Eco-friendly? Environmentalism

[Soldier4Christ]

Environmentalists are continuing to grab onto anything that they can in order to further their agenda. They have pushed their agenda a long time ago to the point that it has become a religion all of it's own. Now they are high-jacking the bible, God's holy word, for furthering the agenda even more. They are using an NSRV and highlighting scripture that they think promotes environmentalism.

In addition to the "Green Letter Edition" it contain an "green index" to aid in the study of environmentalism. The book is also made of "Recycled paper, using soy-based ink with a cotton/linen cover."

The purpose of using God's word for their agenda which actually detracts from God's message is evident in their advertising. "With over 1,000 references to the earth in the Bible, compared to 490 references to heaven and 530 references to love, the Bible carries a powerful message for the earth."

Since this message is for the earth I wonder who will teach the earth to read it. 

As usual much of mankind misses the whole point of God's message and makes one of their own.

1Jn 1:1  That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
1Jn 1:2  (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
1Jn 1:3  That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1Jn 1:4  And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
1Jn 1:5  This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.


Rom 1:16  For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17  For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Salvation, salvation from death under the law by God's perfect grace.

Rom 3:10  As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11  There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12  They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Rom 3:23  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom 5:12  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Rom 6:23  For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Rom 1:18  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Rom 3:20  Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Rom 3:27  Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Rom 5:9  Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Rom 2:4  Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

Rom 3:22  Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Rom 3:28  Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Rom 10:9  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Rom 4:21  And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

Rom 4:24  But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Rom 5:1  Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Rom 10:10  For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Rom 10:13  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

[Shammu]

New Bible has a 'green' theme
Posted 10/8/2008

By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY

And I said before..........

I personally find irritating about this sort of endeavor is that these people are willfully ignorant that there is, not a fine line but a very marked and distinct difference, between being good stewards of God's creation and the form of mother earth worship that humanists engage in.

Good stewardship means that the earth and all therein is given for our use knowing that one day we will answer to the Creator for how we used it. Humanists tend to see human activity as a blight on the earth. If they want to save the earth, then they need to quit their jobs, cars, life, and move into the forests and live off the land.

Their view is that a beaver's dam, built by beavers for beaver's purposes, is more noble than a human dam built by humans, for human's purposes. Similarly, they look at animal carnivores and say "nature red in tooth and claw," but human carnivores is cruel and evil.

Also AMEN Pastor Roger!!

[Soldier4Christ]

Eco-laws turn housewives into smugglers
'I'm taking my chances because dirty dishes I cannot live with'

The quest for squeaky-clean dishes has turned some law-abiding people in Spokane into dishwater-detergent smugglers. They are bringing Cascade or Electrasol in from out of state because the eco-friendly varieties required under Washington state law don't work as well. Spokane County became the launch pad last July for the nation's strictest ban on dishwasher detergent made with phosphates, a measure aimed at reducing water pollution. The ban will be expanded statewide in July 2010, the same time similar laws take effect in several other states.

But it's not easy to get sparkling dishes when you go green.

Many people were shocked to find that products like Seventh Generation, Ecover and Trader Joe's left their dishes encrusted with food, smeared with grease and too gross to use without rewashing them by hand. The culprit was hard water, which is mineral-rich and resistant to soap.

As a result, there has been a quiet rush of Spokane-area shoppers heading east on Interstate 90 into Idaho in search of old-school suds.

Real estate agent Patti Marcotte of Spokane stocks up on detergent at a Costco in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, and doesn't care who knows it.

"Yes, I am a smuggler," she said. "I'm taking my chances because dirty dishes I cannot live with."

(In truth, the ban applies to the sale of phosphate detergent - not its use or possession - so Marcotte is not in any legal trouble.)

Marcotte said she tried every green brand in her dishwasher and found none would remove grease and pieces of food. Everybody she knows buys dishwasher detergent in Idaho, she said.

Supporters of the ban acknowledge it is not very popular.

"I'm not hearing a lot of positive feedback," conceded Shannon Brattebo of the Washington Lake Protection Association, a prime mover of the ban. "I think people are driving to Idaho."

