Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: Caring for the planet

Comments

Return To Article
  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 24, 2013 12:57 p.m.

    LDS Liberal
    Your retort is a perfect example of what I was talking about in my original comment. I still believe we ALL want a planet to live on (not just you).

    BTW...
    Who said "Burn Baby Burn"?
    Google it. If somebody said it... you'd get a hit. The only hits I got were for a song by Ash and a chant the rioters used in the Watts California riots in the 60's. If any politician or conservative talk show guy said it... I think google would have found it. You're just putting words into people's mouths they never said. I know... helps you fit them into the stereotype you have for them huh...

    I have no problem with drilling. I understand that humanity still needs oil to survive, and that drilling for oil can be done without destroying the planet. So if that makes me a radical planet hater in your eyes... I guess I am.

  • Man_of_letters Salt Lake County, UT
    April 23, 2013 3:29 p.m.

    procuradorfiscal, read up on the mercury levels discovered several years ago in the Great Salt Lake, and the numerous fish advisories posted on the State's website.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 23, 2013 11:48 a.m.

    "Man and mankind are generally spoken of as being a blot and a plague upon the face of this planet."

    "The high priets of this movement go so far as to call mankind a "cancer on the earth" that must be removed."

    Moabmom, I'm a member of a few environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club, and I read enviromental papers fairly regularly, and I have never- never- heard this sort of language. Care to tell us what you are referencing? Also, who would the "high priests" of this movement be? (I always find it interesting that religious people tend to use religious terms when talking about things non religious. Are you using that because you don't know any better terms, such as "leaders", or is it supposed to be an insult of some sort?)

    Like your use of "the heavens", would this perhaps be referring to the atmosphere? If so, what makes you think we should not be responsible for what we pump into the air?

  • Moabmom Moab, UT
    April 23, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    Diligent Dave is right when he says the core of the environmental movement is "Man and mankind are generally spoken of as being a blot and a plague upon the face of this planet." Any movement that strikes at those created in "His image", is not what it appears to be. The high priets of this movement go so far as to call mankind a "cancer on the earth" that must be removed. This is not stewardship. This is man setting himself above God. Mankind was given dominion over the earth, not the heavens. The "enviros" think they can control the heavens,too which is why they push the lie of global cooling/warming and when that gets proved wrong, they change it to climate change or what ever works at the moment. When you align yourself with this environmental movement, you align yourself with their god, too. There god is mother earth, not the Creator. They worship the creation over the Creator and in their pride, think they are in control and they limit the freedom and liberty of God's people. They spout care for future generations, but they push abortion to limit future generations. Hypocrisy much???

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 22, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    Both sides want to save the planet... we just have different ways to do it. And that's OK.

    ===========

    Drill Baby Drill!
    Burn Baby Burn!

    Doesn't leave much to a "Save the Planet" party platform.

    Try again.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2013 2:04 p.m.

    "That doesn't mean every word of what you hear on the Rush, Glenn or Sean programs isn't true."

    So do you believe that every word you hear on those shows is true? If you do, that truly is sad.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 22, 2013 1:17 p.m.

    To those who think anyone with Conservative views don't care about the planet, and those who think liberals don't care about reality (and the fact that humans will always need energy and will always have an impact on the planet)... keep in mind, nobody wants to destroy the planet. We just all have different ideas about how to do it... and that's fine.

    Those who think only THEIR ideas are valid and the problem is anybody who isn't as extreme as you are... are the problem. The rest of us are just trying to get along with each other and do the best WE can to help (and not just blame everything on someone else).

    Both sides want to save the planet... we just have different ways to do it. And that's OK.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2013 12:54 p.m.

    @Tyler D

    Makes you wonder when some liberals sacrificed the imperative of conservation and being good stewards of our home on the altar of all things being as hystrionic as possible.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 22, 2013 12:30 p.m.

    It is ironic to see all of the whining from the environmentalists about how we are supposedly destroying the land, yet when you look at the facts, we are improving the land.

    From the US Forest Service "Forest Service Report Shows Forest Growth in North Outpacing Other Parts of Country". This article explains how the total amount of land covered by forests is INCREASING, and how over the past 100 years we hae gone from 134 to 172 million acres of forest.

    Are we perfect, no. But are we headed in the right direction, yes. Should we adopt the environmentalist positions and ideas, no. There needs to be a balance between business and conservation. The environmentalists would kill millions by their plans.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2013 12:14 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal
    "That doesn't mean every word of what you hear on the Rush, Glenn or Sean programs isn't true. "

    Sure... but on this matter they tend to be wrong or heavily skewing facts. Like say when Glenn Beck accurately noted in Spring of... I want to say 2012, that Arctic sea ice was at normal levels. That's true for the context of Arctic sea ice extent. However volume at that time was at a record low for the date (that detail was left out) and as one might expect thin ice melts faster and thus a record low sea ice extent, area, and volume were set in Septemeber of that year. That record of course was not noted... it was too inconvenient I suppose.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 22, 2013 11:58 a.m.

