Give up carbon for Lent. It’s what all the cool nuns are doing.
posted at 8:52 am on February 8, 2008 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Old and busted: Golden calves. New and shiny: The CFC lightbulb.
Professor Mary Frohlich wears trim business suits, teaches global climate change and talks about historical links between the oppression of the earth and the oppression of women.
She is a Roman Catholic nun.
“People who know about nuns are not surprised,” Frohlich said, laughing.
While some religious and scientific groups might be at odds over issues such as evolution and stem-cell research, over the last few years they have found common ground on global warming and climate change.
“I would say that it’s a welcome contribution to have many more people weighing in, because when it comes down on it, a lot of decisions will be based on values,” said climate scientist Brenda Ekwurzel of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Hm. How about basing them on science and data. Oh…
That might get in the way of this:
Two of the Church of England’s most senior Bishops are today (5 February 2008) urging people to cut their carbon rather than give up chocolate this Lent.
Bishop of Liverpool and Vice President of Tearfund, James Jones and Bishop of London, Dr Richard Chartres, are joining with development agency Tearfund in calling for a cut in personal carbon use for each of the 40 days of Lent, which begins tomorrow.
At the same time a Tearfund survey reveals that three out of five adults in the UK are willing to take an energy saving action this Lent.
Tearfund and the Bishops have launched the fast because of the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions, and to protect poor communities around the world who are already suffering from the ravages of climate change.
Most poor countries are actually suffering from the ravages of tyranny, brutality and the advice of idjits like these two bishops.
Maybe the rest of us can join them soon, right after they make it a crime to be a global warming skeptic heretic.
(h/t Chris R.)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
You mean like how Bush vetoed research on embryonic stem cells? A decision based on science and data, not on values?
e-pirate on February 8, 2008 at 8:58 AM
I would like to see one, just one piece of evidence that proves human generated CO2 has anything to do with anything. So far I’ve seen a lot of hysterical gloom and doom, and falsified data.
We could stop producing CO2 right now and it would have ZERO effect on anything except us.
Control of people, control of western nations … and an endless supply of money is the goal.
darwin on February 8, 2008 at 9:01 AM
McCain raps Bush on global warming
Valiant on February 8, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Many orders of nuns (or as they like to call themselves today, “Women Religious”) have abandoned their orders’ original calling and have veered into a very left-wing and useless space.
Under the auspices of euphemisms like “justice and peace” and “environmental stewardship,” nuns, particularly in this country, have left teaching and nursing, thus rendering many Catholic school systems in peril. When the nuns were educating the young, Catholic schools could function more efficiently and with some of the most talented teachers in the country — nuns don’t demand the salaries that lay teachers do. Additionally, their living expenses were managed much more prudently. My working class parents (and many like them) didn’t have a lot of money, but managed to cough up (much to the local bishop’s behest) enough dough to build convents and schools. Now nuns live in apartments and march against the war and hold “winter solstice” celebrations (I wonder when was the last time any of these “women religious” said the Rosary?)and attend global warming summits all over the country. Wonderful…
D2Boston on February 8, 2008 at 9:04 AM
If I were to give up carbon for Lent, wouldn’t that mean I’d have to commit suicide?
scatbug on February 8, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Look at the bias of the reporter, who claims that religious groups have “common ground” against supposed climate climate change.
jgapinoy on February 8, 2008 at 9:06 AM
Forget about using them out of guilt, those CFC bulbs are FAN-tastic.
I put them in all the places I *hate* changing the bulbs. Some of them around my house are still going after over a year of always-on use.
Otherwise though, I can’t stand them in my office or my living room. Natural white kills you in close quarters.
chrisro on February 8, 2008 at 9:06 AM
Actually he had quite a bit of science backing him up and some recent discoveries have vindicated his call, and the only thing he did was cut off federal funding on new lines, not private or state level funding on any lines. Impact: Not exactly the end of the world. But you wouldn’t know that from listening to alarmists such as yourself.
Bryan on February 8, 2008 at 9:07 AM
A CFC is not really an adequate replacement until it can dim and fade like an incandescent.
Nun jokes:
How do you get a Nun pregnant? You F (have sex with) her…
How much sex does a priest get? Nun… (This joke was ruined by the child molestation scandal.)
