Wendy: Thanks much for that information. That is really good to hear. I've long been a big fan of World Renew's work generally and knowing this gives me even more cause for being a fan. :-)
I just finished reading the entire New Green Deal document. Your characterization of it, Eric, is far too gracious. I would never have guessed I would see something like this come from anyone who holds a federal congressional office.
There is no doubt, Ken, that God blesses us with energy sources of all kinds (including the sun that shines on us daily even when not captured by solar panels).
But Dan appropriately give thanks for fossil fuel energy because fossil fuels are much too much regarded as a curse as opposed to a blessing. And Dan is quite right in suggesting that the newer "renewal energy" sources, e.g., predominantly solar and wind, are simply inadequate to supply the energy needs of today's population. They are not and will not be for the foreseeable future, a scientific fact too many choose to resist.
Tim: OK, I'm not sure I can directly quote Hansen, although referring to Wikipedia as you have done is hardly a primary source for that either.
But what I can do is point to Hansen's own clear and unequivocal statements -- his own words -- about the sine qua non need for nuclear power to solve what he considers the climate problem to be. See at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
And that was my point. And in making it, I'm applying Hansen's own words, which have not been withdrawn to the best of my knowledge. My argument was and still is that any carbon tax plan that is not accompanied by a really aggressive nuclear program is doomed to failure, for reasons clearly clearly articulated by the Hansen's own words. No, Hansen does not oppose renewables. Neither do I. But sans nuclear, what Hansen wants -- demands -- be done can't be done.
BTW, did you notice the newly release "Green New Deal" resolution. Apparently the anti-nuclear sentiment continues and even increases (the plan is to dismantle existing plants as well). And this has to make Hansen groan (although OK, I can't quote him on that and Wikipedia may at some point suggest otherwise), given what he has clearly said.
So if you take Hansen's own clear words (see link above), how would a carbon as proposed and support by OSJ possibly fill the energy gap? Why would the result not merely be a tax on current energy sector that would compress our economy but not significantly reduce fossil fuel use (except to the extent a compressed economy will reduce demand) because those products would still be needed for lack of options (again, see Hansen's article)?
Really good question Herb. I would suggest those lobbyists are in three categories. The first is OSJ staff. You can find out who they are in particular by going to the OSJ website, and then by googling for information (education, experience, etc) of those staffers.
The second category is, although to a lesser extent, the ED and agency heads who every now and then makes public statements about current political issues. Those names are also readily available, and can be googled as well.
The third category, and also to a lessee extent, is Synod itself, which sometimes declares on political issues. Synod also authorizes/directs (often with ambiguous language) others, like OSJ, to "advocate" (does that mean political? -- answer unknown and debatable) about this or that.
The lobbying activity done comes in different categories as well. One is direct lobbying with political representatives (legislators, etc). Another is lobbying of CRC members, usually encouraging them to write to (email to) their legislators to take certain positions on particular legislation (OSJ will usually pressure the email text for you). Another is making public statements that take political positions, ranging from general to quite specific. Another is what could be called "communal" lobbying, by which I mean having CRC staffers participate in political conferences and the like (e.g., the Paris Accords), lend the CRC name to the supporter list for it), and/or then publically tout (by articles, email blasts, etc), to CRCers and otherwise, the results of them (again, e.g., the Paris Accords).
First, I'm not hesitant to say that much of the reason the CRC has become as political as it has is because Synods have chosen to act in contravention to Church Order rules. It has disappointed me that, to my knowledge at least, when Synod declared as it did about climate change, not one delegate stood up to say, "point of order, the question before synod should not be answered because it is outside the Church Order rules that constrains Synod, that being CO Article 28."
So when OSJ says they have a mandate from Synod to do what they do, they have a good point. But even then not always.
Which brings us to my second point. Mandates have to be carefully examined and fairly construed to determine what the mandate is and what it isn't.
In the case of it's lobbying for this legislation, OSJ assumes I'm sure they have a Synodical mandate to do so, but I think they stretch that mandate. I have a hard time finding Synodical resolution language that would include a mandate to lobby for this kind of legislation. I think you have to stretch the language to get there.
But let's assume the Synodical language does create a broader mandate than I think is does. Even if one has the mandate doesn't mean one has the ability. I can't see where OSJ has anything resembling sufficient expertise in climate science, economics, or law to decide this proposed legislation should or should not be passed. What I think OSJ does--because it has to--is rely on what people or organizations they politically favor say about this proposed legislation. But then of course we have to ask the questions: who are they and what expertise do they have, and then who is really deciding for CRC members what their denominational agencies are going to politically do in behalf of their members?