    Re: "Utah has the highest levels of mercury in the nation . . . ."

    Where do liberals come up with this stuff?

    The USGS map shows Utah and Wyoming as the only states in the Intermountain West with no mercury advisories. And, the EPA lists no advisories for Utah.

    Autism rates in Utah are the same as the rest of the Intermountain West, significantly lower than either coast, half the rate in Oregon, Minnesota, Maine, and Rhode Island.

    I know liberal strategy is to disingenuously create "crises" to sow the panic and fear necessary to mobilize their low-information base, but couldn't they at least come up with something that begins to sound sorta true?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 22, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    @procuradorfiscal
    Tooele, UT

    And the mercury levels?

    Mercury is a known toxin.
    Mercury has been proven to increase Autism in children,

    Utah has the highest levels of mercury in the nation,
    AND
    Utah has the Nation's highest levels of Autism in the Nation.

    Who cares about Nuclear Testing and those "Down-Winders"?

    And Senator Mike Lee [and the ultra-conservative Tea-party he represents]
    see no problem prostituiting Utah out for the World's dumping ground of spend nuclear fuel waste.

    The letter is correct,
    and Conservatives are conserving anything.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    April 22, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    @procuradorfiscal – “As the article indicates, "solutions" that bankrupt the Nation's economy do more harm than good, and should be avoided.”

    I generally agree (see 1st comment) with a balanced approach to stewarding the planet, although we should never forget that as far as we can tell, we only have one so if we screw it up…

    So I was with you up until this “jump the shark” moment…

    @Procuradorfiscal – “That doesn't mean every word of what you hear on the Rush, Glenn or Sean programs isn't true.”

    At one time during the last decade, after a few years of growing increasingly skeptical of Rush, I decided to listen to a whole week of broadcasts and count the number of logical fallacies Rush made. When the count reached 100 I was exhausted and quit… after less than 3 days.

    Sean is just a not-as-smart Rush wannabe. And Glenn… where to even begin? That train pulls into crazytown on a daily basis.

    Righteous conviction is not the same as intelligence…

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 21, 2013 8:13 p.m.

    Re: "Could it be that you consider the idea of humans living in a sustainable balance with nature 'radical environmentalism?'"

    Yeah, we do. At least where "sustainable balance" is defined by disingenuous tree huggers.

    Real people in Utah have lived in a real sustainable balance with nature, at least since the end of the last ice age. Witness the fact that we still live in one of the best places on earth. And, notwithstanding liberal blather to the contrary, our air is eminently breathable. Much moreso than just a few years ago, and getting better every day.

    Liberal tree huggers, however, disingenuously define "sustainable" such that only draconian, ruinously expensive, communitarian socialist means and methods meet their definition.

    As the article indicates, "solutions" that bankrupt the Nation's economy do more harm than good, and should be avoided. Communal, socialistic "solutions" fall into that category.

    It enrages tree huggers, but real people know it's true.

  • Jere D Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2013 6:51 p.m.

    It appears that when we talk about conservation and environmentalism, people immediately raise the banner of no-global-warming-activism. We must remember that global warming is not the only environmental problem we face. Utah especially faces challenges of keeping the air breathable, and securing enough water to supply to residents and industry. Our love of plastics presents problems for landfills, as the author mentioned. If you don't believe global warming needs to be addressed by humanity, there are a wealth of other worthy causes that would make our planet a better place to live for us and our grandchildren. Pick one, and join in celebrating Earth Day as a day to remember that we are indeed stewards over this Planet we're privileged to inhabit.

  • Curt Conklin Provo, UT
    April 21, 2013 5:28 p.m.

    I find it incredible that your opinion piece does not mention, even once (nor does any of the 19 comments) the notion of sustainability! Could it be that you consider the idea of humans living in a sustainable balance with nature "radical environmentalism?" Shame on the DN!

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 21, 2013 4:49 p.m.

    Re: "It saddens me when so-called good Latter-Day Saints listen and believe the words of AM radio college drop-outs about us "enviromental whack-os" . . . ."

    No doubt.

    That doesn't mean every word of what you hear on the Rush, Glenn or Sean programs isn't true. It just saddens tree huggers to hear it.

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    April 21, 2013 3:26 p.m.

    It saddens me when so-called good Latter-Day Saints listen and believe the words of AM radio college drop-outs about us "enviromental whack-os",

    over the very Prophets and Apostles have been telling us for nearly 200 years.

    I'm glad I attend a new Mormon church, which is 100% "enviromental whack-o" green.

  • Diligent Dave Logan, UT
    April 21, 2013 3:25 p.m.

