CO2 is now a hazard according the EPA

These may seem like somewhat related issues, with the exception of Rush Limbaugh. I only mention him because I was listening to his radio show today in the car on my drive back from school when I thought through these ideas. reports that the EPA has labeled CO2 as a hazard. Rush and others claim that this will pave the way for the Obama administration to enact tougher pollution rules without passing legislation such as the cap and trade bill. These (particularly Rush) opponents claim that the EPA’s decision was motivated by a desire to limit the rights of individual Americans. Yet, several people are likely very happy about this decision. The EPA has a point – CO2 can kill you (every year some people commit suicide by inhaling vehicle fumes).

The real issue will be whether the ‘hazard’ status is going to cause industries to have to pay fines for producing extra pollution or if the idea is to keep the pollution away from people. Most people would admit that CO2 levels have been rising since the beginning of the industrial age. Yet, that alone does not mean that human induced global warming is a certainty. There is currently a politically motivated debate about that subject (see earlier post).

For me the question isn’t whether CO2 is harmful, or whether global warming is a hoax or real. The question is am I living in right standing with God? Not everyone will ask that question I realize. But, one man did ask that question and arrived at a very different response than I have.

Rush made a comment on his radio show before thanksgiving which really irritated me. He said that he does not believe in human induced climate change because of his faith in God. He said that he did not think that a loving God would punish humanity for progressing and changing people’s lives for the better. The question for me is not whether a loving God would punish humanity – I think the answer is yes, God will punish for disobedience. I think the question is whether technological advancements are morally neutral. More and more I think that technological advancements are NOT morally neutral. I think that humans should think about the implications of each new technology – in other words ask “Should we?” instead addition to “Can we?”.

None of our technological advancements has to be harmful to the environment (at least to the degree in which most currently are). Yet, because of the cost we choose not to change our technology to make it have less of an impact on God’s creation. I think this is unfortunate. Most of the things we are unwilling to change on are not actually needs. In my opinion if we weren’t such a materialistic culture it wouldn’t matter.

On the other hand, adding a tax to pollution (if that even happens) would not reduce pollution unless it hurt the company’s bottom line. I have a feeling it won’t affect the company’s bottom line, but will have effects on consumers.

I also think that it is unacceptable for anyone who wishes to promote earth care (or for Christians, creation care), and yet live a celebrity lifestyle of pollution and consumerism. The sheer volume of limos, and private planes used to transport participants makes one wonder why the climate conference couldn’t be done via skype… Supposedly the Copenhagen Conference will produce the amount of pollution of a mid-sized town over the same period of time. This reminds me of a TV evangelist who gets caught in adultery and then acts like it’s no big deal. Sheer hypocrisy.

2 comments on “Carbon Dioxide | Climate Change | Rush and God

  • As a Christian I was interested in your monologue on agency. Moral agency is every persons right. I thought that it was interesting on your report on what Rush said in his argument against climate change theory. The part about how it would be a punishment for industrialization and technological advancement. I believe that the progress that has been made in the last 100 years would only have been possible with Gods help. I also believe that God has always and will always let us choose for our selves and has only overtly punished mankind once with the flood. The rest is just cause and effect. Say you allow your child to get a credit card and they max it out immediately, is their debt and the related problems a punishment from you? No, it is direct cause and effect. Gods green Earth us a closed system. That means that nothing of substance enters or leaves. When carbon that was once stored in the ground is released it has to go somewhere. Sure some is absorbed by plants, some is dissolved into the oceans and a small amount is absorbed by shale. The rest, the billions of gallons, become more and more concentrated in the air. Cause: carbon in the highest air concentration in the history of the world (or at least the inhabited world); effect: more of the suns UV radiation is re-reflected back to the Earths surface. The gross effects of the UV being trapped is completely unknown (accept by The Omnipotent God). All we can do is measure the surface and ocean temperatures in as many different ways as possible and formulate scientific theories and computer generated models… If half of what half of the scientists are saying is true that is reason enough to completely stop using fossils fuel. We have the technology to do it all we need is to take away the dogma and the demagoguery and be reasonable. We obviously can’t change in one day but we should do it.

  • I really like you’re comment. You mention several points that I agree with. The comment that if only half of what the scientist say is true then… it makes me pause. Science is good at observing things,but the rest is just informed guesswork. I worry that something like a climate is so collection that e may not fully understand it now or in the near future. But, yes I think it would be best t live in a way that negatively impacts the earth as little as possible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *