It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pope calls for end to fossil fuels

page: 7
26
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

The only way to move forward is for people to have incentives to move forward. I have a friend who works for solar city and installs solar panels that's a move in the right direction and people have tax incentives to install these panels. We need to limit fossil fuels by using alternate forms of energy and gradually limit our use of fossil fuels. to say that we have made no progress is very pessimistic.

Its hard to limit fossil fuels when you have China and India growing at such a massive rate and having zero desire to regulate the use of pollution. I'm not saying its wrong for them to grow but just that everyone needs to be on board to make this work and we have to push large population countries to tackle to problem before the problem grows even worse. It has to be an international effort and the Pope speaking to about this is not a problem
edit on 18-6-2015 by JDmOKI because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Is this mixing science with religion or politics with religion.

It's clear that alternative energy is not ready yet for primetime or even close to affordable enough for the Third World. Some like to pretend it is, but are being irrational about it. It's like saying everyone on the planet should have a Rolls Royce and thinking its possible. It's not. It's a great goal to shoot for, but not in the immediate future.

Until the technology exists in an economically viable form, this is more of a political issue than anything else.

I can't help but recall the history of the Catholic Church when mixing with politics in the past and even now the theocracies that exist and how they strip their people of basic Rights for the good of the whole.

My first thought is why is this Pope so political and what is the end game. What's more important to him, the church or his political ideology. It does get him in the news a lot, so maybe that's what he likes.

He needs to get back to helping the needy and seeing to it the church is not wasting money on a lavish lifestyle for the Pontiff and his entourage that could be buying food and shelter for those in need.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
It's clear that alternative energy is not ready yet for primetime or even close to affordable enough for the Third World. Some like to pretend it is, but are being irrational about it.


I just posted on the last page numerous links to peer-reviewed research and an economic analysis by one of the world's largest banks showing that it is, but I like how you dismiss it offhand as clearly obvious that it's not. Who's the one being irrational?



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc


The fact that he also said that global warming was not an excuse for abortion and he's still against abortion might make a few be less blindly happy of his statements.

You know - I don't think like that. I don't have to agree with everything he (or anybody) believes in order to recognize when something is true or valuable

I understand his position on abortion. I'm not an idiot. Even if I don't agree with him, I'm still capable of not only understanding him - I can even respect him

In this particular situation - I'm not sure he's wrong. Population growth is one thing - but this isn't going to get fixed just by cutting our numbers

I absolutely support him in this effort to save our environment. Am I supposed to turn against him because we don't see eye to eye on everything? No wonder the politics in this country are so effed up


Actually, since I got my undergraduate degree from a University that requires engineering, I've had a lot of both and physics and chemistry are both prerequisites for medical school, 'cause, science. Neither are required for popery.

So, where do you stand on this climate situation - with your engineering degree and your physics and your chemistry?

Are you saying that the pope is stupid? The Jesuits are not exactly known for being dolts. Does a person need to have an engineering or chemistry degree to be able to understand global warming and climate change (or to be able to dismiss it as a non-issue)?

Maybe we should leave this sort of thing up to people like Jeb. Or, Senator Inhofe maybe? They're not scientists - but they're obviously so much smarter than your average pope



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: NavyDoc

Jesuits, science and a Pope with a chemistry degree: A productive pairing?

Science and religion. Not mutually exclusive.


Mutually exclusive? I agree they are not mutually exclusive, however, speaking ex cathedra, he is out of his lane.


Although I do find it amusing that people are focusing on the global warming aspect of the story but ignoring what he said about abortion in the same encyclical. Is he a genius for supporting the AGW narrative or is he ignorant for damming abortion in the same message?



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: NavyDoc


The fact that he also said that global warming was not an excuse for abortion and he's still against abortion might make a few be less blindly happy of his statements.

You know - I don't think like that. I don't have to agree with everything he (or anybody) believes in order to recognize when something is true or valuable

I understand his position on abortion. I'm not an idiot. Even if I don't agree with him, I'm still capable of not only understanding him - I can even respect him

In this particular situation - I'm not sure he's wrong. Population growth is one thing - but this isn't going to get fixed just by cutting our numbers

I absolutely support him in this effort to save our environment. Am I supposed to turn against him because we don't see eye to eye on everything? No wonder the politics in this country are so effed up


Actually, since I got my undergraduate degree from a University that requires engineering, I've had a lot of both and physics and chemistry are both prerequisites for medical school, 'cause, science. Neither are required for popery.

So, where do you stand on this climate situation - with your engineering degree and your physics and your chemistry?

Are you saying that the pope is stupid? The Jesuits are not exactly known for being dolts. Does a person need to have an engineering or chemistry degree to be able to understand global warming and climate change (or to be able to dismiss it as a non-issue)?

Maybe we should leave this sort of thing up to people like Jeb. Or, Senator Inhofe maybe? They're not scientists - but they're obviously so much smarter than your average pope


Stupid? No. Agenda driven? Certainly.