Steve Marcy, manager of the Costco in Coeur d'Alene, about 10 miles east of the Washington state line, estimated that sales of dishwasher detergent in his store have increased 10 percent. He knows where the customers are coming from.

"I'll joke with them and ask if they are from Spokane," Marcy said. "They say, 'Oh yeah.'"

Shoppers can still buy phosphate detergents in Washington state by venturing outside Spokane County, but Idaho is more convenient to many Spokane residents.

Phosphates - the main cleaning agent in many detergents and household cleaners - break down grease and remove stains. However, the chemicals are difficult to remove in wastewater treatment plants and often wind up in rivers and lakes, where they promote the growth of algae. And algae gobble up oxygen in the water that fish need to survive.

While traditional detergents are up to 9 percent phosphate, those sold in Spokane County can contain no more than 0.5 percent.

The Washington Lake Protection Association has launched a campaign to encourage people to give the environmentally friendly brands a fair chance. The group suggests consumers experiment with different brands or install water softeners to help the green detergents work better.

"Clean lakes and clean dishes do not have to be mutually exclusive," said association president-elect Jacob McCann.

Phosphates have been banned in laundry detergent nationally since 1993. Washington was the first state where the Legislature passed a similar ban against dishwasher detergents, in 2006. The ban is being phased in, starting with Spokane County.

"It's nice to be on the cutting edge," Spokane resident Ken Beck, an opponent of the ban, said sarcastically.

Among other states that have banned or are banning phosphates in dishwasher detergent are Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, Vermont, Minnesota, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York. A bill on Capitol Hill would impose a nationwide ban.

The Soap and Detergent Association, which represents manufacturers, initially fought the bans. But as the movement gained strength across the country, the association asked legislatures to delay bans until July 2010 to allow for a uniform rollout of products.

The industry has been working to develop better low-phosphate detergents, said Dennis Griesing, vice president of the manufacturers group.

"This is an irrevocable, nationwide commitment on the industry's part," he said.

For his part, Beck has taken to washing his dishes on his machine's pots-and-pans cycle, which takes longer and uses five gallons more water. Beck wonders if that isn't as tough on the environment as phosphates.

"How much is this really costing us?" Beck said. "Aren't we transferring the environmental consequences to something else?"

[Soldier4Christ]

Farmers gets carbon credits for not farming
'They called me a tree-hugger. Then I showed them my 1st check'

Rex Woollen grows corn and soybeans. In 2007, the Wilcox, Nebraska, farmer started cultivating a new commodity: carbon.

By not tilling his 800 acres, Woollen by some estimates keeps 470 tons of carbon per year in the ground and out of the atmosphere. Because of that, Woollen gets carbon credits he can sell on the Chicago Climate Exchange. At first, neighboring farmers were skeptical.

“They called me a tree-hugger,” Woollen said. “Then I showed them my first check.”

Woollen gets about $3,000 a year from the climate exchange’s carbon-trading pilot program. While it isn’t much, to Woollen it hints at bigger potential profit as Congress considers mandatory, nationwide greenhouse-gas limits.

President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress back a “cap-and-trade” system to ease global warming by making companies obtain government-issued pollution permits. As allowable emissions drop over time, companies would have to reduce pollution or buy extra allowances. Businesses adopting clean-energy methods like wind or solar power could sell permits for a profit.

Some farm-state lawmakers and agriculture groups want to let farmers like Woollen create a separate source of carbon allowances. Farmers who use eco-friendly farming techniques or plant trees would earn so-called offsets to sell alongside government permits on carbon markets.

Rural Votes Crucial

Agricultural offsets may be crucial to attracting enough votes from rural lawmakers to pass climate-change legislation, said Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, a South Dakota Democrat. “We have to insist that agriculture has a seat at the table,” she said.

Republican congressional leaders have likened Obama’s cap- and-trade proposal to a tax increase on energy, and the plan may pit coal-producing states against other areas. Farm organizations are also divided.