These are the difficulties necessarily encountered when organizations step beyond their jurisdiction. For good reason, they don't have expertise in those extra-jurisdictional areas. And to boot, members of that organization didn't become members because of the position the organization might take on questions outside its jurisdiction. And so taking on these issues will invariably create division within the organizational membership.
And this is why Church Order Article 28 exists: to define the jurisdictional boundaries of the denomination known as the Christian Reformed Church. One could say that Article 28 rather succinctly embeds the Kuyperian concept of social sphere sovereingty, as that concept relates to the institutional church, into the CRC church order.
To answer your second question, Herb, to my knowledge, those who have lobbied in behalf if the CRC have not, publicly at least, taken a position against nuclear. And I'm pleased, certainly not displeased, that such is the case.
On the other hand, I know the lobbying business reasonably well. In this business, not saying something is often as significant as saying something. Thus, for example, the slogans, "Black Lives Matter" or "Blue Lives Matter" says something affirmatively, even if by unmistakable innuendo, by not saying something affirmatively about other lives.
Dan: I do think the OSJ is often permitted (that is, authorized by Synod) to do the political activism they do. Not always I don't think (sometimes I believe they stretch the authorization), but certainly sometime and possibly usually.
Your three options description is a pretty good description of OSJ's options, I would say, even if there may be more. And yes, I find that OSJ too often takes on very complex topics that are highly divisive and then gets politically active on legislation (that is certain to be divisive as well) related to that. This article is about one of such, but there are more. It's pretty regular.
What I would personally like to see OSJ do is "advocate" by advocating what we might directly do, as opposed to what we might want to tell the government to do. For example, OSJ could advocate that CRC members think about opening their homes and church communities to immigrants and refugees, without getting into the weeds of what government policies are that got them here. OSJ could provide contact information for how to "volunteer," supplemental information about best practices for sponsoring immigrants and refugees, connections to others who have done so and done so well, etc. In doing that, OSJ would be advocating for immigrants and refugees but not wading into the kind of political activitism that will cause division (and which is probably much less within OSJ's expertise anyway).
I think Association for a More Just Society (AJS) does great work in Honduras. While one side in the US might like to keep all Hondurans out of the US, and another side might want to let all Hondurans into the US who want in, AJS works in Honduras, with Hondurans, to help them improve their society, including its government structures. AJS doesn't get into the US political border fray. They are too busy doing things that are real. Ironically, to the extent AJS accomplishes what it intends to accomplish, the American divide would become moot, since fewer Hondurans would have cause to leave Honduras.
OSJ could point more to organizations like AJS as examples of doing and less pitching politicians to do something. There are other organizations like AJS. Building a catalogue of them (without political prejudice) would be something OSJ could do for the benefit of all CRCers.
Tom. I'll not respond to most of that except for your question regarding 'when the church has expertise.' That question is at the core of this blog article.
My answer is that the church (by which I mean the institutional church known as the CRC) has expertise to declare on whatever the subject is when (1) it's own rules say it does (this is a jurisdictional considrration) and (2) when it, institutionally, actually has the expertise to responsibly do so.
To elaborate, the CRC has a seminary, and a great number of theologians it has produced who pastor it's churches, all of whom are persons the CRC hires/engages (and who have formal and informal education and experience in certain matters) to teach, opine about, and declare relating "ecclesiastical" issues (using the word used by CO Art. 28).
Thus, the CRC is competent to declare about creeds, confessions, hermeneutics, Biblical translation, church education materials (relating to the aforesaid), etc.
Certainly, therefore, the CRC, again as institution, can and should, e.g., declare that people should be stewards of creation. This declaration draws from that about which it has expertise (and is within that which the local churches have agreed to "do" together). Synod 2012 declared that I would support that (even if the CRC has said that before). It was within Synod's jurisdiction and expertise.
In contrast, if the question is: "what percentage of scientists say this or that about climate change?" (which Synod 2012 also did), we should be asking, "what is it in our denomination's expertise and our agreed upon denominational jurisdiction that would justify that declaration?" Is that the kind of thing the churches (via church order) agreed to do? Does the denomination have staffers who are experts in polling and statistical analysis such that its opinion on the question would be more authoritative than anyone else's? And if CRC did have that expertise (although it doesn't), did it in fact do a scientific analysis of the claimed basis for that specific statistical claim? I think the answers to all three questions are clearly "no." And I've never encountered anyone claiming otherwise, as to any of those three questions.