I'm not into mixing religion and politics. The only reason why people agree with his mixing religion and politics THIS TIME is that they agree with his politics THIS TIME. If he was not saying what they wanted to hear, they'd be just as cynical about him as I am.

I would think that the water into wine comments would have been obvious for the sarcasm intended. Perhaps I should use more smilies.
edit on 18-6-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

What's the Pope's end game?

I think it might be the people of North Africa, for instance, where Climate Change could very well lead to even more desertification on a scale that makes the current California drought seem tiny and insignificant.

There's a lot of Catholics in North Africa and to see many thousands more of them forced to migrate into an unwilling Europe is a problem already.

Check out Calais.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   

The only reason why people agree with his mixing religion and politics THIS TIME is that they agree with his politics THIS TIME. If he was not saying what they wanted to hear, they'd be just as cynical about him as I am.


Yes - this time - I agree with him. When I have a reason to disagree with him - I'll say so

Seems to me you've just demonstrated that you're unwilling to think



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis


The only reason why people agree with his mixing religion and politics THIS TIME is that they agree with his politics THIS TIME. If he was not saying what they wanted to hear, they'd be just as cynical about him as I am.


Yes - this time - I agree with him. When I have a reason to disagree with him - I'll say so

Seems to me you've just demonstrated that you're unwilling to think



Not at all. I'm pointing out several thoughtful things--quite often "thinking" necessitates not succumbing to groupthink and to think for one's self rather than being cowed into accepting what everyone else wants you to think.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc



...quite often "thinking" necessitates not succumbing to groupthink and to think for one's self rather than being cowed into accepting what everyone else wants you to think.


:-)

Oh - Doc - too funny

Physician - heal thyself



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

There is a huge difference between doing a study on a politically popular topic to keep funding flowing in and in fell swoop eliminating fossil fuels and somehow funding a worldwide conversion. Hydro yes, but how do you get the environmentalists to let dams be built, since they seem to have control of those who legislate the funding?

Solar is great if you happen to live where it is viable. Wind is great if you happen to be where the wind blows strongly most of the time. How do you store the energy and how much environmental damage is caused and energy used to produce the batteries needed.

Do you assume that industries needs just go away and without industry the world could be fed.

This is far more complex IMO than just waving a wand and saying goodbye to fossil fuels. It's decades, perhaps.

I think we are all for this in theory, but I highly doubt it can be done right now.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: NavyDoc



...quite often "thinking" necessitates not succumbing to groupthink and to think for one's self rather than being cowed into accepting what everyone else wants you to think.


:-)

Oh - Doc - too funny

Physician - heal thyself


Isn't that is what's happening here? You are angry that I'm not on board? I didn't insult you in any way. I just voiced an opinion about this pontiff. Rome is the center of all evil according to ATS but apparently not this time. The turn around is very interesting.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

All those predictions are simply that: predictions. I have seen plenty of such come and go without result. I'll place my faith in what the science shows at the research level rather than what some wishful thinkers choose to publish. The research-level science is as follows:

There are huge advances being made in the area of efficiency, but these huge advances still amount to a small fraction of the available energy. That available energy itself is limited to about 1.5 kW per cubic meter, which is the maximum energy received from the sun. This cannot be changed without making the sun brighter, something that is (thankfully) beyond our ability.

More promising is the concentrated solar process, which uses focused solar energy to produce steam. even this, however, is limited by the solar energy received. It is also cheaper that photovoltaics, primarily because it uses existing steam generation technologies as ann integral part of its design.

Both methods are limited, and that limit varies with time of day, geographic location (lattitude), weather (cloud cover), and time of day. At best, with perfect weather and 0 lattitude, the maximum average energy produced at 100% efficiency is 750 watts per square meter.

Photovoltaics are coming down in cost, but still have the highest cost per average watt of power produced, by far. This does NOT include the cost of the land area they cover.

Photovoltaics produce only low-voltage, medium current DC power. For transmission purposes, high voltage, low current AC power is required. This means a further loss in efficiency for that conversion, as well as an increased cost for the equipment that does the conversion. This is the aqdvantage opf concentrated solar techniques, as they do not have this issue.

Solar photovoltaic is great for remote, DC applications, or for individual use of specialized DC lighting. It is being used for individual AC lighting as well, in low-current applications, but the cost is prohibitive for most and it cannot supply 100% of power needed since available storage capacity for low-light periods further limits available power.. Tesla is taking a brute force approach to this problem, using nultiple high-capacity batteries, but even this brute force approach has serious limitations when considering a whole-house system.

That is the current state of research. I see nothing in there that tells me that photovoltaics or even concentrated solar will achieve the predictions claimed.

Sorry.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: masqua

He's certainly been sounding like a politician lately.