There is another long one about Johnny’s first trip into town that ends with sister Mary saying: “fifty bucks, the same as in town.”
tommylotto on February 8, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Thats right replace all of your incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs and add more mercury to our landfills and water table. I wonder how much stock the Goracle has in the companies who manufacture compact fluorescent’s?
deadbackpacker on February 8, 2008 at 9:09 AM
I have to hand it to the scammers, after that bad false start with calling it Global Warming they hit it right on the head with Climate Change. There is one thing you can always bet on and that is that the weather will change. Heck, half of the US was under 100 feet of ice not too long ago and now it’s not so there must be some climate change going on. Just imagine if they had those fancy light bulbs we’d still have 30 or more feet of ice.
I can’t help but wondering why liberals who believe so much in evolution doubt that mankind could evolve to prosper during climate change. Oh well they hate the death penalty but love killing babies by abortion so go figure.
Buzzy on February 8, 2008 at 9:13 AM
Apparently there isn’t any money in it…or otherwise some private company wouldn’t need tax money to do the research in the first place.
It’s not illegal, it’s just not that promising or apparently very profitable.
Asher on February 8, 2008 at 9:14 AM
Betcha didn’t know that embryonic stem cells have a tendency to develop tumors and haven’t yielded any therapies, while adult stem cells don’t have the tumor problem and have a number of therapies in clinical trials. Nope, no science here. Move along.
marc@hubsandspokes on February 8, 2008 at 9:15 AM
When it comes to Teh Stupid, the Britons got nothing on us. All your porn queens are belong to us.
Jaibones on February 8, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Bush did not veto research on embryonic stem cells, only federal funding for such research. If someone wants to carry out this research using their own money, or privately-donated money, they are free to do so.
With the recent development of skin cells being turned into cells with the same characteristics as stem cells, the use of embryonic cells might even be unnecessary.
Bigfoot on February 8, 2008 at 9:15 AM
You’re a real classy guy.
Connie on February 8, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Consider this your first warning.
Bryan on February 8, 2008 at 9:19 AM
The cool nuns also have love fests for deathrow raping, murdering thugs and also support terrorists in turd would countries. So, I’ll pass on everything they try to promote.
Blake on February 8, 2008 at 9:19 AM
Your “jokes” are truly sickening. Bryan, I implore you to usher this creep out of our community.
RushBaby on February 8, 2008 at 9:20 AM
I see your argument is rooted in fact. Actually, President Bush vetoed federal funding of stem cell research - not the practice itself. Companies and states are still free to fund the research.
And it’s been recently discovered that skin cells can be turned into cells that are alike, without actually having to use embryo.
amerpundit on February 8, 2008 at 9:20 AM
What about the mercury?
Wade on February 8, 2008 at 9:22 AM
All you’ve said is that recent science has backed up his moral decision. Who’s to say that next week we won’t discover some new factor that scientifically backs up this nun’s call to give up carbon? You’ve proved my point for me, not argued against it.
The fact that you had to include a “might” in your last sentence is my exact point.
Just like in embryonic stem cells, climate change is such a politicized thing that this point, and the science so nebulous, that both sides can easily present data that makes their case. There’s a lot of data saying embryonic stem cells are the best option, and there’s data saying they’re unneeded. There’s data saying reducing carbon emissions is a great idea, there’s data saying it’s a waste of time and money.
My only point was that this was hardly the first time “morals” have been used to make what ought to be a scientific decision. It’s a shame that we can’t have objective science in this country anymore, on pretty muc any issue. Too many demagogues. I lean towards the “reducing greenhouse emissions can only be a good thing in the long run” POV, but having Al Gore make in his gigantic mansion and zipping around in his private jet is incredibly stupid. Sorry to slightly threadjack.
e-pirate on February 8, 2008 at 9:28 AM
It’s funny. I was taught that Lent is a time of preparation. From that perspective I’m using Lent as a time to do more self-reflection, spend more time in prayer, do more for others and give up a few creature comforts. Silly me! All I needed to do was change my lightbulbs and I have Lent covered!
Perhaps these nuns should go back to the basics of the Catholic Church.
IrishGirl17 on February 8, 2008 at 9:29 AM
Oops, key addenedum to my last post. I meant to say “voluntarily reducing greenhouse emissions can only be a good thing in the long run”
e-pirate on February 8, 2008 at 9:29 AM
I don’t believe in AGW, but think CFCs are great. I found some packaged as spots that replaced a bunch of 100 watt incandescent spots, plus normal CFCs replacing the regular 60 watt bulbs in my three busiest rooms, and my electric bills have dropped ~25%. The light quality is as good or superior to the rooms that still have incandecent bulbs.