The same questions should be asked of course if the denomination declares that the federal government should pass certain legislation that imposes a variety of taxes and creates a variety of other regulations relating to fossil and other energy sources. And I think it clear that the answers are clearly the same: it lacks both jurisdiction and competence.
Different question: should Christians (individually or togethers in organizations they aggregately create with jurisdictional boundaries of their choice) advocate, declare, push, lobby, whether for or against such legislation? Of course, although I'd never say it is the obligation of every Christian to so engage. And Christians in fact do just that, individually, with other Christians, and with non-Christians.
I understand that some people would like to have their institutional church megaphone their own opinions about all kinds of things. Whenever we feel strongly about something (e.g., I think the US should abolish its income tax and replace it with a value added tax) we are inclined to use whatever we might have at our disposal to "push" that idea and "push against" contradicting ideas. The problem for me and my idea about income taxes and VAT schemes (and thousands of other ideas) is that my church, the institutional CRC, is not "at my disposal." It is not mine, nor my instrument, even if I think a VAT is more just (and beneficial in other ways). It is also not the instrument of CRC members (plural) who might comprise a majority of CRC members, or even a majority of delegates at a particular Synod. Questions about government imposed tax systems may be within my expertise (and others I groups I may join), and pushing for or against them may be within my jurisdiction (and that of the groups I join), but they are not within the expertise or jurisdiction of the CRC.
Herb: I'd probably start by pointing to an article by James Hansen, at http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/353/6299/547.full.pdf?ijkey=7.4C0Yg90r8G.&keytype=ref&siteid=sci
In case you aren't acquainted with Hansen, he is the former head of NASA who got the concern about global warming (then called) on the world's radar via his testimony to Congress (in the 1980s) and his subsequently detailed work and advocacy in the area. Hansen is indisputably the godfather of all things that represent concerns about climate change.
Hansen believes the Paris Accords will get us nowhere (he uses the word "fraud" to describe the Paris Accords), because he does the math. What Hansen proposes is that only a lot of new nuclear power can replace the energy needs of the US, or the world for that matter (whose energy consumption is growing rapidly, e.g., China and underdeveloped countries), while also sufficiently reducing CO2 levels. Hansen's problem is that when he proposes nuclear, his otherwise fan base goes silent, because they are opposed to nuclear (irrationally in Hansen's opinion).
The reason for the heavy push to reduce the CO2 footprint of everyone and everything is because of the recognition that renewables can't come close to replacing the energy we now use. Hansen insists we are fooling ourselves. Those opposing him suggest we can get there by a combination of increasing renewables and cutting our footprint. Hansen's further response is that even if that were possible in the United States (and he says it isn't), there is the entire globe to consider and the rest of the world's energy consumption is going to go up, not down. Thus, Hansen wants those new energy demands met by the only non-CO2 source that can provide great quantities of it: nuclear.
I'll decline providing you with an exhaustive list of scientists to back the claim that "renewables can't replace fossil fuels" but would suggest that you won't find those scientists in any significant numbers, and if you do, you will find scientists who are in unrelated areas, or who haven't actually run the numbers, or have been highly politicized, or are expressing a hope rather than a fact (like the current "Green New Deal," which is a political proposition that admittedly, see AOC's comments, relies on hope and not the current state of facts and technology).
Herb. You can gather together as many theologians as you want and they'll still not be competent at practicing law, running a dairy, operating a nuclear power plant, determining the causes of changing climate, or analyze the macro and micro economic impacts of carbon use taxes, nor the national ability to develop enough renewal energy to eliminate or substantially reduce the need for fossil fuels. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Those theologians can guess about all of these things I suppose, but why should their guesses be better than mine? Why would their guesses should be endorsed and promoted by OUR ministry shares and not mine, or yours. Whose guesses get to lord it over whose?
My local church did just that, Dan, in the late 1970's for two post-Vietnam war refugee families. This is the tradition of CRCers and CRC churches.
Where we (in the CRC) have departed since then is in two ways: (1) these days we focus much more on the political instead of the personal, trying, it would seem, to make government our proxy; (2) when we do things directly, we tend these days to do it with our own more centralized organizations instead of with our local churches or individual families within a local church.
