Deseret News | Take responsibility for saving planet

Reader comments
My view: Take responsibility for saving planet

Roland Kayser | 12:19 a.m. July 3, 2009

I don't worry much about the planet, I don't think we can really hurt it. We could, however, decrease its ability to support human life, which makes me worry for my grandchildren and their grandchildren.

Hypocrisy | 1:01 a.m. July 3, 2009

Republicans don't care. Rush and Hannity tell them that Global Warming is made up fluff from a liberal(al gore). They tell us about the evils of conservation, recycling, and researching clean energy.

That's all Republicans need to know.

Meanwhile, we stay enslaved to big oil, pollution, and corporations.

Dave Isaksen | 2:56 a.m. July 3, 2009

"Meanwhile, we stay enslaved to big oil, pollution, and corporations."
Would you rather be enslaved to Big Wind and Big Solar which suck the taxpayer dry, or maybe Big Ethanol which causes worldwide food shortages?

Comments continue below

My view | 4:52 a.m. July 3, 2009

While there's nothing wrong with respecting many things that God (as you put it) placed these things on earth for our enjoyment. Don't you think its a bit "extreme" that a guy like Al Gore is a little over the edge, he certainly has shown his greed with the agenda he preaches.

Refreshing | 5:28 a.m. July 3, 2009

It is so nice to hear a Mormon with these attitudes.

I think the rest of your group could learn a lot from you; keep it up!

second coming | 6:25 a.m. July 3, 2009

the sooner we destroy the earth, the sooner the Lord will return. it is that simple!

Lionheart | 7:14 a.m. July 3, 2009

Dave Jensen is an example of the indoctrination that has taken place in our schools in the past decades. He has added in the apocalyptic sections of scriptures to get a nice new earth worship religion. Dave Jensen as a very old man will find that none of this nonsense is going to take place. The earth is a self renewing system and the apolcalypse takes place in the individual soul.

That does not mean that mankind should spoil his environment. Mankind then suffers. The US has done an excellent job of cleaning the rivers and the air. There is a point of diminishing return when these earth protecting iniatives bring misery to humans, we are approaching that level. With attitudes like Daves, he idealizes nature and diminishes mankind, you can see how we reach that point.

Dave should go to old soviet countries and be an activist there. They need it. They have actually despoiled their environment.

Thinkin' Man | 7:53 a.m. July 3, 2009

Jensen's ideas are ludicrous on several levels.

First, that some Mormons believe doctrinal justification for destroying the earth. Baloney. That's just twisted.

Second, that "it stands to reason that man is responsible" for global warming. More baloney. Temperatures have fluctuated up and down in a range of over 10 degrees C in the past thousands of years. There is no automatic reason to say a change of a fraction of a degree is Mankind's fault.

Third, the "consensus" idea falls apart when you look at the details of polls of scientists. There is strong disagreement on the degree to which Mankind influences climate, and that's the most important question.

The US air and water have gotten cleaner every decade since the 70's, in case you haven't noticed (or are too young to have seen it).

Wes Larsen | 7:57 a.m. July 3, 2009

It's never a good idea to tell God what to do. And if anyone tells you "the debate is over", they've given up on rational thought.

What a wacko | 8:23 a.m. July 3, 2009

Dave Jensen does not have both his oars in the water on this one. If he professes to be a Mormon, maybe he should read his own scriptures: "For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves."--D&C 104:17

Oh brother | 8:59 a.m. July 3, 2009

What a bunch of non-sense. Only liberals think they can save a planet or control the climate. If liberals weren't so dangerous their hair brained schemes and sick vision of freedom would be hilarious.
Will China and India join anti-capitalist leftists in "saving" the planet? NO. They'll be laughing as the USA crumbles, and take what's left our manufacturing jobs and any other job the USA exports in the name of "saving the Planet".

DSB | 9:11 a.m. July 3, 2009

Why is it that people who want a common sense approach to utilizing earth's available resources while cleaner energy solutions are developed are demonized as having no consideration for our planet?

Where and when has Rush or Hannity or anyone else ever spoken of "the evils of conservation, recycling, and researching clean energy?" They never have and to suggest otherwise is either flat out lying or ignorantly invoking their names in blind obeisance to the liberal mantra. They, and many others, believe in researching ALL energy options, without bankrupting us individually and as a nation in the meantime with draconian measures like cap and trade.

Talk about hypocrisy - did you see the pictures of the Washington, DC mall after the inauguration of President Obama? Yeah, these people are really committed to cleaning up the earth.

