I get really sick of looking outside my front door and finding a big huge book of phone numbers. Do I use it? No way. The internet is a much quicker way of finding the information I need. I get it though, the companies are stuck producing these because it's how they make money (from advertising space in these books).

How can I stop them from delivering to me? I can't but I can try. So can you. Go to yellowpagesgoesgreen.org to give it a try. Not only is it a pretty website, but it is useful too! You can enter your information to try and get the phone companies to stop delivering to you. It's no guarantee but it is worth a try!

The USA always takes a beating from foreign press on our policy toward the environment. Recently activists blasted the U.S. at climate talks in Poland. Now, Obama gets praise from the foreign media and has pledged to make the USA a global leader on the environment.

But what will happen when he breaks this promise?

Yes, I think he will. First of all, if you read the above story, the criticism is because the Bush administration does not want to pledge enough aid, or set strict enough emissions goals. Neither will Obama!! Why? The economy is in the toiled. Every high school kid learns in their government class (which is mandated by the government ironically) that economics drives policy. It makes sense, we are a capitalist country - we look for the bottom line.

"Greens" tend to argue that the earth/climate is the bottom line in reality. But, like always, the environment will be put off as "the next generation's problem" - after all people need jobs, we're in a recession!!

My question for all of you Christians out there is this: Should we make decisions based on our ethics (preferably that of Jesus) or on the bottom line?

People can argue all day about how much money to spend on the environment. At the end of the day, what difference are you making? How have you adapted your behavior to care for God's green earth?

I have started recycling like crazy. We take all kinds of stuff to the recycling bins now instead of to the curb for the trash pick-up. We try to buy only replacements for broken items. I never throw things away, instead I sell them on ebay (yes, I'm a stock-holder) or give things away. The really hard thing that I'm struggling to do now is to put together a list of companies that not only treat the environment properly, but treat people properly -and then do business with those companies...

Credit for the picture goes to chuck perry's blog

I was in Lowes the other day, and something caught my eye. They had firelogs on display right by the register and they said, "all natural" and "burns cleaner than wood". I thought this was a pretty goofy claim at the time, and even made a sarcastic comment to my wife about it...

But I checked it out on the web, and according to their numbers (see here), the label is correct!! I think I understand what they mean now. They are not claiming that these logs produce pollutant free fire, or less CO2. They are claiming that they use all natural wax instead of petroleum-based wax; and that since these firelogs burn longer than wood, it emits less pollutants than a wood fire over the same amount of time.

Who would have thought it would be possible to "go green" with your fire? It surprised me!!

The new "Green Christian" T-shirt. I found this today, and like it. It has a good message even if it isn't all that pretty...

A few recent events have led me to believe that Christians who view ecology as something important (in other words they are "green"), need to have thought through some ethical questions. How does one relate to those with whom they disagree? How far is one willing to go in pursuing "greener" goals?

One should honor and respect those who are not "green" because they are the image bearers of God, even if they disagree with you. Unfortunately, some people take their environmental agenda so far, that they are wiling to harm other humans who get in the way of their goals (see story here). This type of behavior must be condemned by Christians, even those who are "green". This is because of the Christian ideal of "treating others as you want to be treated" which is a proverb based upon biblical truth.

Still, the environmentalists (except for the deep ecology people) have as their goal the preservation of the planet for humans. So, how does hurting humans to save the planet fit in? It simply does not work. Their logic deconstructs.

A town in Spain has erected solar panels over a graveyard in order to pursue a greener supply of energy (see article here). Does this cross some sort of a line in respecting human dignity? Some would argue that this does cross a line. While I am not yet ready to take a position on this (I haven't thought it through enough) I do believe that Christians should respect human dignity. For me, this means that we should not engage in abortion or the euthanizing of the mentally challenged for population control. Of course, protestants have generally thought of birth control as acceptable (although one Southern Baptist recently went against this, here).

So there are several issues for the Christian to think through regarding the issue of how far one should go to pursue a green agenda. However, one can and should always treat other people in teh way that Christ did, with respect and honor -even those we disagree with.

MSNBC tends to run poorly cited articles about the environment. I think this is exactly why some groups discount the environmental emphasis or "green movement". In a recent article on water shortages (read it here), the story comes with no evidence to back up its claims. The story mentions one scientist whom the story says "Wong said the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that as many as 2 billion people won't have sufficient access to clean water by 2050." The problem with that statement is that the story gives no context to it. There is no mention of when and where Dr. Wong said this, or what study his statement was based upon. In short, there is no way for the reader to judge the validity of his claim.

Basically this type of writing is little more than propaganda. That is precisely why some groups doubt that climate change is happening. Environmental groups cry out that oil companies are distributing "misinformation" in an attempt to stifle environmental groups and increase their profits. This may be the case - but as long as environmental articles are written like the one mentioned at MSNBC, no reader will be able to make an informed judgment. We need facts, we need evidence, we need citations or at least the mention of where the information came from.