    Certainly there have been and continue to be good fruits of the environmental movement. But that said, there also have been and are many bad fruits of environmentalism, to the degree to which it has been and remains radicalized by certain persons and groups.

    To a significant many, it has taken on tones of a sanctity that, if any word is spoken against it, such contrarian views are treated as secular heresies, and supposedly "anti-scientific".

    To a great extent, environmentalism has an anti-human dogma. Man and mankind are generally spoken of as being a blot and a plague upon the face of this planet. Central to the doctrine of environmentalism is the concept that fewer humans than there now are upon the planet is better. The UnaBomber imbibed this aspect of environmentalism hook, line and sinker.

    Such societally allowed practices such as abortion has helped to destroy in the United States alone an estimated 54-1/2 million unborn children since Roe v Wade. This statistic speaks to the "saints" (the innocent unborn babies) that our nation has destroyed. This number substantiates our nation's war against innocent human beings.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    April 21, 2013 2:49 p.m.

    "We may neither waste nor exploit what we find around us"

    Oil. Don't waste it. The best internal combustion engines are only attaining 25% peak efficiencies. The car they are in are only %5 efficient use of energy after that.

    So you can call it being "scammed" by the evil environmentalists but you have your own religion to live up to that has much higher standards than environmentalists.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    April 21, 2013 2:31 p.m.

    It would be nice for the church to clarify some thing but Brigham Young was quite adamant about our responsibilities to the Earth.

    ?It behooves us as fortunate visitors in the King's palace to behave circumspectly, to look and admire, damage nothing, take nothing with us, and leave everything as nearly as possible as we found it. Restraint is the watchword in dealing with God's earth: The products of the earth are "to please the eye [that always comes first!] and to gladden the heart; yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell . . . to be used with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion" (D&C 59:18—20). We may neither waste nor exploit what we find around us"

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    April 21, 2013 2:27 p.m.

    Brigham Young said,

    "At a time when "free as air" signified that a thing was of negligible worth, Brigham Young was insisting that the greatest physical asset the Saints possessed and one they should treasure most highly was pure air. "What constitutes health, wealth, joy, and peace? In the first place, good pure air is the greatest sustainer of animal life."4 "The Lord blesses the land, the air and the water where the Saints are permitted to live."5 "We have the sweet mountain air, and a healthy country. . . . What kind of air did you breathe, who lived in eleven, twelve, and fourteen story houses in your native country?"6 "Speaking of the elements and the creation of God, in their nature they are as pure as the heavens."7 But since the earth is a place of testing, "every faculty bestowed upon man is subject to contamination—subject to be diverted from the purpose the Creator designed it to fill"

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 21, 2013 2:05 p.m.

    @ Old man. Then in high school you may have also learned that since plants are the basis of the food chain and that all animals, insects and birds ultimately depend on plants and photosynthesis for food, if not for CO2, there would be no life on earth! Furthermore maybe you learned that when there is a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere the rate of photosynthesis increases commensurately? Isn't intelligent design remarkable?

  • 4word thinker Murray, UT
    April 21, 2013 1:53 p.m.

    Rand
    Ogden, UT

    "It would be lovely if the church that owns this newspaper would actually put these ideas forth so the flock would finally give some thought about them."

    Then it must be lovely! I have been going to that church for decades and the concept of stewardship of the earth, our children, etc. is exactly what is taught. I am sure you see that life is lovely.

    Scam artists love to prey on the trusting Mormons. We have to be very vigilant, and walk a difficult line between allowing ourselves to be scammed and retaining our belief in our fellow man. We do many things to help the earth be all God meant it to be. We shouldn't let those who come to rob us take all we have, promising they will fix the climate if we just hand everything over to them. That would be helping with the scam. We are better stewards than those global warming scammers.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    April 21, 2013 12:59 p.m.

    Mountainman,

    Sure. Rivers are self-cleaning. Oceans are self-cleaning. Yes, the planet has the ability to right itself - but all to a degree.

    I recall when rivers burned and oceans were becoming waste areas. With those too we had once thought that we could not possibly fill them up with enough pollutants to make a difference. We were wrong.

    Now the same arguments are trotted out for the atmosphere. It's too big. We can't possibly affect it. It will cleanse itself.

    What we have proven over the millennia is that we can change our surroundings (for good or bad).

    Think about this. Using 60 year old technology, we can wipe cities away and change the face of the earth. In the 1970s just two nations could wipe out human life several times over and make the entire planet uninhabitable in just a few hours.

    Then surely, the entire world with all of its industry can have some effect.

  • goodnight-goodluck S.L.C., UT
    April 21, 2013 12:18 p.m.

