Church of England Discovers New Sins

From The Times

It's a sin to fly, says church

THE Bishop of London has declared it sinful for people to contribute to climate change by flying on holiday, driving a “gas-guzzling” car or failing to use energy-saving measures in the home, writes Jonathan Leake.

Richard Chartres will encourage vicars to preach more green sermons and warn congregations that it is now a moral obligation for Christians to lead eco-friendly lifestyles.

Where is this in the Bible that it was not discovered until now? Must have been buried under those prohibitions against divorce, infanticide, pride, lust, greed, etc. that the C of E has been throwing away over the years.

Chartres, who chairs the bishops’ panel on the environment, said: “There is now an overriding imperative to walk more lightly upon the earth and we need to make our lifestyle decisions in that light.

“Making selfish choices such as flying on holiday or buying a large car are a symptom of sin. Sin is not just a restricted list of moral mistakes. It is living a life turned in on itself where people ignore the consequences of their actions.”

And here I've been thinking that sin was disobedience against God. Silly me. I also thought Christians were about doing what God says without regard for the consequences. Again, I guess I just don't have the theological background to grapple with these questions.

Chartres, the third most senior bishop in the Church of England, has declared his views as it prepares to publish Treasures on Earth, a booklet on environmental matters to be sent to every diocese for distribution.

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said: “We stand before God’s judgment on these matters. In life we have to make moral choices over our sex life and over our domestic and financial affairs. We make choices of moral significance and our relation to the environment is no exception.”

The booklet will say that scientific research supporting predictions that the earth faces serious climate change is “overwhelming”. It will also detail practical ways for Christians to cut their carbon emissions, at church and at home, including trying to walk or cycle to communion.

AHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH! The Earth has ALWAYS faced "serious climate change". Why do these bozos think the present time should be any different? Haven't they noticed that there aren't any Apatosauri hanging around outside their cathedrals?

The church’s advisers on the environment say that offsetting your carbon dioxide emissions against “green” actions such as planting trees is a first step towards becoming sustainable but is not a long-term answer.

Let's see, if you confess to driving a Hummer, the penance is twelve oak trees and twenty-five maples. If you only drive a Civic, it's six oaks and ten maples. Now we just have to work out how much the sin of having a backyard cookout is worth. And don't forget all that CO2 you exhale just by being alive.

Under Chartres, the church has commissioned briefings on climate change, plus examples of green sermons, available on the internet, to help vicars master the facts when writing their homilies.

It's obvious to me that this has nothing to do with facts. In fact, the C of E seems to have more blind faith on this issue than it does in actual Christianity.

As dean of the chapels royal, Chartres also oversees churches used by the royal family and so is in regular contact with the Queen, the head of the church, and the Prince of Wales. A church spokesman confirmed both had supported Chartres’ initiative.

The church is taking steps to improve its own environmental record and has asked vicars to carry out an energy audit so they can reduce their “carbon footprint”. It owns some of the largest and draughtiest buildings in Britain, including medieval cathedrals, gothic churches and ageing parsonages.

“We have no right to appeal to our contemporaries on this issue if we have failed to put our own house in order,” said Chartres.

So with the Anglican Church in chaos worldwide, this will put their house in order. Dream on, Rich.

Lambeth Palace, Williams’ residence, has been audited — and was criticised for using inefficient light bulbs rather than the low-energy alternatives.

So how many trees does he have to plant?

Claire Foster, the church’s environment policy director, said: “Indiscriminate use of the earth’s resources must be seen as profoundly wrong, just as we now see slavery as wrong.”

Hey Claire, didn't you pay attention to the game "one of these things is not like the other" on Sesame Street? Again, AAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!

Hey kids! What time is it? That's right, it's CRISIS TIME!

Crises - they're not just for the Middle East any more.

From the Education Guardian:

Britain is facing a chronic shortage of geophysicists as fewer students choose to study geophysical science at university and leading scientists in the field retire, a new study reveals.

The problem has reached crisis point and if the current rates of decline continue there will be no geophysics undergraduates by 2030, the British Geophysical Association report warns.

