Comments about ‘Heaven on earth: Religion returns to the environment’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, April 21 2013 1:50 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
LDS Tree-Hugger
Farmington, UT

Looks like Elder Nash just "came out" as a Tree-Hugger.

Good.

I wish more good Latter-Day Saints would start listening to the brethren,
and stop listening and ignore Rush Limbaugh.

the truth
Holladay, UT

@LDS Tree-Hugger

I believe you ought read his whole statement.

Tree-hugging is not a moderate stand.

There is a difference between being a responsible steward, and the radical environmentalism movement.

One is is about personal responsibility or if you are CEO or business owner and being responsible for what your business does,

the other is part of the progressive movement which is all control and enslaving other to your whims.

God - agency and individual responsibility,

Satan - control and compel by force others to do his will.

Community compels the individual.

Individuals use influence and inspire and uplift others and the community.

What is the correct ideology could not be any more clearer.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

There are extremist on both sides! Lord, protect us from both!

the old switcharoo
mesa, AZ

You'll find that the "environmentalists" among the population would like us all to drive more efficient cars, use more efficient light bulbs and invest in mass transportation services.

We're not asking anyone to sit in the dark and walk.

On the other side they are asking you to ignore it or worse, be angry at the suggestion of sustainable practices of the earth's resources.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

How can anyone who truly believes in God and truly believes that He created this world not be an environmentalist? How can anyone who believes in God think that He would be okay with the way we currently treat the world?

Yes - the Bible tells us that we will have enough and that God will provide - but there is a big difference between enough and gluttony and waste.

And to think that it is more important to conserve money for our personal use instead of conserving the planet for the use of all God's children and creatures is the height of arrogance and greed.

Allisdair
Thornbury, Vic

@Tolstoy

Unfortunately there are some among us that see consumption is their right and it nothing to do with GREED.

There are others who seem to be confussed between between personal responsibility and Left/right politics. I dont think even the most right winger would be happy if they had just paid for food then their adult child throw food on the ground or ate it all leaving none for the younger sibling. Yet that is what the people of the world are doing. So is it they don't want to be lead by government to share (with future generations)?

It is easier to deny something is happening than to control oneself, just ask any overweight person.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

The saddest thing to me is when, apparently for political reasons, people go out of their way to be anti-environment.

Those that revel in the fact that they choose the trash can over the recycle bin next to it. And they let everyone know.

At a minimum, we should all do things that cost us nothing and help the environment.

Turn off the water when you brush your teeth.
Use CFL bulbs
Combine your car trips
Turn off the light when you leave a room

These things are not political. And they are easy and free.

We should all be "environmentalists" to a degree.

LDS Tree-Hugger
Farmington, UT

"enough and to spare" was God's promise.

An allegory -- If you give your teenager $20,
and he calls you up saying he needs more money?

As a Parent, your response is --
Out of money?
What? That's impossible. I gave you MORE than enough [and to spare].
What did you WASTE it on?
There was plenty if you hadn't been stupid and wasted it away!

I believe - God - Our Heanvenly Father - is no different.
He gave us plenty, but we can't be stupid.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

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 food jobs.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

If in Genesis, God had intended for man to "ravage and deplete" the Earth, I don't think he would have said, "replenish and subdue."

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "JoeBlow" why would we want to use CFL bulbs? They contain mercury, which is highly toxic to the environment.

If you want to be kind to the environment, get the LED bulbs if you can afford them.

The problem taht most of the environmentalists are ignoring here is that they are forcing their environmentalist project on us before the technology is mature enough for them to come naturally.

Take the CFLs as an example. Yes they save energy, but they contain mercury. Wind power is another boondoggle that sounds good, until we find that it is too noisey and harms animals and people. The LED bulbs were introduced a few years ago, and are slowly being adopted as their price comes down because they actually are the best alternative, but still are cost prohibitive for most people.

We shouldn't destroy the environment, but we souldn't lock it up and prevent its use either.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"To "JoeBlow" why would we want to use CFL bulbs? "

To save money and because Bush signed it into law.

"Senate bill passed 86-8 on December 13. The House approved this final version 314-100 on December 18, and President Bush signed it the following day."

Sure are a lot of environmentalists in congress, including a bunch in the GOP, "forcing their environmentalist projects on us"

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "JoeBlow" why should the government be forcing us to "save money"? Do you have a government mandated savings account too?