    One thing is certain the climate is changing, and it is changing because of the levels of Co2 in the atmosphere 350 ppm is the maximum level with subjecting the planet to ongoing damage. Unfortunately we are at 390 something and climing. Fossil fuel are the largest of the root causes. It is disingenious to say electric and alternative fuels vehicles still pollute as the power generation process by it's nature pollutes. Gas fired generation pollutes less than coal, solar and wind don't pollute at all.
    Do not be fooled into beleiving that these decisions should all be made with the corporate bottom line as the determining factor in the decision making process. We can turn this around but it will require weaning ourselves from fossil fuels, and the fossil fuel industry is spending billions telling us it's all good no worries we've cleaned up the gulf and everythings better. and on and on.
    Sadly it is much easier to be fooled than to admit we have been fooled.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    April 21, 2013 11:55 a.m.

    Yes, MM, we learn of photosynthesis in 4th grade, but then in high school and college we learn about the extremely complex webs of life that bind everything in nature -- including us -- together in an inextricable web.

    Too bad some folks missed out on that vital part of education.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    April 21, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    Very balanced article!

    Makes you wonder when some conservatives sacrificed the imperative of conservation and being good stewards of our home on the altar of all things being as cheap as possible.

    It’s like consuming nothing but Twinkies and Kool-Aid because it is the cheapest “food” and creates the most (processed) food jobs.

    And pay attention Utah – one of your elected representatives wants to turn over a big chunk of your beautiful State to the Twinkie factory.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 21, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    Photosynthesis! We learned about it in the 4th grade, remember? Plants adsorb CO2 out of the atmosphere and in the presence of sunlight synthesize a molecule of 6 carbon sugars and release back into the atmosphere a molecule of O2. Imagine that, the planet cleans itself! God probably set it up that way, don't you think?

  • Man_of_letters Salt Lake County, UT
    April 21, 2013 8:57 a.m.

    "Air pollution is decreasing. Some estimates say the number of deaths attributed to fine particulates is on track to drop from 68,000 in 2005 to 36,000 in 2016."

    Unless you live in, say, Salt Lake, Davis, Utah, Weber, Box Elder or Cache County, where we literally refused to make any effort to improve our air quality until our consistent violation of clean air standards forced or hand (with the public health impacts being utterly ignored, their impact on the economy being largely ignored even in this piece) and even then, we needed to file for an extension, and there is still substantial backlash and dragging of feet.

  • Man_of_letters Salt Lake County, UT
    April 21, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    "Important progress has been made.

    "Greenhouse gas emissions are on the decline nationwide, having fallen 7 percent since 2005."

    And a great deal of that reduction only exists because the economy tanked, combined with stricter clean air regulations imposed by the post-Bush EPA in spite of the "economy before environment" argument you’re pushing with this very article - the same attitude that led the United States to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol because we didn't want to make an economic sacrifice for the sake of avoiding climate change. You can't take any of the credit here.

    Your argument hasn't contributed anything to improving the environment so far, and has only kept Utah in the environmental dark ages.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    April 21, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    Let's keep in mind that through all of earths history it has been changing temperature without man's help. 11,000 years ago we were in an ice age. At the time of the dinasaurs, the earth was warm enough that Anticarticia was tropical, proving that the earth is resilient enough to withstand a wide variety of temperatures.

    Also who is to say that the temperature we are experiencing now is the optimal temperature? Given that plants thrive on carbon dioxide, the carbon dioxide we have put into the air is allowing us to grow more crops than we could otherwise.

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2013 8:46 a.m.

    Thank you for your thoughtful editorial. Stewardship is a shared responsibility. Someone asked why I was recycling trash, my reply was that I was doing it for my grandchildren. I recently saw a bumper sticker that said Ecology Now. The car was pouring out blue smoke and the message was clear, "ecology" is important as long as I don't have to pay for new rings for my car.

  • Rand Ogden, UT
    April 21, 2013 8:36 a.m.

    "Ultimately, human beings are stewards, not owners, of the earth. They may hold claim to a portion of it for a time, but death inevitably severs that claim. To care for the earth is to demonstrate a love and commitment to generations yet unborn."

    It would be lovely if the church that owns this newspaper would actually put these ideas forth so the flock would finally give some thought about them. Haven't heard a logically or doctrinally consistent argument yet that justifies destruction of the Creation for material gain. Pope Francis appears to have quite the environmental ethic and isn't afraid to say it, so at least the largest denomination of Christianity is hearing it.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    April 21, 2013 7:05 a.m.

    Thank you for an excellent opinion piece.

  • peter Alpine, UT
    April 21, 2013 6:42 a.m.

    Caring for the earth is a tall order, far beyond the reach of mankind, though we shouldn't stop trying, pretending to make a difference in the outcome. Years ago, in the Olympic peninsula, man removed the elk from the area because they were eating the fern. The fern flourished, but the forest began dying because the taller fern were shading the younger tree saplings, causing the trees to die from lack of sunlight. As soon as man restored the elk, the forest started to flourish again.
    Man can't even accurately predict the weather. How is he suppose to manage the climate?