>From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
>Behalf Of Jan de Koning
>Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 2:06 PM
>Subject: RE: Re: Old-Earth Creationism
>Nothing has changed, when I see that the richest nations in the world want
>to force the poorest nations to accept that the richest nations' economies
>cannot pay for the cleaning of the air on the planet (Kyoto agreement,)
>though the most mechanized nations (the richest) are the greatest
Two comments, the food exported by the richest nations to the poorest costs
1000 gallons of fuel per acre which for corn is about 120 bushels. They eat
the food grown in energy intensive agricultural processes. Large volumes of
natural gas are used to create fertilizer which is used on the fields (both
in the US and in the third world) and for which much oil is burned driving
tractors and trucks to move the food to market. The current alternative is
starvation. We are all part of the problem.
Secondly, by the end of this century, much of our current energy supply will
be gone. I did an analysis last week which showed that the onshore US was
already spending more energy looking for oil than they were finding. This
doesn't mean everyone in the US is failing but it is the reason for the
decline of the industry. THe big losers die.
Some projections say that by the mid century it will cost more energy to
mine U.S. coal than we get out of it. Air pollution is not really the
problem we think it is--we are fast approaching the limit of the damage we
can do to the atmosphere in this way. Natural feedback loops are about to
The only ray of hope lies in fusion, no other energy producing system can
create enough energy. New Scientist Feb 9, 2002 has a very hopeful article
about developments in fusion research, "Here comes the sun'. Without this,
the energy future of the world is really, really bad.
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle
>I do not want to imply, that the rich nations are greater sinners than the
>poor, only that we follow God's command in Gen 1: 29-31, a command that is
>not "symbolic", very poorly. We should not get distracted by arguments
>about God's Word, if we don't listen to His Word about creation.
>Jan de K.
>Jan de K.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 17 2002 - 04:44:04 EST