It's been a big issue. Al Gore has gotten pretty rich and famous because of it. It's caused a lot of consternation and debate. And it has been the source of endless fascination for me in my blogs. But, friends, the global warming problem has finally been solved.
It's time to turn that CO2 into baking soda.
What??
Skyonic, a new company run by Joe Jones out of Texas, is leading a breakthrough technology in keeping CO2 emissions out of the air from power plants. They use the "Skymine Process" to address:
...the significant issue of climate change through the mineralization of CO2 as carbonate compounds. SkyMine™ is a post-combustion carbon capture and sequestration technology that works with any large-scale stationary CO2 emitter (e.g.- coal, natural gas or oil fired power plant). The process is effective, ecologically and thermodynamically sound, and can be done profitably. Since the technology can be retrofitted to existing facilities or designed into new ones, it addresses both the current problem of climate change, and the future demand for cleaner energy to support development.
Sodium bicarbonate (better known as baking soda) is the primary byproduct of this process. As Skyonic says on its website, the Skymine Process is effective and can be done profitably. This solves the economic issue with cleaning up pollution (people can make money off of the CO2??). It also helps reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere significantly.
Currently, Skyonic is developing a large system that will be able to consume the waste of a 500 megawatt power plant (in 2009). Imagine what could happen if this was copied all across the U.S. and the world?
First of all, the environmental benefits could be enormous. If the widespread implementation of this system allowed humans to cut down on carbon emissions to the point that they did not reach 500ppm, we might be able to stop the Arctic ice from turning to slush and raising the sea level 20 feet. Or so they say. I'm not sure who "they" are, or how grounded that science is. It's interesting how hard it is to get a firm or definitive, scientific answer on the subject.
I like the idea behind greener-tech. But will economists? Or lawmakers? Or politicians?
Back to the idea of baking soda, the soda that is created is actually cleaner that food grade baking soda. Could this become a specialty item? Not if the Skymine Process becomes widespread. What would happen to the tons and tons of baking soda? It would most likely be reduced to landfills, where it would sit inert and harmless, as opposed to its more vicious airborne cousin, CO2.
I know I've asked this before (maybe not in these words in my blog), but does this greener-earth idea coincide with God's plan for the universe and the expansion of His Kingdom? I don't know. What I do know is that the heart of man is wicked (Jer. 17:9; at least before one is saved--according to John Elderedge--and likely others) and wants to get the best for himself. This includes energy producers, but it also includes consumers--you and me--who often ignore the fact that we leave the lights on, take long showers, and don't buy energy star appliances (or CFLs!!!) all the time. Are we contributing to the demise of our world? Maybe. But is our world supposed to be turned into a paradise, or is it okay to let it burn because God is going to remake it anyway? What about the concept of being good stewards?
I think that the steward argument is the strongest for why we ought to take care of the world. 1) It's not ours to begin with. 2) Our children and their children on down will inherit this world (barring a speedy second coming) and what we do today determines our legacy. 3) Jesus says that if we are faithful and true in a few small things, He will trust us with many, greater things. 4) We still have to live in the world. You don't throw trash around in your house and leave it all over the place, do you? Why should you do that in the world? Is it not God's domain that we are told to tend, subdue, and cultivate?
Taking Every Thought Captive,
Zachary
P.S. Here's the article if you're interested in a further read: http://www.news.com/Can-baking-soda-curb-global-warming/2100-13838_3-6220127.html or see skyonic's website at http://skyonic.com/index.php
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Stem cells and ethical questions
In the past week, a Japanese scientist successfully created a stem cell from an adult skin cell, as opposed to embryonic stem cells as are normally used.
This is a breakthrough. Pro-life activists everywhere will be encouraging the development of this new technology. Finally, the systematic destruction of life for scientific purposes is at an end!
Not so fast. First, the fact that this process of creating stems cells from skin exists 1) does not mean it is widespread, 2) does not mean it is easy, 3) does not mean that there is currently adequate funding to accelerate the development of it (at least at the moment), and 4) does not mean that the research on embryos will be stopped.
Why won't it be stopped? The idea is: research to help those who are hurting should not be slowed at all in any area while it still provides a potential to save more lives. The underlying emotion behind the idea is kind (and even Christian), in that its goal is to help others. Yet pro-lifers argue that such scientists are in moral error because the destruction of embryos is still murder. But this poses an interesting quandary--what is the lesser of the two evils: to "kill" embryos who cannot think or feel so that one might help those who do have feelings and thoughts? Or to "save" the embryos at the expense of living, breathing people who live in pain who are about to die, and might live and even have quality of life if they got the right newly-researched medical treatment? What is more cruel? Destroying life that will not even feel its departure, or "condemning" living, breathing, whole, emotionally and mentally attuned people by leaving them to die?
