The miniscule amount of time they claim is measurable in this new warming is simply illogical. If every person in the world stood on a square 2' x 2' (4 sq. ft.) everyone (7 billion) could fit in an area half the size of Rhode Island, so out of all those only 15% or less own a car. So are we saying that many cars are causing so much global warming that in just 100 years it is not only measurable, it is destroying the Earth?
So we shouldn't worry about climate change because it would take too much effort? Because it would cost too much. The article assumes that we won't advance significantly in renewable, carbon-neutral energy technology, which to me seems to be finally having some significant effort being invested.
It also neglects to consider the future of pacific island nations for whom those extra inches of sea-level will mean that their countries and homes will no longer exist. It seems to me that this perspective is just a little too neat and convenient.
Geoff - one of the things that I hate is when Christians take leave of their responsibility as stewards of God's creation. I'm not at all on that extreme.
On the other hand, I am not convinced of the 'global warming crisis' and if were, as this article was suggesting, a proper, measured response is required not one that causes (or doesn't solve) equal or worse other problems.
The real issue is that I haven't found a 'neat and convenient' answer. It seems that there are some that are over-reacting and that is 'neat and convenient' for them. They are not really facing the tough issues but they feel good because they are 'doing something'.
So I have this tension, it seems I should care more than I do but I haven't been convinced that it is as bad as many suggest and I think the effort would be better used elsewhere.
3 comments:
The miniscule amount of time they claim is measurable in this new warming is simply illogical. If every person in the world stood on a square 2' x 2' (4 sq. ft.) everyone (7 billion) could fit in an area half the size of Rhode Island, so out of all those only 15% or less own a car. So are we saying that many cars are causing so much global warming that in just 100 years it is not only measurable, it is destroying the Earth?
It is cyclical.
So we shouldn't worry about climate change because it would take too much effort? Because it would cost too much. The article assumes that we won't advance significantly in renewable, carbon-neutral energy technology, which to me seems to be finally having some significant effort being invested.
It also neglects to consider the future of pacific island nations for whom those extra inches of sea-level will mean that their countries and homes will no longer exist. It seems to me that this perspective is just a little too neat and convenient.
Geoff - one of the things that I hate is when Christians take leave of their responsibility as stewards of God's creation. I'm not at all on that extreme.
On the other hand, I am not convinced of the 'global warming crisis' and if were, as this article was suggesting, a proper, measured response is required not one that causes (or doesn't solve) equal or worse other problems.
The real issue is that I haven't found a 'neat and convenient' answer. It seems that there are some that are over-reacting and that is 'neat and convenient' for them. They are not really facing the tough issues but they feel good because they are 'doing something'.
So I have this tension, it seems I should care more than I do but I haven't been convinced that it is as bad as many suggest and I think the effort would be better used elsewhere.
Far from neat and convenient for me ...
Post a Comment