Just and Holy Principles

Photo: French Pyrenees, by Ian Grant

Yesterday was “Earth Day.” What are Latter-day Saints to think about Earth Day and the environment generally? Elder Nelson pretty much sums it up in these words:

As beneficiaries of the divine Creation, what shall we do? We should care for the earth, be wise stewards over it, and preserve it for future generations. And we are to love and care for one another.” (Russell M. Nelson, “The Creation,” Ensign, May 2000, 84.) (see also D&C 104:13-15)

In other words, the beautiful creations of this earth are gifts to us from God. With those gifts comes accountability. We are stewards over the earth, and God expects us to care for it the best we can. Though natural resources are “made for the benefit and the use of man” (D&C 59:18-19), we should not waste them. They are to be used “with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion” (D&C 59:20-21).

I believe that practices such as recycling, using biodegradable products, turning off lights or appliances when not using them, and riding a bus or bicycle when possible are worthy of our consideration. I even try to use cloth grocery bags instead of paper or plastic. Doing these things is not only good for the earth, but also saves one money and produces a sense of satisfaction, perhaps because one’s stewardship over earthly things is being fulfilled.

Note, however, that there is a lot about the environmental movement that is not in harmony with LDS doctrine. The most potent example is the belief that the earth can support only a limited number of people. This “zero population” theory contradicts the Lord’s declaration that “the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare” (D&C 104:17) The “zero population” myth advances an idea common among extreme environmentalists, that preserving the earth is more important than preserving the people who inhabit it. People are the solution, not the problem.

Latter-day Saints should reject such negative aspects of environmentalism while embracing good ones such as conservation. Remember that just as it is selfish and irresponsible to allow our massive national debt to pile up (now $11 Trillion), it is also selfish and irresponsible not to preserve the earth’s natural resources the best we can for future generations.

What do you think?

*I also consider much of the global warming movement to be a negative aspect of environmentalism, but I will address that issue in another post.

Gas prices are finally starting to fall. The average price in the U.S. has fallen from $4.11/gal in July 2008 to $2.91/gal today. Americans are happily embracing this relief at the pump. At the same time, they’re still searching for ways to save on transportation costs. For instance, many people have been doing something called “hypermiling.” Just what is hypermiling and does it work?

Hypermiling is the idea that you can increase your gas mileage by changing the way you drive. Apparently, the world record is 164 miles per gallon (mpg) in a hybrid Toyota Prius. I did an experiment to see if hypermiling would work for me, and here are the results:

The experiment
Not hypermiling
Tank 1: 27.78 mpg
Tank 2: 28.23 mpg

Hypermiling
Tank 1: 33.45 mpg
Tank 2: 30.89 mpg
Tank 3: 31.75 mpg

My 1994 Nissan Altima (manual transmission) is supposed to get 21 mpg on city streets and 28 mpg on highways. I probably drove about 100 miles per tank on highways and 200-300 on city streets. It looks like I got about 3-5 mpg better by hypermiling, saving about $12 per tank of gas–not quite 164 mpg but a little better. I’m naturally not an aggressive driver. I accelerate normally and rarely exceed the speed limit. If I were more aggressive, then I think my non-hypermiling mpg would have been lower.

Techniques
Most hypermiling techniques are common sense whereas some are less obvious, and some only work with a manual transmission. Here are some common methods, many of which I used during my experiment:

1. Minimize braking. The less you brake the less gas you need to speed up again. I take corners a little faster and gradually slow down when approaching red lights so that it turns green before I arrive. This requires practice for good timing.
2. Avoid accelerating and decelerating quickly. Start up slow after stopping and, as in number 1, try to slow down gradually so you have to use as little gas as possible when you have room to speed back up.
3. Shut off your engine. Some people do this while not moving, including at long stop lights. I don’t turn off my car at stop lights.
4. Use neutral. When there’s nobody behind me, I get up to a good speed and coast in neutral for as long as possible. For example, I can usually go the last 2 blocks to work and into my parking space without any gas, even though the street is level. Whenever I’m going downhill, I shift into neutral. I usually drive 2 miles home from church without stepping on the gas for about 90% of the trip. Of course, on the way to church I use more gas to go uphill.
5. Use cruise control whenever possible. Cruise control is supposed to use less gas since it provides a constant flow of gas. I try to use it any time I go 35+ mph if I have a long stretch to travel.

There are more extreme methods, but I won’t mention them because they can be dangerous.

My conclusion: from my personal experience, hypermiling seems to save me some money and wear and tear on my car. Now that I’m used to the techniques, I don’t even have to think about them, they just come naturally. I think it’s probably a good idea for everyone to use some of these techniques. They save you money and help the environment.

What do you think? Has anybody else tried hypermiling?

With gas prices at $4/gallon, drivers finally seem to have reached a tipping point. At last, people are starting to drive less, use public transportation more, and grasp for any opportunity to save money on gas. Auto dealers, retailers, and blood banks, among many others, are offering deals for free gas. Some companies are even offering to pay a person’s gas bill if they turn their car into a rolling billboard to advertise for them.

Turn that frown upside down
Higher gas prices are making consumers, companies (especially airlines, trucking companies, and others that rely on gasoline to make a profit), and politicians reacting to their constituents concerns frown. Meanwhile, environmentalists and their friends are smiling. They know that the higher gas prices go the greater the urgency people will have to use and develop alternative fuels and transportation that are more environmentally friendly than oil.

For instance, the Toyota Prius, a hybrid of electricity and gas, has been selling quickly, and Honda just released a hydrogen powered car that emits no pollution. What may disappoint environmentalists, though, is that at a certain point high enough gas prices may spur people to demand more “dirty” energy like coal and oil. We may have reached that point already.