I tend to harp on the phrase "caring about God means caring about his creation" around here. I thought I would tease that out in terms of technology. For example, the new Apple laptops have arrived and Apple claims that they are the "greenest laptops ever" (video and article here). Yet some tech bloggers disagree, maintaining that the new Macbooks are just about as wasteful as any other new laptop (see article here). They claim this on the basis of the waste created in production.

I'm sure that the production waste is a good way to evaluate part of the way a laptop could be considered "green". But, I think the real questions should be: How long will it last? How much less power does it use than other laptops?

These two questions could give much more insight into how "green" a product is. If a laptop produces waste in production, but lasts for 6years on average, then it is considerably less wasteful than most. At the same time, if a laptop uses 50% of the power of other comparable machines, then it will produce much less waste over its lifetime (especially for someone who uses one as much as I do).

So I think that there should be some sort of standard for measuring the energy efficiency of these laptops, and factoring that into a "green" standard of evaluation. Perhaps this could even become a part of the energy star sticker. I'll have to recommend that one to my boy Ralph Nader.

Time.com (Time Magazine) ran an article with this title, which supports what I claimed about the "green" agenda losing its footing to the "economic agenda" (the picture is from the Time article). Could going green actually save the economy? The article also contained an interesting idea:

"So what should greens do to avoid irrelevance, now that Hank Paulson is replacing Al Gore as the nation's chief scold? First, tie environmental rescue to economic recovery, by "greening the bailout," as columnist Tom Friedman of the New York Times has put it. As the new Administration — whether Democratic or Republican — searches for ways to stimulate the economy, green infrastructure spending could be the way to go. More money for high-speed rail, tax credits for new solar systems, increased federal funding for renewable energy — these are policies that might not only help stimulate a flagging economy, but directly contribute to slowing the growth in America's carbon emissions. (Not to mention promoting green jobs at a time when unemployment is on the rise.) The challenge will be tactical: convincing Americans that curbing climate change is as much about overhauling a failed economy as it is about limiting carbon emissions. That message didn't get across during the debates over Lieberman-Warner; the next President and Congress will need to do better. "Addressing greenhouse gases and addressing the economy are all part of the same problem," says Barbour. "This is absolutely a top priority. It can't be postponed forever."" (from the article here)

Since there were huge government programs to get the country out of the Great Depression, maybe government programs could get the country out of the current economic funk. Imagine if we had tons of jobs and government money poured into creating a good rail network which could replace 18 wheelers (heck train those guys to run the new trains as a part of the program). We could reduce traffic, reduce emissions, and create jobs. Will it happen - not if either of the corporate candidates are elected (and one will be).

This was the worst day ever on Wall street. This isn't a blog about the economy or finances, but something this huge will affect other sectors of life. I'm interested to see if gas prices become crazy volatile again as traders sink money into commodities. It's pretty much guaranteed that a financial crunch stifles investment in future technology, like green technology.

Was this crash something that could have been helped? Who knows. You'll get the same old spin: Republicans will blame democrats, Dems will blame the GOP. Isn't the greed of big business really to blame here? If the banking companies had not created this mess by pursuing ginormous profits, would we crying today? (I say crying because all of us lost money today on the market if you have a retirement account or even a money market account).

Since the banking industry has been declared as being in a mess this week, I thought a post about the banking industry would make sense. Over on The Green Skeptic, there is an article about the banking industry building "green" buildings (click here). In fact, there is a local branch of Chase Bank in Weatherford that claims (on its signs) that it is being built as a "green" building.

Will this help the banking industry? Probably not, unless it saves them some cash. But it would help to protect the earth which God uses to bless humanity.

Will this factor into my banking choice? Probably not. There I admitted it. When I choose a bank I'm looking for something that 1) isn't going out of business, and 2) pays a good return. The rest is not as important to me. OK, I guess "green" building could be like number 19 on my list of factors, but the point is, it isn't the primary one.

A group called the National Council of Churches of Christ as a part of their Eco-Justice program advocates church buildings being built to "green" specifications. One important element in their argument is that this would save the local congregation great amounts of cash each month (and year) which could be spent on other ministries. I think this is an important piece of the argument which needs to be used more than it currently is. This way, when churches are building new buildings (and most churches really like buildings for some reason) they can see that their is an option which will reduce their long-term costs, freeing up money for ministry (which is what churches are for in my opinion). This cost element of the argument could prove to be incredibly persuasive for those who are on the fence about building a "green" building. It may even attract the attention of some congregations which are yet to understand God's desire for humans to care for creation...

Write-up with link to full-report.