Actually, Bush didn't sign the bill as a money saving idea. He did it to save energy. The CFL bulbs at the time were 6 times the cost of an incandescent bulb.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

@Tyler D
"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."

Your discussion in the extreme destroys credibility: Not all conservatives sacrifice on "the altar of all things being as cheap as possible": That is YOUR stereotype designed to justify YOUR intolerance. Most conservatives merely want to conserve the environment in the realm of the rational. So much of what passes for good environmental policy is merely counterproductive green wash and hysteria. And anyone who DARES to question gets labeled an earth hater by the envirobullies.

The fact is: Keystone pipeline is better than trucking oil to refineries in Texas or shipping it to China to refine - without environmental protections
Fracking is better than wind turbines (because it shifts the market from coal to natural gas and turbines are generally ineffective)
Global warming liars are liars
Hysteria is hysteria

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Tolstoy
"Yes - the Bible tells us that we will have enough and that God will provide - but there is a big difference between enough and gluttony and waste."

Not sure that's even accurate anyway, otherwise we wouldn't be angry with states like Nevada wanting "our" water.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@ Counter Intelligence – “Your discussion in the extreme destroys credibility…”

First off, relax… you’re doing to me (stereotyping as extreme) precisely what you claim I did (e.g., I said “some” and you jumped to the extreme of “all”).

Many conservatives do want to be good stewards, but there are some who could care less and that’s just a fact. By the same token many liberals do not want to bankrupt us or return us to the pre-industrial days. So we agree the best approaches are not found on the extremes.

And by the way, provided they are done safely, I favor both the Keystone pipeline and fracking, as both are needed while we transition to truly sustainable energy – which might be decades away. In a hundred years the sun will likely be our only needed energy source, but to help speed that along we should be funding basic R&D to get us there. Private enterprise won’t fund it until they can see a near-term return on investment.

So I won’t call you an earth hater (never did) if you do the same with respect to hysteria… deal?

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Tyler D" did you know that the oil companies put the most money into alternative fuels? There already is basic R&D being funded privately to produce the fuels and replacement for crude oil.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut
To "Tyler D" did you know that the oil companies put the most money into alternative fuels? There already is basic R&D being funded privately to produce the fuels and replacement for crude oil.”

The fact that they invest anything at all is to be applauded and clearly shows that they want to remain a viable company for generations to come. But we should not oversell what they’re doing either.

For example, in 2010 Exxon invested 0.2% of profits in alternative energy research, about 1/3 the amount they spent on lobbying Congress.

Also, much of the research done in the private sector is on and improving existing technology and scalability, when what we really need is the basic R&D research – the kind of research where maybe 1 out of a 100 ideas will bear fruit (so virtually zero ROI potential).

This is the kind of research that mostly happens through taxpayer support.

We didn’t get to the moon because of private enterprise but by funding NASA (although private enterprise is poised to do great things in the future by improving upon the technology NASA developed).

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Tyler D" so then you agree that private money is being spent on R&D for alternative energy.

You should read up on the Exxon Biofuel program. They are doing the type of research you want private industry to do.

Actually, according to industry experts, Exxon spends 1% of its profits on alternative energy, which is about .4% more than it spends on lobbying efforts.

Actually NASA just funded private industry to get us to the moon. The rockets that got us there were designed and built by private industry.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@RedShirt – “To "Tyler D" so then you agree that private money is being spent on R&D for alternative energy.”

I assumed we were having an informative and pleasant discussion so I don’t know why you feel it necessary to make a sophomoric “spike the ball” statement like this.

Of course I agree with you (and said it should be celebrated) that oil companies are investing in alternative energy. The point is what levels of R&D are needed to drive the real breakthroughs?

And the numbers vary across all companies but I have never seen a credible report that shows total oil company investment of more than $1B (give or take) annually. And that is likely a tiny fraction of what is necessary to drive real change.

Your point about NASA is correct, but again misses my point – yes, private sub-contractors did most of the work, but they would not have done anything without the funds we (the taxpayers) provided (i.e., they did not build the Apollo rocket by investing profits).

PS – The BioFuels program sounds interesting… I’ll check it out. Reached comment limit…

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments