climate change

Home Coffeeroom Wonders of Creation climate change

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 60 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1503457

    square root of 2
    Participant

    What is the proper Torah view of climate change?
    A) The whole thing isn’t true. (Be it that there’s no unusual changes in weather patterns, or that there are but that doesn’t spell doom for the planet.)
    B) It’s true and we should do our hishtadlus to slow or stop climate change.
    C) It’s true but being as how Hashem runs the world and won’t destroy it before its time, we have nothing to worry about.
    D) Other.

    #1503664

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    C ISnt a Torah Hashkafa while obviously Hashem runs the world, we perform Hishtadlus IF our actions are say, going to cause ocean levels to rise, it is not a “proper Torah view” to say eh, Hashem will take care of it.

    As to whether or not climate chaneg is real or what its causes are, that is a question for scientists, climatologists etc, I’m not sure what that is a question with a “proper Torah view”

    #1503674

    Joseph
    Participant

    Even highly respected gentile scientists dispute the notion that climate change is man-made.

    #1503733

    GoGoGo
    Participant

    “highly respected gentilescientists”
    Isn’t that an oxymoron for its poster?

    #1503761

    chiefshmerel
    Participant

    When Hashem took Adam through the world, he showed him everything, and then told him to take good care of it, not to destroy it. This shows that humans have the capability to destroy something, and should do their best to preserve the environment. (As heard from R’ Mordechai Becher)
    Hence, the natural selection should be B.

    #1503768

    chiefshmerel
    Participant

    Joseph, let me give you an analogy.
    Suppose you go to a doctor, and he tells you that you need to fix your diet. You decide to seek a second opinion, so you go to another doctor. He tells you the same thing. You go to doctor after doctor, until the 98th doctor tells you, “These doctors are in the pockets of the health food companies, no need to change your diet, just eat what you want!”
    Who will you trust?

    #1503784

    r c
    Participant

    A scientist told me the atmosphere is extremely complicated and you cant assume co2 causes warming. if we know its forsure true (which will never happen because there is no way hashem created the world with such a flaw) then yes of course we have to do what we could to stop it. but just remember that the climate change scientists are the people who believe we came from monkeys and openly deny hashem.

    #1503839

    Little Froggie
    Participant

    Iv’e passed the stage of writing long megillos (that nobody reads), but this one really go me.

    HaShem, in all His wisdom, capabilities, has not left the Driver’s Seat. He’s still in charge of the world AND EVERY THING IN IT. ואתה מחיה את כולם. He devised a world so magnificent, so complex and intricate, far more than any mortal can begin to grasp. How many myriads of science books are written upon one minute detail of our most wondrous world?!? There are entire colleges, divisions for learning but just one spec of this great creation. Only someone foolish as Haman will attempt to say ח”ו… Nope. Us Yidden (that’s Jews, for the uninitiated) know and believe He’s pretty much in charge. Was, is and will be. Till when He decides time’s up. No user intervention will alter any part of His will. Like they write. “Do not open – no user serviceable parts”!!!!

    Come. Enjoy your ride. Leave to managing up to the Great Driver up there.

    Interesting part is – what He did leave for us do to – לעבדה ולשמרה, which Chazal say means to do Mitzvohs and keep away from sin… Somehow in this area they’re all slacking… putting it mildly. We don’t see such organizations, committees, societies worrying about the great, huge, enormous decline in morals and decency. This is the area He left to us… to better the world… ourselves… with proper morals and decency. To live an upright life. Suddenly… silence. The world has been plunged into such depravity – far, far worse than in the Dor Hamabul (the great flood). It’s sinking lower and lower with each day. And they’re working so hard at the other end to destroy any visage of shame and embarrassment. “NO NEED TO CONTROL YOURSELF, DO IT FOR ALL TO SEE”. Deprave, deprave, Deprave.

    Anyone see a connection here? עולם הפוך ראיתי!!!

