Evangelicals Call for Renewable Energy in Indiana

Kyle Schaap

Kyle Meyaard-Schaap

21,000 evangelicals that is.  Learn more from Rebecca Thiele’s piece at WFYI (Indianapolis).   A taste:

A group of evangelicals in Indiana wants the state to expand wind and solar energy. The Evangelical Environmental Network delivered more than 21,000 signatures to Gov. Eric Holcomb Wednesday demanding 100% renewable energy in the state by 2030. 

“It gives [lawmakers] freedom to pursue solutions at the speed and scale that we need to address environmental pollution and the climate crisis,” says Rev. Kyle Meyaard-Schaap, director of outreach for the EEN.

The EEN calls itself a ministry that mobilizes christians to care for God’s creation, which includes the environment. It says Indiana’s reliance on coal led the United Health Foundation to rank the state near the bottom for air quality.

Read the rest here.

 

14 thoughts on “Evangelicals Call for Renewable Energy in Indiana

  1. I’m not cynical of their desire to do “good”, just cynical of the solutions they think will accomplish that “good”. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Thus I gave you the ethanol debacle and the money pit of the California bullet train. Billions of dollars wasted by people seeking to “do good”.

    These folks are “demanding” 100% renewable energy in 11 years. Is there any evidence that is even feasible? At what cost? What are the tradeoffs? On the list of health issues, smoking kills many times over the number supposedly killed by air pollution. Why not “demand” smoking be outlawed? That would save many more people than 100% renewable energy in the state.

    Like

  2. I’m really discouraged by how much negativity an article about Evangelicals doing something good for the world has evoked from fellow Christians.

    Like

    • It’s not about knocking them for doing some “good”. It’s about questioning whether they realize there are economic trade-offs in ANY decision. It’s about buying into green hysteria. There are NO solutions in this world, only trade-offs. Solar and wind power can and will bring their own problems. Mining for rare earth metals is one of them. Becoming more dependent on China for our energy needs is another since they control 95%+ of those minerals.

      There’s hazardous waste issues: https://news.yahoo.com/solar-industry-grapples-hazardous-wastes-184714679.html
      One of my favorites from TIME from a few years ago: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html
      About those “green jobs that can’t be taken away”: https://abcnews.go.com/WN/wind-power-equal-job-power/story?id=9759949
      Or a really good one – The Incoherence of Sustainability – https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-05-25/future-generations-resources-dont-depend-on-investment-in-sustainability

      There’s rhetoric and then there’s reality. That’s true of any issue regardless of who promotes it – left or right. The challenge is to cut through the smoke being blown by the politicians and “activists”. Unfortunately, much public policy is implemented based on rhetoric detached from reality.

      Like

        • I mention coal because it is mined like rare earth metals. I’m not arguing one is better than the other. I’m saying the rhetoric of solar and wind does not take into consider the actual trade-offs. Coal is mined by Americans. Solar panels are made in China. The rare earth metals that go into wind turbines and solar panels are mined in China. The costs of handling the inherently intermittent nature of wind and solar are largely ignored by the “true believers”.

          The fact that so much of this green energy and about everything associated with “green policy” has to be subsidized by the taxpayer shows it’s a bad deal to begin with. Ethanol was sold as some great way to make America “energy independent” and a supposedly environmentally friendly alternative to gasoline, but now it’s just a discredited pork-barrel program where taxpayers have to hand out subsidies to “Big Ag” and ethanol producers. Even Trump couldn’t cut off that corporate welfare when he tried in the first year of his administration, so we still use 40% of our corn crop as fuel. Sigh.

          As one of my favorite bits of satire goes, “Government – if you think the problems we create are bad, wait until you see our solutions.”

          Like

          • “The costs of handling the inherently intermittent nature of wind and solar are largely ignored by the “true believers”.”

            Funny you should mention that very specific aspect because I literally presented my masters thesis on the solution three days ago. Patent pending. If you’re curious I’ll post a link to my paper as soon as it’s published. But I suspect you’re not actually interested because you didn’t even read the links John provided above or else you would have seen the answers to the rest of your concerns:

            “NIPSCO (Northern Indiana Public Service Commission), the state’s second largest utility provider, announced late last year that they would move to phase out all coal-fired generation in favor of a portfolio of wind, solar, and demand management by 2028. By doing so, they estimate that they will save its customers $4 billion over 30 years.”

            “In 2017, the clean energy industry employed over 80,000 Hoosiers. Fossil fuels like coal and natural gas? Only 17,000.”

            Like

            • Dude, there’s just the link to the one short article and then one to some organization. I read the WFYI article. Savings of $4 billion dollars over 30 years? That’s $133 million a year in state with 118 million households. A buck and change in savings a year if averaged across the state. 🙂 Maybe a bit more depending on how larger their particular customer base is. All that assumes there will not be other costs along the way that will offset those supposed “savings”.

              That’s great that you have addressed the intermittent problem in your thesis. Doesn’t do much for the rhetoric thrown around in the political arena. However, there’s a big difference between a solution for a problem in a paper and an economically viable solution. There’s also a big difference between theoretical solutions and real-world solutions. There’s a lifetime of news stories in my 54 years about the latest and greatest “ground-breaking solution” on the horizon that never panned out in the real world where most of us live.

              I’m sure someone can build a car that can get 200 mpg – but that doesn’t mean it is a practical, economically viable mode of transportation for the masses.

              As for the jobs numbers, good for Indiana. A strict comparison of absolute numbers doesn’t tell much. Of course if you’ve got millions and billions of taxpayer money being thrown around for green projects, then there’s going to be more jobs in those areas.

              I’m just a skeptic. One day some portion of the world may be powered by solar panels and wind turbines, but 100%? Get real, unless we’re going to power airplanes by hamster wheels and go back to sailing ships to cross the ocean. Ahh, but the idealism of the young! One day it will meet the real world.

              I don’t trust government to solve “climate change/global warming/whatever-you-want-to-call-it-next”. It will throw money at the wrong things and cost a multiple of the $$$ than it should (see California’s bullet train debacle as the latest example of bogus promises falling under the green dream).

              Like

  3. What about the nasty mining of rare earth metals required to build those panels and turbines? If strip mining for coal is objectionable, would it be OK if used for extracting Is “strip mining” OK to mine rare earth minerals for solar and wind?

    China controls 95%+ of the rare earth mineral market. Should we “outsource” American oil and coal jobs to the Chinese to mine for rare earth minerals?

    Like

      • Tony,

        Yes. I was thinking how inconsistent these religious environmental types are.

        Please let me explain. They raise environmental action to the level of a moral crusade. If that is the case, it necessarily follows that Christians who engage in the production and use of coal don’t adhere to their green moral standards.

        The Apostle Paul ordered that a sexually immoral man be removed from the church at Corinth. If the green Christian people followed the logic of their rhetoric, they would do the same. (Of course, you probably know that I’m with the coal miners and not the vocal Greens.)

        Like

  4. It’s going to take a lot more of this before Creation Care can really advance against “It’s All Gonna Burn” and “This World is NOT My Home, I’m Just Passin’ Thru…”

    Like

Leave a Reply to Ed T. Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s