Morning bells to ring for climate change event
MEGAN LOVETT — THE DAILY PROGRESS
Gwynn Crichton (from left), Iris Potter and Wilma Bradbeer hang climate change banners in St. Paul’s Memorial Episcopal Church in preparation for International Day of Climate Action. Parishioners will ring the church bell 350 times on Sunday to promote the creation of a global climate treaty that would lower the amount of carbon dioxide below 350 million parts per million.
Published: October 24, 2009
Neighbors of St. Paul’s Memorial Episcopal Church will be hearing a lot of bell ringing Sunday morning as the church participates in a worldwide effort to bring attention to the climate change issue.
The congregation will ring the church bell 350 times after the 10 a.m. service as a part of 350.org’s campaign through 4,000 simultaneous events to draw attention to their goal of reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the world.
Environmentalist Bill McKibben created the organization in an effort to promote the creation of a global climate treaty that would lower the amount of carbon dioxide below 350 million parts per million.
McKibben’s group points to research that says 350 ppm is a safe upper limit of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The world is already at 390 ppm and the number is rising by 2 ppm a year, according to a study by NASA scientist James Hansen.
“The Episcopal Church has long been active and taken a stand on conservation and against global warming,” said the Rev. Jim Richardson. “This is the mother of all social issues and it affects everyone.”
Although most of 350.org activities will be carried out today, St. Paul’s decided to wait until Sunday to avoid the crowds of the University of Virginia’s home football game against Georgia Tech.
“Parking here is virtually impossible on a football Saturday,” Richardson said.
More than 4,000 churches, youth groups and other groups in 170 countries around the world will hold events as part of the 350.org campaign this weekend. It is timed to promote the upcoming United Nations’ Climate Change Conference, which will be held in Copenhagen in December.
Every church member who stays after the Sunday service will be able to ring the church bell, which was installed in 1957 and is usually rung every Sunday and for special occasions.
“A crisis is now upon us, threatening devastation of our environment, economy and creation as we know it,” said Gwynn Crichton, a member of the church’s “green team” and organizer of Sunday’s event.
Not everyone is as alarmed.
Results of a national poll released Thursday showed that the number of Americans who consider global warming a “very serious problem” has declined from 44 percent in April 2008 to 35 percent now.
It also found that the percentage of people who believe there is solid evidence that the Earth is warming dropped from 71 percent to 57 percent in that timeframe.
The poll, conducted by the Pew Research Center, also found that half of the public favors setting limits on carbon dioxide emissions, while 56 percent think the United States should join other countries in setting standards to address climate change.
The St. Paul’s congregation will also have the chance to look at three 20-foot panels that members of the church’s green team created to support the campaign.
The panels show various beauties of nature and what could happen if people do not start making changes. Parishioners will also be encouraged to write letters to their congressional leaders in support of the reductions.
St. Paul’s green team was created three years ago in an effort to promote environmental issues and what the church could do to improve its own energy usage.
Members have installed energy-efficient light bulbs, sealed window and installed more insulation in the 80-year-old building. They have also increased their recycling efforts and promoted environmentally friendly efforts to church members and hold an annual Earth Day celebration at the church.
The church also now uses locally made wines and bread in their communion services.
“We’ve made an effort to lower the footprint of this parish on the Earth,” Richardson said.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
BigAlbert you are incorrect once again, I was being kind the exact figure is $1,761 per household per year for the costs of Cap & Tax. It is from the U.S. Treasury or Obama’s own government estimates (not CBO).
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml
Your $1,600 per household CBO number is almost as disgusting and shameful for a pass-through tax that hits the elederly on fixed incomes and the poor the hardest. Have you no soul? Also you claim that some magical tax credits will pay for this, well where do you think that is going to come from hasn’t Obama done enough damage with his deficit spending, when will he learn? So you want to borrow from China so Grandma can pay her heating bill? That is the kind of radical thinking that is going to sink the democrats in 2010 and maybe prevent democrats from being elected for decades.