The American Farm Bureau Federation, the biggest farm group, has opposed cap-and-trade plans, saying they would raise fuel and fertilizer costs. The National Farmers Union likes the idea and is lobbying for a slice of the carbon market.

In ideal circumstances, farms have the potential to capture one-third of the carbon pollution now produced by the U.S., said Rattan Lal, director of Ohio State University’s Carbon Management and Sequestration Center. Obama has said that by 2050 he wants to cut emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels.

‘New Income Source’

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has called carbon “a new income source” that could “change the old ways of supporting farms.”

At this point, Climate Exchange Plc’s Chicago Climate Exchange runs a pilot program that lets farmers supply credits for sale to companies, such as Ford Motor Co. and American Electric Power Co., which have agreed to voluntary emissions limits. Its sibling Chicago Climate Futures Exchange last November began trading futures that can be used if a mandatory cap-and-trade law is enacted.

The North Dakota Farmers Union is the climate exchange’s biggest aggregator of farm-related carbon credits, with 3,900 participating farmers who will get about $9 million this year, Farmers Union President Robert Carlson said.

U.S. greenhouse-gas trading would skyrocket if Congress adopts a program like the European Union cap-and-trade system, which started trading carbon permits in 2005. The Chicago climate and futures exchanges together handled credits for 28.8 million metric tons in February, compared with a record 447 million metric tons at London’s European Climate Exchange Ltd.

Higher Costs

While farm-state votes may make or break a cap-and-trade bill, proponents face questions about whether agricultural offsets reliably cut greenhouse gases, and whether carbon’s price will rise enough to justify farmers’ costs.

By leaving land undisturbed, no-till farming keeps decaying organic matter in the soil so that carbon produced by decomposition isn’t released into the atmosphere. It also requires less machinery use, cutting fuel consumption.

No-till farmers may get lower yields along with lower expenses, so fuel costs and commodity prices influence tillage decisions. Agriculture Department research in 2007 said no-till corn farmers could save $83 per acre, enough to make up for crop yields that fell by 23 bushels per acre.

Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman said a cap-and-trade system, on balance, would probably hurt farmers by raising their costs. He would prefer greater government support for ethanol, which burns more cleanly than gasoline.

Defeat the Purpose

Some environmentalists, including the Sierra Club, say offsets may let companies buy their way out of pollution caps. Allowing offsets in a cap-and-trade system also requires some way to verify that farm practices genuinely cut emissions.

“If companies are buying offsets that aren’t real, we’re really defeating the purpose of climate-change legislation,” said Craig Cox, Midwest vice president for the Environmental Working Group.

Dow Chemical Co. and General Electric Co. are among companies that have backed the idea of offsets to help companies comply with carbon caps while working to curb emissions.

“You need offsets as a bridge,” said Graeme Martin, manager of business development for environmental products at Royal Dutch Shell Plc’s Shell Energy North America.

Jumping into the carbon market wasn’t much of a gamble for Woollen, he said. A self-described “true believer” in the dangers of climate change, Woollen, 61, already was practicing no-till farming when the carbon exchange opened. With no new equipment to buy, he said selling carbon credits was an easy decision.

Wes Niederman, 49, was also a no-till farmer when he joined the exchange three years ago. A North Dakota Farmers Union board member, he made about $1,500 last year from carbon credits.

“I’m getting that for doing nothing out of the ordinary,” Niederman said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Where is the logic, where have the sensible people gone? I really do think that these politicians and environmentalists behind all this really do want to kill a whole lot more people.

[nChrist]

Where is the logic, where have the sensible people gone? I really do think that these politicians and environmentalists behind all this really do want to kill a whole lot more people.

They will increase the misery index of people, and it really doesn't matter if their cause is scientifically correct or not. They know that average people are going to suffer in many ways with the new environmental laws, but they simply don't care. Whether something is ACTUALLY bad for the environment or not is a moot issue. Al Gore makes up his so-called facts as he goes, and he got by with it. As a result, he and his co-conspirators in crime are raking in the money - SO crime does pay in this case. Some prison terms and confiscation of ill-gotten gains might change the way of thinking on this. In the meantime, average people will be suffering.