Wendee,
Before the ground shifts completely out of sight, it is well to remind
ourselves what got this discussion started.
I quote from your initial response to Glenn's reasoned arguments: "Well why
don't we just destroy vast wilderness areas like Alaska's
Arctic National Wildlife Refige? Let's denigrate Creation in the name
of the world's oil-God!"
and, further, "I've been hearing these stats for some 10-15 years now. You
get
different numbers every few years, projecting the known reserves to
last another 10 years or so. I tend to agree oil will eventually run
out, but certainly not before big-money destroys all the last great
wild places. And if you've been to Alaska, you know how absolutely
amazing and irreplaceable it is."
Written like an "avowed environmentalist," I would think. And there's the
rub. I doubt very much if the oil companies would suck oil out of the earth
if there were no demand for oil products. As I mentioned earlier in one of
my e-mails, electrons don't come with labels as the way the were produced
and, likewise, the hydrocarbons we put in our gas tanks don't come with a
certificte of origin either. As I tell my students, every time you flick on
the light, turn on the TV, or crank up the electric heat, you're cating a
vote for more electrons. It's up to the utility to make sure the demand is
met or there will be hell to pay,to ue the venacular. In the same way, when
you use your car, of fly to NYC to give that important speech that will sway
the audience, you are telling the oil companies to keep on sucking oil (or
open the tap, if the pressure in the formation is sufficiently high). The
oil companies generally don't go around asking for what purpose you want
them to deplete the earth's resources (just as well they don't ask). That's
up to you to decide.
OK, now as long as supply exceeds demand, we're OK, for the time being and
we can all step up to the trough and use what we can financially afford. If
I decide that there is enough oil to go around and then some, I don't have
to account for taking my share (I'm leaving ethical accountability out of
the discussion, for the time being). However, YOU expressed some concern
about the oil companies despoiling Alaska. To me, that means that
maintaning the beauty of Alaska is important to you and that you would not
want the oil companies to damage that part of God's creation.
You suggest then, that we have to do with less. I have no problem with that
but then you state that, if you "are called to give a presentation in NYC,
and that will positively influence many, [you] must balance that with the
env. cost of fossil fuels, etc." This, to me, smacks of elitism in that
your flying to NYC is considered to be very important and warrants the
destruction of part of God's creation. I'm not questioning your "calling,"
but one must be very careful here. Maybe your flying to NYC is warranted
and my flying to Las Vegas to discuss nuclear waste disposal is not. But I
don't go around tarring the oil companies with a broad brush. We have too
many environmentalists flitting about the country giving "important talks"
on how to conserve energy.
To bring into this discussion statement like "... the only True solution is
Jesus Christ!! Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.. " is
unwarranted. Nobody on the ASA listing questions the "True solution" and as
to "cast[ing] the first stone," this is probably taken out of context.
As to you living a "pretty simple lifestyle compared to many," I don't doubt
that, but I would ask, compared to whom? The average Houstonian? The
average share cropper in Alabama? The average single mother in Watts? The
average Peruvian?
This will be my last e-mail to you on this topic.
ttv
> ----------
> From: Wendee Holtcamp[SMTP:wendee@greendzn.com]
> Reply To: Wendee Holtcamp
> Sent: Saturday July 15, 2000 5:53 PM
> To: Vandergraaf, Chuck; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: End of Cheap oil
>
>
> >Wendee, as long as you worship at the altar of convenience, you are
> part of
> >the problem and not part of the solution.
>
> If that is true, then there is not one person on earth who is part of
> the solution....
>
> And, I might add the only True solution is Jesus Christ!! Let he who
> is without sin cast the first stone...
>
> I actually live a pretty simple lifestyle compared to many, but the
> issue is not about how much we "do" or outward appearances. Being a
> part of the solution does not mean being completely legalistically
> perfect, I believe it means loving God first and loving our neighbors
> as ourselves. I would rather "work on" my spiritual health first, than
> legalistically appearing to be the perfect example of environmental
> stewardship. As you know, healing our spirit and tuning it toward our
> Heavenly Father is a lifelong process.
>
> I do feel the call to be environmentally responsible and I do what I
> can in my current life to do such. But there are compromises we all
> must make to balance our various callings. If I am called to give a
> presentation in NYC, and that will positively influence many I must
> balance that with the env. cost of fossil fuels, etc.
>
> I consider myself a pretty practical person. I am not against
> technology, I am not against development, I am not against using
> fossil fuels even. I only promote their wise use. How that is
> interpreted is up for debate. And I do respect other people's opinions
> on the issue.
>
> Wendee
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 15 2000 - 20:52:34 EDT