Re: Harvard Crimson: Requiem for Environmentalism and Earth Day

This also contradicts Rush's "humility" argument. Rush contends it's humble
to conclude that we can neither fix nor destroy the environment because it
is so much bigger than us and thus God not us is in control. What this piece
shows is that we can both be a problem and a solution. Since even the
President noted this morning that we are stewards of our environment it
stands to reason that we should seek to be as good a one as possible. Rush's
argument is not only wanting in the scientific arena it is also wanting in
the Biblical arena. I don't recall Jesus commending the man with two talents
in the parable of the talents.

On 4/20/06, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>
> & even to the extent that the article's main thesis is correct, the
> author fails to give any credit to the environmental movement for helping to
> bring about improvements in environmental quality. I suspect that if he
> were transported back to 1970 he'd oppose the measures that were then
> beginning to be taken to protect the environment, & which are at least in
> part responsible for the better conditions he now boasts of.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Tjalle T Vandergraaf <ttveiv@mts.net>
> *To:* 'Janice Matchett' <janmatch@earthlink.net> ; asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 20, 2006 2:26 PM
> *Subject:* RE: Harvard Crimson: Requiem for Environmentalism and Earth Day
>
>
>
> Huh? "*The U.S. population has more than doubled since 1970, yet forest
> coverage has increased." *Am I missing something? According to
> http://www.demographia.com/db-uspop1900.htm, the population in the US was
> 205,052,174 in 1970 and 272,690,813 in 1999, or an increase of 'only' 33%.
> Unless the current population of the US is now greater than 410 million,
> somebody's math is off (or the information on the cited website is
> incorrect)!
>
>
>
> I don't doubt for a minute that there may be more trees and that rivers
> and lakes are healthier than they were 40 years ago. However, I wonder how
> much of the pollution has been "exported" by the developed world to
> third-world countries.
>
>
>
> Chuck
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Janice Matchett
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 20, 2006 12:06 PM
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Harvard Crimson: Requiem for Environmentalism and Earth Day
>
>
>
> Item of interest to some, I'm sure. (Sorry Rich) ~ Janice :)
>
> *Requiem for Environmentalism and Earth Day: Long Live the Environment!
> *The Harvard University Crimson ^ | Thursday, April 20, 2006 2:21 AM |
> PIOTR C. BRZEZINSKI
> http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512890
> Posted on 04/20/2006 10:18:19 AM EDT by rface
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1618257/posts
>
> *Contrary to popular opinion, the U.S. environment is getting healthier.
> The U.S. population has more than doubled since 1970, yet forest coverage
> has increased. Measurements of major air pollutants­sulfur, suspended
> particulates, and carbon monoxide­have registered declines of 15 to 75
> percent. Likewise, the number of healthy rivers and lakes has roughly
> doubled since the first Earth Day, and Lake Erie, declared "dead" in the
> 1970s, now supports a healthy fishing industry. There are exceptions to this
> positive trend, but the overall direction is unmistakable: The U.S.
> natural environment is improving.......*
>
> <snip>
>
>
Received on Thu Apr 20 16:51:11 2006