    #1503883

    chiefshmerel
    Participant

    Did anyone read what I wrote before (https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/climate-change/#post-1503761)? What was written after it doesn’t stand if you consider it.

    #1503913

    r c
    Participant

    cheifshmerel. you could use the same analogy for evolution and the big bang

    #1503916

    Little Froggie
    Participant

    And one more.. if I may.

    Chazal (our great Rabbis) say הרוצה לשקר ירחק עדותו, if you want to lie, move away, distance your witness. Sure, the iospheric bionic oxyhypersperic pressure (and according to Dr. Middos, the grepslink of the kugelator) is getting lower with each thousand years… and that’s why it’s getting hotter…. OOPS, no! That’s why it’s getting cooler!! OOPS AGAIN!!! – NO! That’s why the weather is CHANGING!!

    Hear that!!! In olden times there was NO WEATHER CHANGE. And now the weather changes!! (Gosh!!! What was the conversations like back then?!?)

    And that’s all because of of what our great bright scientists have discovered – we use too much CO. So it produces oxyhyperflorurobihydronation in the hypershpheric region of the iosphere. Which causes it to (let’s take a look outside… now it’s cold) get cooler… with every five hundred years…

    Reminds me of the Coffee research… Drinking coffee is terrible… it causes xx and xxx and xxxx. It could also lead to xxxxx and xxxxxx. <Two days later> Drinking coffee is very beneficial for xx and xxx. It also help xxxx and xxxxx. <Three days later> Drinking coffee is so dangerous.. it can have long term effects on xx and xxx.

    YEAH!! KEEP ‘EM BUSY!!!

    #1503917

    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    Are there still respected scientists who have good-faith disagreements on the role of man-made actions on the growth in greenhouse gas emissions and its role in climate change? YES

    Do the largest percentage of respected scientists agree that man made actions are causing climate change: Yes

    Are there always a few dissenters in any widely held scientific debate: Yes.

    We generally base public policy on the most widely held view of any scientific issue. Our religious beliefs inform our policy decision but in a democracy, are not the basis for making policy. There will always be dissent and we never have 100 percent consensus.

    #1503921

    akuperma
    Participant

    What Ha-Shem wants to do with the weather is not really something we can “dictate”. Whether “climate change” is good or bad is subject to debate (warm weather means fewer deaths from snow and ice and cold, and a longer growing season). The climate has been changing constantly throughout our history (which is longer than most Americans “remember”). During the period of Bayis Sheini and during the period of the Rishonim it was warmer than at present, based on historical records of what crops grew where, and what rivers froze in the winter. Cooler periods such as the “Dark ages” and the Early Modern Period tended to be associated with famines and falling populations, and often horrific migrations (e.g. western European invading the Americas and doing many bad things to the inhabitants).

    As climate has been constantly changing (and if you hold by paleontology, it appears that at times Greenland was green, and Antarctica was tree covered as well), it would seem that davening for a particular climate might be a bet dubious, though one supposes there is no harm is asking Ha-Shem to violate the natural order. Politically, our leaders should be wary of anyone asking for people to give up their standard of living in the belief that it will affect the weather, and suspicious that the “environmentalists” have developed a quasi-religious in their dogmas going far beyond science or public policy.

    #1503942

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “Reminds me of the Coffee research… Drinking coffee is terrible…”

    I dont really understand this argument. Do you smoke in the hopes that one day soon it will AGAIN be discovered how beneficial they are?
    As GH says public policy should be determiend based on CURRENT scientific consensus. not hope for what future studies may show. and the fact that when faced with conflicting evidence gets them to change their mind, onlt makes them MORE belevable not less. Just the opposite, its the fellow who isnsits that ciggarettes are safe or that vaccines cause autism based on one study from decades ago that we should be wary of.

    “HaShem, in all His wisdom, capabilities, has not left the Driver’s Seat. He’s still in charge of the world AND EVERY THING IN IT.”

