Re: (Fwd) [asa] Cows, diet, and warming

Don,

Making murder illegal may not stop murder but it does state the consequences
for the act and allows for justice. The same with environmental laws.
Polluters should not go on without consequences. Should we not protect
wetlands, among the most important resources for the health of oceans, from
unrestrained destruction for the purposes of "development"?

While I agree that speading the part of the Christian gospel that involves
caring for creation, non-Christians also have their reasons for protecting
the environment, which should be acknowledged and encouraged. There's no
reason all people should not work together for a common purpose, whatever
their theological or philosophical motivations.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Perrett" <donperrett@theology-perspectives.net>
To: "'Kenneth Piers'" <Pier@calvin.edu>
Cc: "ASA Discussions" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 12:09 PM
Subject: RE: (Fwd) [asa] Cows, diet, and warming

> As I have stated repeatedly, I do not disagree with Global Warming. There
> are some who might, but not I.
>
> My disagreement is with how the issue is handled. Some people are
> socialist
> in nature and think that legislation is needed. Like making murder
> illegal
> stops murder. How many were killed in your local community this year?
>
> Change will come only when we pass on the Christian understanding of
> stewardship to individuals. People make changes not governments.
>
> Be responsible and teach responsibility.
>
> Don Perrett
> Free Christian
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Kenneth Piers
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 4:34 PM
> To: 'PvM'; donperrett@theology-perspectives.net
> Cc: ASA Discussions
> Subject: RE: (Fwd) [asa] Cows, diet, and warming
>
> REPLY: The only activities we need to be concerned about are those
> activities that we undertake that involve returning carbon dioxide to the
> atmosphere that was more or less permanently removed from natural cycles
> millions of years ago. Humans and animals doing their respiratory thing do
> not belong in this category. The carbon dioxide that we exhale is the
> result
> of eating plant-based foods that, in turn, is the result of
> photo-synthetically removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Even if
> we
> eat meat, in principle we do not have to add to the carbon dioxide burden
> because the animals eat plant materials that remove carbon dioxide from
> the
> atmosphere. So the activities we need to be concerned about do not include
> breathing in and out; instead, they are pretty much limited to our use of
> fossil fuels * coal, oil, and natural gas.
> Unfortunately, that pretty much involves about 85-90% of what we do in the
> modern world. So today, even when we eat plants * and worse if we eat
> animals - because modern agriculture is so fossil fuel dependent, we are
> engaging in an activity that is returning carbon dioxide to the atmosphere
> that was permanently removed a long time ago. So do we need to be
> concerned
> how we grow our food? * Yes! Do we need to be concerned about how we
> travel
> from here to there? * Yes! Do we need to be concerned with how we generate
> our electricity? * Yes! Do we have to be concerned with how we heat and
> cool
> our homes?-Yes! Unless we find a way to capture and put away permanently
> all
> (or most * perhaps creation has some natural ways to reduce the carbon
> dioxide that we add to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels) of the
> carbon
> dioxide that is produced in combustion of fossil fuels, we will be
> worsening
> the greenhouse gas problems. So it seems that there is need, growing more
> urgent with each!
> year that passes, for us to make a transition away from fossil fuels to
> non-carbon based energy systems.
> I believe that this transition is possible if we make a total commitment
> to
> it * individually and as a nation and as a world * it is a global problem
> after all. Will this be the ruin of us? Possibly. But it also has the
> possibility of advancing us into a sustainable civilization. A
> civilization
> that depends for its energy on non-renewable fossil fuels is, by
> definition,
> non-sustainable, and it now is becoming increasingly clear that is not
> sustainable ecologically either.
> respectfully
> ken piers
>
> Ken Piers
>
> "We are by nature creatures of faith, as perhaps all creatures are; we
> live
> by counting on things that cannot be proved. As creatures of faith, we
> must
> choose either to be religious or superstitious, to believe in things that
> cannot be proved or to believe in things that can be disproved."
> Wendell Berry
>
>>>> "Don Perrett" <donperrett@theology-perspectives.net> 1/11/2007 12:17
>>>> PM >>>
> So I have just one question, what human activities should we stop,
> breathing
> lest we put more CO2 in the air? I'm not saying that there isn't some
> room
> for improvement, but just as all the other species on the planet which
> contribute to CO2 and Methane, humans (one of the animal species) will
> also
> contribute. I personally believe there are two sub categories of people
> (non-Christian ones) in favor of the doomsday, those who want to lower
> human
> population and those who want to lower the consumption of resources.
> Either
> of these belong to the category of wealth. Those of power know that the
> only way they will have power is if there are resources for them to
> control.
> If any one resource ends then their ability to use it to broker power is
> gone. The cries of the UN to lower human population is for the same
> reason.
> Worst case scenario, the pollution and lack of resources lead to famine
> and
> war. This would decrease human population as well but it would not be a
> controlled reduction, which could result in the people in power losing
> their
> power. For historical reference, see Black Plague. If those in power can
> influence the same decrease in population then they can ensure their own
> survivability. The Plague ended up with many of lower status moving
> rapidly
> upward into positions of power, due to the high death rates. This also
> lead
> to the industrial revolution, African slavery, and so called
> enlightenment.
> Some of those families are still in power. Now they see a similar
> scenario
> coming like the one that preceded the Plague. They do not want to end up
> like the leaders of the pre-Plague did. This is also why the topic is
> heavily discussed in academia today and even on channels like History and