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

Former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev says it's "five minutes to midnight" in terms of the global environmental crisis, with little if any time left to fix the damage already caused.

Delivering a final ominous warning during the last day of the Earth Dialogues forum in Brisbane, the man credited with bringing an end to the Cold War said the world's only option was to take immediate action.

The planet was already in the grip of an "environmental crisis" that may be too late to fix.

From the BBC:

The German government is about to trigger a new crisis in Europe's flagship climate policy, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

BBC News understands the German cabinet is likely to agree a deal that will reduce carbon emissions from industry by only 0.6% between 2004 and 2012.

The decision is likely to influence other EU countries, including the UK, which still have to set their own caps.

Environmental groups describe the target as "pathetic and shameful".

"These figures are unbelievably unambitious," said Regina Gunther from WWF Germany. "It is shameful that our environment minister has agreed to this."

Climate analysts now fear a meltdown of EU climate leadership.

From The Guardian:

Radical moves to tackle obesity crisis
Controls on junk food advertising could be extended to websites, text messaging, computer games, cinemas and posters under radical plans being drawn up by the government, the Guardian has learned.

Ministers fear that plans to clamp down solely on TV advertising would be undermined without a more ambitious approach and are putting together a range of measures to tackle the problem.

They plan to encourage shops and supermarkets to offer extra loyalty card bonus points to customers buying healthy foods low in salt, sugar and fat. And GPs may be monitored to see whether they are prioritising obesity among children.

From The Orange Leader:

Over the last week, there have been three fatal alligator attacks in Florida.

The attacks were all on women and are part of 17 confirmed fatal attacks on people in 58 years. That means there are three less lives and three families crushed due to the actions of a highly effective reptilian predator and probably due to the careless actions of humans.

Why all of the attacks all of a sudden?

This is breeding season and alligators are a lot more active now than during other times of the year, but there is more to the story than that.

The Gulf region has been heading toward a crisis level with alligator populations over the last decade and what happened in Florida is a sign of things to come from Tallahassee to Texas if we maintain the status quo of dealing with these potentially dangerous reptiles.

From the New York Daily News:

Thousands of furious Queens residents spent their fourth day without power yesterday as Mayor Bloomberg visited the crisis-hit area - and Con Ed expected no immediate end to the blackout.

Officials at the utility remained stumped about what knocked out juice to one of New York's most densely populated neighborhoods. Workers doling out bags of ice told residents it could be Monday before they're reconnected.

From the South African Independent Online:

Cape Town - Animal and plant species are dying off rapidly around the world due to climate change, but scientists are struggling to monitor the decline due to a lack of data, top scientists said on Wednesday.

Scientists say just a fraction of the earth's plant and animal species have so far been identified, while millions more may have already been lost. There was also little information of those identified.
Martin Sharman, head of the biodiversity sector of the European Commission's Directorate General for Research, said the world was in a crisis, with catastrophic change slowly happening.


And, from the BBC again:

Many of the world's 25 biggest food firms only pay lip service to their duty to help fight the global diet crisis, a report on the issue says.

It found that the response of most companies to World Health Organisation guidelines on fighting obesity, cancer and heart disease was "lukewarm".

Most firms appeared not to care "a jot", the report by London's City University suggested.

Had enough yet? There's more but I'll spare you. See, everything's in crisis all the time, so I hope I have helped you to achieve that state of low grade panic, hopelessness, and/or despair that the media obviously desires for all of us.

You're welcome.

I'm sure this is all Bush's fault somehow

From the Harvard School of Public Health via EurekAlert!

One third in high-risk hurricane areas say they may ignore evacuation order

Boston, MA -- According to a new survey of high-risk hurricane areas in eight states--Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas--conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health Project on the Public and Biological Security, one-third (33%) of residents said if government officials said they had to evacuate due to a major hurricane this season, they would not or are unsure if they would leave. Homeowners (39%), whites (41%) and long-term residents (45%) are the groups most likely to ride out a major hurricane. People with children under 18 are less likely to remain in their homes (26%). Mobile home owners are no more likely to evacuate than the general public.

