I work a bit in the area of climate change adaptation and mitigation, including offsets.  So what I am about to say should be taken in that context.  I suspect that people voted against proposition "a" because of its implications primarily, not first of all because the statement is absolutely untrue.  The implications are that a near consensus means they must be right, and that if human activity is a cause, then human beings must 'fix" it at almost any cost.  Proposition "a" says the same thing as proposition "b".   So I think they were voting against adopting it as a statement, regardless whether "true" or false.  But probably they also disagreed that human beings are having a significant impact. 

They might also be disagreeing with statement "b", because while human induced climate change, if real, might be considered to have implications for humans interacting with each other,  statement "b" appears to be directed towards the  objectives of society  and certain environmental extremists and activists.  To say that it is religious is to imply that if someone disagrees or does not react, that they are not religious or ethical or just.  They would disagree with this assertion.  Particularly they would disagree with the proposition that it is a religious issue.   Perhaps I could make the analogy that if it is a religious issue, then so was the construction and piloting of the Titanic a religious issue, and so is the construction of the overpass on the nearby highway also a religious issue.  It is to say that there is nothing that is not religious, but in the context, what does this mean?...

Finally, I would like to add a side comment that I find the language used in this post rather insensitive, disrespectful, and unloving.  We have had a couple other posters requested to stop posting for their manner of posting.   I would suggest the same standard be applied to James Dekker, and that he be asked to stop posting for awhile on this and similar issues, unless and until he discovers the ability to refrain from using such phrases and terms as: "All I can think to say about that is “YIKES.” And pray for reasonableness and something other than mulishness. "  and ..."despite unreasoned stubbornness  "   His phraseology is manipulative and disgraceful, in my opinion.   . "  "

I would like to repeat  that I find the language used in this post rather insensitive, disrespectful, and unloving.  In my mind, it is a personal attack on those who differ.  We have had a couple other posters requested to stop posting for their manner of posting.   I would suggest the same standard be applied to James Dekker, and that he be asked to stop posting for awhile on this and similar issues, unless and until he discovers the ability to refrain from using such phrases and terms as: "All I can think to say about that is “YIKES.” And pray for reasonableness and something other than mulishness. "  and ..."despite unreasoned stubbornness  "   His phraseology is manipulative and disgraceful and a personal attack, in my opinion, and should not be permitted particularly on a blog post. 

It is also important to point out that our idea of creation care is primarily based on its impact on human beings or perception by humans.  For that reason, we swat mosquitoes and trap mice and rats and plant fields without compunction.  When we highlight the presumed impact of climate change on the poor coastal people who might be displaced by rising sea levels, or those living in warmer tropical zones who might suffer from higher temperatures, droughts, and famine, we also ought to realize the irony of lifting a host of poor people in some countries out of relative poverty into a working middle class or working lower class who now have triple the income and conveniences that they used to have.  The “lifting out” from poverty has included increased industrialization, more cars, larger homes, more airconditioning, more processed food, increased meat consumption, and other things that inevitably lead to increased ghg (greenhouse gases). 

And as a result, China has now increased its ghg emissions by 9% just last year;  India has done much the same.

In wanting to have our cake and eat it too, we ought to have more humility and not to disrespect the opinions of those who disagree with some of the main premises of the debate.   

James, I don't think you are listening very well.   The point is not just about your comments to specific people whom I don't know (I have not checked who the objectors are).  The point is that you feel justified in calling those people unreasonable, mulish, and unreasonably stubborn, who might object to proposition a and b.  This displays no charity on your part in attempting to understand why some might object.   It becomes a form of character assassination, and pressure with epithets.  You would not appreciate if I or others began to use such language in reverse.  These are not private conversations, and more importantly, believing that people are merely unreasonable stubborn mules, even if you don't say so, reduces your ability to understand where they are coming from. 

I'm quite sure that I have been involved in creation care of much more significance, quantity and quality, both individually, and in leadership,  than yourself, and yet I prefer to be more charitable to those who oppose these propositions. Furthermore, for those who believe that the church is trying to dictate methods, or follow environmental trends, outside of its competence, and outside of its sphere, voting against these propositions may be the only way of doing so at the moment.  After all, they are essentially voting against the church adopting the statements, and they might vote against even if they agree with the statements themselves.  Yes, your tone was inappropriate, but you don't give me the impression that you truly understand its arrogance, including the implications for others who object but have not registered their objections, nor attended or voted at synod.

Getting past the "tone", I have in the past found it ironic that there have been a number of predictions made that our world cannot sustain certain levels of population ( think Malthus), or that we have a supply of oil that will run out in 1980 (oops, our recoverable energy supplies seem to be increasing) and yet, here we are, producing energy in ways we didn't previously understand, and producing food for a population that is five times as great as Malthus estimated could be sustained.  Yes, ghg are an issue, but I suspect we do not understand it completely.   Global circulation models do not seem to predict future precipitation trends with any degree of certainty, and only take comfort in greater variability and extreme events. 

Environmentalists often worship the environment, as if it was static, or as if it had a soul of its own.  The environment (whatever that is) does not care if it gets warmer or colder, or drier or wetter.   If there was a glacier covering the Sahara, it would not matter, and if Greenland became a desert, it would not matter to the environment.  It has been warmer and colder and drier and wetter in the past.  The environment doesn't care if it changes.  The environment just is whatever it is.  It only matters to people.  When we talk about Creation Care, we are really talking about a creation in which we can comfortably live.  For that reason, all of creation is important to us, including our ability to drive, to vacation, to use the internet, to take a bath, to pick raspberries, or to eat interesting food that is produced by someone else far away. 

We can talk about reducing, sure, within our context.  We can reduce 20% of what we expanded last week.   But you can't reduce what you don't already have.  And if you reduce it completely, then you don't have it at all.  Chinese and East Indian and African want to have something first, so then they can have something to reduce as well. 

The biggest recent cause of ghg reductions was the recent recession.   Are we happy to live in a constant recession economy? 

Yes, we can look for ways to reduce energy use, and ghg emissions.  We should and we will.   But underestimating the costs of doing so is not smart.  And overestimating man's role is not smart.   Malthus seemed to forget that God created this universe; man didn't create it. 

(I hope you don't read this response until Monday...so you can do your Sunday stuff. )

Thermal-assisted gravity drainage (TAGD) looks like it will use less energy, and thus be more ghg friendly than SAGD in the oilsands.   It also allows for the possibility of using hydro or nuclear power instead of fossil heat to extract oil.   Just another example of how ghg reductions become possible over time, while we find more difficult fossil fuels to extract.  (It's also interesting that Texas, and at least another half dozen USA states, each have higher ghg emissions from their coal generated power alone, than Alberta does from  its coal power and oilsands production combined.) ---------------------------------By: HazMat Staff
08/03/2012 2012-08-03

"Athabasca Oil Corp. is having success with a new technology that uses electrical cables to heat bitumen, enabling oil to flow to the surface.

The Calgary-based company said it did a field test on its Leduc carbonate property 90 km northwest of Fort McMurray, Alta., using thermal-assisted gravity drainage, or TAGD. The test confirmed the process. 

The more common technique to extract heavy oil from deep underground is steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD).

Athabasca anticipates the cost of TAGD operation will be about half of a SAGD one. Iit won’t require any steam to be generated or any water treatment facilities to be built. It can also soften up the bitumen at much lower temperatures than in SAGD.

Athabasca expects to get regulatory approval by year-end and to launch a TAGD pilot project in 2013, followed by a two-year drilling, construction and installation phase."