> Discovery. For them it is better to kill some now with limited wars and
> ignoring small famines, encourage birth control and even abortion, and if
> all else fails stop the resources from being used.
>
> Problem is it will not change God's will. What is happening and will
> happen
> is for His purpose.
> The only way things will change is if each person will look at themselves
> and their homes to find the changes that need to be made. If one cares
> about human rights in China they will not buy Walmart. If they truly care
> for the environment then they will not buy gasoline. Telling others what
> to
> do and how to live will only lead to conflict. Telling yourself to be a
> better steward and loving brother in Christ will lead those around you to
> do
> the same (lead by example) then when enough do the same then things change
> for the good and permanently and without the conflicts.
>
> Don Perrett
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of PvM
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:47 PM
> To: Kenneth Piers
> Cc: SteamDoc@aol.com; asa@calvin.edu; Lawrence Johnston
> Subject: Re: (Fwd) [asa] Cows, diet, and warming
>
> Very good point. You need to look at the fluxes involved, sources and
> sinks
> alike. For instance, CO2 source and sink fluxes used to be in reasonable
> balance, causing atmospheric CO2 concentrations to remain 'constant',
> until
> us humans disrupted the balance and our influx of
> CO2 could not be matched by sinks.
>
> Imagine the following example of a sink where the inflow of water from the
> faucet and the outflow match, causing the level of the water in the sink
> to
> remain constant. Now start adding small amounts of water and over time the
> water level in the sink will rise, even though the addition of water is
> negligable compared to the inflow/outflow fluxes.
>
> Pim
>
> On 1/10/07, Kenneth Piers <Pier@calvin.edu> wrote:
>> Friends: I am not an animal ecologist - only a lowly chemist- but I
>> think this discussion about methane contributions from cows and
>> termites and other creatures may be a bit of a red herring. Animal and
>> microbial emissions of methane have always been part of global
>> ecosystems long before humans were around and such contributions are
>> part of the normal supply pathway of methane in natural ecosystems
>> (there are, of course, also natural methane removal pathways in
>> nature) undisturbed by humans. The question pertaining to animal
>> contributions would become germane if it is true that the population
>> of ruminant animals (or of termites) has vastly increased due to human
>> actions. I don't know the answer to this question but only remember
>> that, before there were many humans in North America, there were vast
>> populations of bison roaming the plains who were also probably methane
>> emitters. So the emissions of increasing emissions of methane we
>> should be concerned about are those that arise from human activities.
>> And certainly, if global warming leads to permafrost melting and this
>> results in the release of vast amounts of methane now trapped in ice
>> as clathrates in what are called methane hydrates, then we truly have
> something to be worried about. I will provide a link to a(perhaps slightly
> alarmist) paper I read about this possibility this morning.
>> http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html
>> Such an event will likely put all the excess methane contributions
>> from animals to the atmosphere to shame.
>> ken piers
>>
>> Ken Piers
>>
>> "We are by nature creatures of faith, as perhaps all creatures are; we
>> live by counting on things that cannot be proved. As creatures of
>> faith, we must choose either to be religious or superstitious, to
>> believe in things that cannot be proved or to believe in things that
>> can
> be disproved."
>> Wendell Berry
>>
>> >>> "Lawrence Johnston" <johnston@uidaho.edu> 1/9/2007 5:11 PM >>>
>> Allan, I have also read that termites similarly produce methane,
>> probably by synrgistic cellulose digesting bacteria. Does anyone have
>> an estimate of how much of the greenhouse gases come from this source?
>>
>> Ho, every one who thirsts,
>> come to the waters;
>> and he who has no money,
>> come, buy and eat!
>> Come, buy wine and milk
>> without money and without price.
>> Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your
>> labor for that which does not satisfy?
>> Isaiah 55:1 Revised Standard Translation
>>
>> ==========================================================
>> Lawrence H. Johnston home: 917 E. 8th st.
>> professor of physics, emeritus Moscow, Id 83843
>> University of Idaho (208) 882-2765
>> Fellow of the American Physical Society
>> http://www.uidaho.edu/~johnston/ =========================
>>
>>
>> ------- Forwarded message follows -------
>> Date sent: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 19:51:11 -0500 (EST)
>> From: SteamDoc@aol.com
>> Subject: [asa] Cows, diet, and warming
>> To: asa@calvin.edu
>>
>> Here's an attempt to inject something constructive and practical into
>> our current discussion about global warming.
>>
>> It has been pointed out that methane from cattle plays a
>> not-insignificant role in the human-caused increase in greenhouse
>> gases. So, it makes sense that those of us Christians who care about
>> stewardship of God's creation might at least consider this in making
>> dietary choices. But one does not want to make knee-jerk changes
>> without practical effect (especially since some of my wife's
>> relatives make their living from cattle ranching ...). So, I have
>> two questions where I hope somebody here can supply (or point to) some
>> practical information that can inform our stewardship:
>>
>> 1) Is this methane emission issue unique to cattle? Or do other
>> animals (pigs, chickens, etc.) also produce methane? If I eat pork
>> or chicken instead of beef, will that reduce greenhouse gases, or not?
>>
>> 2) What is the relative importance of beef consumption to dairy
>> consumption in this issue? Can I find a number for how much methane
>> emission corresponds to one pound of beef, versus how much corresponds
>> to a gallon of milk?
>>
>> Allan
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com "Any
>> opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be attributed to my
>> employer, my wife, or my cat"
>>
>> ------- End of forwarded message -------
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
> asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
> asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
> asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 12 12:50:04 2007