of reverence and due regard. Saints who’ve had to defend the church against hostile mainstream christians should know this better than most — who here hasn’t encountered the assertion that our reverence for Joseph Smith constitutes “worship”?

If we’re not going to keep ourselves to some sort of literal standard surrounding the term, accusations of worship might as easily be leveled against those whose reverence for industrialism and the invisible hand reaches a level of ideological fervor easily matching the enthusiasm of those who are interested in the health of the environment. And it’s certainly arguable that there are warnings aplenty in the canon against that enough to match any about worshiping nature.

I don’t think Saints need to fall into either trap. The great principle of good stewardship as it’s often interpreted in the church implies both a real reverence for the things God’s given us to manage, and the need to exert ourselves to manage it intelligently, something which would certainly includes markets as a means, and Bill’s made some great points on the specifics.

I have read the article to which you refer. My comment was not made in ignorance. Any specific assertion this article makes about the effect of SSM on society includes a qualifier such as “may”, “likely”, “potential for” and “could”. This does not strike me as revelatory. I believe the churches teachings on the personal morality of SSM but I am unconvinced by what has been put forth about the broader societal impacts. Fortunately, I recently moved out of CA so I don’t have to decide whether or not to vote for this proposition out of blind obedience.

It’s not a question of everyone immediately having to make impossible financial sacrifices. It could simply be that if you vote for the right person, the very tax dollars that you would pay anyway could be subsidizing clean energies rather than the dirty ones that now receive much more massive subsidies. For instance, thanks to California’s mandate that the state get 20% pf its energy from renewable sources by 2010, two giant solar plants are being built there at a scale that will allow electricity to be produced much cheaper. As more infrastructure is developed, the costs will continue to decrease relative to dirtier technologies. The same thing is happening with wind in Texas.

“The only way to eliminate the threat of global warming is to stop using greenhouse gases. So until the new technology comes along, the only answer is to destroy what we already have to save the planet. It is that simple.”

No, we don’t have to destroy what we have, but we do need to begin to make big changes. It’s not that hard to make more fuel-efficient vehicles, despite having had our heads in the sand on that one for several decades. New construction can be more energy efficient while at the same time costing much less. Current factories often have energy inefficiencies that could be easily remedied at a large cost savings. For an optimistic view see the Charlie Rose discussion with Amory Lovins:

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/07/15/2/a-conversation-with-amory-lovins

European unemployment lagged in the 70s and 80s, before the EU ever set up an Emissions Trading Scheme. Their unemployment levels have much more to do with particular labor policies than any environmental regulation:

http://www.nber.org/reporter/summer04/blanchard.html

However some countries are doing rather well. Sweden, which gets 39% of its energy from renewables, and Denmark, (17%), both had under 5% unemployment in 2004, according to the article.

“No Bill, it is not nonsense. The estimated cost of turning the planet “green” is 46 trillion dollars. To invest that sort of money would require that the united states revert itself back to the GDP it had just before the great depression.”

This is a meaningless comparison. US GDP in 1930 was $91 billion, less than a rounding error when we are talking about amounts 500 times as great. Today US GDP is around $14 trillion, but the better metric is world GDP which was estimated in 2006 to be $66 trillion. You seem to think we need to come up with the amount needed upfront, rather than gradually spending over decades as GDPs continue to increase to levels that make $46 trillion relatively insignificant. And you also assume that there will be no economic benefits as a result of greener policies or economic damage from continuing to degrade the environment. For a discussion on exactly how small the cost as a percentage of GDP could be (Hint: In 2050, global average macro-economic costs for mitigation towards stabilisation between 710 and 445 ppm CO2-eq. . . corresponds to slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than 0.12 percentage points), check here:

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/08/13/joseph-romm/a-small-cost-will-avoid-a-catastrophe/

“No Bill, it is not nonsense. The estimated cost of turning the planet “green” is 46 trillion dollars. To invest that sort of money would require that the united states revert itself back to the GDP it had just before the great depression.”

This is a meaningless comparison. US GDP in 1930 was $91 billion, less than a rounding error when we are talking about amounts 500 times as great. Today US GDP is around $14 trillion, but the better metric is world GDP which was estimated in 2006 to be $66 trillion. You seem to think we need to come up with the amount needed upfront, rather than gradually spending over decades as GDPs continue to increase to levels that make $46 trillion relatively insignificant. And you also assume that there will be no economic benefits as a result of greener policies or economic damage from continuing to degrade the environment. For a discussion on exactly how small the cost as a percentage of GDP could be (Hint: In 2050, global average macro-economic costs for mitigation towards stabilisation between 710 and 445 ppm CO2-eq. . . corresponds to slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than 0.12 percentage points), check here:

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/08/13/joseph-romm/a-small-cost-will-avoid-a-catastrophe/

“If there are any real doubts, look at Europe. They have policies that are much greener than we do in the US. Yet they have unemployment rates that are double to triple ours and poverty rates that run in the same range. Why, because of the limits they have put on their own industry and the insane additional taxes they impose to fight global warming.”

European unemployment lagged in the 70s and 80s, before the EU ever set up an Emissions Trading Scheme. Their unemployment levels have much more to do with particular labor policies than any environmental regulation:

http://www.nber.org/reporter/summer04/blanchard.html

However some countries are doing rather well. Sweden, which gets 39% of its energy from renewables, and Denmark, (17%), both had under 5% unemployment in 2004, according to the article.

“The real problem with the green movement is the demand that we move to energies that do not currently exist. Yes, it would be great if we could all go solar. I would do it in a heart beat. Except that to outfit my home with solar paneling that would collect enough energy to elimate my need for extra electricy costs more than the home itself did.”

It’s not a question of everyone immediately having to make impossible financial sacrifices. It could simply be that if you vote for the right person, the very tax dollars that you would pay anyway could be subsidizing clean energies rather than the dirty ones that now receive much more massive subsidies. For instance, thanks to California’s mandate that the state get 20% pf its energy from renewable sources by 2010, two giant solar plants are being built there at a scale that will allow electricity to be produced much cheaper. As more infrastructure is developed, the costs will continue to decrease relative to dirtier technologies. The same thing is happening with wind in Texas.

“The only way to eliminate the threat of global warming is to stop using greenhouse gases. So until the new technology comes along, the only answer is to destroy what we already have to save the planet. It is that simple.”

No, we don’t have to destroy what we have, but we do need to begin to make big changes. It’s not that hard to make more fuel-efficient vehicles, despite having had our heads in the sand on that one for several decades. New construction can be more energy efficient while at the same time costing much less. Current factories often have energy inefficiencies that could be easily remedied at a large cost savings. For an optimistic view see the Charlie Rose discussion with Amory Lovins:

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/07/15/2/a-conversation-with-amory-lovins