    Again that doesnt absolve us from histhadlus. yesterday I built my home on the beach It seemed safe since just before I built it the water was rushing away. Some Kofer told me this was a bad place to build there since later that afternoon the water would rush back flooding my home. I tolfd that kofer that only Hashem was incharge of water and if he wanted by basement to flood it would flood wherever I built it. Of course due to some aveira I did when high tide came by basemnent flooded .

    while of course not the same, I’m not sure why warning of rising sea levels and making efforts to reverse it or avoid it is inherently a bad thing , and that doing so indicates that He isnt in charge ch”v

    #1503999

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    I think right now with the coffee thing, light roast coffee is considered healthy, but dark roast is not, and all coffee is presumed dangerous in California. Is that correct?

    #1503997

    Little Froggie
    Participant

    ubiquitin: You totally missed my point. When some bright scientist can claim that some oxyhyperflorurobihydronation in the hypershpheric region of the iosphere causes our weather to get hotter, and then tomorrow claim that the oxyhyperflorurobihydronation in the hypershpheric region of the iosphere causes out weather to get cooler and then claim that oxyhyperflorurobihydronation in the hypershpheric region of the iosphere causes out WEATHER TO CHANGE!!! is when we need to get a hard look at our UNBIASED, HONEST scientists!!! Sure they will claim that the cold weather is really a heating pattern in the upper middle-lower top-side of the bottom-most middle-upper left-handed right-side of the hyperoxyhyporflorobihydronate in the hyperbolicshpheric region of the hyperiosphere. Left is really right, and cold is really hot. And we MUST take their word for it… YEP.

    And the national center for “CLIMATE CONTROL” will claim – it makes sense. (boy am I sure there are guys there just plotzing, laughing, rolling and LOLing at us, how we take, feed off all their wisdumb…)

    #1504006

    laskern
    Participant

    B. Since our actions cause the ozone layer to diminish, we are being matriach מטריח Hashem to create miracles to restore what we are destroying.

    #1504024

    square root of 2
    Participant

    ubiquitin, you’re right that there’s a scientific factor to all this, and that’s not necessarily related to any Torah view, however, I do think there seems to be a hashkafic side to whether or not scientists can be believed, as is evident from the subsequent posts.

    Chiefshmerel, The mesilas yesharim understand that medrash to mean not to destory the world through aveiros. (I suppose you can say ain mikra yotzei midai pshuto, though.)

    Little Froggie, thanks for your replies. I’m a little confused. Your first post indicated that although climate change may be real, the correct way to correct it is through hischazkus betorah vimitzvos. Your second post seemed to scoff at the very idea, and, as ubiquitin already said, would you say the same thing about smoking?

    #1504063

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    Little Froggie,

    “You totally missed my point. When some bright scientist can claim that some oxyhyperflorurobihydronation in the hypershpheric region of the iosphere causes our weather to get hotter, and then tomorrow claim that the oxyhyperflorurobihydronation in the hypershpheric region of the iosphere causes out weather to get cooler and then claim that oxyhyperflorurobihydronation in the hypershpheric region of the iosphere causes out WEATHER TO CHANGE!!! is when we need to get a hard look at our UNBIASED, HONEST scientists!!!”

    The problem with your point is that you are completely making it up. Not just the fake science words, but the notion that climatologists have flip-flopped. This notion came from some magazine in the 1970s that was likely responding to the fact that particulates – dirty stuff that gets put into the air – causes less sunlight to reach the ground. This is totally unrelated to carbon dioxide (CO2 – CO is carbon monoxide), water vapor, etc. acting as greenhouse gasses. Particulate pollution has dropped quite a bit over the U.S. and Europe during the past few decades (your mommy dealt with a lot more smog than you do), but CO2 continues to increase.

    Presidential candidates aren’t the only ones who have to deal with inaccurate, sensationalized media. Ask your doctor how many times he’s rolled his eyes over some crazy medical claim made in a magazine based on research the author didn’t understand.