Posted in: Concerns on Our Ecumenical Trajectory
Wendy: Thanks much for that information. That is really good to hear. I've long been a big fan of World Renew's work generally and knowing this gives me even more cause for being a fan. :-)
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
I just finished reading the entire New Green Deal document. Your characterization of it, Eric, is far too gracious. I would never have guessed I would see something like this come from anyone who holds a federal congressional office.
This beats even the Fyre Festival.
Posted in: Thank God for Fossil Fuels!
There is no doubt, Ken, that God blesses us with energy sources of all kinds (including the sun that shines on us daily even when not captured by solar panels).
But Dan appropriately give thanks for fossil fuel energy because fossil fuels are much too much regarded as a curse as opposed to a blessing. And Dan is quite right in suggesting that the newer "renewal energy" sources, e.g., predominantly solar and wind, are simply inadequate to supply the energy needs of today's population. They are not and will not be for the foreseeable future, a scientific fact too many choose to resist.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Tim: OK, I'm not sure I can directly quote Hansen, although referring to Wikipedia as you have done is hardly a primary source for that either.
But what I can do is point to Hansen's own clear and unequivocal statements -- his own words -- about the sine qua non need for nuclear power to solve what he considers the climate problem to be. See at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
And that was my point. And in making it, I'm applying Hansen's own words, which have not been withdrawn to the best of my knowledge. My argument was and still is that any carbon tax plan that is not accompanied by a really aggressive nuclear program is doomed to failure, for reasons clearly clearly articulated by the Hansen's own words. No, Hansen does not oppose renewables. Neither do I. But sans nuclear, what Hansen wants -- demands -- be done can't be done.
BTW, did you notice the newly release "Green New Deal" resolution. Apparently the anti-nuclear sentiment continues and even increases (the plan is to dismantle existing plants as well). And this has to make Hansen groan (although OK, I can't quote him on that and Wikipedia may at some point suggest otherwise), given what he has clearly said.
So if you take Hansen's own clear words (see link above), how would a carbon as proposed and support by OSJ possibly fill the energy gap? Why would the result not merely be a tax on current energy sector that would compress our economy but not significantly reduce fossil fuel use (except to the extent a compressed economy will reduce demand) because those products would still be needed for lack of options (again, see Hansen's article)?
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Really good question Herb. I would suggest those lobbyists are in three categories. The first is OSJ staff. You can find out who they are in particular by going to the OSJ website, and then by googling for information (education, experience, etc) of those staffers.
The second category is, although to a lesser extent, the ED and agency heads who every now and then makes public statements about current political issues. Those names are also readily available, and can be googled as well.
The third category, and also to a lessee extent, is Synod itself, which sometimes declares on political issues. Synod also authorizes/directs (often with ambiguous language) others, like OSJ, to "advocate" (does that mean political? -- answer unknown and debatable) about this or that.
The lobbying activity done comes in different categories as well. One is direct lobbying with political representatives (legislators, etc). Another is lobbying of CRC members, usually encouraging them to write to (email to) their legislators to take certain positions on particular legislation (OSJ will usually pressure the email text for you). Another is making public statements that take political positions, ranging from general to quite specific. Another is what could be called "communal" lobbying, by which I mean having CRC staffers participate in political conferences and the like (e.g., the Paris Accords), lend the CRC name to the supporter list for it), and/or then publically tout (by articles, email blasts, etc), to CRCers and otherwise, the results of them (again, e.g., the Paris Accords).
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Dan. Good question. Here's my take.
First, I'm not hesitant to say that much of the reason the CRC has become as political as it has is because Synods have chosen to act in contravention to Church Order rules. It has disappointed me that, to my knowledge at least, when Synod declared as it did about climate change, not one delegate stood up to say, "point of order, the question before synod should not be answered because it is outside the Church Order rules that constrains Synod, that being CO Article 28."
So when OSJ says they have a mandate from Synod to do what they do, they have a good point. But even then not always.
Which brings us to my second point. Mandates have to be carefully examined and fairly construed to determine what the mandate is and what it isn't.
In the case of it's lobbying for this legislation, OSJ assumes I'm sure they have a Synodical mandate to do so, but I think they stretch that mandate. I have a hard time finding Synodical resolution language that would include a mandate to lobby for this kind of legislation. I think you have to stretch the language to get there.
But let's assume the Synodical language does create a broader mandate than I think is does. Even if one has the mandate doesn't mean one has the ability. I can't see where OSJ has anything resembling sufficient expertise in climate science, economics, or law to decide this proposed legislation should or should not be passed. What I think OSJ does--because it has to--is rely on what people or organizations they politically favor say about this proposed legislation. But then of course we have to ask the questions: who are they and what expertise do they have, and then who is really deciding for CRC members what their denominational agencies are going to politically do in behalf of their members?
These are the difficulties necessarily encountered when organizations step beyond their jurisdiction. For good reason, they don't have expertise in those extra-jurisdictional areas. And to boot, members of that organization didn't become members because of the position the organization might take on questions outside its jurisdiction. And so taking on these issues will invariably create division within the organizational membership.
And this is why Church Order Article 28 exists: to define the jurisdictional boundaries of the denomination known as the Christian Reformed Church. One could say that Article 28 rather succinctly embeds the Kuyperian concept of social sphere sovereingty, as that concept relates to the institutional church, into the CRC church order.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
To answer your second question, Herb, to my knowledge, those who have lobbied in behalf if the CRC have not, publicly at least, taken a position against nuclear. And I'm pleased, certainly not displeased, that such is the case.
On the other hand, I know the lobbying business reasonably well. In this business, not saying something is often as significant as saying something. Thus, for example, the slogans, "Black Lives Matter" or "Blue Lives Matter" says something affirmatively, even if by unmistakable innuendo, by not saying something affirmatively about other lives.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Dan: I do think the OSJ is often permitted (that is, authorized by Synod) to do the political activism they do. Not always I don't think (sometimes I believe they stretch the authorization), but certainly sometime and possibly usually.
Your three options description is a pretty good description of OSJ's options, I would say, even if there may be more. And yes, I find that OSJ too often takes on very complex topics that are highly divisive and then gets politically active on legislation (that is certain to be divisive as well) related to that. This article is about one of such, but there are more. It's pretty regular.
What I would personally like to see OSJ do is "advocate" by advocating what we might directly do, as opposed to what we might want to tell the government to do. For example, OSJ could advocate that CRC members think about opening their homes and church communities to immigrants and refugees, without getting into the weeds of what government policies are that got them here. OSJ could provide contact information for how to "volunteer," supplemental information about best practices for sponsoring immigrants and refugees, connections to others who have done so and done so well, etc. In doing that, OSJ would be advocating for immigrants and refugees but not wading into the kind of political activitism that will cause division (and which is probably much less within OSJ's expertise anyway).
I think Association for a More Just Society (AJS) does great work in Honduras. While one side in the US might like to keep all Hondurans out of the US, and another side might want to let all Hondurans into the US who want in, AJS works in Honduras, with Hondurans, to help them improve their society, including its government structures. AJS doesn't get into the US political border fray. They are too busy doing things that are real. Ironically, to the extent AJS accomplishes what it intends to accomplish, the American divide would become moot, since fewer Hondurans would have cause to leave Honduras.
OSJ could point more to organizations like AJS as examples of doing and less pitching politicians to do something. There are other organizations like AJS. Building a catalogue of them (without political prejudice) would be something OSJ could do for the benefit of all CRCers.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Tom. I'll not respond to most of that except for your question regarding 'when the church has expertise.' That question is at the core of this blog article.
My answer is that the church (by which I mean the institutional church known as the CRC) has expertise to declare on whatever the subject is when (1) it's own rules say it does (this is a jurisdictional considrration) and (2) when it, institutionally, actually has the expertise to responsibly do so.
To elaborate, the CRC has a seminary, and a great number of theologians it has produced who pastor it's churches, all of whom are persons the CRC hires/engages (and who have formal and informal education and experience in certain matters) to teach, opine about, and declare relating "ecclesiastical" issues (using the word used by CO Art. 28).
Thus, the CRC is competent to declare about creeds, confessions, hermeneutics, Biblical translation, church education materials (relating to the aforesaid), etc.
Certainly, therefore, the CRC, again as institution, can and should, e.g., declare that people should be stewards of creation. This declaration draws from that about which it has expertise (and is within that which the local churches have agreed to "do" together). Synod 2012 declared that I would support that (even if the CRC has said that before). It was within Synod's jurisdiction and expertise.
In contrast, if the question is: "what percentage of scientists say this or that about climate change?" (which Synod 2012 also did), we should be asking, "what is it in our denomination's expertise and our agreed upon denominational jurisdiction that would justify that declaration?" Is that the kind of thing the churches (via church order) agreed to do? Does the denomination have staffers who are experts in polling and statistical analysis such that its opinion on the question would be more authoritative than anyone else's? And if CRC did have that expertise (although it doesn't), did it in fact do a scientific analysis of the claimed basis for that specific statistical claim? I think the answers to all three questions are clearly "no." And I've never encountered anyone claiming otherwise, as to any of those three questions.