Should we drill for more oil?
President Bush is urging Congress to lift the ban on drilling for oil and natural gas on U.S. coasts and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. He also wants to open federal lands for oil shale development in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. Bush claims that these resources could produce more than 800 billions barrels of oil, “more than a century’s worth of currently projected oil imports.”

High gas prices may be good
Secretly, well, until now, I hope that gas prices stay high–but not too high. This way, Americans will feel desperate enough to accelerate the development of cleaner fuels and technology but won’t demand that we open more areas for drilling. It would be very nice to have vehicles powered by any cheap, clean fuel and to become energy independent. I’m afraid that if we increase oil production and gas prices fall, then superior fuel and technology will take much more time to develop.

Let the people decide
And yet, I think it’s wrong for the government to deny Americans the use of vast resources available in our own land. Companies should be allowed to take advantage of any energy resources available. We should drill for more oil and natural gas, convert shale into oil, and continue to invest in alternative forms of energy like hydrogen, electricity, biofuels, and wind and solar power. It may take industry longer to develop superior fuel and technology, but with all options on the table the best one will eventually rise to the top. Private competition and ingenuity, rather than government bureaucracy, will eventually find the best solutions.

At the Sutherland Institute this week, Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT) said that the Western Republican Caucus will propose a comprehensive energy policy platform that focuses on boosting production of all forms of energy, innovating new energy solutions, and incentivizing conservation. I think this is the right approach. We must not become narrow minded on energy policy. We must allow private industry to explore every possible option to help us become energy independent and, hopefully, more friendly to the environment.

What do you think?

Related post–Gas Prices: Patience Please…

In the U.S. today, there are 104 million pounds of used uranium stored in 39 states. The sites that store this high-level radioactive waste, mostly from nuclear power plants and weapons, are within 75 miles of more than 161 million people. State and federal officials have been debating what to do with this waste for decades, but they have not yet agreed on a solution.

Finding a safe solution is critical since exposure to radiation from nuclear waste can cause cataracts, mental retardation, cancer, and sometimes death. Any intentional dispersion of radioactive material through the explosion of a nuclear power plant, nuclear bomb, or dirty bomb could harm millions of people. Radioactive waste can also harm the quality of air, soil, and water and thus humans, animals, and vegetation.

What to do with the waste?
The main problem in dealing with nuclear waste is that it can remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Scientists and government officials have proposed various disposal methods such as storing it in pools, dry casks, or inside mountains, reprocessing it, or even launching it into space. Today, this waste is stored at 121 locations mostly in pools and dry casks.

Since 1982, the federal government has been trying to build a large repository in a safe place where states can send all of the nation’s waste. The feds began constructing such a site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada in 2002, but the project has met many roadblocks. The project is now on hold as Congress decides what to do with it. Let’s look at some of the pros and cons of storing all the nuclear waste inside Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert.

Pros
1. Easier to contain/manage waste all in one place
2. Fewer terrorism threats once stored
3. Fewer people would be near the waste

Cons
1. Scientists are uncertain about whether or not Yucca Mountain can hold the waste safely. For example, they have found evidence of volcanic and seismic activity in the area.
2. Transporting nuclear waste from states to Yucca could be dangerous
3. One state, Nevada, would bear most of the risk involved in storing nuclear waste.

My thoughts
It is likely unsafe to transport nuclear waste cross country on trains and it is unfair to make Nevada bear the burden of the entire nation’s waste. States that allow their people to create nuclear waste should find the safest way to dispose of it in their own states. In the mean time, scientists should work to find better methods to dispose of waste or to deactivate it. Above all, government officials should take the best measures they can to keep us safe.

The Church recently made the following statement:

“The transportation and storage of high-level nuclear waste create substantial and legitimate public health, safety, and environmental concerns. It is not reasonable to suggest that any one area bear a disproportionate burden of the transportation and concentration of nuclear waste. We ask the federal government to harness the technological and creative power of the country to develop options for the disposal of nuclear waste.”

What do you think?

Courtesy: Kris Johnson

During my environmental policy course this semester, I’ve thought a lot about what my attitude toward our earthly environment should be. People often talk about reducing pollution, conserving the earth’s resources for future generations, or saving nearly extinct species of animals and plants.

What is our duty to the earth and to future generations? Does the government have a role in that duty?

God gave man dominion over the earth, including fish, fowl, cattle, and “every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” “All things which come of the earth…are made for the benefit and the use of man,” including herbs, trees, beasts, fowls, and “the good things which come of the earth.”

We can use these things for food, raiment, houses, “to please the eye and to gladden the heart,” and “to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul.” The Lord has said that “the earth is full, and there is enough to spare,” but He also said that men must choose to use the things of the earth “with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion.”

The earth is a wonderful gift to all humankind. We have stewardship over it. We should use it for our benefit but also respect, preserve, and beautify it.

I believe that our efforts to protect the earth should be mostly individual. Government may be able to help co-ordinate our efforts, but it cannot remove from individuals the responsibility to do their part. Each person can choose to recycle, buy fuel-efficient automobiles, or reduce water consumption.

People often want the government to regulate businesses that pollute the environment and put our health at risk. But if we choose not to purchase products from polluters, then government intervention will be unnecessary. Consumers have great power since businesses can’t make profit without adapting to their customers’ desires.

Let us be grateful for this beautiful earth and leave it for the next generation better than we found it.

What do you think?

Resources:
The Creation, Russell M. Nelson, 2000
Earth–A Gift of Gladness, G. Michael Adler, 1991
Man’s Dominion, Hugh W. Nibley, 1982
What the Scriptures Say About: Ecology, Robert J. Matthews, 1972
Our Deteriorating Environment, A.B. Morrison, 1971
Realities of the Population Explosion, Philip F. Low, 1971