BigAlbert, get your facts in order before you attempt to erroneously correct any of mine. I’m happy to admit when I’m wrong but you seem to consistently present errors and misrepresent the truth, just like Obama.
Gordie, relying on wikipedia is not the most intelligent way to obtain accurate info. Some idiots and wingnuts from both sides contribute to it and it is often not fact checked. You also don’t need to have any credentials whatsoever, like an expert in the field or Museum curator to manage/supervise the content. I’m also not saying Maggie went into the science lab and developed the Global Warming theory, she did however adopt it, publicize it and threw almost endless funds toward getting the message out there on it because for energy supply she was caught between striking coal miners and the middle east controlling most of the oil with the only viable solution for a major and reliable source of energy as going nuclear similar to France. Any source that doesn’t say Maggie Thatcher kick started this Global Warming farce is not giving you the whole story.
Gordie, he is right, Mrs Thatcher did start the global warming scam.
Bigal, we are on a planet flying through space at 500,000 miles per hour, revolving around a star that is roughly 5 million degrees on its surface. There are two instances in Earths history when the planet was completely frozen “snowball Earth” and life survived. During the early permian period it was 20% colder than it is today and life survived. During the late permian, 250 million years ago it was 60% hotter than it is today, life survived this. My favorite was the carboniferous period when oxygen levels were 40% higher than today. This is when big bugs lived on Earth, dragon flies with 3’ wing spans, spiders as big as your head. Compare this to the devonian period when oxygen levels were 20% below today, and life survived all these enormous changes in Earths atmosphere.
The point I am making is all these changes are going to take place regardless of human presence. We will adapt, life has adapted to wide tempature and atmospheric changes for millions of years. Relax, I am certain that we will continue to do so. Unless of course we get slammed by a meteor, now there’s something you can worry about. We can do about as much about that as we can about the climate…which is nothing.
Wow, I go to Reston to watch the Albemarle High School drama club perform in the VA Theatre Association completition and debate happens.
So Margaret Thatcher started the climate change debate. Then explain this;
The greenhouse effect is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by gases in the atmosphere warm a planet’s lower atmosphere and surface. It was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed, even by those who do not agree that the recent temperature increase is attributable to human activity. The question is instead how the strength of the greenhouse effect changes when human activity increases the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Wow, Margaret the oldest human and never got credit for it.
Lets see. The House debated the issue, much to some dislikings. Now the Senate is taking up the debate and of course there will be those who will not like that debate. But actually the debate has been going on heavy since the 1970’s. That is whenever the people who care about the planet are in power.
So actually it is time for some better actions then the 70’s.
As a steelworker I have heard all the cons against this type of issue in the 70’s and when cleaner air legislation was inforced, there was no large increase in taxes, products or anything which certain people are putting out.
When I hear a debate on Fox, instead of just mud slinging then the Fox listeners will hear the true story that there is climate change and some is caused by man.
Oh yea, bigal 2 more. Geothermal, cant run cities on geothermal unless you dig up the state of west virginia to run enough line to power the state of Ohio. Natural gas does work, but you need to pull it out of the ground.
Please inform the enviro nut groups and our government that yes…natural gas works.
Solar? its been around for about 40 yrs, a $35,000 system on your
roof wiil power only your hot water heater. Want to power your whole house? we are talking $150,000.00
and that only works if you live somewhere that does not have a lot of rain. Wind mills have been around for about 2000 years, they work great
as long as the wind is blowing. If these 2 technologies were viable, everybody would have them,but the fact is that less than 5% of our power comes from solar or wind. Hopefully, improvements in these technologies will make them realistic one day, but they do not fit into todays world. But to tax our present fossil fuel technologies out of business with nothing economically equal to replace it is madness.