    #1504089

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    square root of 2,

    “I do think there seems to be a hashkafic side to whether or not scientists can be believed, as is evident from the subsequent posts.”

    I think the issue is not so much whether to believe scientists within context of their field, but how much weight to give to “their” opinions outside of their field. I think most of the rage on the right against climate science has nothing to do with climate science per se, but with political and economic policy. Much of the anger towards Hawking, likewise, was due to his athiestic pronouncements and stances on Israel where his knowledge and intelligence was no better than the next guy’s, not his research on black holes.

    #1504085

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    akuperma,

    “it would seem that davening for a particular climate might be a bet dubious, though one supposes there is no harm is asking Ha-Shem to violate the natural order.”

    We daven for weather-related things that we understand are beneficial to us. As we say between Sukkos and Pesach, v’sein tal umatar livracha – we daven for a good rainy season in eretz Yisroel. And outside of the rainy season when rain would be harmful to standing crops, v’sein bracha.

    #1504100

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    LF
    “When some bright scientist can claim…”

    IT isnt “some” it is most (by far)
    And again, changing your conclusion based on new evidence is a sign of being unbiased and honest. I’m not sure why that led you to the opposite conclusion

    Square root of two
    “however, I do think there seems to be a hashkafic side to whether or not scientists can be believed,”
    I dont follwo, so what is the hashkafic view on smoking being bad. for that matter waht is the Torah view on the goal blood pressure various studies/guidlines disagree, So I guess we should let the Torah be machriah.

    #1504127

    akuperma
    Participant

    Avram in MD: Can/Should one daven for snow in July, which goes against the natural order of things in our part of the world? At a certain point, davening for something “impossible” becomes a shailoh.

    #1504135

    DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Avram in MD: Can/Should one daven for snow in July, which goes against the natural order of things in our part of the world

    I don’t get it. Avram is talking about davening for helpful weather within the natural order, and akuperma is talking about davening for unnatural weather.

    Are you two talking to each other, or over each other’s heads?

    #1504143

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    The opposite (summery weather in December) happened a few years ago.

    #1504149

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    DaasYochid,

    “Are you two talking to each other, or over each other’s heads?”

    We’re parallel pontificating.

    #1504155

    Little Froggie
    Participant

    Again, you got me wrong. They have an agenda. And NOTHING will get in their way. It’s hot today? – that’s the global warming at play. It’s cold today? That’s the global warming at the cooling cycle. It’s really hot, you just don’t realize it. The weather changed? That’s the issue. Unbiased, honest, I say!!!

    #1504163

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    LF

    I am by no means an expert on globa warming. A few qucik points though none of their conclusions are based on it being hot or cold “today” Similarly they arent based on the weather where yo u live. for example while in NY 2017 ma yhave been a colder than average year worldwide it may have been higher (this is just an example I dont know if it is true) thus ” It’s really hot, you just don’t realize it. ” is in fact true. YOU are cold but the global temparture may be rising .

    “They have an agenda”
    who is they? and what do they gain?

    #1504179

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    Little Froggie,

    “Again, you got me wrong. They have an agenda. And NOTHING will get in their way. It’s hot today? – that’s the global warming at play. It’s cold today? That’s the global warming at the cooling cycle. It’s really hot, you just don’t realize it. The weather changed? That’s the issue. Unbiased, honest, I say!!!”

    Who is “they”? A climatologist would not make such silly claims. They are looking at decades, not days.

    #1504191

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    ubiquitin,

    “for example while in NY 2017 ma yhave been a colder than average year”

    It was actually the 10th warmest year for New York statewide since 1895 (123 year period), despite the sharp cold snap to end the year.

