BLOG

Conservatives and ID theorists alike are having a riot with the report released yesterday from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research that shows how Al Gore's Tennessee mansion uses more electricity in one month than the average American home consumes in a year.

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

 

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

 This is terribly funny, though for Mr. Gore it may turn out to be more inconvenient than his own film purports to be.  (According to DaveScot at Uncommon Descent, Gore took a private jet from his Nashville estate to pick up his Sunday Oscar for his documentary An Inconvenient Truth, burning thousands of gallons of fossil fuel in the process.)  All this gas guzzling certainly makes Al Gore look like a hypocrite.  This is one of the world's biggest spokespersons for consuming less energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and look as his utility bill.

 In an interview with National Geographic News just three months ago, Gore said he has "decided to become carbon neutral, which means we reduce CO2 to the maximum and then purchase offsets to offset the remainder with reductions in CO2 elsewhere."  And around the house?  Said Gore:

Well, we've changed the lightbulbs to the more efficient kind [compact fluorescent, or CFL, lightbulbs] and switched to a hybrid [vehicle], and we use clock thermostats, and we're installing solar panels.

Fluorescent bulbs? Solar panels?  It sounds as if these ideas had been only recently implemented at the time of the November interview (in fact, the panels weren't up yet).  So maybe the "energy savings" that should result from these steps weren't in effect when Gore paid November's $1,359 electric bill (average monthly figure for 2006) for his Nashville mansion.  At least we hope not.  CFL bulbs are supposed to use a quarter as much electricity as incandescents, a therefore cost a quarter as much to run.

Considering how much Mr. Gore spends on utilities--$30,000 last year--it's no wonder he's put some thought into cutting back the wattage and natural gas.  Here are Gore's energy saving recommendations to the average joe:

Just to take a few quick examples of easy steps; buy the new [CFL] lightbulbs. They're much more efficient; you don't have to change them nearly as often. They use much less electricity, and they save you money on your utility bills.

Consider a clock thermostat, and set it so that you're not using energy when you don't need it, when you're out of your house.

 Apparently Mr. Gore needs energy whether he's out of his house or not.  Did Tennessee get a lot of snow last year?

 Actually, it really doesn't bother me how much power Mr. Gore consumes.  I'm not judgmental.  Gore pays for his electricity, and he uses a lot because he's a productive man.  That's capitalism in action, and I applaud it everywhere.

But . . . as long as Mr. Gore has a right to be productive--why not everyone else?

CFL bulb image from Wikipedia.

I never expected to see this photo.  Last week AIG president Ken Ham and outspoken creationism and ID critic Eugenie Scott posed in the Creation Museum lobby, where Scott and representatives from BBC had stopped by to see the museum and interview Ham for an upcoming BBC special.  Ham described Scott as "complimentary" (in regard to the museum) and "very respectful."

Her behavior was apparently in contrast to that of Bill Maher (former host of Politically Incorrect) who earlier this month snuck into Ken Ham's office for an unannounced interview.  Those silly journalists.  They'll do anything for a story.

Carl Zimmer thinks so too.  He has a post criticizing the shoddy journalism involved in Discovery's upcoming special, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus." The show will air this Sunday (March 4th) and claims to have found the burial ossuaries of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and their son Judas (see NYT article).  The blasphemy and sensationalism here is obvious, and I need not emphasize it.  It's enough to say that even non-Christians are unconvinced by the level of evidence for these asinine claims.  It's doubtful the show would've gotten off the ground if The Da Vinci Code hadn't been written first.  (Incidentally, if you happen to believe that Mary Magdalene and Jesus were a couple, why not email me and tell me why?)

The ever-informed Crevo has a post highlighting a new blog by Salvador T. Cordova, called Young Cosmos. According to the site, it's purpose is "dedicated to exploring the possibility that all universe and life have come into existence very recently by an act of Intelligent Design." This discussion, especially as it relates to cosmology, is much needed today.

Captain Robert F. Scott died like a man. A British Navy officer, Scott was one of three key figures in the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration, a period from about 1895 to 1922 (the other two figures were Ernest Shackleton and Roald Amundsen).

Robert Scott (in uniform, left) led forth the Heroic Age when he set out for Antarctica in 1901 in the ship Discovery, accompanied by none other than Ernest Shackleton, the explorer whose legendary reputation would later eclipse Scott's. (The possibly icy relationship between Scott and Shackleton is a matter of debate among modern biographers.) Although the Discovery expedition's efforts were largly scientific, the team's primary goal was to attain the glory of reaching the South Pole. They did not, despite a harrowing dash to 82^o south, where Scott conceded defeat and turned back just under 750 miles short of his goal.

In 1911, Scott set out on the ice again, racing the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen, who was headed to the pole himself. This expedition, known as the Terra Nova expedition, spanned 1910 to 1913 and involved several teams, some of which were to study emperor penguins and plant supply depots for the South Pole team. This time Scott reached his goal--but too late. Arriving at the pole on January 17, 1912, Scott found a tent left by Amundsen, who had beat him by a month.

Scott and his four companions began the 700-mile trek back, only to be resisted by blizzard conditions. Pressing onward only slowly, the team weakened from frostbite and lack of adequate food. Team member Edgar Evans took a fall on the ice and died not long after. The failing Lawrence Oates, in an unforgettable act of sacrifice, walked out into the snowstorm in order to leave the remaining rations for his comrades. Exiting the tent, he said, "I am just going outside and I may be some time."