Foehammer wrote: “Gordie, what would you suggest we run our power plants on?“
Not that Gordie needs anybody to answer for him, but here’s a short list to get started:
Solar
Wind (ask Texas and California how this works)
Geothermal
Natural Gas (MUCH cleaner than coal, which is never clean)
But far more critical is fixing our grid. More than 50% of all electricity generated never makes it to a light bulb. Invest in upgrading that - and the grid is also by a mile our most vulnerable infrastructure piece - and the demand drops by 50%.
j carney wrote: “The Cap & Tax cost (Obama’s Treas. estimates) on every household is $1,700 PER YEAR. Yes, that means no heating oil or electricity for grandma in the coming winters.
The government imposing crippling policies like cap & tax on industry and consumers at ANNUAL cost of $1,700 per household, based on Obama’s Treasury’s own estimates.“
Or not - but the truth is far less threatening to grandma. http://3.ly/lAk
The pertinent passage: A Congressional Budget Office expert recently estimated the cost per household at an average of $1,600 a year [not $1700, and it’s the CBO, not the Treasury Dept. that estimates the cost of bills - but again, let’s not let facts or reality get in the way], but that figure doesn’t account for energy rebates Obama has proposed giving to consumers. If the government did use revenue from cap and trade “to pay an equal lump-sum rebate to every household,“ the CBO expert said, “lower-income households could be better off.“
Liberty wrote: “They had to change the name from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” since the temperatures are actually getting cooler. Oops.“
Not so much. http://3.ly/ZkW http://3.ly/Wz4
http://3.ly/Hvc
Global warming is quite real, and completely proven, no matter what people “believe.“ Polar ice caps don’t melt because “temperatures are getting cooler.“
“They” changed the term to climate change because it is more encompassing to describe what is happening. Historical airstreams have shifted. Drought is becoming widespread, as is flooding. Wildfires are breaking historical records. Permafrost is melting.
Oops.
Gordie, I wish there was more scientific debate on this subject. Gore & Pelosi won’t debate it. If you have a strong argument why wouldn’t you want to debate it and get your point of view out there. You would be able to actually learn about it rather than being spoonfed false info. by CNN & MSNBC on it. Gore had the microphone cut off at a meeting when he was asked a tough question on blatant inaccuracies in his movie. That doesn’t sound very convincing to me. I would go into hiding like Al Gore has if I were seeking all of this fame and fortune and then had the curtain pulled up and all of my theories shown to be absurd misrepresentations of science. I have read nothing from the coal industry but I do know that the IPCC associated with the UN, the US gov’t, and spending from countries throughout Europe have spent many multiples more to propagate these unproven and flimsy attempts at scientific theory. Scientists are being put on the IPCC list as supporting the Global Warming theory and cannot be taken off of it until they move to legal action.
I bet you don’t know who started the whole Global Warming Greenhouse Gas hoax and why it is so prevalent today and pumped up by astronomical amounts of gov’t money in Europe, the U.S. and elsewhere. Margaret Thatcher (a conservative) devised the whole global warming scare in order to subvert the striking coal miners in England and push Nuclear Energy. She then started pumping tons of gov’t funding into scientific studies that promoted this theory. So this was a totally manufactured theory from the start. How can you defend this, Gordie? So scientists, who are perpetually looking for research funding would put together studies to prove this. Even if you were doing a study unrelated to Global Warming you would mention Global Warming in part of your work to receive funds. So it just snowballed into an accepted theory, until recently when light was shown on the weak, at best science behind it.
While Maggie was a good leader and I think Nuclear energy is a good solution, this is just another example of the government overreaching and having extreme unintended consequences from it.
The Environmental Movement has nothing to do with the Environment and everything to do with politics. The co-founder of Greenpeace said this and he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming either. He has said that the Environmental Movement has gone from conservation and legitimate concern for the environment to and anti-industry campaign. He also said the current Environmental Movement was “anti-human being”. He also believes that industry is a positive force in the world and saves and improves lives and can co-exist with the environment and reduce pollution. As you know impoverished countries destroy the environment more so than advanced ones.
I also think it is a bit ridiculous to think that we can power a large manufacturing plant, office building or transit system by burning our own trash. Maybe the Jetsons were able to do it but I’m not sure about the real world large scale applications on this.
Advertisement