We are all for clean energy, even those like me who don't believe it's yet affordable. Wishing it was and it actually being ready are different things in my mind.

I've not forgotten how sure they were in the 1970's when that total nonsense was pounded in my head in college. They were absolutely certain they were right then, just like now, so my skepticism is well founded. Research grants buy half truths and science is no more reliable than politicians. They mean well enough, but when you think the ends justify the means, honestly fly's out the window in a hurry.

Could we do it now? Probably, but the whole world would end up in the Third World due to the cost I'm afraid. We need prosperity to make the change and it's a balancing act. It needs to be introduced slowly in a logical way, not the way activists think it can be done with a wave of the wand.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: JDmOKI

My whole point is that speaking out does nothing.... NOTHING... to fix the problem. We don't need speeches; we need solutions. Ten billiuon speeches won't power a crystal radio.

Where's the Pope's solution?

TheRedneck


I can't begin to imagine why the Pope's speaking out in favor of the well being of our planet has put such a bee in your bonnet.

Climate change and ecological issues do not belong just to the conservatives, or the scientists, or to the corporations.
These issues belong to all of us, including the Pope.

For someone in his position to advocate for the health and well being of our planet pisses you off. Why?

Because he doesn't indicate this is how we will solve the problem, 1. 2. 3. ?

It's not his place or within his power to provide 'solutions' to solving this egregious problem, and you know that perfectly well, yet you seem to be insisting that because he does not; and cannot; he should sit down and shut his mouth.

Advocacy is and has always been the first step in recognizing a problem, thinking through a problem, and then setting about finding solutions to the problem.

This is what he is doing, and it's courageous, intelligent, thoughtful, and every bit within his scope of service.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: masqua

He's certainly been sounding like a politician lately.


Tell me exactly what the difference is between a president of 300 million people and a pope as a leader of over a billion.

They both get 'voted' in and both are responsible for their administrations and to their country/flock.

So, how do they differ?



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mandroid7
I call for an end to tax exemption, so there!


THIIIISSSSS!!!!

Imagine if we just taxed them on their real estate holdings. Retroactively. That would bring in a few bucks for research of alternative energy sources.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: Mandroid7
I call for an end to tax exemption, so there!


THIIIISSSSS!!!!

Imagine if we just taxed them on their real estate holdings. Retroactively. That would bring in a few bucks for research of alternative energy sources.

The Vatican is a sovereign state. Who would you propose to collect the taxes?



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: 2012newstart

What should concern people more, hypocrites or
a matter of correctness?




Viewing Burns’ The Dust Bowl so soon after watching coverage of the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy calls to mind numerous parallels: the devastation nature can wreak, the tremendous hardship and suffering it can impose, the hope and help the federal government can provide, and, perhaps most importantly, the need to respect our environment. In a recent Time magazine article, “Sandy Ends the Silence,” Michael Grunwald writes “Hurricane Sandy -- like this year’s historic heat waves, droughts and wildfires in the U.S., not to mention an unprecedented ice melt in the Arctic -- is the kind of thing that happens when you broil the planet with fossil fuels.” He hopes that the hurricane may convince more U.S. citizens of the seriousness of climate change and global warming, that these are not just abstract academic debating issues, but ones that can have tragic consequences for millions of real people. - See more at: historynewsnetwork.org...


I think it's beyond childish to point to the weak and declare pessimism
against the obvious. Man has an effect on everything.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting


For someone in his position to advocate for the health and well being of our planet pisses you off. Why?

I'm sorry; did you miss my first post in this thread? You know, the one where I pointed out that the Pope did do something great by actually trying to reduce the Vatican's dependence on oil?

Apparently you did. It's only a page or two back.

All I am saying is that it has become tiresome to listen to the celebrity of the day talking about the problem without offering alternatives. I am as anti-oil as anyone, except that I realize we live in a reality where we do not have a replacement yet. We're looking... the amount of research into that subject is staggering. Of course, unless you are a member of someone like IEEE, you'll never see it. Why? Because people get tired of others doing nothing productive, yet demanding the impossible. So it's easier to simply work quietly and actually hope no one notices, assuming you can get funds without becoming publicly known.

That's what puts the "bee in my bonnet." No one likes to be hounded with uninformed "advice" by those they are trying to appease, especially when that advice rises to the level of unreasonable demands and expectations. It;s also frustrating when people put in hour after hour, day after day, month after month working on a solution, and then watch as the people they have been trying to help go all viral over someone taking a few minutes to say they should be working. Heck, I have quit jobs because of people like that trying to be a manager; I would hazard to say plenty of people on this forum have. It's aggravating, insulting, and completely counter-productive.

Advocacy may be the first step to solving a problem, but how about we get on with the second step now? How about we solve the problem? We did the easy part; we talked about it. Can we do the hard part: stop talking (and demanding) long enough to solve the problem?

Is that too much to ask?

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join