    #1504328

    Mammele
    Participant

    One of the problems we Frum Yidden have – or should have – with environmentalism is their logical conclusion against population growth. If one believes carbon dioxide is bad for the environment, there’s no way to escape this conflict. We can’t simultaneously believe that we need to reduce our carbon footprint yet actively increase our numbers.

    Yet Hashem in his infinite wisdom commanded us to be fruitful and multiply. He did not ch”v indirectly command that we destroy our world. So for many of us, the logical conclusion is that the whole notion of global warming is hogwash and Hashem will take care of his world, while we continue to populate and “pollute” it.

    #1504368

    JJ2020
    Participant

    When your car breaks you call the mechanic. When you’re sick you call the Doctor. When you want to know about the climate you go to the people who study this stuff. Hashem runs the world. He made the world with rules and order and gave as bechira to be able to function in it. He made gravity and we rely on that to function. He gave us food to eat and if we didn’t eat it we’d die. Are you going to say I don’t have to eat or breath bc Hashem gives life and not science? So there is Hashem and there is a world and what we do matters.

    If you want to say they are all biased because they are all atheists thats a pretty bold claim. And even if it’s true you have to refute the claims not the people.

    Just because someone is a scientist doesn’t mean they know anything about this specific area of science. But what people do is when they don’t know something they go to the experts in that field.

    According to Wikipedia “IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis – Summary for Policymakers (AR5 WG1)” (PDF). p. 17. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

    Do people disagree that the vast majority of climate scientists agree on this issue?

    Or are they just wrong because they are atheists? (Which you would have to prove) how about those athiests you built your car do you trust them?

    From a Torah perspective the climate change is being caused by a society that is extremely gashmiusdig. Living with unbelievable excess of physical things driving around in huge vehicles throwing out millions of tons of gifts from Hashem. Mostly ignoring Hashem spending most of ours days chasing after more and more money and material positions. Should it be surprising to us that there should be some negative consequences of this anti Torah life style? Or shouldn’t it be expected that there should be negative consequences when we stray so far from Hashem?

    #1504389

    square root of 2
    Participant

    ubiquitin,
    “I dont follwo, so what is the hashkafic view on smoking being bad. for that matter waht is the Torah view on the goal blood pressure various studies/guidlines disagree, So I guess we should let the Torah be machriah.”

    That was going to be a follow-up question. Why does climate change seem to be less accepted than other scientific claims? As far as letting the torah be machria….yeah, that is what we Jews do. The question is what is the torah’s view?

    Mameleh, hashem never told us to increase greenhouse gasses.

    #1504431

    Mammele
    Participant

    Square root: humans increase “greenhouse gasses” by simply breathing. So yes, Hashem commanded us to do so by commanding us to live, and to light fires – to give 2 basic examples.

    #1504512

    mentsch1
    Participant

    The “vast majority” of “scientists” today believe ther is more then one gender, does this mean we need to believe they are correct. Since the psychologist have removed gender dysmorphia and instead come to the conclusion that gender is a choice, should we jump on that bandwagon.
    To say that science is not influenced by money and peer pressure (ie political correctness) is obviously incorrect.

    #1504514

    mentsch1
    Participant

    The left (liberals) embrace climate science conclusions and disparage the right as “science deniers” when we question results. This despite numerous reports of manipulation of data , or numerous top level scientists who question the data being fired from governmental and academic positions (you would think scientists would want people Around to question results, isn’t that how you arrive at good conclusions, by debating methodology?!)
    Yet these same leftist seem to deny the science of XX and XY and don’t see the hypocrisy

    #1504520

    mentsch1
    Participant

    And in case anyone cares about my personal views.
    1) I’m all for clean air. I’ve been to China and breathing there is like chain smoking the tailpipe of a nyc bus (though with the new buses, that would be safer then the Chinese air)
    2) if getting rid of gas would break the financial power of the Arabs then let’s do it (but not bc I think the science is settled. I’ve seen “settled science” debunked numerous times)
    3) I find it hard to label the first ingredient of the Krebs cycle a pollutant.