The top reasons people give for not evacuating involve concerns about safety and security. More than two-thirds (68%) say their home is well-built and they would be safe there. Just over half (54%) feel that roads would be too crowded, and one in three (36%) feels that evacuating would be dangerous. Close to one-third (31%) worry that their possessions would be stolen or damaged.

"It will be a challenge for public officials to convince many of these people to leave their homes because they view their homes as safe and evacuating as dangerous," said Robert J. Blendon, Professor of Health Policy and Political Analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health. "In addition, most of those who plan on staying believe they would be rescued if they needed to be."

So basically, even after Katrina they still think their personal safety should be someone else's responsibility. But wait, it gets even worse:

Many residents of hurricane-prone areas have not made critical preparations for a major storm. Hurricane Katrina showed that families can get separated and communication can break down in the aftermath of a major storm, but most residents have not prepared for that possibility. Nearly two in three (63%) have not agreed on a meeting place if their family is separated, and one in two (49%) have not agreed on a phone number outside the region that family members could call. Of those who have a household member with a chronic illness or disability requiring help to evacuate, 40% do not have that help lined up.

Forty percent do not have $300 in cash ready to take with them if they need to evacuate. Nearly one in three (29%) do not have enough drinking water for each family member for three days if they are unable to leave. Of those taking prescription drugs, 37% do not have a three-week supply in case of an emergency. Nearly one in four (23%) do not have a first-aid kit in the house.

Read the whole thing.

OK, I can see why some people might be reluctant to evacuate - there's the expense of a hotel room for an indefinite period, the high probability of looters cleaning out your house, the possibility that things might not turn out to be as bad as the NWS predicts. But they KNOW they live in a hurricane prone area, so one would think they had enough sense to make some kind of plan, especially after last year's hurricanes. But I'm sure that at some point in the next few months we will be treated to non-stop, 24 hour video of people sitting on the roofs of their houses whining because the government didn't come and get them immediately after the storm, making tearful pleas for help finding their family members, etc., and trying to make the rest of us feel guilty because they didn't plan ahead. Am I being harsh? Certainly, but not as harsh as Nature can be to the unprepared. One question that the survey didn't ask these people but I would love to know the answer to is "What the hell are you thinking?" Especially since they should also know this :

From Dr. William Gray's Extended range forecast of Atlantic seasonal hurricane activity :

Most Southeast coastal residents probably do not know how fortunate they had been in the prior 38-year period (1966-2003) leading up to 2004-2005 when there were only 17 major hurricanes (0.45/year) that crossed the U.S. coastline. In the prior 40-year period of 1926-1965, there were 36 major hurricanes (0.90/year or twice as many) that made U.S. landfall. It is understandable that coastal residents were not prepared for the great upsurge in landfalling major hurricanes in 2004-2005. For many years, we had been warning that the southeastern United States should expect great increases in hurricane-spawned destruction in future years.

Enough said?

From Colorado's Summit Daily News:

Early warning system set up to detect global warming

MOUNT ALBION - University of Colorado biologists began installing an alarm system atop this craggy summit Friday, near the Continental Divide west of Boulder.

Like the alarm systems in your car or home, this one is designed to detect intruders.

But in this case, the invaders are tundra plants moving up from lower elevations in response to global warming. The alarm system is a cluster of mountaintop vegetation plots that will be monitored periodically for decades to come.

"They might be an early warning, an indicator of how natural systems will respond," said ecologist William Bowman, director of CU's Mountain Research Station at Niwot Ridge, northwest of Nederland.

To spot changes in tundra vegetation caused by warming, permanent monitoring plots are being established this summer atop three peaks within the city of Boulder watershed, along the Continental Divide.

Climate models suggest that by 2100, Colorado could warm 3.6 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit, largely due to the buildup of heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases emitted when fossil fuels are burned.

In some parts of the West, conifer forests are expected to gradually move to higher elevations as the climate warms. But University of Wyoming tree line researcher William Baker said that's unlikely to happen in Colorado, unless the warmth is accompanied by additional moisture.

"Across most of that tree-line area, it's a pretty severe place for them, and they need more moisture to be able to regenerate and really grow, and particularly to move up into the alpine," Baker said.

Tundra plants will likely provide a better climate-warming red flag, Bowman said Friday.

Along the tundra-forest boundary in the Front Range, early indications of a response to warming could include upward migration of shrubs - various willows and blueberry, for example - and nonnative weeds such as dandelions.

The number of tundra species might increase initially, as intruders move into previously inaccessible areas. But as the decades pass, extinction of alpine plants is possible, accompanied by a decline in alpine species, Bowman said.

That decline, in turn, could affect wildlife that rely on tundra plants for sustenance.

My understanding of alarms is that they exist to call you into immediate action when a catastrophic event is occurring or about to occur - you know, a fire, burglary, tornado, air raid, that kind of thing. So what happens when this "alarm" goes off? Does the fire department come and spray the area until it cools down? Do the police rush in and arrest the CO2 molecules responsible for the invasion? Or do they just give the intruding tundra plants a warning and tell them to leave the area immediately? Does Al Gore come and do a PowerPoint presentation on global warming until the plants get bored and either leave or die? I would really like to know.

From Yahoo News:

Walmart discusses global warming steps

By MARCUS KABEL, Associated Press Writer Wed Jul 12, 2:47 PM ET

BENTONVILLE, Ark. - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is the biggest private user of electricity in the world and has huge potential to cut back on greenhouse gases in-house and among its 60,000 suppliers, company officials said ahead of a global warming information stop Wednesday by former vice president Al Gore.

Wal-Mart working groups on environmental change were meeting ahead of Gore's visit to discuss steps already taken and new efforts ahead under a green initiative launched last October by Chief Executive Lee Scott to make the often-criticized company a better environmental citizen.

Why does this strike me as an attempt by the smart, nerdy kid to impress the more popular high school dimwits?

The world's largest retailer emitted the equivalent of 20.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide last year, the main greenhouse gas, while the best estimate for its supply chain — all the production and shipping needed to fill Wal-Mart shelves — is 10 times that, said Jim Stanway, director of project development in Wal-Mart's energy department.

"We're big, but we're certainly not the biggest," Stanway said. Coca-Cola Co. produces about 5 million metric tons a year while utility American Electric Power emits about 160 million metric tons, he added.

Wal-Mart disclosed its CO2 figure for the first time this year.

And this is important because ......??

Scientists have become increasingly concerned in recent years about the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels. Average worldwide temperatures have risen this century as a result of what many believe is a greenhouse effect from that pollution.

Stanway and other executives said Wal-Mart's potential to slow global warming stemmed from the size of its supplier network and the influence Wal-Mart can wield to encourage better practices by those companies it buys from.

Ah, the innocence of business executives. Let's do some math, shall we? The UN's GEO data project estimates that about 25,000 million metric tons of CO2 are emitted yearly into the atmosphere. So Wal-Mart's contribution is about 0.08% of the total. According to Professor Roger Pielke, 26.5% - 28% of contemporary warming can be attributed to atmospheric CO2. The IPCC estimates total warming of 0.4C - 0.8C, so (keep following me here) on average 0.6(.28) = 0.17C (plus or minus 0.06C) warming can be attributed to ALL the atmospheric CO2. Therefore Wal-Mart's contribution is 0.08% of THAT, which works out to be .00014C, which for all intents and purposes, given the margins of error in the calculations, is zero. So how does reducing this slow global warming again?

"We have made it clear that all things being equal, we'll give business to operators who show they're fully engaged" in fuel efficiency efforts, said Tim Yatsko, Wal-Mart senior vice president of transportation.

Before a presentation from Gore on his anti-global warming campaign, executives from 14 so-called sustainable value networks traded ideas, with each group consisting of Wal-Mart people, suppliers and outside experts to work on specific issues like alternative fuels, textiles and logistics.

Charles Zimmerman, in charge of developing new Wal-Mart stores, said the company was already reducing energy demand by installing more efficient lighting and retrofitting refrigerators.

New store prototypes in the works will use design and technology to be 30 percent more efficient than today's stores and in the longer term even 50 percent more efficient.

"We are the number one private purchaser of electricity in the United States and therefore in the world," Zimmerman said.

In logistics, covering Wal-Mart's fleet of 7,000 trucks, Tim Yatsko said the company had already cut fuel use by 8 percent by putting alternative power units in rigs this year so they can stop idling engines during loading or breaks. That saved $25 million in fuel bills and cut 100,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

Finally, a REAL, logical reason for Wal-Mart to cut their fuel use.

Lee Scott plans to make the retailer a leader in cutting emissions, energy use and solid waste and selling more environmentally friendly products. Scott took the environmental offensive at a time when Wal-Mart is under attack from organized labor and other groups for its business practices, including employee pay and health benefits.

So this "we'll help stop global warming" appears to be a ploy to distract leftists from other, potentially more costly issues. Now, I'm certainly not against businesses trying to become more efficient in their use of fossil fuels. We all need to do this for a variety of reasons. I just wish they wouldn't give bad climate science even more publicity with such silly reasoning.

From the Daily Mail

Britain Runs Out of Bubbles for Its Fizzy Drinks

We have had crippling heat, torrential rainstorms, a heart-wrenching World Cup defeat and the traditional early exit from Wimbledon.

Now, in a final blow to the British summer, the fizz is set to go out of our drinks.

Drinks manufacturers have revealed that the UK is suffering from a shortage of carbon dioxide - the gas dissolved in drinks such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi to create the refreshing bubbles.

A shortage of CO2? The dreaded greenhouse gas? The one that will destroy the planet if we don't regulate it out of existance?

The demand for carbonated drinks is at its highest during the summer months and they have been particularly popular as Britain sweltered under the recent heatwave.

But I thought the heatwave was caused by global warming brought on by an EXCESS of CO2?

But with local supplies of CO2 running low, manufacturers are being forced to ship it in from Eastern European countries.

The C&C Group - the Irish drinks company behind Magners cider, recently launched as an upmarket drink in the UK with a high-profile advertising campaign - is one of the firms worst hit.

Since last month, it has been bringing in emergency supplies of CO2 gas from Poland because of the shortage in the UK.

The crisis was caused by an explosion at one of the UK's biggest CO2-producing plants, based in Billingham, Teesside, which meant production had to be shut down when demand from the soft drinks industry was at its highest.

You mean they actually went out of their way to MANUFACTURE this evil gas? And now they're importing it from Poland, even though they're having a heat wave. Sheesh, no wonder we can't get this global warming thing under control.

The factory's parent company, Terra Nitrogen, is still repairing the damage caused by the incident on June 1.

To make fizzy drinks, carbon dioxide is injected into the liquid under high pressure so that large amounts are dissolved.

When the bottle or can is opened, the pressure is released and the carbon dioxide comes out of the solution, forming bubbles.

And then it makes its way into the atmosphere where it causes catastrophic global warming. For Shame you fizzy drink producers!

The carbonated drinks were inspired by mineral water from natural springs, which was said to have healing properties and was found to contain dissolved carbon dioxide.

But I thought there were no natural sources of CO2, just manmade ones? I mean, the Earth wouldn't destroy its own climate, would it?

The first artificial fizzy drink was made in 1772 by English clergyman and chemist Dr Joseph Priestley, who published a paper called Directions For Impregnating Water With Fixed Air and offered the resulting soda water to friends.

It was first made commercially by Jean Jacob Schweppe, who set up the Schweppes company in 1783.

Aha! The real culprit in global warming! Thanks to JJ Schweppe, we've been releasing CO2 from artificially fizzy drinks into the atmosphere since 1783! And they are still out there making ginger ale! Quick, somebody sue Schweppes and put an end to this madness!