Cowboy is a compliment on February 8, 2008 at 9:32 AM
I have just one question. How are light bulbs filled with mercury good for the environment? Fricken lefty loons.
I have no doubt that cleaning up our act would be a good thing to do, and I am doing my part to help. But give me a break, global warming is due for the most part by things not within our control.
Can we clean up our own mess, yes. Can we stop global warming? No, not until someone installs a rheostat switch on the sun.
Global warming hysteria is not a religion, it’s a disease.
leanright on February 8, 2008 at 9:38 AM
Lent Shment.
The Brits have already given up enough. Enough in this case being their country, and in a strange little quirk of life they can thank religion for it. That would be the infamous Religion of Peace, which doesn’t ask it’s own followers to sacrifice anything for Lent but does ask believers in any other religion to give up their lives.
What are the nuns, bishops and archbishops drinking over there, tainted goat’s blood?
Color the UK gone.
fogw on February 8, 2008 at 9:39 AM
The church and democratic capitalism continue to be damaged by those who use their religious orders as a front for their activism. They have long ago crossed the frontier of true social justice and are no longer serving God first, but the false idol of liberalism.
As for the Union of Concerned Scientists…a bunch of church-trrashing, freedom-hating. one-world-government-pimpimg Marxists.
whitetop on February 8, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Wrong reasons but right results — every little bit of energy savings helps to fight the War on Terror.
I’m sure they’d sleep comfortably knowing that.
Dusty on February 8, 2008 at 10:09 AM
If you want to drive Darwin-worshipping libs really nuts, point out that species and sub-species evolve in response to their environment and that no two genomic groups evolve at identical rates.
In effect, this means that certain groups will be superior while others will be inferior - even within a species.
When they go ballistic and accuse you of being a hate-filled racist Nazi, smile and politely inform them that they can’t have Falstaff - and have him thin.
NemoParticularis on February 8, 2008 at 10:36 AM
I’m giving up lent for lent.
- The Cat
MirCat on February 8, 2008 at 10:36 AM
All you’ve said is that recent science has backed up his moral decision. Who’s to say that next week we won’t discover some new factor that scientifically backs up this nun’s call to give up carbon? You’ve proved my point for me, not argued against it.
No, that’s what you are saying. Basing a decision on a lack of scientific data is still a decision based on science and data.
Defense Guy on February 8, 2008 at 10:47 AM
While I don’t agree with their practice or logic, I see nothing tremendously wrong with what they are doing. As long as it’s not the government dictating that I do this, I’ll leave the nuns alone. I still have the free choice and will to not follow what these nuns are doing.
When a religion does something harmful, dangerous or corrupt, that’s when I’ll pull out the outrage/disbelief comment.
However, a mass edict for a carbon fast from the Church of England bishops is another story. Bishops have more of a leadership role in religions than a nun, and therefore should be more responsible in declaring something not substantiated.
geckomon on February 8, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Oxymoron?
geckomon on February 8, 2008 at 10:51 AM
I bought some about a year ago for the same reason (also for the much-ballyhooed energy costs savings), and replaced most of the regular lightbulbs in my house. A year later, I’ve seen no savings on my electric bill, and two of the CFC bulbs (which were advertised to last 5 years) have already burned out — even though they were in lamps that are used only 2-3 hours each day. Add to that the fact that I had to don plastic gloves and wrap up the used CFC bulbs in a plastic bag, sealed with duct tape (per the disposal instructions from my local energy company) before putting the burnt-out bulbs in the trash — and the whole thing smells like a big scam to me.
I’m now stocking up on regular bulbs.
AZCoyote on February 8, 2008 at 11:16 AM
A number of folks have already commented on this, but the bigger question is:
- Should the government use our tax dollars to fund research that is not in the public interest?
By that I mean, this is a private sector research effort.
Could you imagine Thomas Edison getting research grants to invent the light bulb in todays litigious environment?
Free market - free enterprise - free willie
Kini on February 8, 2008 at 11:42 AM
What? Are you guys big fans of CFC light bulbs or what? They really don’t fade or dim like an incandescent. At best they they’ll have a few intensity steps.