    #1504519

    mentsch1
    Participant

    And for those that believe the climate scientists (and i am not stating personal views, only questions that I believe should be asked logically)
    How do you deal with something that is clear to everyone, weather modeling is highly unpredictable?
    This past month my office closed early for two Wednesdays due to high patient cancellation rates due to predictions of 8-12 inches of snow. On both days we got an inch of snow and then rain. These were predictions made in the am of the storm . It is hard for the average joe to believe that 10-20 year modeling has any chance of being correct.
    And isn’t that the case.? The modeling during the 90’s predicted warming. Then when that paused we got climate change. And how many of al gores predictions are true 10 years later?

    #1504516

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Square root
    “As far as letting the torah be machria….yeah, that is what we Jews do. The question is what is the torah’s view?”

    It is????

    Ok so what is the torah view on what the goal blood pressure should be? Does the Torah support SPRINT’s more aggressive conclusion or HOPE-3’s? I used to think it was the medcial community’s role to decide. Luckily as a Jew I now know I am supposed to let the torah be machria

    Mamale
    “humans increase “greenhouse gasses” by simply breathing”
    Look up “carbon cycle” there are some nice diagrams you can google. If you need a more detailed explanation as to why that stament is nonsense I’d be happy to go into more detail

    #1504527

    akuperma
    Participant

    Scientists don’t have a good record when they get involved with politics. In the not too distant past, leading scientists, to choose one example, supported genetics and were instrumental in convincing various democracies to support policies such as race-based slavery (abolished due to “science denying” religious fanatics), not to mention the holocaust. In the 20th century, a king of Britain was killed by doctors relying on accepted sciences, who encouraged him to smoke. Depending on the settled science of the week, doctors have been encouraging, and the discouraging, mother to nurse their babies. Forty years ago they were predicting an ice age.

    On top of that, the environmentalists regard any of their dogmas with a religious fervour without thinking things through (which has caused many deaths, e.g. banning DDT thereby causing massive increases in malaria, and banning GMOs causing hardships in many countries whose farmers are forced to use old fashioned and less productive seeds).

    However none of this has anything to do with Torah. We should always be a bit skeptical of the goyim’s hachmos since they are based on ignorance, or denial, of Ha-Shem.

    #1504547

    mentsch1
    Participant

    Akuperma
    Let’s not forget Eugenics of a hundred years ago (still comes up today)
    Scientists Argued we would all run out of food so they wanted to control the population growth.
    What happened? Hashem laughs and instead showed us how to increase crop production so now we are producing more then brought to feed the growing population
    I always wondered why those that preach eugenics don’t start by removing themselves from the population? Probably the same reason al gore still flies everywhere on a private jet.

    DDT bans probably also created our current insect issues. I miss fresh strawberries!

    #1504570

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    Mammele,

    “One of the problems we Frum Yidden have – or should have – with environmentalism is their logical conclusion against population growth. If one believes carbon dioxide is bad for the environment, there’s no way to escape this conflict. We can’t simultaneously believe that we need to reduce our carbon footprint yet actively increase our numbers.”

    This is a good point about the current state of policy debate with respect to our response to climate – and an example of why I feel it’s important to make distinctions between the climate science itself, which is politically neutral, and the policies proposed by people with their own biases. I personally see your inescapable conflict as a false dilemma. City planners who try to develop the urban landscape to mitigate traffic congestion as the population grows are not lacking faith in Hashem, nor advocating for a cessation of city growth. I see this problem as city planning on a larger scale. We should be smart about how we use our resources, because we want to create a great quality of life for as many people as we can. And when we’ve optimized resource usage as much as possible and it’s still not enough for our children, it’s time to move to the suburbs or grow the city! Hashem created a vast universe beyond Earth that is full of resources. I personally don’t believe that a need for population control must be part of any plan to try to create an environment that is optimal for a thriving humanity.