The same questions should be asked of course if the denomination declares that the federal government should pass certain legislation that imposes a variety of taxes and creates a variety of other regulations relating to fossil and other energy sources. And I think it clear that the answers are clearly the same: it lacks both jurisdiction and competence.
Different question: should Christians (individually or togethers in organizations they aggregately create with jurisdictional boundaries of their choice) advocate, declare, push, lobby, whether for or against such legislation? Of course, although I'd never say it is the obligation of every Christian to so engage. And Christians in fact do just that, individually, with other Christians, and with non-Christians.
I understand that some people would like to have their institutional church megaphone their own opinions about all kinds of things. Whenever we feel strongly about something (e.g., I think the US should abolish its income tax and replace it with a value added tax) we are inclined to use whatever we might have at our disposal to "push" that idea and "push against" contradicting ideas. The problem for me and my idea about income taxes and VAT schemes (and thousands of other ideas) is that my church, the institutional CRC, is not "at my disposal." It is not mine, nor my instrument, even if I think a VAT is more just (and beneficial in other ways). It is also not the instrument of CRC members (plural) who might comprise a majority of CRC members, or even a majority of delegates at a particular Synod. Questions about government imposed tax systems may be within my expertise (and others I groups I may join), and pushing for or against them may be within my jurisdiction (and that of the groups I join), but they are not within the expertise or jurisdiction of the CRC.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Herb: I'd probably start by pointing to an article by James Hansen, at http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/353/6299/547.full.pdf?ijkey=7.4C0Yg90r8G.&keytype=ref&siteid=sci
In case you aren't acquainted with Hansen, he is the former head of NASA who got the concern about global warming (then called) on the world's radar via his testimony to Congress (in the 1980s) and his subsequently detailed work and advocacy in the area. Hansen is indisputably the godfather of all things that represent concerns about climate change.
Hansen believes the Paris Accords will get us nowhere (he uses the word "fraud" to describe the Paris Accords), because he does the math. What Hansen proposes is that only a lot of new nuclear power can replace the energy needs of the US, or the world for that matter (whose energy consumption is growing rapidly, e.g., China and underdeveloped countries), while also sufficiently reducing CO2 levels. Hansen's problem is that when he proposes nuclear, his otherwise fan base goes silent, because they are opposed to nuclear (irrationally in Hansen's opinion).
The reason for the heavy push to reduce the CO2 footprint of everyone and everything is because of the recognition that renewables can't come close to replacing the energy we now use. Hansen insists we are fooling ourselves. Those opposing him suggest we can get there by a combination of increasing renewables and cutting our footprint. Hansen's further response is that even if that were possible in the United States (and he says it isn't), there is the entire globe to consider and the rest of the world's energy consumption is going to go up, not down. Thus, Hansen wants those new energy demands met by the only non-CO2 source that can provide great quantities of it: nuclear.
I'll decline providing you with an exhaustive list of scientists to back the claim that "renewables can't replace fossil fuels" but would suggest that you won't find those scientists in any significant numbers, and if you do, you will find scientists who are in unrelated areas, or who haven't actually run the numbers, or have been highly politicized, or are expressing a hope rather than a fact (like the current "Green New Deal," which is a political proposition that admittedly, see AOC's comments, relies on hope and not the current state of facts and technology).
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Herb. You can gather together as many theologians as you want and they'll still not be competent at practicing law, running a dairy, operating a nuclear power plant, determining the causes of changing climate, or analyze the macro and micro economic impacts of carbon use taxes, nor the national ability to develop enough renewal energy to eliminate or substantially reduce the need for fossil fuels. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Those theologians can guess about all of these things I suppose, but why should their guesses be better than mine? Why would their guesses should be endorsed and promoted by OUR ministry shares and not mine, or yours. Whose guesses get to lord it over whose?
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
My local church did just that, Dan, in the late 1970's for two post-Vietnam war refugee families. This is the tradition of CRCers and CRC churches.
Where we (in the CRC) have departed since then is in two ways: (1) these days we focus much more on the political instead of the personal, trying, it would seem, to make government our proxy; (2) when we do things directly, we tend these days to do it with our own more centralized organizations instead of with our local churches or individual families within a local church.
I favor the more distant CRC tradition on this.