Sorry for any offense ;-)
tommylotto on February 8, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Dude, religious jokes, your’s especially, are in bad taste.
As a catholic, recovering, I could take offense, burn cars, torch houses, destroy businesses and demand the beheading of tommy.
But, I am a catholic… you see, recovering, and turning the other cheek.
Others may not appreciate your humor except on HBO or Showtime.
Kini on February 8, 2008 at 12:06 PM
You can’t read this post and come to the conclusion that I’m a fan of those bulbs unless you’re a dolt. I’m just not a fan of over-the-line, tasteless jokes about Catholics or anyone else for that matter. So do yourself a favor and keep them to yourself.
Bryan on February 8, 2008 at 12:15 PM
I gave up beer for Lent. In retrospect, I probably should have walked down this path instead…
John from OPFOR on February 8, 2008 at 12:21 PM
I disagree. Voluntary or not the only impact from reducing CO2 emissions is to drive up the cost of energy. And CO2 is beneficial to the environment…. the higher the CO2 concentration the better crops grow… i.e… plants “breath” CO2. More CO2 equals more food for a hungry world.
It’s the sun that controls the global temperature and NOTHING else. I say if you’ve put 20,000 ton of CO2 into the air today… good for you, you’ve done a good thing for all humanity. Keep up the good work.
Maxx on February 8, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Listen. These CFC bulbs are full of mercury.
Dumpster diving just became much less fun.
Dorvillian on February 8, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Voluntary or not the only impact from reducing CO2 emissions is to drive up the cost of energy.
Not per person. If everyone uses 10% less energy, economies of scale mean that we won’t quite save 10%, but we’ll certainly save nearly that much. We’ll pay slightly more per kWh, but that won’t matter when we’re spending much less money overall. I agree with the original comment: Even if you believe that human-caused global warming is total B.S., saving energy is a good thing, from a strict economics perspective. I couldn’t tell you its virtuousness relative to giving up chocolate, but personally I prefer the former.
calbear on February 8, 2008 at 1:28 PM
I’m not Catholic, but I was under the impression that what you give up for Lent is something you enjoy and the point is to make a sacrifice of your enjoyment. Otherwise it loses all religious signifigance and would just be a New Year’s resolution you only have to keep for 40 days.
James on February 8, 2008 at 2:25 PM
calbear on February 8, 2008 at 1:28 PM
But here’s the problem calbear… why do we as a nation continue policies that constantly drive up the cost of energy ? Why do we do that ? Surely you know that nothing puts a drag on the economy more that high energy cost. We are going in exactly the wrong direction, instead of looking for ways to make energy more expensive, we need to implement policies that make energy cheaper.
But we have all been propagandized into thinking we are running out of energy. As ridiculous as that proposition is, that is what most people think. Have people forgot what they were taught in sixth grade science…. have we forgot that energy is neither created nor destroyed ? It is absolutely impossible for the earth to run out of energy….. no matter how much we use.
Or maybe your one of those that believes we are running out of so called “fossil fuels” … well fine, maybe we could run out of “fossil fuels” but the fact is there are more known reserves of oil and natural gas on record today than any other time in history. The United States first commissioned a study on depleted oil supplies back in the mid-eighteen-hundreds. The old …. “we are running out of oil” scare tactic has been around for a long time, and it has consistently served the oil companies very well.
But suppose we did run out of oil. Do you think we can run out of nuclear power ? Do you suppose we could run out of hydrogen ? Totally impossible !!
So our policies and thinking on this subject are all wrong. We will never be able to “conserve” our way to a strong and vibrant economy. Cheap and available energy is key to a strong and booming economy. And this “conservation” is firstly unnecessary and secondly dangerous in that it leads us down the wrong path. Its the wrong path because we keep on cutting back on energy instead of putting effort into finding ways to produce it more abundantly and at a lower cost. This path can only lead to a false and purely manufactured scarcity. But that’s exactly what the left wants, that is exactly what Al Gore is selling, and most people are buying into it lock, stock and barrel.
We cannot conserve our way to a strong and vibrant economy, we need more energy. So lets knock off all of this conservation nonsense and get on with building more power plants and investing more effort into how to produce it cheaply.
And yes, global warming is complete bunk which is devoted to preventing exactly what I am advocating above.
Maxx on February 8, 2008 at 2:26 PM