    #1504571

    square root of 2
    Participant

    mameheleh, you mentioned 2 instances that we are supposed to. But maybe we should be cutting back on greenhouse gasses that we weren’t commanded in.

    #1504581

    Joseph
    Participant

    “City planners who try to develop the urban landscape to mitigate traffic congestion as the population grows”

    What’s climate change, or even societal population growth as a general matter, have to do how much population growth a particular city experiences?

    #1504621

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    Joseph,

    “What’s climate change, or even societal population growth as a general matter, have to do how much population growth a particular city experiences?”

    Hashem created Earth as a place for humans to live, and gave us dominion over it – i.e., we can change it and shape it to suit our needs. Building cities and farms, utilizing its resources, etc. By cities, we can clearly recognize the need for planning and smart usage of resources (space) in order to provide benefit for as many people as possible. I’m contending that we should view the Earth as a whole in the same way. Thus, using that moshol, excessive carbon released into the atmosphere is equivalent to congested traffic.

    The philosophical distinction as I see it is this: the secular environmentalists see Earth itself as more important than humanity, thus if carbon emissions are changing things, humans are a problem and must be stopped. In contrast to this, I believe that Hashem gave humans the privilege to use Earth for sustenance, enjoyment, and for increase. Therefore, carbon emissions are a bad thing only if they can cause a negative impact for humanity. Both philosophies are capable of addressing climate science, but the ideas and policies that could potential flow from them are very different.

    #1504641

    Mammele
    Participant

    Ubiq: you are right about breathing being part of a cycle, yet water usage is part of a cycle as well, which still doesn’t prevent these wise environmentalists from warning us not to consume too much water even in places with ample water supply.

    And you’d be hard pressed to find an environmentalist that doesn’t believe exponential population growth is a problem, because no matter how much some may try to reduce emissions humans definetely add to the “carbon footprint” in the course of even modest living. We cook, travel, heat our homes, build these homes – in addition to producing all necessary items as well as comforts we desire. And this is all part of our task of living in and enjoying Hashem’s world.

    #1504729

    Joseph
    Participant

    Avram: Thank you for the explanation. (I like it.)

    #1504732

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    Mammele,

    “yet water usage is part of a cycle as well, which still doesn’t prevent these wise environmentalists from warning us not to consume too much water even in places with ample water supply.”

    Is there a big push in the NYC metro area to conserve water? If so, is the reason based on supply/environmental factors, or economic/infrastructure considerations?

    #1504749

    Mammele
    Participant

    The DEP in NYC has the words SAVE WATER printed on all their envelopes. I don’t know if you’d consider it a big push, but these words are something you see/hear pretty often. And I’d say it’s mainly for environmental purposes. The city sometimes has what they consider droughts, but it’s usually exaggerated and water levels bounce back pretty quickly.

    As an aside, when total water usage goes down, as in the start of metered water in NYC, the rates invariably increase. The city gets its water for free from Hashem, although they have to “process” it. So ironically, overall less water usage means higher rates for everyone, so across the board conservation doesn’t exactly translate into individual savings. The city still needs to cover its infrastructure and maintenance costs regardless of consumption.

    #1504792

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Mamale
    “you are right about breathing being part of a cycle, yet water usage is part of a cycle as well, which still doesn’t prevent these wise environmentalists from warning us not to consume too much water even in places with ample water supply.”

    ITs not the water that is being conserved. There is plenty of water over 70% of the Earth is covered in water. As yo umay know though most of that water isnt drinkable. He needs to be processced. While sea water isnt directly being used for drinking generally the rain water too is processed (not sure wh you put it in quotes) purifying the water takes energy. THAT is what “conserving water” conserves.
    Plus rain water isnt always predictable, thus yes droughts occur .

    air on the other hand does not need to be purified the little CO2 we exhale is more than adeuqrtly handled by plants and does not contribute muc hto global CO2 emissions

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 60 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Trending