I use emotionally-charged language to get you to think about it. I've thought about the issue of abortion, for example, from the pro-life side of view for all my life. But recently, my barber (of all people), explained to me the pro-choice argument in a way I hadn't heard it before--in a way that seemed more caring toward the mothers than I've seen most Christians act. He made me recognize that those expectant mothers are whole, real people who may get ignored or even condemned because of their decision to get an abortion. This is exactly the kind of situation that I would expect that Christians could do the most good--loving the mother (even if she goes through with the abortion), and worrying about her soul, instead of saving the baby at the cost of all else. I hate to propose this kind of dilemma, but what is better: saving the soul of the mother or the body of the child?
I agree, the dilemma is unfair, but I think it has a real element to it. What if the baby is saved? What's to stop that baby from being abused, unloved, and grow up to perpetuate the cycle of sin and death? Should Christians be going for saved souls and transformed lives over physically saved bodies? If it comes down to one or the other (which in some cases, I think it actually might), then what are we to choose? What would Jesus, the maker and sustainer of life, choose?
It's a difficult question. I hope that questions like this become a non-issue because of things like non-embryonic stem cell research (though I'm not sure that the abortion issue will be drastically affected because of this new research). However, the questions that I asked in the paragraph above, what do you think? Even if it becomes pretty much a non-issue, what is right? Or why should we care if it is a non-issue?
These are the kinds of questions that I believe that Christians need to deal with. However, when it comes down to it (from a Christian perspective), it's about love. Loving the scientist who is destroying embryos. You don't have to love what he's doing, but you are called to love him. Love that woman who is getting an abortion, or who got an abortion. The world will be changed by Christ's love--it is only in this way that we can truly bring healing and peace to a lost a broken world. Everything else is just details. Agree?
Taking Every Thought Captive,
Zachary
Even though I like to take a scientific/ethical look at a lot of these
This is a breakthrough. Pro-life activists everywhere will be encouraging the development of this new technology. Finally, the systematic destruction of life for scientific purposes is at an end!
Not so fast. First, the fact that this process of creating stems cells from skin exists 1) does not mean it is widespread, 2) does not mean it is easy, 3) does not mean that there is currently adequate funding to accelerate the development of it (at least at the moment), and 4) does not mean that the research on embryos will be stopped.
Why won't it be stopped? The idea is: research to help those who are hurting should not be slowed at all in any area while it still provides a potential to save more lives. The underlying emotion behind the idea is kind (and even Christian), in that its goal is to help others. Yet pro-lifers argue that such scientists are in moral error because the destruction of embryos is still murder. But this poses an interesting quandary--what is the lesser of the two evils: to "kill" embryos who cannot think or feel so that one might help those who do have feelings and thoughts? Or to "save" the embryos at the expense of living, breathing people who live in pain who are about to die, and might live and even have quality of life if they got the right newly-researched medical treatment? What is more cruel? Destroying life that will not even feel its departure, or "condemning" living, breathing, whole, emotionally and mentally attuned people by leaving them to die?
I use emotionally-charged language to get you to think about it. I've thought about the issue of abortion, for example, from the pro-life side of view for all my life. But recently, my barber (of all people), explained to me the pro-choice argument in a way I hadn't heard it before--in a way that seemed more caring toward the mothers than I've seen most Christians act. He made me recognize that those expectant mothers are whole, real people who may get ignored or even condemned because of their decision to get an abortion. This is exactly the kind of situation that I would expect that Christians could do the most good--loving the mother (even if she goes through with the abortion), and worrying about her soul, instead of saving the baby at the cost of all else. I hate to propose this kind of dilemma, but what is better: saving the soul of the mother or the body of the child?
I agree, the dilemma is unfair, but I think it has a real element to it. What if the baby is saved? What's to stop that baby from being abused, unloved, and grow up to perpetuate the cycle of sin and death? Should Christians be going for saved souls and transformed lives over physically saved bodies? If it comes down to one or the other (which in some cases, I think it actually might), then what are we to choose? What would Jesus, the maker and sustainer of life, choose?
It's a difficult question. I hope that questions like this become a non-issue because of things like non-embryonic stem cell research (though I'm not sure that the abortion issue will be drastically affected because of this new research). However, the questions that I asked in the paragraph above, what do you think? Even if it becomes pretty much a non-issue, what is right? Or why should we care if it is a non-issue?
These are the kinds of questions that I believe that Christians need to deal with. However, when it comes down to it (from a Christian perspective), it's about love. Loving the scientist who is destroying embryos. You don't have to love what he's doing, but you are called to love him. Love that woman who is getting an abortion, or who got an abortion. The world will be changed by Christ's love--it is only in this way that we can truly bring healing and peace to a lost a broken world. Everything else is just details. Agree?
Taking Every Thought Captive,
Zachary
Even though I like to take a scientific/ethical look at a lot of these
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
