 March 11, 2009
Dear Friend, As you read this week's WeGetIt.org Wednesday Bulletin, please be thinking of friends who would benefit from it, and then forward it to them. Thanks for your support! Don't try this at home!
A lead article in this month’s National Geographic about how to reduce carbon dioxide emissions points, ironically, to a conclusion its author did not intend. Peter Miller describes what would be involved in trying to cut back on emissions in one's home. The net result amounts to an obsession with what one must do hour by hour during the day to "save" on emissions. Miller and friends did such things as eliminating air conditioning, biking instead of driving, hanging clothes to dry instead of using a drier, etc. The net effect? Miller was only able to reduce his calculated emissions to--hold your breath--twice his targeted goal. At the end of the article, Miller implied that only government coercion could cause any significant reduction in emissions. He also admitted that regardless what the United States does, China, India, and other developing nations will account for 80% of new energy demand in the next decade. Consequently, all our cutbacks will make no dent in rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration or the hypothetical warming it's supposed to cause. And this from someone who is enthusiastic about reducing carbon emissions! WeGetIt.org spokesman brings One of the WeGetIt.org Campaign’s spokesmen, Calvin Beisner, spoke on a panel at this week’s International Conference on Climate Change in New York. The panel explored the ethical dimensions of climate change, and Beisner presented an evangelical perspective that called for loving compassion and Biblical discernment.
You can read Peter Chagnon’s full report here, and watch the proceedings and download presentations here (additional video is still being added). Buyer beware of self-serving ad campaigns Millions of Americans saw ads in the recent "Coal is Filthy" campaign against permits for new coal-fired electric generating plants. The ads seemed to promote a clean environment. But companies behind the campaign weren't environmental groups. They were energy companies--specifically, natural gas companies. Why were they trying to get voters to pressure politicians against coal? Economists call it rent seeking: lobbying government for policies that enrich one group at the expense of taxpayers generally or of competing businesses. What the ad campaign didn't say was that natural gas is more expensive than coal. While there's nothing wrong with using it, the notion that shifting from coal to natural gas will be of net benefit is dubious. Modern coal-fired plants are amazingly clean, and the small amounts of pollution they emit pose extremely low risk to health. But every dollar increase in natural gas prices costs American consumers $22 billion per year for heating, air conditioning, food, consumer goods, and services--leaving them with $22 billion less for health care, education, and other uses. And as more electricity production shifts to natural gas, rising demand will cause rising prices, hurting American consumers.Now, please forward this message to your pastor, other Christian leaders, and friends and urge them to sign the WeGetIt.org Declaration, too! The more people sign, the stronger the message our leaders will hear that Biblical principles and factual evidence, not media hype about speculative fears like global warming, should guide our care for the environment and the poor.Gratefully, We value your privacy. If you received this from a friend, you can join the campaign at www.WeGetIt.org. This message was originally sent to [email address suppressed] because someone signed the WeGetIt.org Declaration as "fullname." Edit your name | Bulletin Archives | Unsubscribe | Inquiries |