Pa-lease | 2:48 p.m. July 3, 2009

Why does the DN continue to print this liberal global-warming tripe? The sky is not falling. The globe is not warming (it's actually in a cooling cycle). Sunspots have more to do with global temperatures than CO2. Man has little or no effect on it. This is just a bunch of liberal rubbish to try to increase federal power and crush our freedoms.

Jud | 3:05 p.m. July 3, 2009

"Noah came before the flood. I have come before the fire." -- Joseph Smith

To Pa-lease @ 2:48 | 5:40 p.m. July 3, 2009

"The sky is not falling."

No one says it is.

"The globe is not warming (it's actually in a cooling cycle)."

Nope - of the last thousand or so years, the 10 warmest years have been in the past decade. And the warming is accelerating.

"Sunspots have more to do with global temperatures than CO2."

Utter nonsense. You can prove this... how?

"Man has little or no effect on it."

More nonsense. We're changing the atmospheric chemistry. CO2 concentrations are now at >385 ppm, more than any time in the last 2+ million years.

"This is just a bunch of liberal rubbish to try to increase federal power and crush our freedoms."

No, it's called scientific research. The same kind of science that proved that tobacco was killing people, lead in motor fuel was poisoning people, and that washing your hands before handling food helps you avoid getting sick.

Anonymous | 10:24 p.m. July 3, 2009

CO2 has increased.

Yet the people and the plants are thriving.

I guess its not so bad after all.

Roger Chambers | 11:47 p.m. July 3, 2009

Scientists, politicians, and everyday people who believe that increased CO2 in the atmosphere cause climate change obviously do not study the effects of sun spots on the earth's climate. Sunspots are giant islands of magnetism on the Sun and their appearence runs in 11 year cycles. When there are many, it is called the solar maximum. When there are few sun spots it is a solar minimum. According to Dr Willie Soon, astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center, we are in the deepest solar minimum in a century. More sunspots(more light energy given to the earth) results in global warming. While fewer sunspots results in less light energy reaching the earth. Hence a cooling of the earth. From 1645 to 1715 (little ice age) there were no sunspots and it was a very, very cold period for the earth. There were very few sunspots in 2008 and it was a cold year. Based upon the research of Dr Soon, Sunspots have a significant role as a climate driver, while the role of CO2 has a very, very small role. Cap and trade is all about control and money.

Have you ever? | 11:55 a.m. July 4, 2009

Ever looked down on the earth from a passenger plane? The cities and the highways are a very small part of the earth. Man can cause a little local smog but not global warming.

We can be, and have been, moving towards cleaner burning of fuel. We have already, in the West, reduced the level of industrial waste substantially. People have given up, or not started, smoking tobacco. This helps us individually and as cities and towns. It's a good direction to move but no need to panic IMO. Think it out; take your time. Do not destroy industry or phase it out, do not close down industrial processes or make them too expensive to survive, but work as fast as possible on alternative viable methods of manufacture, where indicated.

The earth will be burned much faster by warfare, wildfires and arson, and this is what is happening and I think will get worse. Areas have had record temperatures and periods of drought in recent decades while others have had very cold winters and changes in the times of the seasons.

earth a perfect creation | 1:26 p.m. July 4, 2009

The Prophets have said to be good stewards of the land. Scriptures teach that the earth was created for man as well as the beasts and the other things of the earth. Multiply and replenish the earth was a commandment. The Lord was pleased with his creations and said that they were good. When the Prophet starts telling us that the earth has reached its capacity to support human life then I will be worried about planet. Until then I look at the flooding, droughts, earthquakes, etc as the voice of the Lord telling us to repent and serve Him.

We choose | 5:55 p.m. July 5, 2009

This lack of personal resposibility is the very fault that Dave is pointing out. This perseption that we can't distory our planet because God would not alow it. God is not doing this to our planet, we are. Until people start taking resposibility, we are stuck in this vain back and forth argument that will do nothing but anger a few people. It's try that the threat of nuclear war is more likly to end our excistence then most other things, but these people who claim that God will not let us distory our planet have no problem beleiving that a nuclear war will end it. Why? Both are man caused. It is because a bomb is clear as day, and one can't say that is doesn't exist and reconizes that man is responsible for it's existence. Globel warmming on the other hand is not somthing you can see, so people can close their eyes and plug their ears and try to drownd out the proof. The only way to prove to these people that what they do afects everything is to watch the world burn. Is this the fated of us? We choose

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.