Guest Mores Posted May 7, 2019 Report Share Posted May 7, 2019 8 minutes ago, Scott said: God has made us accountable for the care and preservation of the earth and the wise use of its resources (see D&C 104:13–15). As stewards, we avoid complacency and excessive consumption, using only what is necessary (see D&C 49:19–21). We make our homes, neighborhoods, and cities beautiful. We preserve resources and protect for future generations the spiritual and temporal blessings of nature. This is absolutely desirable. We should always be concerned about this. We call it conservation, not environmentalism. And this is the ground we can all agree on. The question is about what measures actually produce the best results? No one here believes it is a "good" thing to simply waste due to carelessness. It's a question of a cost-to-benefits analysis. EXAMPLE 1: When Democrats push policies like carbon credits and cap n trade... we look at it and figure that it will take a lot of time, effort, and money while producing zero benefit to the environment. Many Democrat senators even admitted that it will have NO effect on greenhouse gases or any conditions in the environment. But they "had to do something" to please the masses. The stupid part is that at the time, the environmental movement was still the minority in the country. EXAMPLE 2: Climate Accords (multiple). All they did was decrease America's output while allowing China and India to increase their output. This did NOTHING to change any environmental factors. It simply made us poorer and China and India wealthier. In fact, the net total was an increase in emissions. There are plenty of environmental laws that make perfect sense. The law actually prevents direct damage. No toxic dumping on public lands. That makes all the sense in the world. But much of it is kind of a mixed bag. Some things really do help. Others are net zero compared to traditional methods. Others actually make things worse. The big problem is that so many things we think of as bad actually are better alternatives to some of the green measures. Oil vs. Bio-Diesel is one of them. Even with government subsidies, bio-diesel plants with all the latest technology have been left shuttered because they couldn't make a profit (so no real benefit). And they ended up dumping a LOT more by-products than their alternatives (actual harm). Then we see that the fields of corn and other crops supplying the source material were displacing food sources -- causing food prices to go up and people around the world were starving so we could feel good about the environment. I want to take care of the planet as much as you do, or possibly more. But I also see a lot more of the background and unintended consequences. Good old fashioned conservationism helped shape many of the common sense measures that are now law. But he environmental movement is actually causing more damage than it purports to help. And most of the time, it simply doesn't help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.