Click to read more ...

When you besiege a city for a long time, making war against it in order to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them. You may eat from them, but you shall not cut them down. Are the trees in the field human, that they should be besieged by you?

It may seem odd that the above statements are found in the Bible. They're taken from Deuteronomy 20 [verse 19, ESV], nestled amidst a passage in which God, using Moses as his mouthpiece, gives instructions to the ancient Israelites regarding warfare. In this instance it would almost seem as if God had the welfare of the trees in mind, as if trees had rights. He seems to be asking what some extreme environmentalists ask: What did a tree ever do to you?

It could be added that Adam and Eve were expelled from blissful Eden after they became corrupt, and it could be argued that undeveloped stretches of wilderness deserve the same sort of protection. One might speculate in Tolkienesque fashion that the trees, perhaps, have spirits of their own.

Until one reads the rest of the passage.

Only the trees that you know are not trees for food you may destroy and cut down, that you may build siegeworks against the city that makes war with you, until it falls. --verse 20

Suddenly it's clear the motive for preserving the trees is to preserve food, not to save the lives of trees. The question, "Are the trees in the field human, that they should be besieged by you," is rhetorical, intended to remind Israel's armies that their war is with the enemy, not the land or its produce.

God's concern was not with the trees, but with the consumers of the trees' fruit. He was teaching his people not about "dark green" environmentalism, but about conservation.

What's the difference? The goal of conservation is to preserve natural resources for future use or enjoyment. Extreme environmentalism, on the other hand, is an effort to protect nature from the expanding influence of mankind. The two positions intersect in many of their goals, but they are motivated differently, and operate on different assumptions.

When I use the word "environmentalism" I'm painting with a broad brush and am risking upsetting some Christians who consider themselves environmentalists (such as Don Bosch of the Evangelical Ecologist, who also writes for the Acton Institute's PowerBlog), so let me explain. Strictly speaking, an environmentalist is someone who thinks about the environment and takes personal steps to protect it by, for example, recycling and not throwing Pepsi cans out the car window. A non-environmentalist, by contrast, doesn't ever consider the future impact his or her actions will make. A non-environmentalist cuts down the apple tree without considering where he and his children will get apples tomorrow. In this sense, the verses from Deuteronomy do preach environmentalism, and any wise person will be an environmentalist.

However, some ideologies associated with the environmental movement are much more extreme. "Dark green" environmentalists think that nature needs to be protected from the intrinsically corrupting influence of mankind. They view expanding industrialism as a moral evil that should be stopped. They believe nature is better off without human influence. They tend to believe that most ills in the natural world (for example, animal extinctions) are in some way caused by human influence (for example, the release of greenhouse gases). Included in this group are "preservationists," whose goal is to keep remaining ecosystems beyond the filthy reach of civilization.

The heart of this viewpoint is distinctly evolutionary. It includes three philosophical assumptions: First, that the natural world is good and perfect in and of itself. Second, that plants and animals are of equal value with humans. Third, that humans have evolved overmuch, and become tyrants over the natural kingdoms.

The Bible addresses these things. While the original creation was proclaimed "very good" in the beginning, it became cursed after the Fall, and lost its status of goodness. Today we see violence, cancer, and continual death among both humans and animals, and all creation is submitted to the "bondage to decay" mentioned in Romans chapter 8. The natural world, then, is not perfect in and of itself. In other words, extinctions would still happen (though certainly not as quickly) if there were no humans on the planet.

Plants, animals, and humans are not of equal value. Genesis distinguishes between plant life and animal life--animals are said to possess the "breath of life," while plants do not. There is also a distinction between humans and the rest of the animal creation. Unlike animals, humans possess an eternal soul, they reflect the character or "image" of God, and they hold a special relationship with God for which they will be held accountable. While God holds both men and animals accountable for human death, he allows animals to be freely killed for food (Genesis 9).

Biblical theology rejects the evolution of humans outright. From the beginning, humans were set apart to be the pinnacle of creation and to exercise authority over the earth and everything in it, as evinced in the Dominion Mandate, Genesis 1:28. Yet with authority comes responsibility--and here's where we get to the important part. Not only must humans show a measure of kindness to animals (see Proverbs 12:10), they must also use the resources of the earth and the animal and plant kingdoms wisely. They must preserve species and their environments because of their beauty, their role in the ecosphere, and their potential use in the future. In short, people must be conservationists.

A conservationist is simply someone who wants to use resources judiciously, who wants to preserve a reasonable amount of habitat for unique species, who wants to keep the air and water reasonably clean for the next generation. A conservationist, at the same time, wants to see human progress continue. He values humanity more highly than the rest of nature, but considers both when making decisions. He views civilization as a caretaker of the natural world, not a threat to it.

A conservationist is powerful because he is neither afraid of humanity nor nature. He holds both in balance, and lives responsibly and happily. Meanwhile preservationists oppose human dominion, and exploiters leave nothing for the future.

As for myself, I enjoy a warm fire in the winter, and love to eat fruit in the summer. If it comes to that, I'd rather hang out with a conservationist.

image copyright Tina Rencelj. used by permission.